Journal des débats 1986-oct-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Callahan: I rise at this early hour of the morning to indicate that my privileges as a member of the assembly are being infringed upon in the light of the fact that there are -- I was going to say there are no Conservatives present in the House, but there is now one. Thank you very much. I do not believe my privileges are now infringed.

The Deputy Speaker: I do not think that was a proper point of privilege.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Breaugh moved second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of this for the wind-down.

Mr. Breaugh: The bill before us this morning is a rather straightforward bill. Some may question the need for it, actually, because it is virtually the practice in most of our major municipalities, for example, to keep accurate records of the proceedings of the municipal council, to provide to the public copies of documents that the council uses, to provide the public with a reasonable amount of information and to meet and conduct public business in public, which is of course what I think all of us would expect.

The problem occurs around the rather unusual fact that nowhere in the Municipal Act does it lay out a legal requirement for a municipal council to meet in public, nor does it clarify what in the way of documentation is available to the public.

So we have on a regular basis now, each and every calendar year, people writing to all members, I am sure, from various parts of Ontario, saying things that seem to us to be a little ridiculous. For example: "I went to my local municipality and asked them for a copy of a bylaw. The municipal clerk said: `We do not provide the public with copies of our bylaws.'" In some places, albeit relatively few, the clerks say: "We do not have copies available. We keep them written down in a ledger book."

That is how the bylaws are kept. I had a woman come to me last year from a small town in eastern Ontario, who had gone to her municipal clerk and asked to see a bylaw that would affect her business. The clerk's response was: "We have never made copies of our bylaws. We have them handwritten in a ledger book. I will tell you what the bylaw says, but I will not provide you with a copy of it." In this day and age, that is an unacceptable way for municipalities to do their business.

As it is now stated in the Municipal Act, I understand there is no requirement to provide the public with this information, but I think practice has made it an acceptable criterion to say that any reasonable document a council may use in its deliberations, certainly any document that may have passed through the council and is a bylaw of the municipality, is something that should be readily available to the public.

It would be akin to Ontario passing laws and then saying to our residents, "You do not have any right to see the law that governs you." That would be a ridiculous, untenable situation. Unfortunately, in some municipalities that is the current practice. I think that is wrong and should be changed, and that is precisely what this bill does.

Second, the bill addresses the problem of the right of council to meet in private when it is dealing with the public's business. The bill says it has that right in very limited circumstances. I am not making an argument that every time a municipality deals with a personnel problem, for example, it has to do so in public. It seems to me that is not appropriate and there should be an exemption for that; or when a municipality attempts to acquire property for a park, an arena, an overpass, a road widening or whatever. There will be occasions when that is better done privately, because to negotiate publicly would simply drive up the price of the property. There are reasonable exemptions in the bill that say where reason prevails, a council may from time to time do its business in private. However, the general rule is that when it conducts public business it must do so publicly.

For those of us who come from larger urban municipalities, that is the practice. Ever since I can remember, the practice in my home municipality has been that, except for those few occasions when the council is dealing with a personnel matter or acquiring property, it meets publicly. Even its committees meet publicly. There will be some exceptions where it receives briefings from staff or some confidential information is exchanged, but by and large, the business is transacted in public.

Unfortunately, that is not the case across Ontario. In too many of our municipalities, the council gathers in the reeve's or mayor's office and decides what to do. It will often then go into the council chamber and pass the required bylaw, and only then will it tell the public what the new bylaw is all about. This is an unconscionable practice in this day and age. I do not think it is acceptable any longer in Ontario to make that practice legal. In that regard, the bill essentially says, with certain specific exemptions, the public business of Ontario will be conducted in public.

Those of us who have sat on municipal councils and been in this chamber for a while know that the times one gets into hot water politically are the times when one has made a private deal. That is almost an axiom. When one closes the doors and conducts the public business of Ontario privately, one gets oneself in hot water and it is only a matter of time until it hits.

There is case after case in municipalities in Ontario where people have gone to a conference somewhere and met a business owner who wanted to operate an incinerator. It sounded very good at the time in the Royal York Hotel suite. They went back home to wherever it was and discussed it in private. It sounded very good to each and every member of the council. Then they said, "Let us do this," and passed a bylaw that would allow that business to practise in their municipality. The citizens were outraged that this could happen in their community. They were given no notice and no opportunity to voice their concerns. What started out as a very reasonable way to proceed to everybody who had been involved until that date got everybody in hot water.

This bill would alleviate that problem in some sense. It requires simple things such as notifying the public when the council is going to do something by providing a public hearing process when it is going to do that or by providing an occasion when the public can voice its opinion. After that input has been received by the council, then it is free to make its decision, but it makes it in public. That establishes the process we want.

We can all think of comparisons when this chamber has got itself in hot water by meeting behind closed doors privately, by precluding the public from knowing what the Legislature was up to. There is an old axiom in this business that the proper way to proceed is to follow the old and simple rules: provide notice to people of what you intend to do; make your decision in public; and, finally, let everyone know what the decision was. Those rules are the basis for this bill. It is basically that kind of commonsense stuff.

10:10

Let me go to the downside of the bill, because I have had two letters from municipalities that have said this bill will cause them to spend some money. That is true. Let us not deny that. If they are going to notify the public, they are going to have to put ads in newspapers. That is going to cost a few dollars, depending on how expensive advertising is in their area. If they are going to hold public hearings, that too will cost money; no question about that. If they are going to provide to the public written copies of bylaws or planning documents, for example, that is going to cause some expense.

Some municipalities have said this is a nice idea and they would like to do it but it costs money and seems unnecessary. Let me simply try to address that question in this way. To me, it is a simple choice of whether the public's money should be spent in notifying the public of the council's activities, in notifying them that a bylaw is about to be presented; a little bit of money would be spent in providing for a public hearing and in providing written documentation of what was the business of the council.

That is true and undeniable, but I ask that to be weighed against the current practice, where those things are not done. It is becoming more and more common that people out there are going through the courts. To defend themselves, sometimes against some rather unconscionable transactions, municipal councils are having to get their lawyers and go to court to respond.

That is the price to pay for not providing proper notice. In the litigation I have followed, it is virtually true all the time that if a council made its decision in private and did not notify the public, that is generally held to be reasonable grounds to throw out the decision of the council in most of our court decisions now. The courts are now saying to councils, "You must conduct your public business in public, you must provide proper notice, and you must provide the public out there with proper documentation of what you have done."

The choice is either to spend the money initially -- in this case, minimal amounts of money -- to provide proper notice and proper documentation to the public at large or to spend much larger amounts of money in litigation in the courts afterwards to try to defend the actions of the council. Almost inevitably now the result is going to be that if that has been done privately, the actions will be overturned by the courts.

There is a slight cost factor involved for most of our municipalities in adopting this bill. For some of them -- for example, in rural Ontario -- the costs will be very minimal, simply because the cost of putting an ad in a weekly newspaper in most of rural Ontario is not great. The cost for providing information will be not particularly great. Most of our municipalities have adopted this practice, but there is nothing in the Municipal Act that requires them to do so, and unfortunately a few of them take advantage of that.

That is the gist of the bill. It is a rather straightforward, commonsense approach to providing an answer to a problem that already exists. The courts are getting clogged up with citizens taking municipalities to court over the way they made decisions, and more and more decisions by municipalities are being overturned.

If we give it a couple more decades, history will show we are going to have to do this anyway. Whether or not members like this approach, whether or not they want to put this into law today, sooner or later the courts are going to make us. Just by virtue of the demand of the legal system, the courts will demand that municipalities do all these things: that they do it publicly, provide proper notice and write the proper documentation for their actions.

That is the straightforward proposal in Bill 16. I believe it is supportable. I do not think it is going to cause a major problem for anyone, but it does address a recurring and vexing situation in many of our municipalities.

Let me close this part of my remarks with one simple comparison. I know of a municipality that had a proposal from the private sector to provide a disposal system for hospital waste. One municipality took that proposal through a public process. It identified the proposal to the public, it held a series of public hearings and it made its decision in public. Now that decision is one with which one can argue about the merits of the particular case, but one cannot get off on a technicality that they did not say what they were going to do.

I know of another municipality in Ontario that took the same proposal virtually from the same company and made its decision in private. It did not notify the public that this kind of proposal was before the council, but simply passed the bylaw allowing that proposal to be implemented. That municipality now is going to be faced without question with a long and expensive litigation process by citizens who demanded the right to know what their municipality was doing. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, the practical reality is that the decision will not be made until the courts deal with the matter.

In my view, it would be far better for the municipalities to take the first option, namely, notify the public, provide the documentation, provide the place for public hearings and then make its public decision. Then if one wants to argue with whether it is a good idea or a bad idea, one is not off on a side street arguing about whether they did this as a private deal or not.

Basically, that is what Bill 16 would do. It would say to every municipality in Ontario that it now has a legal obligation under the Municipal Act to conduct the public's business in public and to provide the public with enough notice and enough information about its decision-making process that they can be participants.

I hope members find that an acceptable proposition and will support this bill. I will await with great interest their comments on it. I believe I have about six minutes and 44 seconds left.

Mr. Callahan: It gives me great pleasure to speak with reference to this bill. I understand the intent and purpose of my colleague in putting it forward. One of the difficulties I have is that the bill itself, in my humble opinion, could result in a massive amount of additional work for the people involved in the infrastructure of the various councils and local boards, as defined by the Municipal Affairs Act. The Municipal Affairs Act defines a large number of bodies; each one of these, if this bill were passed, would be governed by that code.

There is no question that government behind closed doors is really no government at all. Open government is the aim of every fair-minded person, and it has certainly been the step that has been taken with reference to the introduction of this government. I think we should emulate that throughout the entire province.

It has been my understanding, and I think the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) acknowledges this, that for the main most municipalities do conduct their affairs out in the open. There are times when they go in camera; that is usually done on the basis of a flexible arrangement when they feel they are dealing with a sensitive issue, be it personnel or real property or something that might be damaging to the city in terms of prior information getting out so that someone could take advantage of it financially.

In my council in Brampton, I have found that we have been very sensitive to that issue. In fact, I cannot recall any occasion where one of the council members did not actually challenge the validity on certain occasions when we did go in camera. Then we would have a great discussion in camera about whether we should be in camera.

I have to disagree with the member for Oshawa in this respect, that although the Municipal Act -- I have not checked this out and I take his word for it, as he is a thorough gentleman -- does not provide for meetings being held in the open or out in the public eye. It is a principle of the law which has been with us since time immemorial that natural justice requires that proceedings be conducted in a fair, open and impartial way. I would suggest that if it were not so, or if proceedings were carried out in an inappropriate fashion, they would certainly be subject to judicial review.

I would like to go to the bill itself. As I say, I understand the principle the member is trying to bring forward. It is somewhat in line with his previous requests and wishes that we revise a lot of the proceedings in the House, and it is not out of context with the way he has acted and thought before.

10:20

If we look at the bill itself, subsection 55(1) says that all meetings "shall be open to the public and no person shall be excluded therefrom except for improper conduct." A whole host of problems arise. What is improper conduct and who makes the decision as to what is improper?

It may well be that on a particular evening, when the head of a local body or council may have got up on the wrong side of the bed, he may very well make a decision based on the way he felt, or perhaps the way he felt about the people appearing before him. With respect, I suggest that without there being some very clear definition of improper conduct, I, as a citizen and a ratepayer of the community, would be very concerned about being hauled out of a meeting or disallowed from attending a meeting without knowing what the yardstick is.

In addition, subsection 55(2) says, "The head or other presiding officer may expel or exclude...." I am not sure what the difference is between expelling and excluding. Is expelling when the Sergeant at Arms throws someone out of the chamber or is exclusion when one is named and told to leave the chamber? I know I am nitpicking and I do not mean to be, but this is a very significant piece of legislation. If it does go through, a lot of these issues could create very many more problems for us in terms of litigation than we have at present.

I go on to subsection 55(3), which is mandatory. It says, "Notice of a meeting mentioned in subsection (1) shall be published not less than three days before the date of the meeting." Mr. Speaker, you will note that there are a number of items that have to be published. Clause (c) is "a list of the items to be discussed." This is analogous to a company meeting being called for specific reasons.

What if the notice that goes out does not contain certain items of importance that are to be discussed? Does that mean the council cannot discuss them? In some respects, it might shorten council meetings if one knew definitively beforehand what was going to be discussed. It might preclude a common practice among all councils that additions come in at the last minute and nobody understands what they are. In that respect, I agree it would be a good idea, but I can see a host of problems that would arise.

Subsection 55(4) says if a report is prepared in connection with the matter, copies of the report must be available for inspection by the public at least three days before the date of the meeting. What happens if a report is available on the night of the meeting? Does that mean it cannot be considered? Because it has not been made available to the public, does that mean it cannot be considered?

I note there is a caveat that it does not apply to special meetings, but there are also requirements under the Municipal Act for the calling of special meetings, time limits and so on, that may be governed either by that legislation or by the specific rules of the council.

In my area, we have had television coverage for a considerable time. Television is probably by far the best watchdog on the actions of elected representatives. I suggest with some trepidation it is even better than the press, because very often the press send to the meetings the least experienced reporters, who may not be quite as zeroed in on reporting of the municipal proceedings. In addition, because of the lack of space in newspapers, it becomes difficult for the full text, or perhaps the most pertinent text, to be put in the papers.

Television is the modern way of ensuring that everybody is playing properly. We have all seen what an excellent tool it is in deciding whether it was a ball or a strike, whether there was a tie in favour of the runner or whether the umpire called the right play. The same thing exists, and probably more significantly, in the question of conduct of proceedings by local boards, municipalities and so on.

There are other concerns I have with the bill. Subsection 55(6) says, "On the authority of a majority of the members present, expressed by resolution in writing, a meeting mentioned in subsection (1) may be closed if and for so long as it relates to a matter mentioned in subsection 78(1b)."

Subsection 78(1b) of the Municipal Act is far broader than the provisions set out in subsection 2(1b) of the bill. It means that one would have difficulty understanding the rules and how a meeting might be closed. For that reason I have some grave concern.

As I said, I appreciate what my friend is trying to do. Certainly, it is the endeavour and the goal of every one of us as legislators and also as free citizens in a free society to be assured that the conduct of proceedings is fair and in accordance with natural justice.

I suppose the final, ultimate tool of the public, if they are not satisfied that we are conducting ourselves in a safe, fair fashion, is their vote. That is particularly true in municipal matters. If the electorate were more involved and more devoted to getting out to vote on election day so that there were turnouts at municipal elections in excess of what is normally the number, some 12 or 13 per cent, the public would be best protected by their vote. It is important that we, as legislators, the press and all other types of media bring to their attention the importance of that very significant right.

Mr. Partington: I wish to indicate my support for the spirit of the bill as brought by the member for Oshawa.

The thrust of the bill is to ensure that the public has access not only to council meetings, as is currently provided under the Municipal Act, but also committee meetings of councils and local boards. Furthermore, the legislation is designed to provide the public with access to reports and records which are usually prepared by municipal staff in connection with items to be discussed at council or committee meetings.

There is no denying that these measures, along with the requirement that there be proper notice of the meeting, are capable of fostering two key components upon which the democratic systems of government rely. Clearly, these two democratic principles -- open decision-making and full and complete public debate -- would be assured on a province-wide basis under the thrust of the proposed bill. Another benefit that this bill seems to be addressing is the establishment on a province-wide basis of a code of conduct.

Although such uniformity across the province will provide our mobile citizenry with a measure of consistency in municipal rules and regulations, this bill might limit -- and this may be the criticism of it -- the flexibility required to meet the local needs and circumstances of our municipalities.

In this regard, my colleague the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) will be speaking about the specific problems based on smaller rural communities in Ontario and the inability of this legislation to address their particular needs.

It is also important to mention that ensuring openness and access to government decisions at any level requires an attitudinal change, not merely a legislative one. Even with these amendments in place, a municipal council through creative resolutions could call for special meetings or deem an item under discussion to fall within the exceptions outlined in the act.

This in turn raises the question of how these provisions would be enforced. This is not to suggest that freedom of information or procedures rules are not required at the municipal level. There is clear evidence that they are needed.

One must only look at the activities in the town of Vaughan recently to see just how desperately these type of rules are required. In Vaughan, the town council had a series of in camera meetings that culminated in council's decision by a slim three to two majority, against recommendations of town staff, to sell 15 acres of town-owned land to two companies at a price which was considered below market value.

It was only through the public outcry that arose that council agreed to reconsider the decision and insert a clause in the agreement of sale requiring the price to reflect the results of an independent appraisal. This matter remains up in the air as local ratepayers have requested the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to initiate an inquiry into this matter. I urge the minister to accede to this request.

10:30

To ensure that events such as this do not occur in other municipalities, rather than this legislation, which establishes province-wide rules which may or may not be suitable for all of the municipalities, consideration should be given to legislation that will require all municipalities to pass procedural bylaws which at best meet certain minimum standards in the areas of freedom of information and open meetings. Such a step would still allow some degree of flexibility, so that each bylaw could meet local needs and circumstances.

Furthermore, it would appear that the majority of our municipalities, and almost all of our larger municipalities, as the member for Oshawa has indicated, already have bylaws of this nature in place, making inflexible province-wide legislation redundant.

Our elected municipal officials must be allowed to be masters in their own house. After all, they are ultimately responsible to their electorate through the ballot box. Accordingly, it should be the municipalities themselves which determine what would be appropriate rules and regulations governing their decision-making process. Thus, although I support the spirit and the thrust of the bill and the manner in which it was presented by the member for Oshawa, I cannot support the methods being taken to address the issue.

Mr. Warner: I do appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill. Following what has transpired the past two days in this House with respect to a community in the north, it is not a surprise that the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) appears very negative on the bill presented by my colleague. Apparently, the new Liberal government does not have quite as much interest in expanding the democratic process as we have in this party. A little community in northern Ontario wanted to follow the democratic process and have an election. This government does not think elections are such a terrific idea and it would rather appoint people than hold an election.

Mr. Martel: Except in Cochrane North.

Mr. Warner: Other than Cochrane North where they have elections quite regularly.

I do not know how anyone could deny that it is a good democratic principle to have open meetings of people who are elected locally to represent the people in the area. Why should the meetings not be public? Why should they not be open? Why should there not be minutes kept of those meetings?

All of us are well aware of the history of some of the municipal councils. If we go back a way to reflect on my area, it was known that in Scarborough at one time meetings were held in secret and some very important decisions and, in particular, some really interesting land deals were consummated behind closed doors. No minutes were kept, and one could never really trace the culprits. Fortunately, as far as council meetings are concerned, those days are gone. Minutes are kept of all actual council meetings, but not for the committee meetings. I think that is a flaw. There is a weakness there.

Surely it does not make any difference whether it is at the municipal, provincial or federal level; the idea is that if one has elected people to represent them, then those who are elected have a certain responsibility to the public. They have a responsibility to stand up for their actions, to be accountable for their actions and to be accountable for their words. In municipal councils, they do not have Hansard the way we have here. When we speak, everything we say is recorded and we are responsible for what we have said. Anyone can throw those words back at us. That is proper and that is the way it should be. If I make intemperate remarks, I may pay a price for it. All remarks are recorded.

Until relatively recently, municipal councils had the luxury of being able not only to say what they liked without anyone knowing, but also to make decisions without anyone knowing. Municipal councils handle important issues and a lot of money. It seems to me that along with the province's provision of more and more responsibilities to the municipalities comes an onus to hold meetings in public and to keep records. Procedures are needed.

To answer some of the questions of my colleague the member for Brock (Mr. Partington), it may be a good idea to obligate the municipalities to set up a certain set of rules, rather than spell them out here.

My colleague the member for Oshawa has presented us with legislation that is needed. When it goes to committee, we can hear the representations from various municipalities about what changes, if any, they would like to see and what changes other members in the House would like to see. Perhaps it will be the collective wisdom that we should simply obligate the municipalities to set up certain rules of conduct, or however one wants to describe that, or it may be our wisdom that we should prescribe the rules.

To a certain extent, it may not make a whole lot of difference. I suggest we pass this bill, so it can go to committee and receive further input and debate. I hope no one in this chamber would deny that the principle espoused in this bill is a good, sound democratic one. It is one that should be supported.

If anything, I do not think the bill goes far enough in describing some of the changes that are required in the way the municipalities function. Perhaps it was not possible to include them all in this bill. When I think of some of the things that to me are still wrong with the municipal system, I think of things such as people being able to collect money to run for public office and not having to disclose where the money came from or how it was spent.

We know that with municipalities, especially the ones with which I am familiar in the outlying districts of Metropolitan Toronto, the number one item seems to be the allocation and development of land. The municipalities are very close to that. There is a lot of high-powered economic interest involved. As a citizen, I want to know where the money came from for the person who was elected in my area. We in the Legislature have to disclose our sources of election funds and we have to account for the money that is spent; municipal people do not have to do that. To me, this is a flaw, a weakness. In my book, everything we can do to help democratize the municipal system is a good move.

I urge members to pass this bill today and allow it to be worked on in committee to strengthen it and make sure it is something all the municipalities will adhere to and something we can be very proud of. We will have taken another step in strengthening the democratic system in which all of us believe so strongly.

10:40

Mr. Reycraft: I congratulate the member for Oshawa for bringing Bill 16 before the Legislature. Regardless of the outcome of this morning's debate and vote, I am sure there will be a certain amount of media attention that will result from it. I am sure the member will make sure this attention is received. That attention by the media will be helpful because it will result in two things. The first is a broadening of the public's knowledge of its right of access, the maximum access possible to municipal council meetings and to the various pieces of information that are in the possession of a municipal council. It will also, I am sure, broaden the awareness of municipal councils of their responsibility to provide the maximum access possible.

Like the member for Oshawa, I too have spent a number of years in municipal government. Because of that, I have a very keen interest in the municipalities across this province, their councils, governments and the legislation and regulations that govern them. Therefore, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on Bill 16 today.

Bill 16 addresses a very important issue. As the member for Oshawa has stated, or at least implied, whenever a political issue at any level of government is withheld, whenever a government, whether it be provincial, federal or municipal, tries to shroud an issue in secrecy, it tends to stimulate a lot of things that are not helpful and a lot of things that are undesirable. It stimulates distrust, hostility, confrontation and suspicion, a lot of things which that particular government would do better to avoid. When a government, at whatever level, does that repeatedly, it finds itself in a situation of facing repeated, even continuous, confrontation with its electorate.

When it tries to shield itself from that electorate, it deprives citizens of their right to view the decision-making process. When it does not allow them to see documents or correspondence, not only are the citizens deprived of their democratic rights, but the council deprives itself of an opportunity to enjoy a positive, harmonious, co-operative working relationship with the people who put it in office. When that happens at the municipal level, the level of government that is closest to its electorate is unable to function as it should, and the system breaks down.

Bill 16, in my view, is a commendable attempt to prevent that from happening. It tries to achieve a greater degree of openness in the way in which municipal councils, committees, boards, commissions and authorities go about their business. There is a need in many municipalities to reduce the number of closed meetings and to reduce the amount of business that goes on behind closed doors. There is a need to make it easier for people to see documents and correspondence. We all know of examples -- we have heard of some this morning -- where the public's right of reasonable access to meetings and information has been and still is unduly restricted.

However, while the bill's objective, to provide more open municipal government, is a good one, and while there is a need to reduce that degree of secrecy in some municipal jurisdictions, the bill as it is drafted will not achieve that. Instead, I suggest, it will only increase the cost of municipal government in all jurisdictions, and it will fail to provide more openness in those where it is needed. I suggest -- I am sure it is inadvertent -- the bill will result in an increase in the number of closed meetings in almost every municipality in this province.

The bill would require councils, committees, boards, etc., to publish at least three days before every meeting, not only notice of the meeting but the agenda as well. It also provides, except in certain specified matters on which the council or the committee may vote to go in camera, that those meetings shall be open to the public.

Subsection 55(5) of the bill exempts special meetings called under subsection 78(1) of the existing Municipal Act from both the publication and the open meeting requirements. The bill does not define "published," but I assume it holds the same meaning as it does in other sections of the Municipal Act. If that is the case, then municipal councils that are served by weekly newspapers are going to have to set their agendas for council and committee meetings several days before the meetings.

To illustrate that problem, let me use the example of Glencoe, where I was a member of the municipal council for 15 years, including five as reeve. The Glencoe council is a very fine group of people. I say that in complete objectivity, even though one of the members of that council happens to be my father.

The council meets on the first and third Mondays of every month. The standing committees of the council meet on the second and fourth Mondays. The weekly newspaper, the Glencoe-Alvinston Transcript and Free Press, is published every Wednesday. To meet the newspaper's deadline, the agenda is going to have to be submitted on the Monday before the meeting, one week prior. Recommendations from the committee meeting that take place on the evening of that deadline date, the submission date, will have to wait until the following council meeting, which could be as long as four weeks away.

The three-day publication notice is simply not a practical requirement for municipalities. It is also not in the best interests of the public. Matters that require attention in municipalities often do not arise until just prior to a meeting. In fact, sometimes they do not occur until the meeting itself, when delegations make council aware of particular concerns. In those cases, the matter would have to be tabled until the next meeting or until a special meeting could be held. According to subsection 55(5) of Bill 16, the public would not be guaranteed access until that kind of meeting could be called.

It has always been my view that one of the greatest attributes of municipal government is the ability of a municipal council to respond quickly to the interests and concerns of its citizens. In attempting to correct one problem, Bill 16 will create a larger one by diminishing that ability.

The alternative to delaying a decision would be to use subsection 57(2) of the existing act and deal at a special meeting of council with the matters a council deemed urgent. I have already mentioned that subsection 55(5) of the bill allows those meetings to be held in camera, to be closed to the public. I suggest that municipal councils, instead of deferring action, because they are people who want to respond to the needs of their electorate, will take the latter alternative and will end up with a proliferation of special meetings, many of which the public will be unaware of.

Another problem with the published notices is the cost. The publishing of a notice of meeting for every meeting of council, every board meeting and every committee meeting is going to be very expensive for municipalities served by a large number of newspapers. In Middlesex county, for example, there are six weekly newspapers. The county council has nine standing committees, plus five other committees that are joint with the city of London. The council and all those committees meet at least monthly and sometimes more often. The bill would require the council to publish at least 84 notices every month.

The city of Thunder Bay has written to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to express its concern about the cost of Bill 16. Perhaps the member for Oshawa has received a copy of that correspondence. They have suggested that the cost of advertising as a result of the bill might be as high as $88,000 a year.

There are other aspects of Bill 16 with which I am concerned, but in conclusion I want to state again that I support the objective of providing maximum public access to municipal meetings and to the documents in possession of those councils. We will not achieve that through legislation. We are going to achieve that only through continued interaction and co-operation between democratically elected councils and the electorate that put them in office.

10:50

Mr. J. M. Johnson: How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Five minutes.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. While I do support the thrust of the bill, I have a great many reservations about it. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft) mentioned many of the concerns that I too want to express, and the member for Brock (Mr. Partington) as well.

To start with, I have to take exception to the explanatory note presented by the member for Oshawa, which reads, "Under the present law, the public is not permitted to attend committee meetings of municipal councils or local boards." I have checked with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and I find this to be inaccurate. They may attend if council so wishes, but they are not denied the right to attend.

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am afraid the member has given some wrong advice here. The public do not have a legal right to attend a committee meeting of a council. They may attend at the council's pleasure, but they have no legal right to be there, and that should be clear.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: This highlights one of the concerns I have with the legislation that is drafted. It is not totally clear. It is going to be hard to determine how one is going to solve the problems related to the different interpretations that can be drawn from it.

For example, there is a clause which states that notice has to be given three days prior to a meeting. If a council inadvertently does not give three days' notice -- if it gives only two days' notice -- what is the penalty it pays if it has proceeded with a project, such as building an arena? Can a citizen come along at some point and say he was denied the proper three days' notice, and the project is not legal? Who is going to place it? How are we going to set penalties, and what will the penalties be? These are all implications that will arise out of this.

One is highlighted by the fact that my understanding of the explanatory notes is not the same as that of the member for Oshawa. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs does not think the same way. These are all problems that relate to this type of legislation.

I have the honour to represent 21 local municipalities; each has its own local council. In the 11 years I have been at Queen's Park, I cannot recall more than two or three complaints regarding the issue we have in front of us today. My councils operate in a very open and acceptable fashion; they provide all the information the voters request. I have always felt we should leave local autonomy with the local municipalities. If they do not serve the public well, they will answer for it at the next election. That is what the democratic process is all about.

To me, Bill 16 is just another layer of bureaucratic red tape to smother further the local autonomy of our municipal councils. While the intention of the member for Oshawa is good, the same results could be achieved by encouraging municipalities to accept a procedural bylaw that would bring about some type of similar information process without the heavy-handed, bureaucratic red tape that goes with this legislation.

I have had the opportunity to serve on municipal councils, as have several other members, and in my experience of 10 years on council I do not recall an occasion on which the press or the public were upset because they did not have the opportunity to receive all the information that was necessary. The way most councils operate in committee is that when they report out of committee, they go to council, it becomes public information and all the citizens are made aware of the activities carried on in committee, with the exception of some matters that are of a personal nature, such as police or maybe an industrial expansion project.

I urge the members of this House not to support this legislation, for the reason that it will create more problems for the municipal councils, not fewer. Of the three levels of government -- federal, provincial and municipal -- the municipal government is far more open than the other two levels. If the member wishes to address some problems, he can take a look at Queen's Park and cut out some of the red tape here. That would be much more effective.

Mr. Breaugh: I must say I am somewhat surprised and a little taken aback by the rather classic positions put by the parties. I had hoped we would have a discussion of the bill in principle, which is theoretically what we do on second reading, but we have not had that. I had hoped we would send the bill to committee, provide the public with notice, receive deputations from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and individual municipalities, work out definitions and regulations, do a clause-by-clause analysis and address some of the problems. Apparently, that is not going to happen.

I had hoped that in this process today we would have learned some lessons. My friends from the 14th century over there to the right maintain the position that the public does not have a right to know what is going on in its municipalities. They maintain the position that while people in urban areas have legal rights to attend council meetings because the council gives it to them, in rural areas people should not have these rights.

What a ludicrous notion that they would extend that double standard into this century. It is absolutely nonsensical to say that because a council must tell us what it is going to do, this is some attack by the Red Menace. From the people who brought us bureaucracy in Ontario, we continue to get lectures about bureaucracy. No party in the western world knows more about establishing red tape, bureaucracy and stupidity in government than the Tories in Ontario. They continue to lecture the rest of the world about their own sins. I would have thought they might have learned a lesson.

I want to address my friends across the aisle, because I thought there would be fertile ground there; it is a group in the Legislature that might have learned some lessons about improper behaviour this summer. I would have thought there would have been no questions from the Liberal side about improper behaviour after the summer we have had. I would have thought the classic Liberal position put by the member for Brampton, that one cannot define "improper behaviour" and that a Liberal does not know what is proper and what is improper, would have been resolved by the deliberations around here through the course of the summer. Apparently, it has not been.

Furthermore, I had thought that this week of all weeks, they as a government would have learned that it is a smart idea to announce their intentions around such things as the retirement package for the retired Clerk, that they would have learned the lesson that if they had notified somebody about what they intended to do in that matter and had allowed the members of the assembly to discuss that matter before they made the decision and that if they had done it in public, they might not be boiling in oil this morning.

I would have thought the Liberals, of all the 125 people here, would have said: "Boy, we learned some lessons over the course of the summer. We learned some lessons about proper behaviour, about proper notice and about striking deals in secret. We will not be vulnerable to this kind of attack any more." I would have thought they would have learned that governments, big, small, municipal, provincial and federal, finally should learn that the public has a right to know what they are doing.

Never mind the stupid arguments about whether it will cost $88,000 to notify the public. The notification provision is that the clerk of the council post a public notice; it costs a thumbtack and a piece of paper. If it wants to spend $88,000, it can; and if it wants to spend $2 million, it can. They have demonstrated that. However, the publication provision is that the public has a right to inspect the records. It does not call for what my friends to the right did for years. Every time they wanted to bless themselves, they announced a $4-million public relations program to ensure that everybody saw it. That is not the requirement.

The requirement is simply that the right is there for the public to see what is being done. They have an obligation to give some notice of that. They do not have to put it in the newspaper, put it on radio or television or hire an advertising firm; that is not the requirement. Tell what is being done. Write it down on a piece of paper and stick it up in a town hall. That is the requirement. That is not a major expense.

Sadly, what I had hoped for appears unlikely to happen. The public across Ontario in big cities and small towns will not have the right to know what its councils are doing. It is not going to be a major problem every day, but it is going to continue to be a problem. By turning their backs on this kind of legislation, they invite litigation to continue. Lawyers will get richer and richer. More citizens and citizens' groups will sue their councils for the decisions they made in private, for withholding information from them.

11:00

That is what this group over here from the 14th century wants. They seem quite content with that, even though they got into hot water with it from time to time; and the new group over there has learned nothing from this summer. They have learned nothing from the beginning of this fall. They have not learned yet that in this day and age, no government at any level can cut deals in secret. It will not get away from it; that will not happen any more. This is not of that age at all and they cannot hide behind silly arguments about bureaucracy and costs for advertising.

The public knows better than that. It knows what it wants is not an ad campaign. It wants the right to see these documents and it will get that right one way or the other. They are forcing people to go to court and I am warning them, they will go to courts and it will cost a good deal more than $88,000.

The agony and the irritants that will exist between the councils and the citizens' groups will get more and more serious, because the problems the councils are facing are more and more serious. They have to do with major problems such as dump sites, hospital waste and things of that nature and the public is not going to let them ride any more.

This morning, they may deny the public the legal right to know what its council is doing, to find out what the documents say and on what basis a council made a decision. They will not be able to take away people's legal right to go to court and tie up those decisions. I say this morning, that is precisely what people are going to do. If they choose not to give people that right in law, people will go to the courts and tie up those decisions anyway, and it will not be cheap.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Poirier moved second reading of Bill 91, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation, and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Poirier: In the past 20 years, major medical advances have occurred in the field of organ transplantation. With the use of advanced surgical techniques and immunosuppressive drugs, it has become possible to transplant all major organs, excluding the brain.

Current success rates for cornea transplants, kidney transplants and liver and heart transplants average approximately 90 per cent, 80 per cent and 70 per cent respectively. These successes have brought new hope to thousands of people. In Ontario alone, 229 transplants were performed in 1985.

However, medical advances have outpaced the supply of organs and the lists of patients waiting for transplants are growing. In Ontario, there are currently an estimated 320 persons waiting for kidney transplants, 100 waiting for cornea transplants, 10 waiting for hearts and lungs and nine waiting for liver transplants.

The waiting period varies with organ size and blood-type requirements, of course. The average wait for a kidney transplant in Ontario is one and a half to two years. For some persons, time runs out before a suitable organ is donated. An estimated 50 to 60 per cent of people waiting for organs die before a suitable organ becomes available. A recent tragic example is 17-month-old Melissa Mendoza, who died on October 6 while waiting in vain for a liver transplant.

In desperation, some parents and medical staff have launched public appeals through the media in search of suitable donors. For some individuals, such as Gabriel Bruce, the appeals are successful, while for others, such as Melissa, they are not.

The willingness of people to donate organs in the event of death has been identified in numerous opinion polls across Canada and in the United States. In 1984, a poll conducted for the Ontario Task Force on Kidney Donations found that 88 per cent of the respondents would donate the kidneys of a deceased relative, while 63 per cent would donate their own. A recent Gallup poll in the US found that 70 per cent of the respondents were very likely to donate the organs of their next of kin.

One means of encouraging donations is the organ donor card attached to the Ontario driver's licence. However, a recent survey in the province found that only 28 per cent of those who had heard of the donor card had signed it, despite the fact that many more indicated a willingness to become potential donors.

It has also been found that licence declaration is rarely a factor in donations, as emergency personnel are preoccupied with duties other than looking for a donor card. Drivers' licences and the attached donor cards are also generally in the possession of persons other than a hospital patient's nurse and doctor.

Finally, persons without a driver's licence have no opportunity to sign the attached donor card or to indicate their wishes. This is particularly significant for children whose post-mortem organs are in great demand.

Studies in the United States and Canada have found that a major obstacle to procuring organs is the difficulty encountered by medical personnel to identify potential donors and to discuss organ donation with the affected family. The difficulty of broaching the subject is a major contributing factor. Increased attention has been given to encouraging hospital personnel to approach families of potential donors and to establish in-hospital organ donation support systems. However, the stress and pressure placed on the next of kin to make a prompt decision on behalf of another person in a time of intense grief is significant.

In 1985, the donation process subcommittee of the Ontario Ministry of Health's Task Force on Kidney Donations proposed that a system be developed to record an individual's intention to donate organs at the time of death. It stated that this could be accomplished by forming a central registry. The aforementioned Task Force on Kidney Donations recommended that research be conducted into the best means of recording post-mortem donations and wishes of individuals, including the establishment of a central registry.

The Human Tissue Gift Amendment Act provides for the establishment of such a registry with the Ministry of Health in which confidential records of consent and objections to voluntary post-mortem organ donations of a person insured under the Health Insurance Act are maintained. In addition, the act provides that where an objection to a donation has been recorded, this wish is paramount over the opinions of the next of kin.

It is apparent that the public of Ontario supports the concept of a central registry. A survey conducted in 1984 for the Ontario Task Force on Kidney Donations found that both donors and nondonors felt strongly that a central donor identification system should be in place. Approximately 68 per cent supported the establishment of a registry where those who have signed a donor card would be listed.

There are many advantages to a central registry. A central registry would provide medical personnel with full knowledge of an individual's wishes. This supports hospital policies of routine requests by identifying potential donors before they are in a critical state or are deceased. A central recorded consent or objection would facilitate the physician's task of approaching next of kin by being able to inform them of the patient's wishes. If next of kin are approached regarding possible donations, the stress of this immediate decision would be reduced by previous indications of the patient's wishes regarding organ donation.

In the absence of a central registry, it is unlikely that appropriate information would be available to assist the next of kin in making the decision. If the next of kin could not be reached in time, a record of consent would provide legal authority for organ donation. A central registry would provide a more co-ordinated and systematic approach to increasing organ donations than relying on ad hoc media publicity for specific individuals. A central registry would uniformly present persons with the options of organ donation and would encourage individuals to resolve the issue for themselves and their children.

I would like to talk about a specific example in Texas. The Living Bank is a nonprofit organization in Houston, Texas, which operates a national registry and referral service. The purpose of the registry is to help those persons who, upon death, wish to donate organs for transplantation, therapy, medical research or anatomical study. The primary objective of the organization, which was founded in 1968, is to educate the general public to donate organs. Registration forms and donor cards are sent out to interested persons. When returned, the information is placed in a central registry of potential donors for instant retrieval of data when needed.

At present, the Living Bank has more than 180,000 people registered and is growing by approximately 3,200 people per month. In 1985, the Living Bank handled approximately 400 calls that resulted in actual donations of one or more organs.

11:10

The cost of haemodialysis for kidney failure is $40,000 per patient per year in Ontario in 1984 dollars. In 1984, the Ministry of Health spent $61 million treating kidney failure patients. If the number of kidney donors doubled, it has been estimated that a cost saving of $800 million could be achieved over a 20-year period. If the number of donors tripled, which it is estimated will be required to meet the ever-increasing need, the cost saving over the same 20-year period has been estimated at $1.7 billion.

The quality of life is immeasurable. The lives of persons on dialysis are permanently disrupted by the requirements for frequent treatments on a dialysis machine. With the transplant, a return to normal life is made possible. I strongly believe the establishment of a central registry could help facilitate that. If you and I had a person dear to us who was requiring an organ transplant, Mr. Speaker, we would not look as closely at the cost as at the benefits to that person. With the quality-of-life issue in Ontario, we would support very strongly such a creation.

Évidemment, la création d'un registre central pourrait grandement aider à améliorer la condition de la vie en Ontario. Comme je le mentionnais tantôt en anglais, dans mon texte, le nombre de personnes qui attendent, justement pour avoir le droit de continuer à vivre, est très grand. On estime, à l'échelle du Canada, qu'il y a plus de 4,000 personnes qui sont en attente, au moment où je vous parle.

Donc, j'espère que les gens vont bien appuyer le projet de loi 91 parce que c'est très important pour tous les Canadiens, surtout pour les Ontariens, d'avoir en place un registre central pour faciliter et trouver les gens qui sont prêts à donner et les gens qui sont prêts à recevoir.

There may some objections to the registry. Some people in the medical profession suggest it is not necessary to register persons. They say it forces physicians to go through another step rather than dealing directly with the family of the deceased. What is one more step to save a life?

Very little, I think. The ability to keep a central registry up to date concerning the scope of potential donations, changes in decisions and family status, and to keep it operational 24 hours a day has been questioned. Of course it is a complex system. With close to 10 million Ontarians, it is quite a task to keep it up to date. However, if it is going to save one life in Ontario, it will be well worth it.

Doubt has been expressed that a central registry would increase supply. It has been suggested that most people do not want to have to make this decision. Failure to record consent may influence next of kin against donating a deceased relative's organs. The surveys we have talked about and the polls we have seen show the opposite. People are willing to make that decision and are willing to have a system where it will be easy and accessible and known.

Another point brought up was the cost of maintaining a central registry and it has been raised as an inhibiting factor. I do not think this argument is very valid today. If we are going to save peoples' lives, if we are going to permit them to live ordinary and normal lives, then in the long term we would save money. Even if we did not, even if it cost the same, a human life is a human life and there is no cost to that.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member wish to save the remainder of his time -- eight minutes, 40 seconds?

Mr. Poirier: Thank you.

Mrs. Marland: In rising to speak this morning on Bill 91, may I say at the outset that I am aware the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Poirier) has nothing but the most sincere intent in bringing this bill to the Legislature. However, the wording of the bill as presented will not at this time be able to accomplish the intent he would wish.

If I am correct in presuming that the member has brought this subject to the Legislature because he personally supports the concept of the donation of human tissue when possible, which is obvious from his comments a few moments ago, then may I say I wholly support the donation concept. There is no question of the need for this program. There is no question of the need for the donation of tissues and organs, but I feel the bill at the moment will not improve the current situation.

I do not want to be too negative. Bill 91 is important, not because it is the right solution but because it brings into focus a very important issue. The general public is not even aware of the endorsement on the driver's licence. That program of the endorsement on our driver's licences in Ontario was introduced by the Progressive Conservative government and was a far-reaching plan to resolve the problems this bill is trying to address.

When one looks at the three boxes that are available on the driver's licence, those of us who have signed that portion of our licence recognize that we can choose to have all or any tissues or organs donated in the event of our death. We can also specify organs and list them and we can also donate our entire bodies for medical education and research at a school of anatomy, but as we know from reports, very few people take part in that program.

The press coverage for those people awaiting transplants and in search of compatible organs has heightened the general public's awareness for the need of organ donation and, as a member from the city of Mississauga, we have evidence of both a successful story in the case of Lindsay Eberhardt and the example of the tragic loss of Melissa Mendoza who was not able to be given the transplant procedure.

The unnecessary loss of life could be avoided if we all understood the issue better and if we, collectively, could overcome the barriers that keep us from consenting to save a life if we could and if we are ever in the position to make a decision for a member of our family.

At this point, I would like to tell members that when our own daughter died from a disease that would have left most of her organs in a condition where transplant would have been a very viable program, at that time, which is 26 years ago, we had some of these programs but, obviously, we did not have medical science to the degree that transplant surgery is at today.

Having gone through the emotion of the death of a child -- and the emotional aspects are referred to in the report of the Task Force on Kidney Donation which was presented in December 1985 -- that emotional aspect is one which can be helped by a bereaved family. I am speaking as a bereaved parent but I am sure as a bereaved member of any relationship within a family, if it was possible to do something at the end of that life that could help someone else, that gesture is one most of us would want to make.

There are other issues that come into focus at that time. A lot of people do not even know if it is right, even for religious reasons, to make a donation of an organ or a body tissue. Those questions could be answered through an elevated public awareness program so that people will not have to stop in that stress period to try to decide whether it would be a right thing. They would know it was a right thing and would be happy in making that decision.

11:20

The statistics on the number of patients waiting for organ transplants are staggering, as has been noted. There are several organizations that deal with the subject. We have one here in Ontario that has been in existence for 10 years. It is known as MORE, the Metro organ retrieval and exchange program. We also have Transplant International, which produces a newsletter that it sends to doctors, the media, schools, boards of education, community groups and health care professionals. It works at raising the consciousness of the public to make it an acceptable idea and to promote understanding of the need.

This is the avenue I feel we need to proceed along. Newsletters containing articles with family stories, medical stories, comments from transplant retrieval teams and letters from the members of the public are all avenues that could be pursued very successfully.

Unfortunately, I do not see Bill 91 as making any of those ideas a reality. I recognize that Bill 91 is not saying it is compulsory to make the donation commitment, but it is compulsory to make the decision -- you are going to make the decision whether you will donate or whether you reject the donation. There are only two instances when an organ may be donated in any case: after all life has ceased, with the consent of the family or of the people responsible for that deceased person; or after the donor is declared brain dead, again with the consent of the family or of the people responsible. Unfortunately, most accident victims are not donor candidates, as the donor must arrive at the hospital alive.

That brings me to the other problem that Bill 91 does not address at the moment. It does not address the fact that many of our hospitals are just not geared to this program, particularly small hospitals in outlying areas of the province. Transplant International says it has found through its polling, which has been very extensive -- and it is referred to in the report of the Task Force on Kidney Donations -- that as soon as you make it compulsory for people to make a decision, they will make a negative decision against donation, and they make it at this point out of fear, out of ignorance, and are very apprehensive about the implications of making that decision ahead of time.

Dealing simply with kidney donations, the task force report says that 88 per cent of respondents will donate the organ of a loved one and 65 per cent will agree to donate their own organ, but only 23 per cent will sign their driver's licence, and that gets back to the advance commitment. By signing our driver's licence -- and I hope every member of this Legislature has become actively involved in the program -- we are making the commitment ahead of time.

I wholly support the concept of organ and tissue donations, but before we legislate to make it a compulsory decision ahead of time, either in the affirmative or in the negative, we have to grant the public a more major education program and involve the hospitals with the equipment to service and implement such a program.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, you have better eyesight than the previous Speaker who was occupying the chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate. The member is to be congratulated for bringing in a very important piece of legislation, one that I will support.

I must tell members, however, that I am a little bit disappointed in the approach taken, because it is a rather timid step. Since the member obviously has an interest in pursuing this issue, he is probably aware of the organ donor program that operates in many of the western European countries. He will know it is very successful because they use a process that is the reverse of what we have. The organ donation is automatic unless one has signed an objection form. It seems to me that is the only sensible way to proceed.

We all recognize the importance of organ donation and organ transplant. We know it saves lives and we know it helps in a lot of very difficult and trying situations. I do not think anyone questions the value of the program. The question is how we make the program successful, how we make it work.

I suggest, based on the experience in many of the western European countries, the way to make it work is to make sure that the donation happens automatically, unless the individual has signed a card saying he objects to the program. I cannot recall the figures, but it seems to me they are in the neighbourhood of 85 per cent successful there, while we are in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent or 20 per cent successful. They have a much higher success rate in obtaining the organs that are required.

I have some concerns with respect to the bill itself. Obviously, in this era of modem technology and computers, it is advisable to have a central registry, but that registry will be brought into a system that is not yet ready to handle organ transplants on a universal basis. In other words, there are hospitals that lack the computer equipment at this stage to hook into a central registry. They are unable to share the information, especially in smaller communities. We are dealing with a system that has not developed to that stage.

I am not sure where the government intends to locate the central registry, but as a side note, not every good piece of equipment needs to be located in Metropolitan Toronto. There are many other centres around the province where the registry could be located. It might be very helpful to have it located in one of the northern communities, such as Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay or others. Wherever the central registry is located, there are many smaller communities that will be unable to hook into it. That is a project that needs to be looked at.

I am a little disturbed to see the three aspects -- therapeutic purpose, medical education and scientific research -- put together. I would like to see them separated. There may be many individuals in Ontario who are quite pleased to participate in the therapeutic purpose but who may not be as inclined to be receptive to a request for scientific research. In order to cover those individual concerns, perhaps it makes sense to separate each of those three distinct purposes and deal with them individually.

The other major flaw I see is that even when we pass this bill, we will still be relying on the present system for donors. I understand the major number of donors come via the driver's licence. Because that is so, we automatically exclude people who are not drivers, particularly those under the age of 16 and those who are adults and who are nondrivers.

11:30

We do not have a good enough system for securing donors and we are going to continue that system. Unfortunately, the bill does not address how one improves the system. With respect, I suggest that in the long run the only way we are going to improve the system is by reversing the process. That is something with which the member has not come to grips. If he is prepared to look at that, then it is going to require major revisions to the bill.

As I stated with the previous bill that was before the House this morning, I am urging members to pass this bill and get it off to committee where we can take a look at not only the concerns I have raised but also some of the others.

First and foremost, the principal issue to address is whether we can get past the timidity that some members have and deal with the issue of reversing the onus so that the donation will be automatic unless an individual registers an objection.

If we are prepared as members to deal with that question, then we will make a giant step forward in promoting what I am sure all of us -- at least in this chamber -- recognize as being an extremely important program and one which does genuinely save lives. It is an advance for us as a society.

In closing, I wish to commend the member on his efforts, because he has brought a very important issue to the attention of the House. If members are inclined to support this bill then perhaps when it gets off to committee, we can make it an even stronger and better bill than it is now.

Mr. Offer: I am pleased to rise in support of this amendment and to commend the member for Prescott-Russell on bringing this matter to this House.

The amendment being proposed provides a register containing the names and health insurance numbers of all insured persons as defined in the Health Insurance Act. In addition, this register shall record the consent or objection of persons to the use after death of their body or of a part or parts of their body for therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research.

This amendment before us indicates that these consents or objections shall be stored electronically or on a magnetic medium so as to be capable of expeditious retrieval by name or health insurance number.

Finally, the amendment indicates that the register shall be confidential to all but the person giving consent or objection, or a physician who bona fide requires this information for transplant purposes, or an employee of the Minister of Health whose duties require access to the record.

The passage of this amendment shall promote access to potential donors in a quick, efficient and effective manner. We know how important that information is. To explain properly how important it is, I think it necessary to devote a few moments to the history and evolution of transplantation.

Over 36 years ago, doctors achieved a drug therapy breakthrough that gave kidney transplant recipients a 50-50 chance of survival for at least one year. Among many doctors, hopes ran high that the body's natural tendency to reject foreign tissue would soon be brought under control, but what worked for kidney transplant patients never worked well for those receiving other organs.

Indeed, the problem of tissue rejection presented a barrier to the physician's dream of routine organ transplants.

However, with the dedication and commitment of many people to untold days, hours and years of work, the problem of tissue rejection has diminished. The advent of new drugs, new surgical procedures and better and more precise technology enables greater success for a greater number of people requiring transplants.

However, as transplants of kidneys progressed to heart, pancreas, corneas and lungs and as the success of each transplant increased, so there grew an ever-increasing shortage of organs for transplant purposes. The grim reality of this shortage is that people of all ages die each year awaiting life-giving organs.

When discussing or debating the matter at hand, I believe it is impossible to divorce oneself from that which we see on television, read in the newspaper or hear on the radio. Who among us has never heard the grief-stricken pleas of a father and mother publicly asking for a liver or kidney for their infant child? Who can say he has not been moved? Who of us with children of whatever age have not silently thought of what he would do, how he would cope to give his child a chance at life?

It is incumbent upon all of us to realize that it is not only children who require transplants. By and large, we never hear of the plight of those of middle or senior years. In this age category, they are never given the chance that transplantation holds and their circumstances go largely publicly unnoticed.

Deaths of this nature are more than tragic, because we have the technological wherewithal, the medical expertise and scientific knowledge to prevent them by transplantation, but we do not have the donors of the life-giving organs. As I have previously mentioned, this amendment will go far in meeting that shortage.

I imagine the question is how. How will a register for transplant donors help alleviate the problem of shortage? I suggest it will in two ways.

First, it will provide a central repository for information about potential donors. Quickly and sensitively, one will be able to determine whether a potential donor has given his or her consent. Once known, this information will permit immediate categorization as to whether this is a donor and, if so, what organs are available and, last but certainly not least, who the recipient may be. Statistical evidence shows there is potential for significantly increasing the supply of donors with the implementation of a central registry system. The passage of this amendment will initiate a new effort to improve organ availability.

Second, it will command the attention of the people of Ontario to re-evaluate the whole question of transplantation. It will ask our citizens to consider the question of whether one should or should not be a donor. It will bring to the fore the fact that transplantation has advanced from an endeavour that was largely experimental and in which the number of donor organs frequently exceeded the number of recipients on a waiting list, to one in which major clinical departments and hospital endeavours are dependent upon transplantation as a pivotal program.

I understand and accept that ethical, moral or religious reasons exist for not permitting oneself to be a donor. These reasons must be understood, accepted and respected. They are not to be taken as anything more or less than an individual's deepest and sincerest thoughts. Having said that, I believe this amendment to the Human Tissue Gift Act will make the best possible use of the donor gift, that the most appropriate recipient will receive the donated organ and that, last but certainly not least, usable organs will never be wasted.

11:40

In closing, I have an article, but unfortunately, I do not have the name of its author. I would like to read from it.

"It is a miracle of our time that the sudden, sad death of a 12-year-old girl in a small northern Ontario community could give new life to four strangers hundreds of miles away, waiting anxiously for a desperately needed organ transplant.

"The recent transplants of the heart, kidneys and liver of an accident victim raise anew the issue of the shortage of organ donors for all patients in need. For a bereaved family, it is a difficult question. Facing the death of a loved one, few families want to get into the additional trauma of deciding whether to authorize doctors to remove organs. A central registry would allow a doctor to see if the patient had authorized use of his or her organs. The relatives would be consulted and advised of the person's wishes. If the family objected, the organs would not be removed. This plan of a central registry system is both humane and workable."

I speak in favour of this amendment and once more commend the member for Prescott-Russell for bringing this matter to the Legislature. We are not talking about just this amendment; we are talking about saving lives, and this amendment will do that.

Mr. Bernier: I rise in support of this bill. I want to compliment the member for Prescott-Russell for bringing it forward. It is truly a very human issue. There is no question about it. I rise in support of the principle of the bill. I do not want to get into details. Other members have talked about going to committee and making changes. The principle of the bill is correct.

I want to put on record a personal family experience in connection with a transplant and the difficulties associated with this problem in life. About a year ago, a nephew of mine in his early 40s, affectionately known as Rick Hunt of Kenora working for Alcan in Montreal, was asked to take a regular company medical checkup. This medical checkup revealed he had a spot on his lung. Immediately he was encouraged to take further examinations, which necessitated his being admitted to the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal. Last November, he was treated with a number of antibiotics to correct the situation in his lung -- six different types of antibiotics in total. By December 1985, it was evident these antibiotics had not helped the situation at all and his situation had been diagnosed as fibrosis.

The condition of my nephew prior to admittance to the Royal Victoria Hospital was one of perfect health. He did not smoke. He was a health addict. He jogged five miles a day or rode his bicycle at least 10 miles. He was what we would call in perfect health. But in that short, two-month period he was stricken with a disease that was spreading rapidly and could not be stopped.

In January 1986, it was decided that because of his deteriorating condition his heart and lung had to be transplanted. It was at this time that a call went out from the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal in search of these two specific organs.

I am told that in a heart and lung transplant, these two organs must be taken from one body and transplanted into another. In other words, the organs cannot be removed and moved separately to where the operation would take place; that is another serious difficulty. On five separate occasions, donors were located in the general area of Montreal. Three to five hours of preparation were required to put my nephew in the proper condition for the major operation that was to follow. In every case but one, the organs were incompatible, the size was incorrect, the match was not suitable or the donor's organs were not totally healthy.

January went by; the call was still out there for a heart and lung. February went by; the call was still out there. March went by; the call was still out there. Finally, in early April a donor was located, a victim of a motor accident just outside Montreal. Again, there was a four-hour preparation. In fact, in each one of these preparations they went so far as to give the donor the last rites of the church.

The operation began with some very excellent medical professionals from the Montreal area. The operation lasted about eight hours, and I regret to say my nephew passed away 24 hours later.

My point is to alert the members of the Legislature and put on record that we in our family are convinced that had a transplant or organs been found in early January, my nephew would be alive today.

For this reason, which may be a selfish one on my part, I think the passing of this bill will certainly speed up the location of donors, improving this entire process and of course maintaining the life which we dearly love. l think it is fair to say that the public is slowly coming around to recognizing the urgency of this call.

We are seeing on a regular basis comments in the media. In October 1986, the Globe and Mail had a story with the headline, "Children Dying for Lack of Organs." Another article in October was headed, "Organs Are Needed." Another article in the Globe and Mail was headed, "Shortage of Organs for Transplants to Continue Until Attitudes Change." In the London Free Press, a story headlined "Listing of Potential Donors' Organs is Urged" appeared in support of this bill. "Organ Gifts Prized by 13 Per Cent Across Canada" was a headline in a January edition of the Globe and Mail. "Transplant Recipients Hail a New Program" appeared in the Toronto Star. From northern Ontario, "More Human Organs Donated at McKellar Hospital" appeared in the Thunder Bay press.

I think it is fair to say that with the success they are having in transplants today -- and we know children's liver transplants are successful in 80 per cent of the cases -- there is a changing attitude out there in the public. We are in a new era. We are past the experimental area. It is definitely a breakthrough in medical research, and it is accepted in society today.

It is incumbent upon all of us as we compliment the medical profession for what it has done in the advancement and research of transplants during the past several years, if we truly believe in that complimentary attitude to the medical profession, then it is important that we support it. I think it is more important that we encourage the profession to move forward in research, and of course supporting this bill is an indication of our support to the medical profession and the urgency of this issue.

Mr. Charlton: I too rise in support of Bill 91 and congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward. Like my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner), I think the bill is a first step in the right direction, although I think the problem is much bigger than the bill will address.

The kinds of situations that the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) mentioned in his comments, when he was referring to his nephew and to the newspaper stories, are perfect examples of why, as has been suggested, the onus ultimately has to be moved back down to individuals.

A registry will certainly help to improve some of the problems we have at present, but eventually we have to get to a stage where individuals, on the basis of their own consciences and their own beliefs, are prepared to take the responsibility of making the decision and making the decision known. What we are going to have here is a registry where those who do take that opportunity either to consent or to object will probably provide better access to organs for transplant purposes than we have had in the past, but it does not address the question of those individuals who will not take the responsibility to make that decision and to make the decision known. Ultimately, we have to discuss some way of accomplishing that part of the problem.

11:50

As the previous member suggested, it is clear that organ transplants in medicine can provide a fairly high rate of success and life for people who are healthy, other than for the affected organ, and who are able, with a transplant, to live a long and fruitful life. We have to pursue that in a global social sense. This is a start. I will support the bill, but we have to be prepared to talk in much broader terms about the problem and how we get at the solutions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prescott-Russell has approximately nine minutes.

Mr. Poirier: I appreciate the comments honourable members have made pertaining to the second reading of Bill 91. I have listened very carefully and I have taken notes on some of the recommendations, their fears and how they feel towards Bill 91.

If I may start with the comments of the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland), she said, "This bill as written would not improve the current situation." One must remember that what is brought forward by Bill 91 is but a tool to help relieve the current situation, which is in a state of chaos right now even though we do have a group called the Metro Organ Retrieval Exchange working in Ontario to make sure the organ donor and recipient match is as good as possible. There is quite a bit of education to be done with the general public, with the medical forces, with politicians and with the government in general.

The current system, the drivers' licences, is shown not to work, with only 28 per cent of the people filling them out. Even if one does fill it out, when you get to the hospital, usually you are not in possession of your driver's licence. Having worked as a tow-truck operator and seeing the ambulances take the people to hospital, I can say that they do not look for the driver's licence; personal effects, maybe medication, even contact lenses come before the driver's licence.

The current situation needs a lot of improvement. What Bill 91 offers is but one tool to do it in conjunction with many other steps to be taken by government. As for the current media appeals, which are getting to be more frequent, yes, they are making people more aware of the need for organ donations right now, but I am afraid that if we continue to do this on a frequent, regular basis, it will lose its effect to sensitize the people of Canada and Ontario to the need for organs. I am very afraid of that.

I have read over the act and I have read Bill 91, and nowhere is it mentioned that this is compulsory. It is offered to people who want to consent or who want to object so that they should have a mechanism to say so. In no circumstances has it been mentioned in the current act or in the proposed Bill 91 to force people to decide or choose.

It was also mentioned that the hospitals will not be geared and ready for Bill 91. Of course, if we are going to put a tool in place to do something, we will have to do some work around this tool to make sure it is accepted, with all due education to be done in the local hospitals in the small communities. One is quite correct in saying that some hospital teams in the small communities are not used to organ transplants and organ transfers and even donations. As for the methodology and the ethics of it all, some people are still disturbed by that.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere said it was a very timid step. His idea was to make donations automatic unless a person specifically objects to it. Respectfully, I say the people of Ontario are far from that stage right now. It would be nice to see polls showing that Ontariens were willing to do that, ready to save the life of a fellow Ontarian, just like that, automatically. I wish it were true, but the polls indicate otherwise. If it comes to a point where Ontarians are ready for that, I will be very glad to have a second look at it.

The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is correct in saying that the system is not ready to handle transplants on the scale of Ontario; hence, the need for a tool as proposed in Bill 91 with the central registry. It is but a step. In itself it would not resolve the entire problem. If one put a tool in place and if people were not sensitized -- whether potential donors, recipients, medical staff, governments or politicians -- quite correct: it would fail. There is an immense campaign to be done on this.

The member is also afraid that people might not have a choice to specify whether they wanted to donate organs for therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research. If one looks carefully at Bill 91, it uses the word "or": "therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research." People must be able to choose one or all of the above according to their own wishes, and this has to be respected.

As the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) mentioned, the problem is bigger than what the bill addresses. The bill proposes a tool to help resolve a very large problem. Regarding the creation of a central registry in conjunction with campaigns to educate the people -- potential donors across all Ontario and Canada and around the world -- we should not look twice at where and from whom come a heart and lungs to help save the life, for example, of the nephew of the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier). I am sure his nephew would have been very glad to receive immediately the lungs and a heart from whoever had been willing to donate them to save his life.

We have to integrate that into a worldwide system to make sure Ontario, with its 10 million people, has at least a tool to start to address that system. I sincerely hope that all members, no matter what they personally may find in this bill, will support the passage of this bill and help this government to make sure, together, that all Ontarians are educated about why organ donation is such an important part of one's life and one's afterlife, to help our fellow people continue to have a productive life in Ontario.

J'apprécierais que tous les honorables députés viennent m'aider en accordant leur appui au projet de loi 91, afin que la qualité de vie en Ontario puisse continuer bien au-delà de la vie actuelle des Ontariens et des Ontariennes, en aidant à créer un mécanisme pour que ceux et celles qui désirent aider leurs collègues à l'échelle de l'Ontario, du Canada et même à l'échelle internationale, puissent donner accès à une partie de leur corps, une fois qu'ils auront quitté ce monde, pour aider à continuer cette qualité de vie en Ontario.

I thank all the honourable members for their constructive comments. I look forward to the support of all of them in making Bill 91 a reality.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: I know the standing order says the vote must be taken at noon. I think we are close enough.

Mr. Breaugh has moved second reading of Bill 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Breaugh's motion carry?

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: With respect, I stated what I heard. I actually waited a moment to give any members the opportunity to rise. Therefore, I announced that the vote had carried.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, is there any chance of a rerun on that one?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the member's suggestion. However, I feel I gave ample time for members to rise. I did not see any members rise until after I had announced the vote. Therefore, I declared the motion carried.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I called the vote. I do not know of any precedent when there has been a challenge simply to not seeing anybody stand when they had ample opportunity to do so.

Mr. Cousens: I have challenged your ruling. I believe the vote was in the negative. The nays carried it. It was moving along so quickly I did not feel you would go that far; so I challenge your ruling.

Mr. McClellan: The member had his chance and he blew it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I still stand by my original decision. I called it as I saw it. Therefore, I did not make a ruling; l just called it as I saw it.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think my privileges have been abused. I find it rather strange that this is a New Democratic Party calling for open council meetings and yet that party's members are terribly afraid of an open, public vote. I regret that.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege; it is a point of view.

I will call the next item.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, if five members stand, would your ruling be challenged?

Mr. Speaker: No. The standing order is very clear what the procedure is. I carried out the standing orders. I will now place the second item that is before the House.

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Poirier has moved second reading of Bill 91, An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:04 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw to the attention of the members and ask them to join with me in recognizing the guests in the Speaker's gallery: the Minister of Municipal Affairs of Newfoundland, the Honourable Norman Doyle, and the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, Clarence Randell. Please join me in welcoming them.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Jackson: The mayors of Halton's four municipalities have identified the need for local affordable housing as having reached a crisis. They remember stories of a family living in a gas station and of another family living in a car this past winter. In Burlington, we do not want to see those stories repeated and we do not want to risk the tragedies that have occurred elsewhere.

We have tried. In fact, 16 groups have applied to the province for assistance in providing nonprofit housing over the past year and a half, and 16 groups have been rejected. Halton Adolescent Support Services wanted to provide housing for homeless young people but was rejected. St. Luke's Anglican Church wanted to provide housing for seniors. They received 250 applications for a 37-unit proposal and were rejected. A week ago the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) made another announcement, this time for the funding of 3,000 additional units.

We are optimistic in Halton; we believe we will get our share of those units. We are also realists in Halton. It is now mid-October and there are still weeks of discussions with the mayors left. There are proposals to review, plans to approve and construction to begin. These units will not be ready soon. The minister has had more than a year and a half to prepare for this winter and he has not done it. All we get from him are statements on paper. We are tired of his paper houses and we have had enough of his paper promises. We need affordable housing, not paper housing, and we need it now.

HUMANE SOCIETIES LEGISLATION

Mr. Foulds: A David-and-Goliath battle has been going on for the past eight months between the Thunder Bay branch of the Ontario Humane Society and the central executive of the Ontario Humane Society, led by its president, T. I. Hughes.

The Ontario government should amend the act governing the humane society so that not only the affiliates but also the branches, such as Thunder Bay, have more authority over their own affairs. The government must take legislative steps so that more branches can become affiliates, as recommended by the Price Waterhouse study, without giving up all their assets, accounts, legacies, etc.

Mr. Hughes has threatened to withdraw the warrants under which the Thunder Bay branch operates. People in Thunder Bay believe Mr. Hughes has badgered and bullied the Thunder Bay branch executive ever since it received a legacy of $100,000 expressly donated to the Thunder Bay branch. Mr. Hughes has been trying to get that money under the control of the central executive and remove decision-making from the local people. The Ministry of the Solicitor General has, I believe, been apprised of this conflict.

Legislative action must ensure that the Ontario Humane Society's provincial executive is more accountable to the public and to its branches so that the bullying of the Thunder Bay executive which has taken place during the past eight months does not take place in the future. Perhaps it is about time the Ontario government lifted the virtual monopoly for animal control and welfare that the Ontario Humane Society currently exerts.

PERSONS DAY

Ms. Hart: I am pleased to announce to the House that Saturday, October 18, commemorates Persons Day, the day in 1929 when Canada's highest court of appeal, which was at the time the Privy Council in Britain, ruled that women were persons. That decision resulted from a challenge by four Alberta women of our federal government's policy of refusing to appoint women senators. The government argued that only men could be appointed, because the British North America Act did not say whether persons qualified to be senators included both sexes or only men.

In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that argument and decided that women were not persons under the law of Canada. Fortunately for me and for all women in this country, the Privy Council overturned that ridiculous conclusion, and now all persons, women and men, are eligible to hold office. I think such a momentous decision in our history deserves recognition and celebration. It is in that spirit that I bring it to the attention of this House today.

DRUG BENEFIT FORMULARY

Mr. Andrewes: I will try to compete with the anvil chorus outside.

On September 3, 1985, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) wrote to pharmacists across the province and said, "Hopefully, you will have a new drug formulary in a matter of days." On September 17, 1985, legal action prevented him from meeting this commitment, a legal action that was resolved by the spring of 1986.

On August 18, 1986, the minister again wrote to pharmacists after the passage of Bills 54 and 55 and said, "I am pleased to confirm that an updated Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary under the existing legislation will be published in August 1986."

It is now October, and the ministry continues to present ultimatums to the Ontario Pharmacists' Association and fails to address the minister's commitment and public promise.

This inaction is a cause to ask several questions. Was the minister's promise in his letter of August 18 only rhetoric to appease a group of angry pharmacists, who now seriously doubt his credibility? Are the consumers of Ontario being well served by a system that denies them access to new, improved drugs? Are consumers who are taxpayers of Ontario getting a fair deal from the Liberal government that promised them lower drug costs, when this same government refuses to publish a revised drug formulary that would include a number of new, lower-priced generic drugs? These are questions the Minister of Health must answer.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I rise to draw to the attention of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government the recent experience of many residents in my riding when requesting an opportunity to be heard during the public hearings of one of the commissions appointed by his government. These hearings were considering an application for allowing Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track commencing November 2, 1986. The Ontario Racing Commission is empowered under the Racing Commission Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, chapter 429, "to govern, direct, control and regulate horse racing in Ontario in any or all of its forms."

The commission's treatment of residents concerned with the impact of this decision on their neighbourhood, their livelihood and their peace and quiet on Sunday does not appear to be observing your avowed objective of providing the citizens of Ontario with open government. Even though the residents had notified the commission that they wished to be heard, the commission did not change the venue of the hearing, which accommodated only 40 people, nor did it make any alternative arrangements.

WORLD FOOD DAY

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Today about one billion people in the world either are undernourished or are actually starving, and 150 million people in Africa alone are actually starving. Today, October 16, has been designated as World Food Day by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.

In keeping with this international humanitarian spirit, communities across our province have planned a series of events during the month of October. Practically every country in the world could become agriculturally self-sustaining if, with the encouragement of the first world, the Third World countries gave preference to feeding themselves over exports to the rest of us.

I am happy to report that in my community this is an active day. The Global Community Centre has fostered discussion in all the schools. St. Jerome's High School has a full-day workshop in place and Oxfam sponsored a successful public meeting last night in the Kitchener Public Library.

COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Pollock: On September 26, I wrote to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) about the rumour that Madoc provincial court was closing and requested a meeting with him and Madoc council. I received no response to my letter, and my office called on October 8, October 9 and October 14. They said they would get back to me, but as yet, I have heard nothing. One finds it hard to believe it is cost that is causing the court to close when the interest on Roderick Lewis's severance pay would not only provide some renovations but also bear the cost of keeping the Madoc court open.

14:11

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

CROP INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In rural Ontario, there has probably been more attention devoted to crop insurance this year than there has been for some time because of the extreme weather conditions that farmers have been experiencing this summer and this fall. Crop insurance is a cornerstone of the efforts of the federal and provincial governments to bring farmers financial stability in the face of adverse weather. This is well known to all of us. The program has been in existence for 20 years and has served farmers and the governments well. It has become clear, however, that current economic conditions and shifting farmer demands have placed strains upon it.

Two reviews have been under way internally. The Federal-Provincial Working Group on Disaster Relief, set up by the agricultural ministers of Canada, recommended a number of issues for further study and follow-up.

In Ontario, I established a subcommittee, made up of Crop Insurance Commission of Ontario officials and Ontario Federation of Agriculture and federal government representatives, to review the program and identify issues for further study. Their report, which was submitted on Tuesday, has recommended some items that can be acted upon right away and others that require more input and discussion with commodity groups and other farm organizations.

I have discussed this with federal Minister of Agriculture John Wise and outlined my wishes for a major public review of the program to handle these larger matters. I am pleased to report that Mr. Wise is in agreement with this. The purpose of the program review would be to make recommendations for changes or improvements to the crop insurance program, if required or deemed advisable and desirable. It is our intention to assure the maximum benefit to the largest number of farmers possible through an equitable and actuarially sound insurance program.

Details of the terms of reference, who will be on the review committee and where public meetings will take place will be jointly announced by Mr. Wise and me once they have been worked out.

Mr. Stevenson: Once again today we have a great ministerial statement on crop insurance. I guess it all boils down to three lines on page 2, which say: "The purpose of the program review would be to make recommendations for changes or improvements to the crop insurance program if required or deemed desirable."

We had an announcement in this House in April. We had a reannouncement of the same thing in August, when the minister came under heat and had not done anything. Most of the farm organizations had not even heard of the April announcement, and there had been little input. Here today again, it is mostly nothing.

We are happy, of course, that people will now have a public presentation to make to some review committee. Grower organizations have been making presentations to the minister and the ministry staff ever since he took office, and no changes have been made. Changes he said he was going to make prior to the last election have not been made yet. Anyway, I guess we should be slightly happy that changes will be made if required or deemed desirable.

Mr. Hayes: I am pleased to see the Minister of Agriculture and Food is taking steps to improve the crop insurance program. That is well overdue, and the program does need improvements.

I have to say, though, I am disappointed that at present the minister has indicated he is not prepared to help some of the farmers who have crop damage because of the rain and previous damage caused by the frost and has told farmers they should get crop insurance. According to the farmers I have been speaking to, crop insurance is not doing the job and it has to be improved. Farmers are not getting crop insurance, because it does not work; it does not do the job. I hope the improvements that are necessary will be made very shortly.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to announce that later today I will be introducing a bill that will allow the sale of beer and wine in independent food stores.

Honourable members will recall that during the last election campaign --

Mr. Runciman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have not received copies of the statement at this time.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister intend to have copies sent?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Mr. Speaker, they were supposed to have been distributed.

Mr. Speaker: Have the members received copies? If they have not received copies, I believe the standing orders say they must.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Have the members received copies? Are they on their way? Minister, continue with your statement.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The honourable members will recall that during the last election campaign our party said it would undertake such a measure. As a government, we now are keeping that promise. We believe our action today, as on other occasions, firmly signals our view that Ontario has come of age. We are a mature, vibrant and responsible community and the paternalism of the past must give way. The people of Ontario want to make choices for themselves. The duty of good government is to provide, in a sensible fashion, the opportunity to choose.

Since taking office, this government has advanced step by step towards updating the way Ontario regulates liquor. Still, in moving deliberately yet cautiously forward, we are not taking unnecessary risks. In respect to this legislation, we have only to look around us. Most of our sister provinces have already provided alternative choices in liquor distribution systems.

In the United States, 46 states permit the sale of beer, or beer and wine, in grocery stores. Four of the five states bordering on Ontario -- New York, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota -- allow the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores.

This proposal comes after broad consultation over the past 12 months with consumer groups, the hospitality industry, producers and many other interested organizations and individuals.

With today's introduction of this bill, we are seeking to develop new ways of distributing alcoholic products in Ontario. Our resulting proposal seeks to maintain responsible control over alcohol and to minimize social concerns, while achieving four major goals: (1) to maximize convenience for consumers; (2) to help independent grocers remain competitive; (3) to provide assistance to the domestic wine industry; and (4) to increase the level of competition in liquor distribution and sales.

We have examined the concerns of those opposed to beer and wine in independent grocery stores. We can broaden the scope of liquor distribution without detrimental social consequences. We know it can work because we have seen it working elsewhere.

Before I turn to the details and rationale behind our proposal, I would like to outline the four basic changes we will be advancing.

First, we have decided that beer and wine sales should be extended to independent retail food stores. For this purpose, a retail food store will be considered to be a store where food makes up 51 per cent or more of all sales.

Second, this is a province-wide initiative, but it does accommodate the dry and partially dry municipalities. Further, to accommodate wet municipalities that do not wish to have beer and wine sales in independent food stores, a right-to-refuse clause has been included in our proposal. This will allow individual municipalities, by means of a local council resolution or by a public referendum, to opt out of this initiative.

Third, the products that can be sold will be a selection of Canadian wine, beer, wine coolers and ciders that have an alcohol content of 14.5 per cent or less by volume. Wine must contain at least 70 per cent Canadian grapes.

Fourth, retailers will be required to charge prices that are at least the same as those offered in Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Brewers' Retail outlets. There will be no retail price ceiling.

The people of Ontario live in an era of convenience: convenience stores, convenience foods, convenience banking. Convenience for the consumer was a major objective when we framed this legislation; that and a desire to let a competitive breeze into the process, something that liquor distribution has needed for a long time in this province. After extensive consultation, we have developed legislation that strikes a fair balance between consumer convenience, business interests and social concerns.

Let me address some social issues that have been raised. During our examination of other jurisdictions, we found there is no evidence that an increase in the number of outlets automatically leads to increased consumption and social problems. There is no evidence to suggest that Ontario would be any different.

Direct comparisons between jurisdictions are often difficult to make but none the less, let me state the following. In Quebec, wines were introduced into grocery stores in 1978. There was no dramatic increase in wine consumption. Since 1978, wine consumption in Quebec has actually grown at a slower rate than that in Ontario. In Washington state, wines became widely available in grocery stores in 1969, and yet increases in consumption in the years following the change were comparable to increases in wine consumption in Ontario over the same period.

Officials in Quebec and Washington state have not reported increased incidences of public drunkenness, robberies or break and entries as a result of policy changes. The overall pattern of impaired driving cases in Quebec, where there is the sale of beer and wine in grocery stores, remains similar to that in Ontario.

At the point of sale, the salesperson will be at least 19 years old.

Even for those who argue that an increased number of outlets means increased consumption, let me point out that experts say there are other factors that can affect consumption; these include price, selection and previous levels of availability. Our proposal deals directly with the first two. By not allowing discounts, prices in most food stores will be higher than in LCBO and Brewers' Retail outlets, and our proposal provides for limited selection of brands and sizes.

As far as the third factor, availability, is concerned, the United States National Research Council argued in 1981 that the density of outlets in terms of number and locations in North America likely had little effect on alcohol sales.

I would like to share with the members the way our new policy on wine and beer sales was developed.

Returning to our first concern, the choice of outlets, we agreed that sales should be permitted in independent food stores so they could compete more effectively in the marketplace. We looked to Statistics Canada, which defines independent stores as those with three or fewer outlets under one ownership.

Our second decision reflected our understanding of the diverse communities that make up this province. What is acceptable in one region may simply not be in tune with the values of another. That is why we included a right-to-refuse clause. Municipalities shall have a say in determining whether this liquor policy is implemented in their community. This approach continues the longstanding tradition of maintaining the principle of local option. At the same time, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario will license, regulate and inspect the independent retail food stores which will sell beer and wine.

In addressing our third concern, selection of products, we had to consider a broad range of interests, from the Canadian wine industry to social and health groups. By including specific Canadian content requirements for wines, we can ensure that all products are truly Canadian in origin.

To facilitate the introduction of a new distribution system and to maintain the current policy of encouraging the return of beer containers, we intend to limit sales to domestic beer in six-packs. Wine, ciders and coolers will be sold in the most popular sizes.

As for our pricing policy, by requiring a minimum price equal to that charged by the LCBO and Brewers' Retail, we have met the market demand for convenience while countering any undesirable promotional practices, such as loss-leader pricing, which might increase alcohol consumption.

We will also be consulting with the beer and wine industries, food wholesalers and other industry groups to develop proposals for the distribution system. The consultation process will also include discussion of the many issues that will be dealt with by regulation, including store licensing requirements, security and hours of sale.

In developing this legislation, we were guided by the belief that a reasoned and responsible approach is possible and that we can enhance consumer convenience while remaining sensitive to the concerns of social and health interests, small business, municipalities and the beer and wine industries.

I hope I have been able to demonstrate how this new legislation will strike a fair balance between convenience for consumers and the interests of other groups that make up our province. We have nothing to fear from progressive and responsible change to a system that has remained unchanged for too long.

I ask for the support of this House in bringing liquor distribution in Ontario into the 1980s.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Runciman: In response to the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations dealing with the introduction of beer and wine legislation, I would like to make a few comments with respect to the political gamesmanship we are witnessing today.

The government is introducing the bill in the face of overwhelming municipal opposition to its local option provision. It is doing it during a time of significant public concern over drunk driving and under-age drinking. It is doing it in the full knowledge that our partners in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will never accept an Ontario-wine-only policy. It is doing it when potentially thousands of jobs could be lost as a result of this initiative and when the government stands to lose millions of dollars in revenue. Finally, it is doing it in the full knowledge that the legislation faces certain defeat in this House.

Is this political bravery, foolhardiness or another Liberal ruse? I opt for the latter.

If we were facing a majority government, this legislation would not be here. The government could make this change today through regulation if it truly wanted it. The fact is, it does not want it. It knows it is not workable, much less desirable. This whole exercise is a hoax, pure and simple.

We in this party, unlike the Premier (Mr. Peterson), believe this is an important family issue. It is important when in 1985 more than 400,000 people were challenged in Brewers' Retail stores mainly on the question of age and/or impairment. It is important when evidence in other jurisdictions, such as Michigan, clearly indicates that widespread abuse will occur with respect to minors being sold alcoholic beverages.

It is important when evidence from the Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada indicates the majority of fatal night-time driving accidents involve teenagers who have been drinking. It is important when the Addiction Research Foundation tells us that consumption levels will increase if grocery sales are allowed, and it is important when more than 40,000 people in this province were charged during 1985 with impaired driving.

This is clearly and unequivocally a family issue. The Premier and his public relations machine are not going to be able to gloss it over. The introduction of this bill is irresponsible; it is political gamesmanship and flim-flammery at its worst, and it is the ultimate insult to the voters of this province. This is probably the most antifamily, anti-youth piece of legislation ever to come before this House. I urge the Premier to call a halt to this charade by withdrawing the bill.

Mr. Swart: I want to comment on the statement made by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The introduction of this bill is a sad commentary on the Liberal government of this province. An election promise made flippantly and in haste because polls then showed it was a popular issue is now being forced into this House. The government would have shown a lot more common sense and courage by dropping it.

The minister and the cabinet know it is going to worsen the already serious social problems connected with excessive alcohol consumption, particularly by the young and by heavy drinkers. It is not that there is not plenty of evidence to show those problems will increase; it is simply that the minister rejects it. For the minister and his party to pretend otherwise indicates how much they are out of touch with the citizens and concerned groups in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members there is a limited time for responses. Please allow the member the right to speak.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me an additional few minutes to make up for that time.

An Angus Reid poll taken a year ago shows that 82 per cent of the public believe beer and wine in the grocery store will increase sales to minors, while only five per cent say it will lessen them; 77 per cent believe it will increase sales to the impaired, while only six per cent think it will lessen them; and 70 per cent believe it will increase impaired driving, while only seven per cent think it will reduce it.

Further, the groups that have to deal with alcohol-related problems expect the same kind of results and oppose the proposal. These include the police, the health boards, the Ontario Medical Association, social work groups, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Addiction Research Foundation, the trade union movement, school boards, school principals and so on. Not one social group has come out in support of the proposal by the minister.

The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations may tell all these people they are wrong and he is right, but somehow I, and I think the public, have more faith in those who are dealing with the problem than in a political party that started all this simply to make political points. The minister's proposal is a con job on consumers and other groups in our society.

This is what will happen. Beer prices will rise substantially on average and extensively in remote areas. Ontario will lose the residual GATT protection on the importation of foreign beer, and the flood from south of the border will destroy jobs in our beer industry. As happened in Quebec, the sale will spread to supermarkets, and the gain to the independent stores will be wiped out. Good-paying jobs in Brewers' Warehousing and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario will disappear.

Sales in the stores will not be limited to Ontario wines and beer. The minister's pitch to the grape growers and the wine industry is a sham. He said just five weeks ago: "GATT people are also very concerned about our discriminatory policy with European wines. They have already put us on notice that if we were to put beer and wine in the corner stores and exclude them, this would in fact be the straw that breaks the camel's back and they would really ask for sanctions against us."

The minister is inviting these sanctions. He knows all these points, but he is simply trying to fool the public. This bill is a can of worms, both politically and socially. For our part in this party we will do everything we can to stop this foolish and dangerous move.

14:37

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Grossman: My question today is not for a member of the overworked A team nor for the B team. We thought we would go for the C team this afternoon. My question, therefore, is to the Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and the Islands. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) can send him a note, if he wishes, before the minister attempts to answer.

The police chiefs of Ontario have spoken out loud and strong against any suggestion that beer and wine be put into the corner stores, fearing the social unrest that may well result. Does the Solicitor General agree with the police chiefs of Ontario, and has he represented their position in cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I do not take a position as Solicitor General or as a member of that C team -- careful, cautious, courageous; whatever the member wants to term it -- ever to attempt to endorse the stand of the police chiefs. I respect the position they take, as I do the position taken by any member of this House, but I have my own position on the issue. I am quite prepared to support the bill that has been brought before this House.

The members opposite may wish to be against the bill; so be it. I have had sufficient experience in the municipal field and in looking at other municipalities, provinces and states where this up-to-date and rather modern innovation has taken place. There is no proof to justify the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) that we are in for great social unrest and turmoil that will hit all of society.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the Solicitor General --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

Mr. Grossman: The question is, does the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) support it today, as he did three weeks ago, or does he oppose it today, as he did three weeks ago?

Apparently, the Solicitor General does not support the police chiefs of Ontario, whose voice he ought to be in the cabinet of Ontario. May I cite for him the federal statistics? They indicated that in 1985 the impaired-driving-related accidents for young people between the ages of 16 and 19 accounted for 23 per cent of all fatalities. Of 1,000 people killed in traffic accidents, 50 per cent were impaired, and 20 per cent of all those killed in drunk-driving accidents were 19 years of age or younger.

Given that evidence, is the Solicitor General prepared to support the police chiefs of Ontario and say to his colleagues that additional fatalities because of young people drinking and driving is an unacceptable price to pay to honour an election promise?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The question is enforcement of our laws, just as our policemen have supported wholeheartedly the "strict is fair" campaign on our provincial highways, which has reduced substantially the number of accidents in this province. If the honourable member looks at the statistics for this past holiday compared to those of a year ago, there were 84 deaths under the previous administration. These are down to 29 this year by giving our people the right support.

As the police chiefs have said to me, "We feel free to offer you our opinion, but being the good civil servants we are, we will support whatever rules are brought in by the government."

Mr. Grossman: I have no question about the dedication of the police chiefs of Ontario and the fact that they will try to reduce the awful impact this legislation will have.

Contrary to the complaints and suggestions of the minister's boss, the Attorney General, it was found in Quebec that after the passage of Bill 21, the number of drunk-driving offences increased by 46.9 per cent in the northwest region and by 26 per cent in the New Quebec region. Given those statistics, which show provably that there was more impaired driving after beer and wine were introduced in the corner stores in Quebec than before, is the Solicitor General prepared to suggest to his colleagues that they rethink this position?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: We cannot compare the statistics of Quebec with those of Ontario, just as there are many other things we cannot compare.

Mr. Grossman: We just did.

Mr. McClellan: Somebody is not telling the truth. Which one is telling the truth?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Be careful. The A team kneecaps the C team when they disagree, as the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) will tell the member.

RETIREMENT OF CLERK

Mr. Grossman: My next question is for the Premier. He has reminded the House in the past couple of days that he wants to be very cautious in responding to the taxpayers' concern about the $2-million gift given to the former Clerk and therefore will not respond to any suggestion that perhaps the Premier might have removed him from office because of lack of competence. Therefore, I want to make the Premier's job easy this afternoon and give him an opportunity to defend the integrity and reputation of the former Clerk. Will the Premier agree with me in an unqualified way that the former Clerk is today capable and competent to serve as Clerk of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I always get nervous when my honourable friend asks me to agree with him in an unqualified way because he is trying to set something up. I can understand his being cranky after his experience in Owen Sound yesterday. The member should not be upset. I had one of those in Kenora. My honourable friend will remember. Those are the joys of being -- in fairness, I was charging only $7 in Kenora. Anyway, he was the only one who showed up.

I am not going to get involved in a discussion in this House of the Clerk's personality or his attributes. I have said to the member on several other occasions, and I will keep repeating it if he likes, that we felt it was time for a change. We have made the changes we felt were necessary, just as we have made many other changes in this House.

Mr. Grossman: I should correct the Premier's impression. I was not in Owen Sound last night. I was in Sarnia where 120 very agitated and angry doctors turned up to protest the treatment his government afforded them. Once again, his briefing is wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary question.

Mr. Grossman: I was there to try to sort out for them who is the Minister of Health, and there were four answers available to them.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier should make a note to fire that highly paid, $57,000-a-year staffer who gave him that wrong information.

If he believes it was wrong to give the Clerk the security of a lifetime appointment, in passing the order in council to appoint the new Clerk, why did the government again give a lifetime appointment?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member is wrong again, but I can understand his being upset that 120 agitated and angry people were after him last night. Wherever he goes, he makes people agitated and angry.

That is not the case. The order in council was passed subject to changes in the Legislative Assembly Act affecting that position. It is something we discussed in cabinet and it will never happen again. We have looked after it. We have anticipated the problems in the future, and I am sure we will not have any that we cannot deal with.

Our problem is that we are trying to clean up an act that the former government passed in 1974 giving a 63-year-old man lifetime employment. That is the situation we had to deal with. Surely, in all candour, the member has to stand up and recognize that he and his colleagues caused the problem and not us.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier has raised the 1974 appointment. I want to read for him what the spokesperson of his party at the time, Jim Breithaupt, said in speaking to the amendment. He left, but he did not get the kind of severance package from us that they give people when they get rid of them. I want to read --

Hon. Mr. Scott: Tory lifetime appointment.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney-General should be careful. We will ask him about abortions if he is a bad boy this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Breithaupt said, and I quote directly from Hansard: "The terms which are set out as proposed in the amendments are most satisfactory. Surely this office should be filled, clearly during the good behaviour of the incumbent person, and also the removal of that person should not be on any capricious basis, but rather on the address to the assembly," etc.

So much for the position of the Liberal Party when it comes to the lifetime contract that it paid $2 million to try to get out of.

14:50

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: I have the order in council hiring the new Clerk. It says he will be appointed Clerk of the Legislative Assembly at pleasure, subject to any amendment subsequently enacted by the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: In essence, you hired him --

Interjection.

Mr. Grossman: Do not take advice from him. The last time, it cost the taxpayers $2 million.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a supplementary or not? It has taken two minutes so far.

Mr. Grossman: Is it not accurate to say that the government fired the former Clerk and then tried to negotiate the terms of his severance, just as it hired the new Clerk, at pleasure, for life, and is once again going to discuss the terms of that employment later, as per the order in council?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Conservative party participated in the choice of a new Clerk. We have gone through this many times and we can keep on doing it. I do not agree with the member.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I want to ask the Premier about some of those doctors the leader of the Conservative party has been talking to. Does the Premier care to comment on the fact that Mrs. Gertrude Goltz, a senior citizen and pensioner living in Capreol, which the Premier will know is near Sudbury, was billed $25 by her ophthalmologist to write a letter of referral for treatment by a Toronto doctor? In addition, this doctor charged her $10 to complete the northern travel form.

Mrs. Goltz is a pensioner. We have a basic law of the province which we have put in place with respect to Bill 94, an end to extra billing. Northerners have a basic right to apply for treatment in southern Ontario. We have here a case of a doctor who is charging a $35 fee to a senior citizen to get treatment in Toronto.

What is the Premier going to do to stop this erosion of universal medicare and to stop this intrusion of tin-cup medicine back into the medicare system after Bill 94?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the honourable member bringing that example to my attention. The member will be aware that there have been others. We are most anxious to have a system that does not present those kinds of barriers, particularly in the type of example he raised, although I am not specifically familiar with that example.

There are others that are being investigated under the system. Some services are insured and some are not insured. I cannot tell specifically how it relates to the member's example, but I will ask the Minister of Health to gather up the information pertaining to that case and others, and I will be back to him on the details.

Mr. Rae: I hope the Premier has more success with his minister than my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has had. He wrote to the minister on August 18 asking for an answer with respect to Mrs. Goltz's situation.

In Toronto today, obstetricians are charging upwards of $150 as a "standby" fee for women who are pregnant. Is the Premier aware of that situation facing women in this city and, indeed, across the province, and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not aware of that case, although particulars of other types of cases have come to my attention. I have read about them in the newspapers. It is something the ministry is looking at. It is impossible to tell the extent of that kind of practice, but it is obviously something that concerns this government.

I am sorry that I am not in a position to give a definitive answer to the question the member has raised today, but it is something we will monitor very closely.

Mr. Rae: That is precisely the same answer the Premier and the Minister of Health gave us last spring when, after we passed Bill 94, we began to raise the issues which emerged very quickly. The Premier has been standing by and doing nothing while many in the medical profession have devised a strategy to get around the whole propose and thrust of Bill 94.

Will the Premier comment on the following editorial view expressed in the August issue of the Ontario Medical Review:

"With the implementation of the Health Care Accessibility Act, new interest has been shown in charging for services which have been provided gratuitously. For the opted-out physician, it is the only legal means of improving income to meet the added expense of opted-out practice. For the opted-in physician, it is a legitimate method of introducing private funding into a health care system otherwise totally controlled by government."

The Premier has spoken on many occasions about the need to inject private funding into health care. I wonder whether he is aware of the way in which his word and the policy of his government are being taken advantage of by the official view of the Ontario Medical Association?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is no secret that the official views of the OMA and the government differ on a wide variety of matters. I cannot speak about why they publish certain things in their editorials, but I am not surprised. I have not read that particular one.

As the honourable member knows, we have a different view. He will recall that last spring we went through an extremely difficult discussion with the doctors. I know his view on these situations. We are not interested in exacerbating the difficulties that were outstanding between the government and the medical profession. We were not interested in legislating for the sake of legislating.

I can assure him that the examples he brings today to my attention and to the minister's will be taken seriously. I will discuss it with the minister. I do not have a remedy. If he is asking me for a new piece of legislation or something of that order, I do not have that in mind at the moment, but I will certainly try to examine the extent of that kind of practice so that we have a clear handle on it. I thank him for bringing it to my attention.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Treasurer a question. The leader of the Conservative party (Mr. Grossman), the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) and I attended a very lively and rousing rally. It was not only a reception for Dr. Polanyi, but it was also a clarion call for recognition of the disease of underfunding which has hit our university system. The Minister of Colleges and Universities made a special point of emphasizing that he was going to be speaking to the policy and priorities board of cabinet this afternoon with respect to the problem of underfunding.

I would like to ask the Treasurer the precise position of the government. Is it the Treasurer's intention to recognize the need for increasing the national average by an injection of $170 million more; is it the Treasurer's intention to meet the national average calculated on the basis of ratio of population/university funding by increasing funding by $233 million, or is it the Treasurer's intention to reach the national average calculated per thousand dollars of personal income and inject an additional $450 million? Which of the three options, which no doubt the Minister of Colleges and Universities will be putting to the Treasurer, does he intend to follow to ensure that our universities are no longer underfunded?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I intend to be at that meeting this afternoon. I certainly hope to be there and to hear what the honourable minister has to say. We discuss these matters and others on a continuing basis. The honourable member will know the allocation of provincial funding for the coming year is an important and time-consuming operation with many important discussions.

The honourable member will also know that the underfunding of universities has a long history in this province. We tried to reverse that by establishing a funding level last year at eight per cent, double the level of inflation, and on top of that, by providing an additional $46 million for capital purposes.

I am not at all prepared to argue with the honourable member as to the sufficiency of that funding, but at least it is an indication we are living up to our election commitment and placing a priority on post-secondary funding. He will be aware that an additional $60 million -- above and beyond the substantial increase for colleges that was contained in the budget a year ago -- was allocated to the colleges.

I am not at all embarrassed and certainly not ashamed of this particular commitment, nor do I argue with the presidents and the students, a group of whom have been lobbying in front of the Legislature during the past few minutes. I do not object to their indicating that more is needed. I am not responding in detail to what the honourable member has put to me, because these matters are under discussion, but I have indicated that the transfers will be at least at the level of inflation and, we hope, higher, and that the announcement will be made by November 1.

15:00

Mr. Rae: I only wish that the Treasurer and other members of the cabinet could have listened to the words of Dr. Polanyi, who has no particular political axe to grind. He said, and I think I am quoting him fairly accurately from memory, that in terms of finances, the situation is not simply serious; it is desperate. He was speaking, as the Treasurer will know, as the most recent recipient of the Nobel Prize in Canada, someone to whom we paid great tribute in this Legislature yesterday.

If it is the Treasurer's intention simply to match inflation, does he not realize this will do nothing to meet the disgraceful fact that Ontario is, depending on one's calculations, either ninth out of 10 or 10th out of 10 in terms of national average and that, however one calculates that average, there is a need for the injection of at least an additional $170 million over and above inflation to meet the needs of our university system? Is the Treasurer not aware of that, and what does he intend to do to meet that?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Dr. Polanyi was able to express his views at that important meeting. I am also delighted he was able to carry on his work at the University of Toronto, which is, I think, with perhaps one exception, the best university in Canada.

As far as its funding is concerned, we hope to make it clear to the member and others that we are not simply funding at the inflation rate, except for operations. I already indicated that at eight per cent we were at double the inflation rate this past year, plus there was a substantial infusion of additional capital. I also indicated that these discussions are ongoing. The presidents in particular, along with the students, have given us the benefit of their strongly held views in this regard.

The member and others will remember this was a substantial issue in the election 18 months ago. We established then the priority of postsecondary funding. I have already indicated that we have begun in a positive way to move Ontario out of the statistical morass the member referred to.

Mr. Rae: The situation in which the universities find themselves is one that any reasonable observer would have to agree is critical. I wonder whether the Treasurer is aware that state systems in the United States, with which Ontario is competing in terms of attracting the best students, graduate students, research and professors, and which are publicly funded -- I am thinking of large states such as Michigan, California, Ohio and Illinois -- have all substantially increased their funding during the past five years in a way that has no parallel whatsoever in Ontario? Theirs has gone up substantially while ours, as the Treasurer knows, has been cut in real terms, in relation to inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: Does the Treasurer not realize that if his government strategy for high tech is serious, real and not just a matter of rhetoric, and that if his commitment to democracy is real -- and I know it must be -- it means a recognition that using inflation as the base upon which to judge funding is no longer adequate? We have to look at a desperate situation and meet it by additional funds. Does the Treasurer not recognize that fact?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I certainly am aware of the statistics from the various states. Their funding on a per capita basis is richer than ours. That is certain.

The honourable member also referred to the commitment to the promotion of technology in the province, and the Premier's special committee is looking after additional funding of $1 billion during the next 10 years, with $100 million this year and each subsequent year. Of that fund, $15 million is specifically committed to the university. Those funds will be payable this year.

I am not denying for a moment that the situation we inherited was abominable. We are moving to correct it, unfortunately not as fast as the member or even anyone on this side wishes, but we have accepted it as a priority, and I hope the announcements made later in the year will at least be acceptable to any objective observer that we are moving in that direction.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have finally got to the point where we can allow members other than the leaders to ask questions. Please allow other members to do that. The member for Sudbury.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. During the summer, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) toured northern Ontario, and he said to northerners: "Tell us what you want when it comes to jobs. Give us the initiatives, so we can act on them." The forest workers, the mining workers and the steelworkers in the Sault want jobs that ordinary people can do. Can the minister tell us what programs he has in place that will provide northerners -- ordinary working people -- with jobs?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I do not know whether the honourable member was here yesterday, but a similar question was asked by one of the Conservative members. In answer, I stated that several moves had been made by this government, more moves over the past few months than ever were made during the 42 years of Conservative rule.

Once again, I would be very pleased to mention such things as where we have moved divisions or whole ministries to the north. We have held conferences, and intend to hold further conferences in the north, to get advice from the people of the north as to what we should be doing.

As far as the Northern Ontario Development Corp. is concerned, during 1985-86 we put in $25.4 million, which should create 2,806 jobs over the next few years. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) has told me he has recently put in more than $4 million. We have been making a lot of moves in the north to help create jobs.

Mr. Gordon: We recognize that the minister is interested in giving northerners minimum-wage jobs; that has been his policy for some time now. However, the minister surely realizes that northern workers want to share in the future prosperity of the southern part of this province.

Is the minister prepared to bring forward a program that would encourage the parts manufacturers from southeast Asia that are going to be moving into this province to locate in some of the major centres in northern Ontario? Will the minister bring forward incentives for this and bring forward a program in which ordinary working people can play a part?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: One of things that is constantly mentioned to any of these people who are considering locating in Ontario is that we are trying to put as much industry as we possibly can into two neglected areas: northern and eastern Ontario. Our discussions always centre on that. We make sure that any industries coming into the province are made aware of the communities in the north and the desire for jobs in that area.

SUNDAY RACING

Ms. Bryden: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This week, the Ontario Racing Commission was dealing with an application from the Ontario Jockey Club to be allowed to end the 125-year tradition of no Sunday racing at Greenwood Race Track in my riding. The commission ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the impact of this application on the neighbouring residents, traffic and transit patterns, local churches, local merchants and access to the whole community for the many recreational opportunities in the Beaches.

This interpretation of their mandate means local residents do not have any tribunal to which they can apply for protection of their traditional enjoyment of their properties with their friends and relatives on Sundays. Will the minister therefore consider amending the Racing Commission Act, if necessary, to ensure that the rights and needs of the community which shares its neighbourhood with this huge sports complex are considered and protected?

15:10

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The matter the member addresses is one that is currently before the commission. The Ontario Racing Commission has jurisdiction over racing matters only. There is another tribunal to which the citizens can apply; that is, the city council. The Ontario Racing Commission is structured to deal with racing matters. Matters dealing with parking, noise and congestion in the streets are not in its jurisdiction. It was told that, which is where the matter sits.

Ms. Bryden: Since all members of the present Ontario Racing Commission are connected with the horse-racing industry and would appear to have a conflict of interest if it were asked to consider this question, will the minister set up an independent provincial tribunal to which the residents might apply for consideration of their interests, since the municipality does not have the power to deal with all their complaints or the effect on the whole community? There must be full opportunities for public hearings.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Under city bylaws and zoning bylaws, city councils designate whether there can or cannot be a racetrack. When a racetrack is prescribed for an area, citizens have a chance to make representation to their elected officials to say why they want it or why they do not want it.

That racetrack is there, and all that is happening is that the Ontario Jockey Club has made an application to race on Sunday, as is common everywhere else in Ontario. The only jurisdiction the racing commission has is whether it wants to grant them those dates; it does not have jurisdiction in other areas. It was told that at the hearing by a lawyer, and the group that appeared before it was told that.

I sympathize with the problem of the people in the area; however, the racing commission is not empowered to deal with it. They have to take another route, and they have to get legal advice about how to do it.

RETIREMENT SAVINGS

Mr. Callahan: I have a question of the Treasurer. Recently, the federal Minister of Finance announced an increase in the pension deductions that self-employed individuals can use; he brought it from $5,500 to $7,500. Is the Treasurer aware of whether there will be a similar increase for those who are not self-employed? If so, when will it be taking place?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That announcement was made when I was travelling abroad. However, as I recall it, the availability for registered retirement savings plans will be across the board, for high incomes and low incomes. It is so complicated that the federal department is going to give a written statement to each individual indicating how much room is left after pension contributions to go into an RRSP.

I had the impression it would favour the high end of the income system more than the low end, and I had a natural concern that once again the government of Canada was responding to the high-income people in this regard. I was also concerned that, since we are worrying about tax reform, we will be having a meeting of the treasurers and the Minister of Finance about tax reform. I wish he had left that alone for a little while until we could have integrated it with a more acceptable approach right across the board.

SALE OF PATENTED LAND

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will be aware that 117 acres of mining claims were patented to a Mr. Fulton in the township of Drury and Trill in 1936 and 1941 at a cost of $374. Falconbridge Ltd. purchased those properties and has paid 50 cents a year in tax on 117 acres. Since the land was patented for mining purposes, why did the ministry give approval to Falconbridge to subdivide this property into cottage properties?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I cannot recall the exchange in 1936 and 1941, but I will definitely look into it.

Mr. Martel: The minister has already responded to me in a letter; so maybe I will ask another supplementary.

The land in question was purchased for $3 an acre, and the tax paid on it over 40 years was 50 cents an acre. Falconbridge is selling the property at $10,000 to $15,000 a lot, two lots per acre, $20,000 to $30,000. Falconbridge is both vendor and mortgagor and has instructed the cottage owners to get off by the end of December.

Does the minister not realize that the land Falconbridge is selling is priced at least 5,000 times per acre what it paid for it? Does the minister not understand that the purchase price and tax rate were based on mining patents and have not been charged at the appropriate price for cottage land? What kind of ripoff and what kind of benefit is the minister giving to his friend Jesse James and Falconbridge?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Again, I promise the member I will get back to him personally within 24 hours with an answer to all his questions.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Hennessy: I intended to ask my question of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), but I understand he left when he learned I was going to ask the question; so I will refer it to the Deputy Premier.

The government's fire sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. has resulted in 50 layoffs in Kingston and approximately 15 in Thunder Bay since the deal closed in September. The Deputy Premier may also be aware of reports that the health benefit packages for nonunionized workers in Thunder Bay have been cut and that unionized workers are worried they too will lose some of their benefits.

Will the Deputy Premier assure this House that job guarantees, as worked out by the province and Lavalin, will be honoured so that the workers of Thunder Bay and Kingston will not be forced to pay the price of government mismanagement?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: May I refer the question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton).

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I assure the member for Fort William that there have been no new layoffs. Any temporary adjustment in staff is that which we and the participating companies announced some time ago. There have been no additional layoffs. Obviously, some adjustments are taking place; there is some movement back and forth between Thunder Bay and Kingston.

I am not aware that anyone is being disbenefited in any way, shape or form in terms of the medical benefits and pensions and so on that the member referred to. However, I will take it upon myself to investigate further, and if there is anything to be reported, I will do so.

Mr. Gregory: I too regret that the Premier is not here. In view of the concerns that have been expressed regarding UTDC, will the minister table in the House all the documents and papers concerning the finalized terms of agreement between Lavalin and the province, and will he do it immediately?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thought that had been done with the proper committee. If it has not been done, of course it will be done.

NURSING HOME DEATHS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Health and is with regard to the Ellenvale Acres Nursing Home, rural route 3, Perth. The minister is probably aware, in that his ministry is investigating, that in the five weeks between July 28 to August 31 three young residents died in that institution -- one 12-year-old, one 20-year-old and one 22-year-old. Can the minister tell us what is the status of his investigation and whether we are going to see any inquests into these deaths?

15:20

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot tell the member whether there will be an inquest, but I will check and get back to him. As the member knows, that is the prerogative of the coroner. I will update him on the status of our investigation as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The reason it is important that the minister involve himself is that, as he is probably aware, the coroner suggested initially that the 12-year-old died of sudden infant death syndrome; that the 20-year-old died of a bowel obstruction and perforation, even though there was no other symptomatology except for a high temperature, and that the other person returned from hospital perhaps rather prematurely and died of a pulmonary oedema.

Is the minister aware that all of these deaths took place on weekends and that there is a major question here of preventability?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I suspect the question of preventability would be on the mind of the coroner. I leave it to his discretion as to whether to examine those matters further.

If the member is suggesting that there were some deficiencies in the care provided, he ought to make those allegations known to me. I will check them further. I will provide him with an update of the investigations as they are provided by my ministry.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Under present legislation, approximately two thirds of lottery profits are approved for health-related projects: cancer research, homes for the aged, etc. Why then has the government over the past four months sent a message of fear into the pocketbooks of every organized fitness, recreation, sports, cultural and municipal association in Ontario by way of Bill 38?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There is no message of fear. The people of Ontario know that in the last year there has been more funding provided to the sports, recreation and cultural associations than there has been for many years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will just wait.

Mr. Rowe: If there is no fear, then there is either no mail to the minister's office or he does not read -- one or the other.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the supplementary?

Mr. Rowe: If there is no intention on the part of either the minister or the government to reduce the funds available to recreation, fitness, sports and cultural programs, etc., then why is the government going to remove the designation as protected by law in section 9 of the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act with the intended Bill 38?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Let us remove the fear and set the record straight. While the previous government did not change the designation, remember that it froze the capital construction program in 1983 and there has not been a program since. We have made $15 million available to that program.

It made $3.4 million available for a capital conservation program. Under our Premier (Mr. Peterson) and our Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), we made $10 million available. We tripled the budget. There is no fear whatsoever; the people know that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I will just wait. Order. I am not going to recognize anyone until there is order.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology about the continued devastating loss of jobs across northern Ontario, in the industrial sector in particular.

Losses continue across the north: Algoma Steel in the Sault; Kimberly-Clark in Terrace Bay; Great Lakes Forest Products in Thunder Bay; Kidd Creek Mines in Timmins, and now most recently we hear about Falconbridge nickel laying off hundreds of employees in Sudbury. Where are we getting the new jobs?

Given the minister's comment earlier today that he is placing more emphasis on putting industry into northern Ontario, can he give us one example of where his government has done anything to get an industrial enterprise either to locate in the north or to expand its operation in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I thank the member for the question, because it is not only a concern for his party and the Conservative party, it is also very much a concern for us. We are very disappointed in the job creation in the north. We are disappointed at the large number of jobs lost.

As I mentioned to the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) the other day and the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) today, we are attempting to do whatever we can to assist with that. I would be very pleased to send to the member, if he would like, a list of where we have contributed to the Northern Ontario Development Corp. to create jobs there. I would also be happy to supply him with a list of the tourism projects we have. I would be very pleased to supply him with a list of the new ventures program whereby we have started new businesses.

There are some programs, but we are not happy with the job losses and the job situation in the north.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I will reiterate what northern Ontarians feel. They are not happy either with what has gone on. The concern is that, for the kinds of real industrial jobs we need in the north in forest products, in the mining sector and in secondary manufacturing related to the kinds of industries that make sense for the north, we have not seen any initiatives from this government that have resulted in any new jobs in any of those sectors.

When is the government going to take some specific action to ensure that we get some industry in northern Ontario, not just the kind of tourism jobs and civil servants' positions we have heard about so far?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat? I gather the members do not want an answer.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, a question he refused to answer yesterday. We are about to have an announcement out of Washington with respect to the countervail duty. The minister's answer yesterday showed that he understands neither the history of the matter nor the seriousness of it for the workers of northern Ontario.

During the last countervail duty application in the United States, a minister of the former government went to Washington four times. He met with Senator Cohen of Maine and Senator Packwood of Oregon. He met with the staff of the International Trade Commission, with Secretary Baldrige and with officials down there and worked with the federal government to establish Ontario's unique interests and position.

What has this minister done during the past four months to protect Ontario's interests, Ontario's industries and Ontario trade in the face of this kind of duty application?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the honourable member is likely aware, we are expecting an announcement some time later this afternoon on the countervail duties. I will tell him that we on this side of the House have been very active. Not only have we been meeting with the federal minister, but we have also been meeting with the provincial ministers of trade and natural resources, both myself and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio). Even yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources travelled to Quebec to meet with his counterparts, and we are awaiting the news this afternoon just to see what the answer is.

Mr. Pope: I am sorry, but the hearing is in Washington. It is not in Quebec City and it is not in Ottawa; it is in Washington. Where has he been for the last four months while Canadian and Ontario jobs were at stake? Why was he not down there fighting for Ontario's interests instead of having his silly meetings in Ottawa? Who spoke for Ontario during the last four months?

Interjections.

15:30

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am finding it very difficult on both ears.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned, we feel negotiations such as this should be handled by Pat Carney in Ottawa. We have given our input on a daily basis. Our officials have been working very closely with her and we feel we have had a lot of input.

Mr. Davis: We will remember that.

Mr. Pope: That is ridiculous. Silly.

Interjections.

Mr. Andrewes: Is that the way they feel on environmental issues?

Mr. Speaker: Order. What is wrong with the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes)?

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister will remember that in the fall of 1985 when the bill I presented providing for the general election of the regional chairman passed this House in private members' hour, he indicated it would be coming back to the Legislature. When I asked that question again in the spring session, he reiterated that it would be coming back to the Legislature for further consideration. I wonder whether I can put the same question to him now. When will that piece of legislation be coming back to us in this Legislature so we may pass on that, a matter that has the unanimous support of the people in our region?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The member is quite right. Our legislative agenda was limited in the last session, but I intend to introduce it as soon as the agenda permits. The legislation is all ready to go.

Mr. Allen: I wonder whether the minister can be a little bit more specific. As the regional chairman of Hamilton-Wentworth indicated on Metro Morning a week ago, there is a solid position with regard to that whole issue in our region. Council, both regional and the city, and the public have supported this issue in a petition. There is no question it is urgently desired and needs to be resolved very soon for our region.

When the minister brings this back to the House -- and I hope he will give us a clear date on that question -- will he be urging his fellow caucus members to support it in this Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I can assure the honourable member that the caucus will support me on that one. I would like to remind him that this is not new. The legislation he is referring to has been pending for the past six years. Five or six weeks will not do any more damage. I intend to bring it back to this House with the support of caucus.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It comes from the Liberal manifesto of April 16, 1985, a new spiel for Ontario farmers. Plank 11 promises to amend the crop insurance program to allow the establishment of an insurance scheme whereby those farmers who have crops planted over several parcels of land can buy separate coverage for each parcel. That would have been very useful this summer and would have saved the minister and his government a lot of sweat. When can we expect that item in the crop insurance program for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That will be part of the study to be made by the committee whose establishment I announced today. I think the honourable member does not understand that crop insurance is a federal program and comes under federal legislation. This minister and this government do not have the authority to make major changes to the crop insurance program without the blessing of the federal government. That is the reason this committee has been set up with federal representation. If I can get the co-operation of my counterpart in Ottawa, we hope to move ahead expeditiously with the study and the review this committee will be making. I can assure the member that one of the things it will be looking at is separate farm coverage.

Mr. Stevenson: Is the minister telling me today that when he wrote this as one of the promises for Ontario's farmers, and one that would certainly be favourably received, he had done no research on his authority to make this promise, he did not have any idea of the cost of that promise and had not done any consultation with anyone looking at the cost-effectiveness of that promise? He just put it out there point blank with no thought of whether it would be acceptable or anything else relating to the crop insurance claims?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I guess that when this was written there was every anticipation that there would be a federal Liberal government restored in Ottawa and that we would have the cooperation of the federal government in order to make the changes we felt necessary to the crop insurance program. However, that is not the case. I have to say we have not been getting to this time the kind of co-operation I had hoped we might get, but I have a great deal of respect for my counterpart in Ottawa, John Wise, who, I think, is trying to do a job but has a lot of bull-headed cabinet ministers with whom he has to deal. I am sure we can expect some changes to the crop insurance program, and those changes within my authority to make I shall make; otherwise we will have to wait to see whether we can get the blessing of the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I ask permission of the House to revert to statements. I have a very important statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope we can finish the last question.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

Mr. Grande: I have a question of the Treasurer. It is in regard to Bill 38, An Act to amend the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act, otherwise known as a raid on earmarked funds. We understand the Treasurer does not intend to call Bill 38; however, he has not withdrawn the bill. Can he make a commitment today to the arts organizations, municipalities and recreational and sports organizations, which are extremely upset with the bill, that he will withdraw this bill and rededicate his government to the support of growth in culture in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Like the member for Oakwood, I am totally dedicated to the growth and support of culture in Ontario. I did indicate to the New Democratic Party House leader that I did not intend to proceed with the bill at this time. I was interested that this was followed by a very strong statement from the budget critic of the NDP saying the NDP was unalterably opposed to the bill and would not vote for it. I thought there was a certain consistency in the way the party developed policy in this regard; that is, it knew at least that when the horse was lying down, it was all right to give it a kick.

Mr. Foulds: Only the rear end of the horse was lying down.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a kick in the head.

Mr. Foulds: Boy, is he going to get kicked this afternoon. Stick around, friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to say also that the legislation is not necessary if we continue to do what the previous administration did, that is, not to spend specifically for cultural matters the money that came from the two designated lotteries. There is still in the funds of the province a sort of nominal surplus with that designation.

My own view, and I expressed it in the budget, is that while this party and the government are totally committed to continuing and improving the financial support for culture and recreation, which the honourable minister indicated in his previous answer that we have done -- even without the change in designation, we have spent far more in the past two years than the previous government did -- we want also to have the freedom to use those funds for cancer hospitals and a wide range of other programs. I still feel it is the thing that should be done.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for oral questions has expired. I understand there is a request from the Minister of Energy and Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to make a statement. Is it the wish of the House?

Mr. Harris: There are two things. I would like to know whether the Minister of Natural Resources or the Minister of Energy is making the statement.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources wishes to make a statement.

Mr. Harris: We would agree to revert if we could agree that the opposition parties would have two minutes each to respond.

Mr. Speaker: Is it agreed that the minister may make a statement with up to three minutes for the opposition?

Agreed to.

15:41

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We do not have copies and it will be brief, but we will share any information we have on this important issue of the countervail, on which the decision has just come down.

I would like to report to the House that on the imposition of countervailing duties on Canadian softwood lumber, the US Department of Commerce has made a preliminary determination that there is a subsidy of 15 per cent on Canadian softwood lumber exports. They had requested some 37 per cent, and the number that has been handed down is 15 per cent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members requested time following the statement to respond.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The members could do it one at a time with some kind of order over there. The fact is that some 37 per cent was requested and 15 per cent came down. It is subject to appeal, and we are prepared to share all the information with the critics or whoever in the parties is interested.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Quite a bit was done.

Mr. Bernier: Listening to the comment of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), very little was done by this government to work against the 15 per cent tariff that has been applied today, and this government stands condemned for its effort in this regard. I say that very sincerely on behalf of all the sawmill operators in northern Ontario.

If 37 per cent had been applied, we would have lost about 3,000 or 4,000 jobs. With 15 per cent, I guarantee that 1,000 jobs are lost in northern Ontario as of today because of the government's inaction and indifference to this problem, which has been around for the past four months.

My colleague the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) has indicated to the House that the government has done nothing about it. The government members are sitting there mum, happy that it is not 37 per cent and that it is only 15 per cent. They are taking some joy in that. We in northern Ontario are not taking any joy at all, and the government stands condemned for its inaction.

Mr. Pope: This is a sad day for northerners. Many workers will lose their jobs in northern Ontario because of what this government did not do. Many families will be without wage earners because of what this government did not do. Many single-resource communities will be without their basic resource industry because of what this government failed to do.

As previous governments fought for Ontario's interests in Washington, alone and in concert with other provinces and in communication with the federal government, as previous Ontario governments have stood up for Ontario's unique interests as opposed to British Columbia's and Quebec's, as previous governments have recognized that Ontario does not subsidize its industries whereas the other provinces do, and as previous governments stood and fought down in Washington where it counted for the workers in the sawmill industry, the bush workers in community after community in northern Ontario, this government did nothing.

This government has not put a single laid-off resource worker back to work since it took office. It sat there and allowed unemployment to rise to 11.3 per cent. It sat there and saw unemployment rates in community after community in northern Ontario soar to 15, 16 and 17 per cent. It sat there and did nothing while the countervailing duty action was being heard in the United States. This government is a disgrace to all of northern Ontario, it is a disgrace to every single northerner and, by God, it will pay the price in the next couple of weeks for this.

Mr. Rae: The fundamental fact is that the Canadian government, together with the Ontario government --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) stop?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: All right. If you are finished, I will ask the Clerk to reset the clock.

Mr. Rae: The sad fact of this matter is that the Premier of British Columbia, the government of Canada and the government of Ontario all agreed on a strategy that most observers feel has been a disaster for the people of this country. By conceding the point that a 10 per cent solution would be acceptable to Canadians, the government cut itself off at the knees when it came to making a real case in Washington.

It is a slap in the face to those in the Tory party and those in the Liberal Party who have joined together and argued in favour of a free trade strategy and free trade negotiations with the US. It makes a mockery of every serious observation with respect to our relationship to the US for this government to have joined with the federal Tory party in a strategy that says, "We will give you 10 per cent, anyway," and the minister stands up and says, "Fifteen per cent is not so bad."

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I did not say that at all.

Mr. Rae: Yes, that is exactly what he said. He implied that Canadians should be grateful it is only 15 per cent. That kind of on-your-knees strategy is what got us into this position in the fast place, and that is precisely why 15,000 jobs across Canada and thousands in the north are at risk, because of his callous and ineffective management of the economy and his ineptitude in the discussions with the US.

Mr. Wildman: The reaction to this issue by the members of this House, particularly those on that side, indicates their lack of understanding of the problems and needs of the north.

This is not a BC issue; it is a northern Ontario issue. There are 7,000 jobs in northern Ontario directly dependent on the sawmill industry, and this kind of decision will take thousands of those jobs and transfer them to the US. Many small sawmills in northern Ontario are selling 85 per cent of their product in the US. That will be curtailed severely by this kind of decision.

This government supported the federal government in saying to the Americans: "Yes, we do not charge enough. Yes, the American industry has an argument. Yes, there should be an increase in the tax on the Canadian product." This government is responsible, not the Americans. This government supported Pat Carney and the BC Premier in this sellout of the needs of the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes the agreed time.

Mr. Pope: Are they going to do their damned job for Ontario workers?

Mr. Speaker: Order, the member for Cochrane South.

MEMBERS' ANNIVERSARIES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on something entirely different, since the House is not meeting tomorrow, may I bring to your attention that tomorrow marks the 19th anniversary of the election of October 17, 1967, in which our good friends Ray Haggerty from Erie, Elie Martel from Sudbury East and you yourself were first elected.

All of us in this House agree that a very fine trio was selected democratically at that time and that they have proved themselves very well here during those years. We want to extend our congratulations to you.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your good wishes and I will say thank you on behalf of my colleagues who arrived here at the same time.

15:50

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Eves: I have two petitions that are the same from the employees of the A and P and Dominion stores in Parry Sound regarding beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores:

"We understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit sale of some beers and wine in Ontario grocery stores.

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store.

"We believe we have earned the right to be respected for the way we do our work. We demand that, if legislation is passed permitting beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, our grocery store be given the same permission."

Mr. Reycraft: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Liberal government of Ontario has expressed its intention to allow the sale of beer and wine in convenience stores, and whereas this accessibility may lead to a more widespread consumption of alcoholic beverages, which in turn may lead to an increase in the number of drinking drivers and an increase in the problems with young people, including lawlessness, destruction of property, robbery and recklessness;

"We, the undersigned members of Middlesex North District Women's Institutes, express our profound disapproval of such a step and urge the government of Ontario not to bring in this Legislation."

The petition is signed by 87 members of the association.

CONGÉ FÉRIÉ OBLIGATOIRE

M. Morin: J'aimerais vous présenter une pétition signée par 160 personnes concernant l'observance du dimanche comme journée fériée obligatoire. Cette pétition m'a été remise par un citoyen de mon comté, l'abbé Gaétan Charest, pasteur de la paroisse St-Claude.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the requirement for notice with respect to ballot item 19 be waived.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This was a special request from the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko).

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TORONTO SKI CLUB ACT

Mr. Timbrell moved first reading of Bill Pr54, An Act to revive the Toronto Ski Club.

Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 134, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Kwinter moved first reading of Bill 135, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act.

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am pleased to introduce the first reading of two bills regarding the sale of beer and wine in independent retail food stores. Ontario has come of age, and it is time to broaden its method of liquor distribution to match its new maturity. I believe the members will find this proposed legislation to be both timely and responsible.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Sterling moved first reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Sterling: This bill is one I introduced some time ago and I am introducing again. All it does is put into law the designation of each and every member of this Legislature. There is nothing within the Legislative Assembly Act to indicate that we are MPPs, MLAs or whatever. It is important for people to have our proper identity. Schoolchildren do not know whether to refer to us as MLAs, members of the Legislative Assembly or MPPs, members of the provincial parliament. This clarifies the issue.

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Mr. Polsinelli moved first reading of Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to.

MAGNUM INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTIONS INC. ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr29, An Act to revive Magnum International Productions Inc.

Motion agreed to.

LONDON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

Mr. Offer moved first reading of Bill Pr33, An Act respecting London Life Insurance Company.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 24, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for Cochrane South was in full flight previously.

Mr. Pope: I know you have been waiting for this occasion, Mr. Speaker. I was either in full flight or about to be grounded, one or the other. I was talking about employment in the small business sector of northern Ontario.

16:00

I find it very ironic that we are debating small business development in northern Ontario, eastern Ontario and throughout the province on an afternoon when this government has conspired, with other governments in this country, to deny employment to thousands of small businessmen in the lumber industry across northern and eastern Ontario, on an afternoon when this government has seen its trade strategy in the United States in total disarray and defeat at the cost of thousands of jobs in an area of the province it obviously does not give a damn about, from what we have seen during the past 18 months.

I will be very brief. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) is always wont to say, "We have done more in the last 18 months than the Conservatives did in 42 years." He cannot name a single laid-off resource worker he has put back to work, a single resource industry he has helped reopen or a single new initiative in any community in northern Ontario that will create jobs. However, as is his Premier (Mr. Peterson), he is great at optics, at news conferences, at getting his picture on the front of Toronto Life as leader of the red army. He is great at being father of the year in Cosmopolitan magazine or whatever the magazine was. When it comes to managing the economy of northern Ontario, there is no substance; there is no managerial ability.

Let us talk about the needs of the mining sector. When we were in office, we developed the core storage program at the request of the members of the Prospectors and Developers Association, which represents the small mines, to cut down ongoing costs, to provide a better information base for prospectors and to allow more mines to develop quicker at less expense.

We developed a custom gold mill program that allowed small-sized and medium-sized ore deposits to come into production and to generate income to carry on with the job-creation programs.

We developed the Ontario mineral exploration program, which gave to many prospectors, developers and small mining companies in northern Ontario the information to make investment decisions and to seek new economic activity in northern Ontario. It has been so successful that this government has recently reannounced those initiatives.

We developed the industrial mineral program, with grants and support for small industrial mineral companies in all parts of Ontario, to diversify the mining industry and to allow the development of our industrial mineral potential in eastern and northern Ontario.

For the first time, we involved the mining industry, the prospectors and the developers in strategic land use planning and the development of parks programs. We brought them as never before into the discussion of the provisions of the Mining Act.

I challenge the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, as he walks out the door, to name one single new initiative for the mining industry in northern Ontario that he or his government has announced since it took office. All they have done is reannounce the initiatives we started. They have even reannounced the projects we put into place.

Let us turn to the forest products industry. We announced a comprehensive acceleration of the reforestation program in Ontario, because it created jobs and economic opportunities for the small business sector in all parts of northern Ontario. We even had some pilot projects to make sure it worked properly. We brought that on stream. We rapidly accelerated our financial commitment to reforestation through forest management agreements and direct contractual relationships with private tree nursery producers in all ridings of the north and individual small contractors who could do the road construction, the clearance and the treating of the cutover areas prior to the reforestation. We provided those kinds of incentives and programs.

With respect to the pulp and paper industry, faced with increasing world competition and a squeeze on product in world prices, we gave companies the tools to modernize their mills, to make sure they were competitive for decades to come. In so doing, we ensured the survival of many single-resource communities such as Iroquois Falls, Smooth Rock Falls, Kapuskasing, and many of the communities in northwestern Ontario such as Kenora.

Those were initiatives that we announced. Can members opposite name me one initiative this government has announced to help small business in the forest products industry in northern Ontario? They cannot name one. All they have done is reannounce our initiatives. The forest technology units that were announced with great fanfare in Thunder Bay were started four years ago. The first one was in Kapuskasing, the second in Timmins, the third in the Geraldton area, the fourth in Kenora, the fifth, which is already on stream, in Thunder Bay.

The Premier went up there with great fanfare to try to con the people of Thunder Bay into thinking this was a new initiative, a new announcement. What a bunch of hooey! There was nothing new in it at all. It was already scheduled. This government has not got one single initiative to help the small business sector, single-resource communities and the resource workers of northern Ontario. After 42 years in opposition, they have no idea how to create jobs in northern Ontario, no idea how to support the resource industries in northern Ontario and no idea about a comprehensive economic strategy for northern Ontario. They wonder why their representation is the way it is in the north, but they do not have a single new idea.

It is not an amendment to this act that is going to bring about support for the small business community in northern Ontario. It is this government doing more than the optics, more than the token gesture, more than the manipulation of staff after gutting ministries, more than that. It takes a real, substantive commitment to management in concert and co-operation with the small business community of northern Ontario. We have not seen that from this government. We have seen nothing of substance.

The Premier tried to make a joke about some gathering in Owen Sound last night. The Premier came to Timmins with a big fanfare. Everyone was invited to attend his announcement. At the end of the press conference one of the business figures in my community -- I was not invited, of course -- stood up and asked, "What are you doing for the people of Timmins, particularly in the light of the Kidd Creek layoffs?" One of the Liberal executive members there replied, "You do not expect us to do anything in a Conservative riding, do you?" That is the answer of this Liberal government.

They think they are going to get away with it in a minority government situation, but I have news for them. It is not going to happen. We want a positive commitment. What is the result of all the token gestures and press conferences and media hype in Timmins? The Liberal Party of Ontario and the local riding association sent to every single home in the riding an invitation to come and meet the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) at a Liberal Party picnic at Cook's Lake Lodge a week after the Conservative picnic. The food was free, the entertainment was free and everyone was welcome. They had 28 people come to their picnic.

Mr. Breaugh: That is 28 more than showed up in Owen Sound.

Mr. Pope: The member for Oshawa will get his appointment eventually. He can relax. He will get his appointment from this government soon. He need not worry about it. We know he is in line.

Mr. Breaugh: That is more than I got from the previous government.

Mr. Pope: I know the member is in line. He need not worry.

It takes more than token gestures, press conferences and optics to develop support for this government and for the Liberal Party in northern Ontario. It takes some hard work, some new initiatives and some new thinking about the issues that confront northerners. Until this government does that, it cannot expect to have the support of the people of northern Ontario.

This bill in itself does not answer the needs of the small business community of northern Ontario. Much more has to be done. We have tried to provide suggestions to this government. I have tried for the past year and a half to give specific examples of where the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology could move to develop new jobs and new industries in northern Ontario, and he has completely turned it off. He is not interested, but until this government shows some interest in the north, it cannot expect to have support from the north or from the northern members.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions and comments? There being none, does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Gordon: For a moment there I was not sure. I thought perhaps a member of the New Democratic Party was going to get up and say a few words. If not, I will certainly carry on.

This afternoon I had the opportunity of asking the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology about his plans for northern Ontario. I was very disappointed in the answer I received from him.

16:10

It is quite clear that the current Liberal government has not come up with an economic strategy for northern Ontario. As a matter of fact, the Premier chose to spend some time in the north this summer, particularly in the northwestern Ontario area.

Despite the fact he could see quite clearly that in the resource sector the number of jobs that are disappearing is creating real havoc with our economy in the north; despite the fact it is quite clear that our young people have virtually no future in the present circumstances, and that is not even to begin to talk about the workers who are laid off and whose job opportunities in the north are virtually nonexistent; despite all those facts, he said, "I am not going to come up and tell you I can give you a quick fix to the problems in the north."

In that respect, he is being very frank. Where I have to differ with his approach is that he says: "It is up to you people to come up with some ideas of your own. We are not here to tell you how to run your community. We are not here to tell you what is good for you. What we would like to know is what you think should be done."

This afternoon I took a few minutes during question period to try to explain to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that we are quite prepared to tell him what we need and what is required in the north. I am quite prepared to sit down with the Premier and explain to him, in a very friendly fashion, exactly what is required in the north.

Let us talk about what kind of workers we have in the north. Let us talk about some of the major centres. If one goes to Thunder Bay, the Sault, Sudbury or North Bay, one will find that the workers there are very productive in the industries in which they work, which are primarily resource industries. One will find that these workers are very skilled at what they do. One will find that these people, like so many people who work at other jobs within those types of work environments or those cities, are what we call the working people of Ontario.

They are as much the working people of Ontario as people who work in Windsor in an auto plant, people who work in Oshawa in a parts plant or people who work in another community in southern Ontario who might make the kinds of parts that go into the various industries we see in southern Ontario.

We have the same people, with the same skills, the same enterprise, the same desire to have a roof over their heads, to know there is going to be a cheque coming in at the end of every month, to know their children are going to clothed and that they are not going to be on welfare or unemployment. They are the same people.

In the Golden Horseshoe today, one could say that in our economy, unemployment is at manageable levels. Given the kind of world we live in right now, with automation coming in, technological change and so forth, the Golden Horseshoe is doing very well. I would be the first to say I would like to see its unemployment rate come down even more.

But look at the north today. People are being laid off day after day. More and more workers are on unemployment and more and more people are ending up on welfare, not because they want to do so and not because they deserve to do so, but because this government has been in power now for what? Is it 16 months, going on 17 months? Whatever number of months it is now, this government has not yet come up with any kind of reasonable economic strategy for northern Ontario.

The only strategy it has at present is to go to Thunder Bay and Kenora, or the Sault and Sudbury, or Timmins and North Bay, or some of the small towns -- Smooth Rock Falls and so forth -- and say: "Yes, you have problems all right. I will tell you what, You tell us what you think is required, tell us what initiatives you want, and then maybe we can get together."

Of course, they are being terribly cynical, because they have no intention of fulfilling that promise. They are going to come back and say: "Oh, you would like a parts plant in northern Ontario? We spoke to the people from southeast Asia. Of course, in Japan I told the Prime Minister: `Look, northern Ontario is where it is at. We want you to look at the north. We have all kinds of very productive people there who are not working right now, men and women, and we want you to go there.'"

I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, where is the program in his ministry that is oriented towards where some of the new jobs are going to come from in Ontario? Today he admitted he does not have a program for the north. Does he have any grants? Has he set up a special task force in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology that says: "We know we have a problem of unemployment and welfare in the north that has got completely out of hand. If we are ever going to develop the north, we will have to have a special key group within this ministry charged with going out, not only in Ontario but also worldwide, to try to move parts manufacturers and all kinds of businesses into the north."

Has he done that? No, not on your life. He has not done that. That is where I have to differ with this government.

Interjection.

Mr. Martel: He might call me to order.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite right, member for Sudbury East (Mr. Mantel). I am calling you back to order.

Mr. Breaugh: But he is getting agitated.

The Deputy Speaker: You are disturbing the member for Sudbury, who has the floor.

Mr. Martel: You have got to be kidding.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) was too?

Mr. Martel: It was the member for Oakville who provoked me.

The Deputy Speaker: Then I am calling you to order as well. The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Gordon: This government has not seen fit, despite the fact it has been in power the number of months it has, to come up with an overall, comprehensive plan for the north.

Just to give members an example of the kind of bungling that is going on with this government, last May the Minister of Correctional Services, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), had some of his ministry people go up and hold a secret meeting with some people in Sudbury with the idea in mind of discussing whether they would have a correctional facility in Sudbury.

We know what happens when one holds a secret meeting. First of all, the press finds out about the meeting; it is secret. The municipally elected people are upset about it. The public is upset about it. They say: "What is there that is so special or so scary? What is it they do not want us to know about this prisoner treatment centre that is being proposed in the Sudbury region?"

It finally came to the point where the board of directors of the Sudbury Algoma Hospital turned down the treatment centre being right next to their hospital. They felt there was a place that was more suitable.

16:20

The Deputy Speaker: You are going to connect this with small business development corporations and Bill 24.

Mr. Gordon: I will be connecting this with the minor amendment that has been proposed in this bill.

The minister went up to Sudbury and said: "We are not going to force anything on the good people of Sudbury. If you can help us find a site for this treatment centre for prisoners, we can do business." The city of Sudbury offered him a site in a good location for $1, one that would not upset many people.

The ministry came back and said: "It is not flat land. We want flat land. We want it to be like the farming land we have in some other parts of Ontario. Besides that, we might have to blast" -- imagine having to blast -- "and after we blast, because of the nature of the site, it might have to be a two-storey building. When we build these treatment centres for prisoners, we want them to be one-storey buildings; it is easier to watch people." No one ever told them there is such a thing as television. No one told them there is such a thing as videotape and cameras that can watch a one-storey, two-storey or 10-storey building. However, that is not the point. Imagine, they were going to have to blast some rock in the north. Really, have those fellows been north yet?

They rejected the site. They said, "It is going to cost more money." I am glad the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) is paying rapt attention to what I am saying. I know he has been to the north many times and has a keen interest. Where was I?

The Deputy Speaker: You were on Bill 24; SBDCs.

Mr. Gordon: I was talking about rocks, was I not?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I do not think any of my agencies are small business development corporations.

Mr. Gordon: That is right.

Mr. Polsinelli: The member should remember he is on prime time television.

Mr. Gordon: I realize that.

The whole point is that the regional council in Sudbury has been driven to distraction. It has been driven to the point where it recently passed a motion saying: "Put it anywhere you want. We will not object. You can put it next to a church if you want. You can put it next to an elementary school where there are kindergarten children. You can put it next to the marina on Lake Ramsey. You can put it anywhere you want. We need the 100 jobs."

That is how driven to distraction and how desperate the regional council is to see that there are jobs in Sudbury. The fact that a council would have to go to that point, would have to say that to any ministry of this province, is symptomatic of the desperation and unease that exist in the mind of every citizen from one end of northern Ontario to the other. That is how worried we are and how badly we want jobs.

Is it right that the Minister of Correctional Services should end up putting councillors in a position where they say: "We do not want to interfere with any decision you make; do not bother consulting with us"? It is horrible.

Last week in Sudbury, Falconbridge announced it would be laying off 275 workers. These are not low-paid workers; they are workers who make a good dollar. It is a real loss to the economy. Do members realize that this government is diddling around with the community of Sudbury, implying that if we do not behave ourselves in Sudbury, we will never get that correctional facility? If we should for one minute suggest that it should be over there rather than where the government wants it, it will go some place else. That is the way this government is playing with northern Ontario, and it should be ashamed.

The Deputy Speaker: There being no questions or comments, I believe the member for Sudbury East is next. Does the member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Martel: That is what I am here for. It is 19 years today, and I forgot about it. I did not think I had been here that long. One has to be crazy to be here this long. Members might be able to tell by some of the disjointed remarks they are about to hear.

I was not going to speak, but I was provoked by my friend the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), because having spent 19 years here, I know the Tories did not do a thing to develop northern Ontario. Now the Liberals are in the same rut. This government has no more of an idea about developing the north than the Tories had. Every last move it has made so far has been window-dressing.

Do not tell me about another conference. I heard the minister today talk about another conference. We need another conference like we need a hole in the head. There have been studies about northern Ontario. I could go and talk to those bureaucrats under the stage who could put out a series of studies on northern Ontario that would fill up that whole area back there.

When is the government going to learn that the north is never going to develop by total free enterprise? It will not. The north is good for extracting resources. That is why we have two companies, not in the resource field, with more than 200 jobs.

This government has not learned a thing yet. I have not gotten to the government yet. It does not understand.

If one were going to locate an industry related to nickel, one would have moved to Sudbury a long time ago on one's own. The government does not understand that. If a company were going to relocate to do something with copper, it would have gone to Texasgulf a long time ago. If it were going to put something related to steel in Sault Ste. Marie -- as has been done in Hamilton, where at one time the relationship was 25,000 jobs in the steel industry and 24,000 jobs in manufacturing; the relationship in Sault Ste. Marie in 1978 was 9,000 jobs producing steel and 250 jobs in the manufacturing sector.

If the government thinks the private sector is going to go there on its own hook, it is nuts. It is going to take crown corporations and consortiums of private and government funding. That is the direction the government has to look to. If it does not look to it, it will not do one thing differently from what the Tories did.

The government can introduce all these giveaways and the same thing will happen that happened in North Bay. Lee Canada went in, blew all the money it had and then got the hell out of town. It can do what our friends did who were producing mining equipment. What was that company in North Bay? It packed its bongo balls and moved down to Burlington. After it got its $1 million or $900,000 from the Ontario government, it picked up its marbles and moved somewhere else.

It is not going to happen on its own. Can we put that in the government's head? If we do not convince it of anything else, we have had 100 years of extraction of primary resources and it has all left the area. We have a couple of small companies --two, I think -- with more than 200 employees. In fact, the Liberals sold the couple we had.

16:30

Regarding the Urban Transportation Development Corp., it is interesting that a committee was in Boston two or three years ago, with my colleague the House leader for the New Democratic Party and a number of the Liberals on it. Governor Dukakis said to us, "The finest equipment we have in our system comes from UTDC in Ontario." The Liberals gave it away. They could not wait to get rid of it. They were panting, because for years Eric Cunningham said, "You have to get rid of UTDC." They came to power, and what did they do? They sold it off. Where they had some control over jobs, they sold it.

The Liberals have not got a bit more brains than the Tories did. With respect to northern Ontario, so help me, the Liberals are worse. At least the Tories knew enough to keep UTDC in Thunder Bay and keep it active. The Liberals gave it away. They call conferences and talk about sending the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to Sudbury. Whoop-de-do. It does not create a new job for the 14 per cent who are unemployed.

When I tried to get the government to reopen a prison, it followed the Tories. My friend the parliamentary assistant knows this. The Tories closed Burwash, and the Liberals will not reopen it. They will continue to do what the Tories did: take all the prisoners from the north and expand two prisons in the south. They are beggars; there is something wrong with their heads when they have an opportunity to create jobs. For $13 million, they could have created 225 jobs. Those kinds of job could not be started in the industrial sector for $13.9 million.

Those people are so stupid, but they will expand two prisons in southern Ontario, where there is a rate of unemployment of six per cent. In Sudbury, where it is 14 per cent and the unemployed people are married men, 26 to 45 years of age, who own their homes and cannot give them away because there is nobody there to buy them, the government will not reopen the prison. The government is a disgrace. The Minister of Correctional Services wanted to reopen it. The deputy won the war. McDonald won the war, not the minister.

We met with the Premier, and I said, "David, this is crazy." He said to me, "Elie, you do not expect us, and you do not expect the auto industry, to locate a factory in Sudbury." That is what the Premier said, "You do not expect to get an auto industry or a parts plant in Sudbury." I said, "Be that as it may, will you at least create the 225 jobs, rather than bringing the prisoners to southern Ontario? It is only $13.9 million; everything else is in place." The Premier said, in the long run, no.

They come with a little act. What is it going to do? Secondary industry has never located in the north; it locates down here. What is the game the government is playing? It is for free trade, but it is not for free trade.

I will tell my friends over there what we have to move to in the north. If they and some of their bureaucrats seriously want to help, they had better start to look at import replacement and at the government getting involved in that type of planning.

We should take the sulphur dioxide that is coming out of the stack at Inco and devastating the country -- to the tune of at least $400 million a year, according to a federal paper I saw some time ago; it is probably much more -- take the phosphates deposits in the riding of Cochrane North, combine the two and produce fertilizer, because we are importing fertilizer into Ontario. We are too stupid to do that. We really are. We will import, we will have Inco devastate the area with sulphur dioxide, kill the trees, kill the fish, kill the animal life, kill everything, but we cannot get involved in a serious way.

It will not happen by itself. It could with the government acting as a catalyst, maybe taking an equity, trying to encourage people in the private sector to invest their money, letting the private sector run it, having people on the board of directors. But we will have none of that. We are going to have another conference. What are we going to talk about at the conference? How one contemplates one's navel?

There are all kinds of things. We in this country import more mining equipment than any other country in the world. As a mining country, we are the single largest importer of mining equipment in the world. We are the third largest producer of mineral wealth in the world, falling behind only the United States and the Soviet Union, and we import at least $1 billion a year of mining equipment.

Imagine the jobs, if we wanted to use our heads. We could make that equipment rather than import it from little old Sweden, which has only nine million people, West Germany and the US. No, we will not get involved in that kind of planning. We will hold the phoniest types of forums; we will run them all. We will say what we are going to do, and any serious economic planning is out the window.

The government does not even know what economic planning means. We could get into the mining equipment field if we wanted to. Since we have platinum, nickel and steel, we could produce medical supplies, almost all of which we import. Forgetting that, if that is not good enough for the government, I am told we do not produce a diesel pump in this country. Farmers could use some of those. We import them all. We do not have the raw material to make it; or we do not have the brains or the will?

"We are in a free enterprise system." That is what I hear all the time. What does that mean? Free to do whatever the hell they want; to get more tax breaks, more exemptions, more grants, without any strings attached. We do not say to them: "Look, we have to have something in return, a quid pro quo. If we are going to put some money up, we want job guarantees; we want a certain location." How does West Germany get people to locate near the Soviet border? The government is involved, along with the private sector.

This government does not even want to talk in those terms. It is going to operate exactly as the Tories did, and it is going to be a prime target in the north, because it will not do a thing differently, not a single blessed thing.

We could talk about the import of stainless steel. Why can we not produce stainless steel cutlery in this country? My friends at lnco have to dump 100 million pounds of iron. Nobody in Ontario will use it because there is too much nickel in it. We dump it on the slag heaps. Imagine dumping 100 million pounds of iron on the slag heaps because there is too much nickel in it; then we import. There is one iron mine left in Ontario, and there were nine only four or five years ago. The one that is left, at Wawa, is wavering. Meanwhile, Inco throws 100 million pounds away because nobody in Ontario will use it since it has too much nickel in it. We might consider getting involved in stainless steel cutlery rather than importing so much from little places like Sweden.

This government is not going to change anything, because it will not think any differently from the Tories. They leave it up to free enterprise. They think they only have to have a wishing wand and wish that we had jobs in the north and in eastern Ontario -- but it will not happen. All of these dinky little things are not going to make it happen. It is going to take positive, downright determined government policy to replace imports. That is the route we have to go.

16:40

The crunch is on with resources going into the United States from other countries. The competition is there. We do not have to look very far. We could start to manufacture the things we do not manufacture, for which we have the resources to manufacture with. It will not happen. We are going to let the free enterprise system do it on its own. It did not do it when there were resources in abundance. It did not do it then, it will not do it today and it will not do it tomorrow. The government can get all of these gobbledegook little policies but northern Ontario continues to be the most underdeveloped part of this province.

The young people are forced to move. I have three children in university and they will all end up working in Toronto or somewhere else. They will not get jobs in the north because there are none there.

This week Falconbridge laid off workers whose average experience was about 13 years. I wish those workers had received retirement plans like our friends Roderick Lewis and Kirk Foley. All they want is a job.

The robber barons come to the north and they play the game that Bill James of Falconbridge is playing. They reinvest in Norway so they can continue to refine in Norway, buy out Kidd Creek for $600 million, lay off a bunch of workers, buy with it a debt load of $1.2 billion and cut out all of the development mining in Sudbury, which means they will not open up any new mines.

We play this checkers game with these robber barons with raw materials. I thought we saw the last of them in the US. I remember when I was in university we read all about the robber barons. It has not changed. They come in, they get their money and they get out. This government lets them do it, too.

I watched the Premier when he was in northwestern Ontario and he said to those communities, "Kids, you will have to make it on your own hook." He did not say that in Ingersoll. He put about $100 million in there to put jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is probably six per cent, but he cannot find $100 million for northern Ontario where the unemployment rate is 14 per cent. He cannot even find $14 million to make 225 new jobs in Sudbury. Nothing.

They are going to be great targets in the next election. We will not even have to change the script. Members heard my friend from the Tory party say we are desperate for jobs. He gave his little story about them coming into Sudbury. The north is tired. They see superficiality. They cannot be conned any more. If the government thinks it is going to win them with a pleasant smile it is wrong, dead wrong.

With 14 per cent unemployment and nothing except window dressing, this government is not going anywhere. I have made this speech for so many years trying to get government to look at import replacement using the resources we have, through consortia of private and public money or crown corporations or anything.

I know what goes through their heads. They think: "Aha, socialism. We are free enterprisers." If they go to Great Britain, where there is the greatest of those Tories, they will find out that the government is into 50 per cent of the North Sea oil. We are so frightened, all we can ever do is give away. Why do not we plan for a change; not phoney conferences, but let me get some economists together and look at what we have in the north and say: "That is what we are going to do. If it takes all public moneys, by God we will do it." I hope we will get some private money, and we will let them run it for us, and we will have equity. But if they think they are going to do it under the private sector free enterprise concept, they are crazy.

I am afraid, as I have watched for the last 15 months, those people are not one jot different. I heard the minister this afternoon tell us about all the things we got in the north. I want to know how he got $100 million or thereabouts for Ingersoll, but just could not find $14 million for a new prison. He will expand two prisons in the south.

I wonder why he can make a commitment of $100 million in places where there is far less unemployment. In Sudbury, Timmins or Sault Ste. Marie when people are laid off it is not like here; they cannot go to the next town to get jobs, because the next town is 200 miles away. He could find $100 million for Ingersoll, we can open up another one in Cambridge and we can open up something else in Alliston. I have no objection to that, but I object to his not being able to find money for meaningful programs in the north. They are not there and there is not a thing I have heard from this government that is one jot different from the Tories. The north will continue to languish despite those beggars because they have not got the courage to plan economically.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Are there questions and comments?

Mr. Polsinelli: It is always a pleasure to listen to my animated friend the member for Sudbury East. For the past 20 minutes he has been talking about the problems of northern Ontario and his solutions to the problems and the previous inactivity of the past government with respect to those problems and his criticisms of our activity. Perhaps my friend can explain to this Legislature what his speech has to do with Bill 24, An Act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act.

Mr. McClellan: This member did not understand.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Are there any more questions and comments? If not, the member for Sudbury East.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I thought you would never ask. What does this little hunk of junk do, this little act to amend the Small Business Development Corporations Act? Really, what is it going to do? We do not measure jobs in terms of one or two jobs. When we have 14 per cent unemployment, we need massive infusions of help and planning. I do not mean giveaway. That is the member's mentality; that is not mine. I say, "Give me $100 million." Let the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) say to me tomorrow: "Martel, like we did with Ingersoll, we will give you $100 million. You go out there and see what you can open up." I would have fertilizer being produced within a year.

An hon. member: There is a lot of fertilizer over there.

Mr. Martel: There is fertilizer, but --

Mr. Breaugh: It is the wrong kind.

Mr. Martel: It is the wrong kind. I guarantee I would be producing fertilizer in a year. I would put some development in my friend's area and we would start to mine the phosphate. I would use the third piece of equipment that is sitting idle at Inco, the third piece of machinery for producing sulphuric acid, which sits there just in abeyance because there is too much sulphuric acid and that is why they do not produce more. They do not produce more and they dump it into the atmosphere. They dump it into the atmosphere because they cannot sell it.

I would start to produce more and I would build a plant somewhere between Sudbury and Cochrane North. I would bring the two together and we would produce fertilizer. We would have jobs in mining in that part of the world. We would have more jobs in what used to be the C-I-L plant and we would have a whole new industry producing fertilizer. Give me $100 million, the same amount they gave to Ingersoll, not this dinky stuff. I think I would have enough left over --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time is up.

Mr. Martel: Has it already been 10 minutes?

The Acting Speaker: Two minutes.

Are there any other members who wish to speak on this bill?

16:50

Mr. Ashe: I will be very brief. Although there are many opportunities to criticize and chastise the inaction of the government members, that has been well done yesterday and again this afternoon, so I will return to Bill 24 and talk about it briefly.

An hon. member: Is that in order?

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, you better pay attention. I was asked whether it was in order to speak on the bill.

The Acting Speaker: I trust the member's judgement.

Mr. Ashe: Thank you. The thing that bothers me most about the bill is not the content, because much of it is housekeeping. Much of it is a step in the right direction regarding the process for appeals and the jurisdiction of the minister who oversees the legislation. In a sense, what concerns me most dovetails with the criticism that has been made by my colleagues in my party and those to the left about the inaction, etc. of the government.

When it takes five months before a government calls the first budget bill to implement its budget, how serious can it really be? If my memory serves me correctly, the budget was brought down on May 13, 1986. We have had June 13, July 13, August 13, September 13 and October 13, and we have now gone a day or two beyond that. It has finally got around to moving the budget bills up the priority list, very slowly, very cautiously, with much inactivity to bring them to the top of the list.

Some would say: "It really does not matter. Some of the so-called initiatives in the budget do not come into effect until the calendar year of 1987." That is true, but when we look at the bill we are talking about, Bill 24, one notices section 12 of the bill: "This act comes into force on the day following the day it receives royal assent." Can the government be serious about anything in the budget when it has taken five months to call a bill such as this one? It is not exactly earth-shattering, that is for sure; but it has taken five months.

It bothers me, it bothers the constituents I represent and it should bother the nine million or more people in Ontario. We are getting grandstanding over there. We are getting great ribbon cutting and world tours. However, we are not getting anything done, because the government does not bring it on Orders and Notices to be dealt with.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that offends me. It offends my colleagues and it should offend you, because I know you are concerned about the people of Ontario and your constituents.

Getting to the bill itself and its background, which was the budget statement brought down by the same minister wearing a different hat, that of the Treasurer. At that time, he talked about the funding of the small business development corporations program, a highly successful program that was brought into being by the actions of the former Progressive Conservative government, not the inaction of this government. It cannot even update a piece of legislation. It takes five months before it even calls it.

The program that was identified in the budget this year was for $30 million. It was split up, with an allocation of $9 million to the northern and eastern Ontario fund and an allocation to the general fund of $21 million, for a total of $30 million.

When the Minister of Revenue, wearing that hat rather than the Treasurer's, finally rises -- if he appears some time along the line to address this bill before we take the final vote on it -- I would like to hear a status report about what has happened to these moneys in the first five months. There have been five months in this -- pardon me, half the year has gone by in a fiscal sense. I would like to hear the status report of the moneys that have flowed from this program up to the end of September.

I would also be interested, because leading up to this bill was an announcement that there was a broadening of the criteria for eligible corporate investments to include corporations primarily engaged in the provision of selected business services, such as computer services, architectural services and engineering services. Frankly, I hope this is a positive step. I am not quite sure. I think there are more opportunities to play games in service industries rather than in hard industries -- manufacturing industries and so on. I would like to hear a report from the minister on whether anything has happened in this service area. In other words, have those new, expanded guidelines been implemented or not?

I would really like to hear from the minister in his own words why it took him five months to get these bills to the top of the list. Bill 24 is the first budget bill we are dealing with. We will be dealing with many others in the days ahead. Members are going to hear this at least each and every time I get on my feet, because I am disgusted at the inactivity, the lack of initiative and the lack of priorities of the members opposite.

Mr. Sheppard: I have a few comments that I want to direct to this bill. The small business community of Ontario was carefully nurtured under the former Progressive Conservative government of Ontario. Its rate of success, as demonstrated by the number of full-time and part-time jobs created in the sector, was encouraged by programs and initiatives undertaken by that government. Many businesses currently in existence would never have been created other than through incentives brought forward by that government. Entrepreneurial opportunities have been expanded and undertaken thanks to the previous government's initiatives.

On the other hand, this government in its most recent budget has frozen funding for this program at $30 million while at the same time it has increased overall government expenditures by 7.8 per cent, and spending in the Cabinet Office and in the Office of the Premier has increased by more than 300 per cent.

We are all aware of the fact that small business is the most dynamic component of the private sector and creates most of Ontario's new jobs. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the Canadian economy, as they make up approximately 90 per cent of all businesses in Canada. Furthermore, small businesses in this province account for more than 25 per cent of sales in Ontario. From the personal perspective, small businesses owned by women have each created an average of 5.57 full-time or part-time jobs, while small businesses owned by students have each generated an average of two and a half jobs for other students.

These facts and figures say a lot, but what is loud and clear is that when small businesses succeed in Ontario, we all feel the benefits, whether through jobs created or otherwise. I appreciate the fact that the investment in new enterprise for northern and eastern Ontario will be drawn specifically out of the northern and eastern Ontario incentive fund as opposed to the general fund.

What I find absolutely amazing, however, is the fact that the Premier is telling communities that they cannot and should not expect the government to help them out and that they should be seeking their own solutions to their problems while he feels it appropriate to give his best buddy $17.5 million for a pet project in downtown Toronto.

With little assistance and a remarkable track record, small business has achieved much for Ontario, which is evident in the number of jobs created. At a time when unemployment is still very high, especially in smaller communities, we as government representatives owe it to our constituencies to do what we can to promote and encourage the concept of survival of our small businesses.

17:00

The SBDC program helps create new businesses, new products, new exports and new jobs. It encourages the entrepreneurial spirit in our province. The SBDC program is there to share the risk and to provide services so that entrepreneurs can turn their good ideas into practical projects as well as help to expand businesses with high growth potential.

The economies of eastern, northern and rural communities are not experiencing the same level of prosperity as southern Ontario, and for that reason they should get more attention from the Liberal government. As I mentioned earlier, the unemployment situation is not improving. The only hope for these communities is to be develop their own industrial and commercial base, and more assistance through the SBDC program would be a good place to start. To date, southern Ontario has reaped most of the rewards given by the government, but it is time for these other communities to begin receiving more attention. The Liberal government should show some leadership to help these economically disadvantaged areas by encouraging small business growth.

Further studies show that people under 30 years of age started more than 40 per cent of the new small businesses in 1985, not to mention the fact that they started about 85 per cent of all small businesses. Keeping youths in rural and northern areas is difficult, yet if they were encouraged and rewarded for starting successful small businesses, the loss to these communities would be minimal. These statistics underline the importance of the small business communities to Ontario's economy. Most important, they reflect the growing importance of self-employment and owner-managed businesses as an important reality in a changing society.

In the throne speech earlier this year, the Liberal government promised to co-ordinate and target efforts to accelerate growth and open up job opportunities for Ontarians. Furthermore, the government promised it would expand opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurship. As I have stated before, small business is directly responsible for most of the new jobs created over the past decade. Let us see these promises fulfilled instead of hearing from the Premier that communities are on their own to solve their problems. Our communities need encouragement from the government.

It is vitally important that economic policies recognize and accommodate the realities of small and medium-sized businesses to support and facilitate the continuation of this very important sector.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is just coming in. The Liberal government is getting the credit for bringing three new auto companies into Ontario. Yesterday, the Premier said it was Frank Miller who, when he was Premier, went to China and Japan and brought these companies to Ontario. I would like to know why the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology does not promote one of these car companies in eastern Ontario. We need the jobs in eastern Ontario. He let them go to western Ontario, but we need them.

Mr. Barlow: Let us not get carried away.

Mr. Sheppard: Yes, but even if we could get just one of these car companies in eastern Ontario -- we need the jobs; I do not mind them going to my friend in Barrie and my friend in Cambridge --

Mr. Breaugh: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The member may have missed it as he drives down Highway 401 on his way home, but I want him to take a look tonight on the right-hand side as he gets to Oshawa. He will find a car company there. I will not give him the name, but it is there.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Sheppard: The member does not live in eastern Ontario. He lives in south-central Ontario. I know the car plant he is talking about. I have a lot of friends who work in that car plant. I am grateful that car plant is in south-central Ontario. I am talking about eastern Ontario.

I think it is terrible. When he was in opposition he said, "When I get in government, I will bring jobs to eastern Ontario." How many jobs has he brought to eastern Ontario? I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, because I do not think there are very many. He says, "The next time." I am waiting for the future, because I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is going to bring some jobs to eastern Ontario, especially the Quinte area.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to have the member comment on one thing. He lives about 15 or 20 miles east of me.

Mr. Sheppard: No; something like 50 miles east.

Mr. Breaugh: I am luckier than I thought.

Mr. Sheppard: Am I ever lucky.

Mr. Taylor: I have listened attentively to all that has been said today, and part of yesterday, and I have been trying to determine the relevance of much of what has been said, as you have, Mr. Speaker. I think I have done so now, but initially I want to say that the bill is directionally correct. It is going to assist small business in some small way, and in so far as it does, I want to commit my support to the bill. I would like to make that abundantly plain at the outset.

I do have some concerns. My friend the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) might have been unduly critical of the member for Quinte, my good neighbour the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He himself said not long ago that industry locates where it is most economic for industry to locate; therefore, when we look at industry coming into this country and into this province, everyone in government surely is anxious to take credit for that location or relocation, but in the final analysis it is an economic determination by that company.

The encouragement is often there, and I do not want to detract in one way from the minister's role in encouraging industry in eastern Ontario or anywhere else in Ontario, but what concerns me is that we often get into a bidding war with other jurisdictions, other provinces and other countries over the location of industry in this province. That is very expensive to the taxpayers, and we have seen a lot of that. We have seen it in the automotive industry, and I question whether all of that is necessary.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured out to subsidize foreign companies that are looking for locations on this continent, because North America is the biggest market for automobiles in the world. It is right here. If foreign investors want a back door to the US market, which is the single biggest market, then of course Canada provides that. Sometimes they do not need a back door; they go in by the front door. We have the auto pact, which is being worked at right now to facilitate this. I point this out because when one looks at big industry, which is being subsidized so heavily, one starts to wonder just what the cost benefit is to the people in terms of the generation of economic activity and job growth.

It has been said here many times during this debate that the small business community is providing the majority of new jobs in the Ontario economy and, as a matter of fact, in the Canadian economy. I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology appreciates that. He has a small business sector in his ministry, and he has a small business advocate.

However, the biggest enemy of the small business advocate is government itself. That is what troubles me, because an advocate of small business must take on government. He cannot afford to be captured by big government. Around here, there are too many body-snatchers in the form of bureaucrats who absorb and smother people with new ideas. If one is going to be an advocate of small business, one has to look at the other government ministries and see how they are harming small business and what they are doing to frustrate small business.

17:10

If we look at the municipalities to start, in many ways they are counter-productive. There are municipalities that develop, promote and sell their industrial parks. They have some help in that regard from the province and from the federal government. As a matter of fact, tomorrow afternoon there will be an official opening of a new industrial park in Napanee, which is in my riding. That industrial park was created without the assistance of government, either federal or provincial. The town was disappointed that no financial encouragement was given to it to develop a facility within that part of eastern Ontario, which is crying out for new job opportunities.

Where was government then? A lot of small businessmen are locating in that park, but where is the encouragement to those small businessmen? If one wants to obtain a big loan in the multimillion-dollar realm, there seem to be all kinds of government people who are anxious to assist. The small businessman has to prove he does not need the money before he can get it. There is that kind of frustration on the part of small business.

We have in the province what we call industrial strategies, which are not sufficient to satisfy my New Democratic friends. I am surprised that the member for Sudbury East did not again introduce his bill to nationalize Inco, which he would call Pinco, and presumably appoint himself president.

Nevertheless, government does claim it has an industrial strategy. If it has, why would there be municipalities that extract such large imposts from developers which are selling their land to industry and commerce to locate there to generate the jobs? If we look at the incidence of that impost, we will see it is passed along to the consumers, the same as in the housing market. We have a housing industry that is very vibrant right now.

I look at my friend from the Mississauga area, who is smiling somewhat. I think Mississauga has a new city hall.

Mrs. Marland: Of sorts.

Mr. Taylor: Of sorts. I do not agree with its architecture.

Mrs. Marland: Neither do I.

Mr. Taylor: I do not think it is Frank Lloyd Wright or anything like that.

Mrs. Marland: What were you going to say?

Mr. Taylor: I was going to say that the hall cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $60 million, as I understand, of which $30 million was extracted from funds.

Mrs. Marland: No.

Mr. Taylor: Anyway, a lot of it was taken from --

Mrs. Marland: No.

Mr. Taylor: Was some of the money from imposts?

Mrs. Marland: No.

Mr. Taylor: No money from imposts? Shame. If we look at the imposts that municipalities extract from the building and development industry, which are passed on to young couples trying to buy their first home and factored into the mortgage, we will see what the cost is. And we wonder why the cost of housing is so high. A whole industry is being affected. We have the same type of imposts that are being imposed on industry, as I have mentioned before.

I apologize to my colleague the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) if none of that money has been siphoned off into the creation of that abortion. The member agrees with me in terms of

Mrs. Marland: No, I do not. I know what Mississauga does.

Mr. Taylor: The member does?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Taylor: Then my friend agrees with city hall. I do not like city hall, but that is not relevant in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I was beginning to wonder.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, you have been very courteous and considerate in even putting up with this little bit of repartee on the side.

The point I am trying to make is that municipalities have to start to develop their own programs in terms of what is essential to stimulate economic development at the local level. I think that starts right with the zoning of industrial parks and with the different ministries of government.

We have a Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) who is a delightful gentleman but so strident in terms of his agricultural policies and the foodland guidelines. I see my friends across the floor smiling at that and seemingly exuding some sort of agreement.

The purveyor of that policy comes out and examines the sites -- it might be a little farm repair shop that wants to go into the agricultural zone in one of the rural communities I represent -- and the minister says: "No, you cannot do that. That offends our policy of preservation of good agricultural land. Those farm implements cannot be serviced there." At the same time, I say the Minister of Agriculture and Food must ensure that the farmers have a decent living. He must ensure the viability of their industry. It is one of the most important industries, if not the most important, in this country. I put that to the government because I think it has to look at these things in a practical sense.

We are not talking only about the Ministry of Revenue in regard to this bill. We are talking about the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology as well as the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, because it has to approve entrances and exits if they are on provincial highways. For some obscure reason, I find they will not approve an entrance that would facilitate the development of a new industry.

As I mentioned, I find that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food with its rampant bureaucrats has some objection to the severance of a parcel of land or the utilization of a parcel of land for industry. One can go to one ministry after the other. One can go to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and find the objections there on a planning basis. One can go into the Ministry of Natural Resources -- and I see the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) here -- and one will find that it is important to preserve the wetlands somewhere. One cannot regrade one's lot. One runs into one obstacle after another.

Once one has one's land clear in terms of it being suitable for development, what does one find? One has to get a building permit. We have an Ontario Building Code, and we have people administering that building code in Ontario who do not understand it. As a matter of fact, it is a challenge to anyone's imagination to understand it. I challenge the members of this assembly to look at that tome, which is so weighty and so complicated. If one were to put it in the hands of an ordinary individual, a building inspector in many of the rural areas of Ontario, and expect him to enforce that section by section, one would get nothing done.

Then one has administered all the health regulations through the Ministry of the Environment in conjunction with the local health units and another battalion of inspectors. They have people who are not prepared to exercise any judgement and common sense. They are going by the book. They have Ontario Hydro and its new standards that seem to be becoming more difficult every day, imposing a fault-free system on our society. The biggest industry we have is the public service industry. It is the growth industry in this country and in this province. We are developing a bureaucracy in the civil service to such a degree that it is going to choke development if it is not doing so already. I have a real concern about that.

17:20

Of course, there is the legislation the government is putting in with respect to equal pay for work of equal value. I am not talking about equal pay for equal work. That has been in force in this province for a long time and it should be better enforced; we need it. I am talking about equal pay for work of equal value, which the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has estimated will cost the taxpayers of this province $100 million but will serve only the civil servants. They will look after that and the civil service will grow even further.

We are good at creating more people to frustrate the little businessman who is trying to set up his own business. I can go into practically all the ministries of government that a little businessman has to come into contact with and look at the forms of the Ministry of Revenue or Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in terms of the requirements of the Business Corporations Act. I look at all the licensing agencies and the battalion of inspectors. Anyone in Ontario who is brave enough to start his own business should be given a medal. He is indeed a man of enterprise, determination, perseverance, skill and stubbornness. He has to be.

Then he is the last one to get paid, because what do we have? We have the Ministry of Labour with all its standards. I am not knocking high standards and I am not knocking the need to pay someone a reasonable wage. However, the small businessman is being pressured from all sides, whether it is the minimum wage that forces up all wages, not just that of nonunionized help, or whether it is workers' compensation, which is becoming more and more punishing every day. I am not suggesting that injured workers should not be compensated if they are hurt. As a society, we have an obligation to look after persons who are victims of circumstance or misfortune. Nobody is insensitive in that regard, but when the government passes along social programs to particular segments of society, especially to the small business community, then it is punishing that community and this is counter-productive in terms of other things it is trying to do, such as Bill 24, which is supposedly an incentive to assist the growth of small business.

I point these things out because, as I said earlier, an advocate of small business in this government has to take on government. He has to deal with all these ministries, whether it is an increase in workers' compensation, whether it is dealing with the federal government in terms of unemployment insurance and what is happening there and the burden on the small business community as well as the country, or whether it is a simplification of all the reporting procedures and forms that must be filled out.

The Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Energy knows this. He has had experience in business. How can the little guy compete with big multinational corporations that have their own bureaucracy built in to confront the bureaucracy of government and to comply with the rules and regulations that come forward in complicated legislation in unintelligible language that must be adhered to? if it is not, then you have another investigator or an enforcer coming around, banging on your door and telling you what you have to do. You have so many people dunning you as a small businessman, and often you will not succeed as a small businessman unless you have your family working for you and with you for nothing. How are you going to survive in a province where government has reached the point where it is oppressive?

I put it to the members and supporters of the government that maybe government would do the little businessman the most good if it could just climb off his back, if it had sensible people who were empowered to use judgement and some sensitivity to look at the circumstances of each individual situation and to exercise that common sense. There has to be some potential for flexibility in working with the little businessman and the business community.

These are the areas we have to approach and take on if we are really going to help the little businessman. Again, in Bill 24 we are trying to stimulate the further development of small business, and I appreciate that. As I said, I support Bill 24. I am one of the few members who have got up and said that. But it is only a small thing and that is what troubles me so much. As I mentioned, it is the system, which everyone seems to have to survive, that is so harmful today.

I throw this challenge to government: Can we have one czar of small business who is really a strong man -- and it has to be at the cabinet level; it has to be at the Premier's level -- someone who is really interested in vetting all of this legislation, examining the regulations and seeing how things can be done to facilitate and encourage small business, to stimulate the ideas of imaginative people, the people who have developed little businesses in their backyards and in their basements and to help them get out and expand those businesses?

Some years ago the government was so anxious to help organizations such as Chrysler. We hear about the motor business, and these are the big boys, the international corporations that are strong and that are rationalizers. Rationalization simply means they are really in a state of laying people off, because in that rationalizing process you have a lessening of employment, not a growth in employment. Here government is, handing out hundreds of millions of dollars to the big corporations to assist them in their process of world rationalization.

I am not knocking the need to rationalize on a world basis with a single world market; I am not knocking that a bit. What I am saying is that if this government wants to spend money, I will take members down the main street of Picton, or Dundas Street in Napanee, or the main street of many small communities throughout Ontario and I will introduce them to some hardworking, honest-to-God solid folks who put in a very long day, often seven days a week, who put all their investment in, who are just doing everything they can to survive in a complicated political and economic system, the type of system I have already described, and who need a little bit of help in a financial sense in terms of working capital but cannot get it because the banks do not want to deal with them. The banks are anxious to lend to Mexico, Poland or some other country and to maintain an unreasonable spread between the interest they give on their deposits and what they charge when it comes out. We consumers are paying for that.

17:30

They are building up accounts to cover bad debts, which, in my view, is stimulating excessive service charges. As consumers, we are being victimized by the financial community. The little businessman is not being helped. Where is the government in all this? It is handing it out to the big boys. I do not think the big boys need it.

If the government wants to do something, it can take its money and take the hand of any member of this assembly. He or she will take them into those little communities and show them where the money will do the most good and where it will stimulate real jobs, not jobs created through the implementation of more government legislation and regulation and not jobs that are simply an extension of a civil service that is overgrown now.

I say this to the government in a spirit of helpfulness, not in a negatively critical way. We know what the process of government is. The right of government is to govern. Its mandate is to govern and so it should. The opposition opposes, and so it should, but I think that opposition should be constructive as well. I try to be that, but in my experience it is important to have people who are sensitive to the real needs of the small business community. Those people should have a voice that is heard. It should be loud and clear and I think the government should act on that voice, which has the interest of the generator of jobs at heart. Again, the generator of jobs in this country is the small businessman with the opportunity to grow.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your perseverance in giving me leeway. I have covered the waterfront and a number of ministries. It is a big picture that we need. We need someone who can see that picture and zero in on where the bottlenecks are and who has the power and the authority to move to extricate the little man, the small business person who is trying to get ahead.

The government should be supportive of that, not negative. I urge it to transfer some of its attention and funding from the big foreign and domestic multinational corporations to the small business sector and to assist it. That is the kind of investment we have to make. With that, I repeat that I will be happy to support Bill 24.

Mr. Breaugh: I was home in Napanee on the weekend and I read with some sadness in the Kingston Whig-Standard that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor) is not going to run again. It saddened me, because he has been a member here for some time. He described himself in the article as a bad guy. Within the previous government it was all divided into good guys and bad guys, and he was declared to be a bad guy and was outlawed. That too saddened me.

I was surprised this afternoon to hear him use the word "czar." When the member talks about czars, it usually has a wholly different context. He has rarely been caught in here calling for anyone to create a czar of anything. I was surprised too to hear him speak against corporate socialism. I should not have been, I suppose; he has spoken against every other kind of socialism in the world, but it was refreshing to hear him speak out against the corporate world.

There seems to be a trend now among the Tories, an attack on big business. This is about the third or fourth time this week I have heard a Tory member get up and rail against General Motors and George Peapples or some other large corporation. I want them to respond to that. The Tories need to clarify whether they are against all kinds of big business now, because they seem to have established a regular pattern of attack here.

I close by saying that I am truly sorry he will not be a member here after the next election, of his own volition. I hardly ever agree with anything the member for Prince Edward-Lennox says, but I do grant him this: He is one of the few real Tories left in the Tory ranks anywhere. I cannot speak as a witness here, but I will bet he is not a Tory who wears a blue suit and pink shorts. I do not want to find out the real truth of that. I would rather leave that as an ideological statement. I believe this guy is blue all the way through.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments or questions? If not, the member has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Taylor: I will take that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, and thank my --

Mr. Speaker: Within reason.

Mr. Taylor: I want to thank the socialist horde to my left. I did use the word "czar"; that is right. It is symbolic in the sense of authority. It may be the only type of authority the member appreciates, but I think he has a better appreciation of the message I was trying to convey.

I certainly appreciate his kindness, and he is right. I certainly do have what we would call traditional Tory principles. I do not wear pink shorts; I am true blue. I do not apologize for that. I believe in the marketplace --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member does not have to show us his shorts.

Mr. Taylor: I am not going to undress here to satisfy the minister on that, but I do believe in the marketplace and in free enterprise in so far as we can have free enterprise.

I appreciate very much the political and economic theory of my friends to the left. At least I understand it. I do not agree with it, but I understand it.

I have been here for 15 years. I have not heard any relevant remarks from the gentleman to my left and I did not expect to hear any today, so I am not going to give credits even to the compliments.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to be able to respond on behalf of the Treasurer and Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) with respect to Bill 24. I thank all honourable members who have participated in this debate; I think there were 14 in total. Most of those comments were fairly positive, particularly with respect to the programs, although some of them felt the program was not going far enough.

I will also address a matter that a few members have raised, and that is the alleged lateness of this bill in coming to the Legislature. As members recognize, this Legislature was very busy with other business last spring when, after the budget was introduced, there were a number of budget days. In addition, as members know, there was a very great deal of discussion on Bill 94. For those who do not remember that bill, it dealt with extra billing.

The Legislature was busy and went a number of weeks into July, something it has not always done. Coming back immediately after Thanksgiving Day, we felt it was important to deal with these bills as quickly as possible.

Another point one member made -- I forget who it was right now; I believe it was the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) -- was that these bills really do not take effect until the new year in most cases, so there was not the same urgency that would have been associated with them had they taken effect immediately.

17:40

Before trying to address these matters in order of the members who got up and spoke to the matter, and getting into the more serious bit of discussion on the various matters that have been raised, I will mention for the benefit of the member for Prince Edward-Lennox that he has been accused of being true blue all the way through. I suggest that maybe he should speak to Mr. Stanfield. Maybe he can give him a set of underwear that would also be blue. That would probably enhance his complexion a little.

The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) mentioned a number of points with respect to Bill 24. He made reference to his question 312 in Orders and Notices regarding the small business development corporations. I believe the question was answered back on July 11. If that is not the case, I hope he will get in touch with me. However, it is my information that it was responded to on July 11. We will be glad to follow up on that if the member wishes.

He also expressed concern with respect to a breakdown of the SBDCs investment by region between October 24, 1985, and May 13, 1986. I understood this information had already been conveyed to the member, but if it has not been provided, I will undertake to get it for him. For his interim use I can provide him with a full set of statistics for the month of September 1986, broken down by region and so marked for his consumption. I have that if he wishes to have it.

With respect to comments made by the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), he expressed doubt about the number of changes made recently to a program that has demonstrated it works well. It has worked extremely well since its inception back in April 1979. A number of the changes implemented reflect the recommendations contained in a report by Clarkson Gordon, otherwise known as the Farlinger report, and were therefore necessary to the program's continuing development and success.

With respect to the reduction in the grant rate to 25 per cent, this was generally intended to increase the base of the program participation and to ensure a greater overall impact for the taxpayers' dollar. The maintenance of the incentive rate of that program at 30 per cent for the northern and eastern parts of this province recognizes the additional risk that investors take in those areas and the corresponding need for the government to provide some additional encouragement in these areas.

In answer to the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), who expressed a concern that SBDC participation is denied to a small business where the corporation has received other assistance from the federal or provincial governments, this is not correct, except in the case of involvement with the former scientific research tax credit program. This was necessary to prevent abuse of the SBDC program, since to permit involvement in both programs would be to allow the investor to stack credits, thereby reducing the risk he was taking. He will have to share the same amount of risk as other people in the province will have to take.

Another concern expressed was the belief that the small businessman is left to his own devices to deal with government red tape. I suggest this is not the case. The SBDC program offers a matching service to address exactly this point. It attempts to match up potential investors with eligible small businesses. In addition, legislation specialists provide continuing help to small businessmen to structure their investment proposals in a manner consistent with the requirements of the legislation. To supplement these activities, the SBDC staff conducts a full schedule of demonstrations and promotional sessions across Ontario, with particular emphasis in northern Ontario.

The member for Leeds (Mr. Runciman) expressed a concern and wanted to know how eastern Ontario was defined. The member will be able to find a complete geographic description of the affected areas, by county, in regulation 915, section 19.

Mr. Wildman: It would be easier to speak to the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman).

Mr. Epp: Or speak to the member for Lanark. I am sorry I did not think of that first.

I want to draw the member's attention to this booklet that most of the members have seen called Small Business Development Corporations, Small Business Success, put out by the Ministry of Revenue. It has a nice, bright colour on it. On the inside of the back cover is a map of northern and eastern Ontario, the sections that are covered by the extra five per cent incentive of the program itself.

He also expressed some reservation with respect to the SBDC program that does not address the concerns of the auto industry and spinoff corporations of the auto industry. In fact, many of the corporations active in the auto industry already qualify as manufacturers and processors. However, amendments to the regulations in process will also expand eligibility to include near manufacturers such as foundries, bumper chroming operations, mills and others. These regulatory amendments will be filed momentarily.

The eloquent member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) quoted figures relative to the program involvement to date and requested an update. As of September 30, 1986, $342 million had been channelled into 792 small businesses. That is a considerable number of businesses that have taken advantage of the program. These, in turn, have employed a lot of people and have had an important impact on the economy of this province; a very positive impact, I suggest.

Mr. Wildman: Why is the member reading this?

Mr. Epp: I am just suggesting that these members have expressed important concerns and I want to respond to these various questions. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) expressed the concern that the bill represented an attempt by bureaucrats to nitpick to death the SBDC program. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox also mentioned that point.

I want to draw to the members' attention the fact that this is denied in the Clarkson Gordon, or Farlinger, report where great praise is expressed for the manner in which the program has been administered to date. I want to underline that comment because of the fact that members do express concern from time to time and they should be assured that the ministry is doing everything possible to service this program as best it can. In fact, it has been complimented by the member for Durham West, the former Minister of Revenue, and by other ministers who have administered and been in charge of that program.

In addition, it seems to speak well for the program. As I indicated, 792 small businesses have been created and almost 900 SBDCs have sought to take advantage of the program to date. Investment through the program, as indicated over the seven-year period, is more than $342 million.

In summary, if the program had fallen victim to nitpicking bureaucrats, it would not be around to serve the taxpayer today, let alone serve all these various businesses it is serving. We expect it will be around for some time to serve additional businesses and the people of the province.

That addresses fairly well the comments made by the honourable members. I again want to thank them for their positive input.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

17:50

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Nixon, second reading of Bill 26, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Epp: This bill implements the proposals contained in the budget of May 13, 1986, as well as some administrative amendments.

The exemption level for prepared food products will be increased from $1 to $2 effective 30 days following royal assent to the bill. The exemption from the seven per cent tax will be withdrawn on certain transportation vehicles and equipment --namely, heavy trucks and trailers -- effective January 1, 1987. The bill provides that ceilings will be placed on rebates of sales tax on motor vehicle conversions and the exemption for fuel conversion kits for vehicles will be replaced by a rebate program effective 30 days following royal assent. The rebate available to farmers with respect to material used in construction of grain storage bins and grain dryers and to universities purchasing research equipment will be replaced by an exemption from tax in order to improve the cash flow of farmers and universities.

The bill proposes the elimination of certain abuses pertaining to the exemptions from tax on prices of admission. To better target the exemption for prices of admission, I will be moving an amendment to Bill 26 in committee of the whole House. Specifically, the 90 per cent Canadian talent criterion will apply to live theatrical or musical performances only, as originally intended, and not to professional sporting events.

The bill also includes amendments providing for other administrative housekeeping changes.

Mr. Ashe: The first thing I would like to do is correct the record. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) attributed to me something that I really did not say on the previous bill, and that was that most everything came into effect on January 1, 1987. That is to say, the implications from the budget bill came into effect January 1, 1987. That is not quite what I said. I indicated there were quite a number of parts of the various budget bills that did not become operative until 1987, but there were many, including the small business development corporations bill which we dealt with, that came into effect following royal assent.

Once again, now we are on Bill 26, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, I have the same criticism except, I think, even more damning than on the previous bill, relative to this government that waits five months. Back in April 1985 they were running up and down the streets, the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) was pounding his chest and many of the candidates on behalf of the government party as it sits today were tramping the streets and telling everybody about the great changes they would make just about immediately if they came to power. Of course, they did not expect they would have to assume that onerous task, but to and behold -- thanks to the members on our left, of course -- that came to be in late June of last year.

Mr. Epp: Thanks to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Ashe: Not the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario voted for fewer of you fellows than over here. Just do not forget that. It was 48 --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Mr. Ashe: -- and you still have fewer than we do.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: They were voting quality and not quantity.

Mr. Ashe: Obviously they made a lot of mistakes. I would note to the member from Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) that when it came to quality they sure ran out pretty fast over there.

Back to Bill 26: Again, on the criticism of the inactivity and the gross monstrosity that the government put on us by waiting in excess of five months to put into effect -- in the space program they talked about a giant step; this was not even a mini-step when one looks at the first major exemption referred to by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp), the minister's parliamentary assistant, an exemption on fast-food products, raising the threshold exemption from $1 to $2.

That means you do not have to buy your coffee separately from your doughnut. You now can have your coffee and doughnut at the same time. That is not what bothers me. It is that they ran up and down the highways of Ontario saying, "If we become the government we will put into effect virtually overnight" -- not recognizing the process ---"a limit of at least $4." Lo and behold, on May 13, 1986 --

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That was before we saw the real set of books.

Mr. Ward: That was before we inherited the huge deficit.

Mr. Ashe: They inherited an economy that should have given us very close to a balanced budget this year, not what we got.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It has been so long since he has seen a balanced budget he does not know what it looks like.

The Acting Speaker: Order. You have two minutes after this gentleman has terminated his speech to voice your questions and comments.

Mr. Ashe: Did we see in the first budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) any movement to that $4? No, I do not think we did. If we did, I missed it. On May 13, 1986, we saw the giant step forward -- the mini-shuffle we should call it -- from $1 to $2. There were great expectations out there. The next day people thought they could get their coffee and their doughnut without paying taxes. Did that happen? No. The legislation before us says, "Thirty days after royal assent."

I can appreciate the 30 days because a lot of cash registers have to be changed. McDonald's is pulling its hair out, looking forward with great delight to changing all its computers for that grandiose change from $1 to $2. You will be able to buy a Big Mac for $2 as long as you do not want anything with it; do not get anything with it because you are out of business. The coffee and doughnut across the street will be all right.

Did we get it on May 14 or did we get it on June 14, one month after the budget? No, we did not. At the very earliest, we now are looking at better than six months past the budget for the great increase from $1 to $2. It is time for an opportunity for the private sector to come in and voice its views on that grandiose misadventure called the $4 promise and the $1 nudge.

We have some other changes that are rather significant. The parliamentary assistant indicated there was going to be an amendment clarifying the section relating to entertainment exemptions and what have you. I am glad to hear that, because there is a lot of confusion. There still is a lot of confusion even after what he says. We need an opportunity for the private sector to come in front of a standing committee of this Legislature to express its views on this amendment, to express its displeasure at the inaction of the government in putting forward its promises.

I find one other thing rather confusing; I am talking about the trucking industry. I appreciate this was something that was not planned to come into effect until deliveries taken after the end of this calendar year. The removal of the seven per cent exemption on larger trucks, tractor-trailers, etc., is significant for many communities in this province. It is going to be a damning situation for many small truckers. They are small in size; they have to operate large trucks, but they are relatively small companies. Again, they should have the opportunity to come in front of a committee of this Legislature and express their views in a very forceful manner.

18:00

If there is one other thing, besides the usual housekeeping changes and so on that are in this bill -- these are always necessary and help to properly administer any act, including the Retail Sales Tax Act -- it is the confusion. We seem to be changing from exemptions to rebates, and yet in other cases we are going from rebates to exemptions. I find that a little unsettling. I wish we could make up our minds about which way we want to go. When we are talking about alternative-fuel vehicles, we are going from exemptions to rebates, and yet when we are talking about rebates for farmers, universities, etc., we are going from rebates to tax exemptions. Why do we not go all one way or the other and get some consistency?

There are many other amendments in the bill which are very appropriate, such as exemptions from sales tax for books to include labour and repairs and the clarification that if one is buying a service contract, one is paying sales tax up front and would not pay it upon delivery of any service. However, there are some major changes with implications that are very unclear out there in the entertainment industry, service clubs and organizations. That may have been clarified with the suggested amendment. I have had calls, for example, from the people who operate the Canadian Open to ask, "Are we going to have to pay tax?" Obviously, 90 per cent of the participants in the Canadian Open are not Canadian. I can attest to that; very few are. Many organizations are very unclear and have very strong views they would like to put forward.

This party will be supporting this bill on second reading, but we suggest it is in order and very appropriate for a standing committee of this Legislature to have this bill put before it to hear representations on many of these important issues by members of the taxpaying public who are going to be impacted by some of these changes.

Mr. Foulds: We will not be voting against this bill on second reading; so the parliamentary assistant can rest easy for the rest of the afternoon.

Perhaps more clearly than any other, this bill indicates how difficult it is to keep to the parliamentary tradition of speaking to the principle of the bill on second reading. This bill has eight stated purposes in the explanatory notes, some of which are contradictory in terms of the principle involved. Basically, it is a grab-bag bill that simply makes a wide range of amendments to the Retail Sales Tax Act.

First, it takes the step, one year at a time, of raising the exemption on prepared foods to $2 from $1. It saves the Treasurer from the embarrassment of this measure in his previous bill. It has not yet achieved the $4 exemption level promised in the Liberal campaign of 18 months ago. Therefore, I assume we will have that promise recycled before the next budget.

I find myself in very strange company indeed, having for the first time in some 15 years to agree with the previous speaker. In one clause of the bill and in the explanatory note it says it improves the cash flow to farmers and universities by granting a tax exemption to them on certain equipment, instead of giving a rebate, and yet the very next section uses the other process. It gives a rebate instead of a tax exemption to the purchaser of an alternative-energy vehicle. I have some concerns about that.

In the section where the government gives a rebate to the purchaser of an alternative-energy vehicle, two things are happening. One is that the individual particularly, as opposed to the fleet purchaser, has to put the money up front on the purchase of the vehicle because he will be paying sales tax and the rebate is taxed.

The government is trying to pretend it is still in favour of alternative-energy vehicles. It is trying to pretend it is encouraging their purchase, but it is making it financially more difficult for the purchaser in two ways. First, he or she has to put the money up front at the beginning. Second, with the increase in cost of motor vehicles, the rebate will not recover the extra cost a person has to pay for an alternative-energy vehicle.

I believe the rebate is capped at $750 and $1,000. The figures I have show that the cost will be about $1,000 and $1,250 to $1,400. As the price of vehicles escalates over the years, they will have to lay out more and more of their own cash. I would certainly like that clarified when we get to the clause-by-clause stage of the debate.

In the next section, the government is closing an exemption that has been previously granted. It was not quite clear whether the previous exemption on trucks and tractor-trailers was a temporary measure as a result of the downturn in the economy in the early 1980s. That will certainly be the argument the Treasury puts forward at this time, that with the boom in the economy it is no longer necessary.

There may be validity to that argument. However, I point out that a number of these vehicles will be used and purchased particularly by relatively small companies or independent operators in northern Ontario, where the economy is not booming, as we heard today and will hear again and again.

It will be interesting to see the breakdown in figures of who actually purchases and the breakdown in purchasing vis-à-vis the relatively small, independent owner-operator versus the large fleet or company. I am surprised the Ministry of Revenue does not appear to have those figures. With the statistical information and computer programs available to the government, I would have thought that kind of thing would be available.

It is a hotchpotch bill. There is nothing at this stage that requires us to vote against the bill. We will be looking very closely at the clause-by-clause debate. I understand the other opposition party wants some limited hearings outside the Legislature to hear the views of people on these sections. We have no great objection to that. It is always good to get the democratic views of people in the province. For all those reasons, we will keep a watching brief on this bill.

18:10

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to join this debate on Bill 26. As was indicated earlier by my colleague the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe), we will be voting for the bill on second reading and in principle, although we have some specific concerns with it, which I would like to address in the next number of minutes.

With that in mind, it is our intention to see the bill go out to committee after second reading. We hope that committee will entertain some briefs and submissions from the general public and interested parties, both here at the Legislature and elsewhere from place to place in the province. I was very pleased to hear my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) indicate that the New Democratic Party is in support of that process. I will convey his thoughts back to my House leader. We would not anticipate that being a particularly lengthy process, but none the less it is one that we think could be important and of benefit.

Mr. Foulds: I have already conveyed that to your House leader.

Mr. Gillies: The member has probably already made the deal, but let us get it on the record.

Mr. Foulds: Within the past 24 hours. I think your House leader knows where I stand on this question.

Mr. Gillies: It seems we are all of a mind; so why do we not call it a day? No. There are a couple of points I would like to make with regard to Bill 26.

These are changes of course to the Retail Sales Tax Act. I understand the changes will result in a loss of revenue, surprisingly enough. It is not often that Treasurers change legislation to remove willingly tax revenues that were available to them in the past. However, I understand that initially, in 1986-87, we will see a loss of revenue of approximately $14 million, but that trend will be reversed in 1987-88 to a gain of about $35 million. In the end, the provincial coffers are the winner on this one.

The various exemptions and changes contained in the bill are, as has been said earlier, a bit of a mishmash, with a bit of everything in this one, but I cannot let the prepared-food exemption go by without a couple of thoughts. I am looking at my friend the parliamentary assistant, who knows I am not prone to be particularly partisan in these matters, either here or in committee. I always try to work in a co-operative manner with my colleagues from all parties in the House, but I cannot let the opportunity go by when we see the government increasing the exemption from sales tax on prepared foods to $2 from $1.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: That is a 100 per cent increase.

Mr. Gillies: My friend the Minister of Community and Social Services says that is a 100 per cent increase, but of course this is well short of the campaign promise by the Liberal Party to raise the prepared-food exemption to $4.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We are getting there.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We will get there next spring.

Mr. Gillies: I hear a chorus. I have excited my friends opposite. I can hear the chorus now. I can always put the players in place here. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) would say, "You had 42 years to increase that exemption." But he is not here to say that; so I said it for him. My friend the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) is probably yelling over, "It is a federal matter." Is that what the member is saying? No.

Mr. Mancini: I have not said anything.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: All we said was we were getting there.

Mr. Gillies: They said they were getting there, but my gosh, it worries me because I so desperately want to believe every word my friends in the Liberal Party tell me.

Mr. Foulds: That in itself is not a credible statement.

Mr. Epp: I have no problem with it.

Mr. Gillies: Time and again I am disappointed and let down by the Liberals' inability to keep their campaign promises.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Such as separate schools, extra billing, the environmental legislation, the housing legislation.

Mr. Gillies: While I will stick stringently to the contents of this bill, I see time and again this government backsliding on its various election promises, whether it is the --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: My gosh. You can hardly hear yourself think in here, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Philip: The member is hardly in a position to talk about separate schools, considering the number of positions the Liberal Party has had on separate schools.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is passed.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was such a good interjection by my friend the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) that I did not want to interrupt him.

The point is that the Liberal Party said it was going to raise the exemption to $4, which would have accomplished something. In many instances, it would have meant --

Mr. Andrewes: They would have kept their promise.

Mr. Gillies: Yes, it would have meant they would have kept their promise. Let us get serious for a minute. It would have meant that many working people could buy their lunch in a small cafeteria or in any number of little restaurants in my riding or others. It would have been a $3 or $4 lunch and it would have meant something. We are not talking extravagant meals, we are not talking big-ticket meals, we are talking ordinary working lunches for ordinary people.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Who were the ones who wiped it out completely?

Mr. Gillies: I would like to continue my brief remarks but the problem I am having is that the interjections of the members of the government are unduly lengthening my remarks.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We have another 15 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: We just want the member to be factual.

Mr. Gillies: I am being precisely factual. My friend the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne), Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs, and his party said they were going to raise the exemption to $4.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: And we will.

Mr. Gillies: They have raised from $1 to $2. What does that do?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Would the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) refrain from interjecting?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Epp: He is being provoked.

Mr. Gillies: I am not trying to be provocative, as Bill Davis used to say. That is one thing: I believe a change from $1 to $4 would have accomplished something meaningful. I do not think the change from $1 to $2 does that to any extent, beyond allowing people to put their coffee and doughnut on the same bill, but there it is.

The placement of a ceiling on tax relief for alternative-power vehicles really puzzles me. I am hoping the parliamentary assistant can help me with this later when he makes his remarks. It seems to be a move which unduly complicates something that was previously rather simple. The exemption from tax was straightforward on alternative-power vehicles. It is being replaced by a rebate, which just means more red tape, as far as I can see.

It is straightforward when the vendor knows there is an exemption and the purchaser knows there is an exemption. There is no great problem. Putting a rebate system into place is another example of the penchant of this government to use red tape where it is not required.

Interjection.

Mr. Gillies: For those of you who missed the interjection and for the benefit of Hansard, my friend the member for Etobicoke just said, "It proves the Liberal environment policy has more gas than substance." I wanted to get that right. It is a good one.

Another feature of this change in the alternatively powered motor vehicle aspect of the bill is that a ceiling of $750 per propane conversion and $1,000 per natural gas and other alternate fuel conversion will be placed on the rebate of the sales tax on motor vehicle conversions. I hope when the time comes the parliamentary assistant will be able to enlighten me on the benefits of those ceilings. It is fairly obvious that it is a revenue-generated move. None the less, if he could enlighten us on that at the appropriate time, I would appreciate it.

However, while those matters, the question of the food exemption and the question of the alternatively powered vehicles, are concerns -- and we can even talk about them in light-hearted terms to an extent -- the third feature of this bill is one that I and my party take extremely seriously. I would like to devote some time to it, because this one causes us considerable concern. That is the removal of the exemption from sales tax on trucks.

I have a particular concern -- I will say it right up -- because there is a manufacturer of truck-trailers just outside my riding of Brantford in the community of Cainsville, the Trailmobile company. It is of great concern to me because that company employs about 600 people in good times when there are no layoffs, and a good number of those people are residents and taxpayers in the city of Brantford. It is fair to say that industry has had a number of serious problems in the past four or five years. My feeling was that any kind of break, any kind of assistance we could offer the trucking industry, particularly the truck manufacturing industry, was of considerable benefit, not only to Trailmobile just outside of my riding but also to Mack Canada and General Motors and all the other truck manufacturers in our province.

18:20

I might say parenthetically to my friends on the left that my New Democrat opponent in the last election -- and in the next election as a matter of fact -- Jack Tubman, is an employee of Trailmobile. I am concerned about all the jobs, but I am concerned that Mr. Tubman have his job to go back to because I plan on being here for a while.

Mr. McClellan: The member will be here for a while.

Mr. Gillies: I have just been reassured.

Mr. Andrewes: Dinosaurs move slowly.

Mr. Gillies: Dear dinosaurs.

I have some concern about these constituents. The concern is this: The trucking industry is a major industry in our province, not only the manufacturing of trucks and trailers but also everything associated with it.

It may be appropriate that we are debating this bill on the very day that the tragic news has come through on the question of the countervail and softwood lumber because in a very direct way, this bill represents yet another blow to the resource industry and the small business sector. I see a direct connection. At a time when trading measures are being put in place that are going to have a detrimental effect on thousands of jobs in this province, at a time of manoeuvres by great powers such as the United States, and at a time when activities within and without the control of this Legislature are taking place that are going to put a stiff burden on the resource sector of our economy, it troubles me a great deal that the removal of this tax exemption is going to hit many of the same people and is going to hit them at the same time.

I understand that the softwood and softwood-related industries in this province account for a chunk out of our gross provincial product that is something like $7 billion and, at the barest minimum, 7,000 jobs in northern Ontario alone. Is this a time, I ask the parliamentary assistant, to add to the burdens of that resource sector and of the various industries such as the trucking industry that are directly tied to the resource sector?

The government has decided to move this amendment despite stiff opposition from the Ontario Trucking Association. They asked the government not to do this in a direct approach last November. I am not suggesting for a minute that government can or should accommodate every special interest that ever comes knocking on the door. We know that is not possible. We have been on the other side and we plan to be back there. This is one group the government should have listened to very carefully. Our automobile and automobile-related industry has not yet recovered to a point where we should be removing the incentive this tax exemption provides.

The OTA estimates the removal of this sales tax exemption will increase equipment costs in the trucking industry by $65 million in the first year the new legislation is in place, and presumably there will be increasing costs thereafter. That is a considerable amount of money; $65 million pumped into the northern Ontario economy right now could be a very tangible benefit and could perhaps salvage some of the jobs we are all so concerned about. At the same time, taking $65 million out of the pockets of the purchasers of trucking equipment is a retrograde step.

There is another problem. I understand the removal of the exemption, as the parliamentary assistant indicated earlier, will become effective on January 1, 1987, and will result in a substantial production increase in the last quarter of 1986, as customers reschedule their purchase decisions so that they can still qualify for the exemption. I fear we could see a slump in the trucking industry in early 1987.

In my part of the province, where the honourable Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) also resides, we are all too familiar with this type of cycle. We are all too familiar with the farm machinery industry responding to a certain impetus or incentive from government. In come all the laid-off workers, on go the overtime shifts and everyone works and thinks this is wonderful for two or three months, and then bang.

Funnily enough, it is usually right after the Christmas break, right after New Year's Day that they get the layoff notices. I hope this is not going to happen in the trucking industry, because it clearly sets the pattern. I suggest to the parliamentary assistant that I am the last person to advocate retroactive legislation in most cases around here, but when we pass a bill in the next number of weeks which comes into effect in January 1987, with that very clear ramification of the loss of exemption coming up, I can see exactly that happening. I can see all my friends and the people I know at Trailmobile being called back for a couple of months, and then boom.

Even people who are working now could be laid off if there is a slump in early 1987. I hope that does not happen, but I fear it could. Mack Canada in Oakville, which is one of the larger manufacturers of trucks in the province, has already announced that production will be reduced from 17 trucks a day to 10 as of January 1987.

It anticipates that many jobs will also be lost at its suppliers in related trucking industries. So it is not just my hypothesis, as I say to the parliamentary assistant. Here is one of the major manufacturers saying, straight up, that based on its projections of what is going to happen after the amendment to the legislation is passed, it is already planning layoffs and decreased production. I hope the parliamentary assistant will take that into account.

Another group very concerned about this is the Canadian Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, of which my constituents at Trailmobile are members. It estimates that there will be a production decline in 1987 of approximately 27 per cent. A production decline of this magnitude could result in a reduction in the direct labour force of up to 25 per cent. As 1,200 people are employed in the trailer manufacturing industry in Ontario, more than 300 jobs could be lost.

I want to say straight up to the parliamentary assistant that this is the view put forward by this association. I am not suggesting for a minute that layoffs of that magnitude would be triggered merely by the removal of the sales tax exemption. I am not sure I buy that. However, it is saying that a combination of circumstances -- and this is one of them -- could lead to layoffs and lower production of that order.

I will be very frank. If any association or anyone is going to try to tell me that layoffs of that magnitude would come about as the result of one sales tax change, I would really like to see the figures and the assumptions lying behind that.

I see the time is drawing near for the government House leader to outline the business for the coming week, and so, with further remarks to come, I move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Mr. Gillies, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week. Mr. Speaker, you have received notice and been good enough to pass it on to the House leaders of a notice to set aside the ordinary business of the House on Monday to discuss the decision made by the US government of a 15 per cent countervailing tariff on softwood lumber products.

It is my expectation that a special debate will proceed. That is up to the House, of course, but in the event that it does proceed, then our regular business will resume Tuesday, if the House decides.

I would like to consider Bill 129, the Toronto hospitals bill, on Tuesday, and then continue with the interim supply motion. When that is completed, we can resume debate on the Revenue and Treasury bills not completed this week.

We will do the same on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons, unless those bills are completed. On Thursday morning, we will deal with private members' business standing in the names of Mr. Shymko and Mr. Hayes.

The House adjourned at 6:31 p.m.

16 octobre 1986