The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ASCENSEURS ET APPAREILS DE LEVAGE

Mr Ruprecht moved second reading of Bill 139, An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act.

M. Ruprecht propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 139, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ascenseurs et appareils de levage.

Mr Ruprecht: The item of elevators in Ontario is extremely serious. As you know, Mr Speaker, and as all members of the House by now know, since this has been up for discussion here, every year thousands of people are affected by accidents in elevators. We all know that this means that many more tenants are forced to climb 10, 20, even 30 stairs -- and storeys -- to reach their apartments.

In Ontario, non-fatal elevator accidents grew from 70 in 1978 to almost 1,000 since the NDP government took office. In a letter from the Toronto Fire Department, it was disclosed that the fire department rescued over 1,100 people from broken-down elevators in 1990, since this government took office. That is a very serious indictment of how elevators and the subsequent inspections and the problems arising therefrom are operated in Ontario. I only wish that with the introduction of this bill the minister were here. To my great surprise, she is not present this morning to talk about Bill 139 and why she would think it is or is not a good idea to introduce this legislation.

Before I continue, I wish to thank the many people who really helped me in writing and researching this bill and ensuring that indeed it gets to see the light of day. It points out how serious this matter has become for Ontario residents who have to travel every day in elevators.

I wish of course, first of all, to thank the Toronto Fire Department for having done yeomen's work in supplying a good deal of research and information on the broken elevators; the city of Toronto department of buildings and inspections; the Ministry of Housing; the researcher for our library, Mr Hill, who has done the actual bill; and, indeed, a number of other people who are directly involved in elevator maintenance in this province, including the mayor of Toronto, who has also written a letter to me and supports this bill. But more about that later.

According to a 1990 report by Ontario's elevator inspectors, Ontario has the worst ratio of inspectors to elevating devices in all of Canada. In the last little while there indeed have been a number of accidents that caused serious injury. I am looking at this time at the Ontario Public Service Employees Union report which most members have heard about.

The real question is, what does the minister responsible for elevating devices have to say about this public hazard? I have asked the question in the Legislature, and she said, "Yes, Mr Ruprecht, we are aware of the difficulty and we're doing some kind of" -- what? -- "risk management." In other words, simply because there are not enough inspectors around, we have to inspect only those elevators which indeed are the worst ones in the province and which cause injury and in some cases even death.

We as Ontario residents should never be exposed to an elevator which is not functioning and indeed never be exposed to an elevator which gets stuck between floors. I have with me a number of signatures of people who have been stuck and have been seriously hurt to the point where they have been so afraid for their own lives that from then on they are psychologically scarred. They may never again step into an elevating device because of the fear of not being safe.

The minister then says to us, "Well, don't worry, folks, you cannot crash because what we're really interested in is ensuring that no one dies while riding in an elevator." I suppose that is not the major point of this bill. Bill 139 goes to the heart of the elevating devices problem in the province.

We know what the problems are. I will outline them for members: in the city of Toronto alone over 1,000 accidents since this government took over; over 2,228 -- I think the number is exact -- people have been rescued in the last two years from elevators that have been stuck and the fire department has had to be called in. Every time the fire department is called in, we know that obviously it is at a great expense to the taxpayer.

There is no reason why the fire trucks should come out to rescue people because they are stuck in elevators. There is no reason for that if there is a service contract. This is what this bill speaks to specifically: a service contract in Bill 139 that outlines specifically what the elevator maintenance crew would have to do. All we are saying in Bill 139 is that the owner ought to get into a kind of service agreement with a bona fide elevator contractor. That agreement would stipulate how many times there should be inspections and maintenance performed.

I am looking at the Residential Rental Standards Board's recommendation and information available to the public. It says very clearly in here that as it stands now, the person who owns a high-rise building and who consequently is responsible for elevating devices in this building obviously does not have to provide elevating devices in that building.

1010

If the elevator is not functioning properly or if it is unsafe, all the owner would have to do is say "I shut the thing down," and there is nothing anybody can do. The provincial inspectors come out and say, "I'm sorry, but you've got a bunch of senior citizens here, there are 50 of them in the lobby and they're trying to get to the 50th floor," and they cannot get to the 50th floor. Why? Because the owner says, "There's nothing in the law that makes me have this elevator back in service."

I am not making this up. It is here in the Residential Rental Standards Board booklet that is open for everyone to see. We are not asking, with Bill 139, to hire more inspectors. We are not saying, "Hire hundreds more inspectors," because that is what the ministry would have to do to ensure the safety of elevating devices; we are not asking for that. We are simply asking for a service contract to ensure maintenance is being performed before the problem arises, before the elevator gets stuck, before someone is killed. That is very simple. It is not such a big deal simply to say to the owner, "Get yourself a service contractor and have that man come once a month or at regular intervals to inspect the elevator," not to shut it down, but to make it functioning for the seniors and all those whose lives might be threatened by broken-down elevators.

I feel very sorry indeed for the minister, because the minister apparently does not understand her own legislation. She says to my response -- and I think I might be hearing from my colleagues across the floor -- "Under section 22 of the Elevating Devices Act...every owner of an elevator must ensure that the device is maintained and inspected by a contractor registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations." The emphasis here is not on maintenance, the emphasis here is not on fixing the elevator, the emphasis is that the inspector has to be registered with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. That is the emphasis of this legislation that is presently on the books; that is the secret here.

It is not that maintenance should be performed, when the minister says, "We've got it all in the book; it's all working." If it was working right now, how come thousands get stuck in elevators? If the legislation is so clear to the minister, how come thousands of people are at risk? This is not clear.

All we are saying under Bill 139 is: "Let's have it clear. There is no reason for anybody to be stuck." If the legislation is clear, how come the mayor of Toronto, how come the department of municipal inspections, how come the Ministry of Housing is saying not only that it does not have a clear concept of what the legislation says but is telling us very clearly there is a problem and, "We wish to fix it." Bill 139 is set out to fix the problem of elevating devices and to clear up the law. I would hope that most members would be in support of it.

Mr Tilson: My friend the member for Parkdale has made several how-come comments. He has also indicated the number of tragedies that have occurred in the last number of years up to the time when the NDP took power, and they are tragedies. Some very serious tragedies have occurred over the years. The question I have to the member is, why in the world is the member for Parkdale standing up now? When the Liberals were in power, they had every opportunity to make amendments to this bill. There was one amendment made by the Liberal government. That amendment, as I understand it, was to extend the limitation period for proceeding under the act from six months to a year.

So on the one hand I concur on the issue of safety. There is no question that there needs to be extensive overhaul of the Elevating Devices Act. I do not think the bill goes into a whole slew of areas. We have had tragedies, we have had coroners' inquests, we have had reports that have been made to the Liberal government, which did nothing. They did absolutely nothing. They made one amendment to extend the limitation period from six months to one year.

Mrs Caplan: That is not nothing.

Mr Tilson: It is. A coroner's inquest took place in 1988, for example, a tragedy at the Scotia Plaza, when there was perhaps one of the longest and most complex inquests ever held into Ontario industrial accidents. Statistics can be given to this House and to the people of this province in regard to the seriousness of what needs to be done.

What came out of that coroner's inquest were a number of recommendations: safety devices that would prevent elevators from speeding upward, logbooks that would detail the maintenance history of every elevator, mandatory health and safety committees on Ontario construction sites, more provincial elevator inspectors, certification of all critical elevator components by the manufacturer and mandatory accident reports that would be circulated throughout the industry.

Certainly the member can be lauded -- he is a little bit late; he should have done it while he was in power -- for putting forth legislation like this, but it is not extensive enough, and I challenge the government to go even further than the member for Parkdale.

There was a submission made to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations by the elevator all-industry committee in January of this year, in which considerable recommendations were made. This was a committee which was formed in 1989 for the purpose of developing an industry position on the issues of major concern to the entire elevator industry. It speaks on behalf of 85% of the industry's manufacturing and contracting companies. This report was made available to this government. Again I applaud the member for bringing this issue forward, because certainly the government should take a serious look at the issues.

A number of recommendations were made in this report. There are specific, very important issues that the industry is currently facing:

The urgent need to respond to the training and retraining requirements and set qualification standards for elevator mechanics. That is not dealt with in this bill.

The need to review and clearly establish the role of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations in the regulation of the elevator industry. Should there be more government control or should it be more privatized? That is not dealt with in this bill.

The need to establish how the industry and government can move to retrofit existing elevators with new safety devices. That is not dealt with in this bill.

There was the subject of privatization, a very extensive report on the whole matter. What has been raised by the member for Parkdale, although admirable, does not go nearly far enough towards what our party has been advocating, that is, the safety of the elevator industry in Ontario.

There are a couple of other things I would like to draw to the House's attention on the subject of training. Training of all elevator mechanics should be compulsory. My understanding at this particular time is that it is not.

There should be compulsory training programs for elevator mechanics that reflect the three distinctive categories of skills required in the industry: (1) the installation of new elevators; (2) the maintenance of elevators, which is the very subject which this bill is talking about of course, and (3) the modernization and upgrading of older elevator units.

I recommend that all members of the House read this report, and certainly I hope that the member will read the report and that more extensive amendments be made to the act than are being put forward by the member.

Certainly the bill deals with two separate issues. One is with respect to maintenance agreements. The bill calls for landlords of residential premises to enter into service contracts for the regular service and maintenance of elevators contained in their buildings. That is certainly admirable, although I would point out to the member that the regulation, the current law, already says what he is putting forward.

Regulation 229/81, subsection 22(1), states, "Every owner of an elevating device shall ensure that the elevating device is not used or operated unless it is maintained by a registered contractor in accordance with the requirements of this section." That is what the member is asking. I assume, therefore, and perhaps he can clarify this, he is asking that what is in the regulation be put in the act. It is not that we do not have that law; we do have this law in the form of the regulation.

What we do not have is a whole series of matters that should be made amendments to the act that are all set forth in this report, which would provide more safety to the people of this province who use the elevators more and more. There are more and more elevators all around this province, and there is a fear for safety. All we see is the minister's signature on the elevators as we are riding up and down, and I think we all wonder, "What does that mean?"

1020

The bill certainly requires landlords of residential premises to keep elevators in service, except during times when they have to be taken out of service for maintenance, repair or replacement. Currently, the act deals with the safe operation of elevators. The amendment does not appear to be congruent with the existing legislation inasmuch as it appears to require landlords to keep the elevators in operation.

From a public safety perspective, we certainly support the intent of the bill, but I can say that it does not go nearly far enough. I will be interested in hearing from some of the housing experts across the floor and from members of the Liberal Party who are supporting Bill 121 because, if Bill 121 passes, the whole issue of safety will be dealt with in there. If you do not fix your elevators, you are going to have your rent knocked down. That is what Bill 121 says. Generally speaking, I can say I support the intent of the bill. What I do say is that the bill does not go nearly far enough and that the government should be encouraged to make substantial amendments with respect to safety.

If landlords are forced to enter into maintenance agreements for their elevators, there are a lot of other problems we have heard, specifically during the housing hearings that have gone on throughout Bill 4 and Bill 121, serious problems with respect to concrete falling off walls, with respect to boilers, with respect to underground parking garages and roofs leaking. How far does our government go? Should landlords be required to enter into regular contracts to inspect those things?

We have landlords come to us and say they cannot afford that because of the draconian laws that are being put forward by this government, and there are a lot of major problems as far as the practicalities of what my friend is recommending are concerned. I encourage him to bring forth bills of this type, but I would hope he would go much further than he is doing.

When we study the bill, we do not know, for example, how often the inspections should be made. Obviously inspections with respect to elevators that are only six months old might be not be nearly as great as inspections required for elevators that are perhaps 10 years old, so I think the bill needs much tidying up before I personally support it. We do not know specifically how long these contracts are to last or over what period of time the inspections are to take place. The regulations seem to be quite clear in many areas, but need to be tightened up.

In conclusion, I would submit that I am not in favour of the bill as drafted. I am in favour of the general intent of what the member for Parkdale is putting forward, as I am sure we all are. We are all concerned with respect to safety.

Mr Fletcher: First, I would like to commend the member for Parkdale for his thoughtful presentation of this bill. When it comes to safety, I think we all agree that is one of the paramount things we should be looking at in elevator services. I am not here to point fingers and say, "You should have done it or you should have done it." When it comes to safety I do not think we can start pointing fingers. It is something we all have to take our blame for.

As far as elevators and escalators are concerned, they are machines and they are going to break down just like cars or anything else breaks down. Once they do break down, I think people start to say: "Hey, I depend on this elevator. I need this elevator." They often feel penalized or shut out if an elevator does break down.

Should the public be concerned about safety? Of course it should. Everyone should be concerned about safety, but first let me assure members that elevators in Ontario are safe. In fact, if you compare them to any other form of transportation, elevators are probably the safest way of moving people. This has been the case in the past, and it is still the case today.

It is also important to note that Ontario's Elevating Devices Act and the Canadian Safety Code for Elevators are widely considered to be the best in the world. The ministry's elevating devices branch, in co-operation with industry, has played a large part in developing safety devices for Ontario elevators and in some of the success stories about what we have done with elevators. This is from previous governments, so let's not start pointing fingers again. The successful examples are elevator passenger door safeties, anti-joyriding devices, and safeties to control the speed of elevators.

Should there be legislation requiring landlords to have an agreement with a contractor for the maintenance of elevators to keep devices going? The Elevating Devices Act already requires an owner to have maintenance performed by a contractor registered with the ministry.

The reality of this whole situation is that landlords sometimes remove elevators from service for non-safety reasons, such as selective use for building maintenance. There are also disputes over payment for service. This results in the contractor refusing to perform work pending resolution, leaving the elevator shut down. I agree that people should not have to walk 10 or 15 storeys with groceries, but that does not come down to the act. The act is not the problem. The problem is the dispute between a landlord and a contractor.

Although people, especially the disabled and seniors, have been adversely affected by elevator breakdowns, let's face it, our primary concern is their safety. The requirement to keep elevators in service is not going to prevent any breakdowns. In fact, it could increase the frequency of breakdowns because of the requirement to minimize the downtime for maintenance. Municipalities have enacted such bylaws. I think the city of Toronto had just such a bylaw, but it has proved to be unenforceable.

The ministry does inspect its elevators. It inspects them on the basis of assessed risk rather than routinely inspecting them every year or two, regardless of their age, the equipment, and the use and quality of the maintenance. Recently it has become harder to recruit inspectors because of the industry's shortage of qualified mechanics, as well as the discrepancy between wages paid by the government and the industry.

As far as fatalities are concerned, could they have been prevented with more frequent inspection? It is hard to say, because accidents are seldom caused by component failure. What they are caused by is human error. Actually the incidence of elevator passengers being injured in normal use is almost zero. However, we know that one accident is one too many.

Ontario's excellent elevator safety record does not stop our ongoing efforts to improve it. Following the inquest into one of the fatalities in 1989, the ministry established the Elevator Safety Task Force with government, industry and labour representatives. A task force report based on the jury's recommendations laid the foundation for initiatives that are currently in the works. For example, a certification and training program for all elevator mechanics in Ontario is being developed by the MCCR and the Ministry of Skills Development in partnership with industry and labour.

We are also adding a new chapter to the Canadian Safety Code for Elevators detailing the minimum requirements for the maintenance on elevators and escalators. The code, which is enforced in Ontario, will also introduce mandatory recordkeeping requirements.

Again I commend the member for introducing the bill and for trying to help the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to develop some concrete policies. I am concerned about something that could happen as a result of this bill, and that is the fear that is growing unnecessarily among the public. Some people call the ministry and ask if it is safe to get into an elevator that has not been inspected over the last year. We say yes. Elevators are inspected based on their age, equipment and usage.

It is important to note that the Ontario legislation regarding elevators is widely considered to be among the best in the world. I cannot support the bill. I do not think the bill is going to do anything as far as the safety and operation of elevators are concerned. As I said before, I commend the member for Parkdale but I do not think his bill goes far enough. I do not think his bill is right. It goes in the wrong direction.

1030

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to speak on this bill put forward by the member for Parkdale on an issue of great importance to tenants. I cannot stress enough how important this issue is to tenants. In my riding of Eglinton, approximately 60% of the makeup is tenants. Over the past four years, without a doubt the two number one issues in my riding have consistently been elevators and maintenance, but until recently I did not have any hard data to back up my belief that this was a very important problem.

Just last fall -- September, October and November 1990 -- the United Tenants of Ontario race relations committee decided it would choose north Toronto as a target area to do a very extensive survey. The survey had two purposes: first, to see whether tenants were experiencing discrimination in their building related to race, creed, religion or other matters; second, to determine the level of tenants' satisfaction with their building.

It was quite enlightening. Several hundred tenants were surveyed in 12 different buildings; as I said, it was an extremely extensive survey. What they found when determining the level of satisfaction with their buildings was that 11.4% were very satisfied with elevators, 31.7% were somewhat satisfied with elevator performance and 55.7% were dissatisfied with the elevators. It was by far the number one cause for complaint.

I will give the members the other statistics because I think they will find them of interest. The second one was building security; 34.2% found this a level of dissatisfaction. The next one was relations with the landlord, 17.7%; the superintendent, 11.4%; rent, 13.3%; maintenance and renovations, 10.8%.

When you go to the next question, it becomes even more obvious. It asks, "If you were the owner of this building, what would be the first thing you would improve (choose one only)?" To this, 27.2% said they would choose to remedy the elevator situation, the top reason; the second one, 26.6%, was maintenance and renovations; and perhaps surprisingly enough to the government, 8.2% would choose rent as being the first thing they would improve in their building. Elevators were the number one reason for complaint. Elevators were the first thing tenants would choose to remedy.

I have a situation in my riding with which I would like to illustrate how the member for Parkdale's bill would help. It is a building on Soudan Avenue in my riding with a high proportion of seniors. It is a walk-up with, I believe, around 70 or 80 units. With this building, the elevators were out of repair for an extended period of time. The ownership of the building was in litigation. The city of Toronto came in and used its authority to repair the elevators. The problem was that they could not get the elevators going again because the ministry said at this point that there was no maintenance and service agreement with the owner company, so it would not allow the elevators to proceed.

If under the member for Parkdale's bill we had a provision from day one, when that elevator was licensed, that a maintenance and service contract would be in place, we would not have to wait until there was a crisis situation to look at the issue. It would have been in place. It would have been serviced. It could have been added to the tax bill, in the same way as the city of Toronto put the repair on the tax bill.

I know the minister quoted a section of the act where she said there is already protection, but it is not in the act; it is in the regulations. Not only that, but it is at the will of the landlord whether he or she chooses to have a maintenance and service agreement. So I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that we get these amendments. The member for Dufferin-Peel mentioned that it did not go far enough, although he supported the principle. Maybe it does not go far enough. I am sure there are other things we could do to improve the Elevating Devices Act, but I say to the member for Dufferin-Peel, Support Bill 139, get it to committee and we can then add other provisions that would strengthen the act. It is a starting point.

The member for Parkdale focused on two problems he has had in his area, which is why he brought forward this bill, but I am sure the member for Parkdale would be most open to expanding the protections to other areas, so I urge the member for Dufferin-Peel to support this bill. This is vitally important to tenants in this province. Many of our buildings have elevators, and as the member for Parkdale has pointed out on a number of occasions, just in the city of Toronto there are thousands of instances every year when the fire department is called upon to try to rescue some poor individual or individuals from an elevator. This cannot be tolerated. We need to provide people with more protection, the protection of making sure there is a regular maintenance and service contract, and ensuring that the landlord is required to keep the elevator in service except for such reasonable time as it takes for repair.

This government has said consistently that it believes in tenant protection. If members of the government vote against this bill, they will have proved that their commitment to tenant protection is nothing but hollow rhetoric. As for the minister's comments last week that they were not going to intervene, that it was not their business to intervene, this government has intervened in every facet of Ontario life. Why would they hesitate to intervene when tenants' safety and in some instances their lives are in jeopardy?

I urge all members of this House to support this excellent bill. I commend the member for Parkdale for bringing it forward and I hope we can work together to make this province safer for the tenants of this province.

Ms Carter: Elevators are very close to my heart, because I do not know how my heart would stand up to climbing the 30 flights of stairs between ground level and my apartment. They are very close to me when I get there too, because I can hear them running all night long. I am willing to climb one, two or even three flights of stairs, and I believe it even does me good, but beyond that, of course, an elevator becomes essential even for those of us who are able-bodied. I am totally dependent on the ups and downs of this gadget. Also, my office is on the 13th floor.

I have been inconvenienced many times by the long-drawn-out renovations to the elevators in the building where I reside -- there has been an apologetic sign on display for months -- but an elevator always comes eventually and has never in my experience malfunctioned. The time my husband got stuck in an elevator he was, I believe, in Winnipeg, not in Ontario.

I believe we are doing something right here in Ontario. Safety has to come first. To put pressure on landlords to keep elevators in service at all times unless actually under repair, as this Bill 139 would do, risks increasing the operation of unsafe elevators. Even if the bill became law, there would be no magical increase in the number of people available to service and inspect elevators or in the amount of money available to do it. If I had to choose -- heaven forbid -- I would rather sleep in my office than risk ascending to the 30th floor in an unsafe elevator.

1040

To many disabled and elderly people in our society, elevators are more than just a convenience or a lazy option. They are an essential part of being able to come and go at all. I was proud to assist at the opening of an elevator in a Peterborough church last Sunday. Church funds had been matched by an access grant from the Ministry of Citizenship to make this possible. Elderly and disabled people were acquiring the freedom to participate, without assistance, in the life of their church and their community.

Of course, that elevator and hopefully many more like it must be kept running, but not if there is the slightest doubt about their safety. I am sure the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations will continue to deploy its inspectors in the most efficient way possible, given financial and staffing constraints. As my colleague has said, a certification and training program for all elevator mechanics in Ontario is being developed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Ministry of Skills Development, in partnership with industry and labour representatives. A new chapter is also being added to the Canadian Safety Code for Elevators, detailing the minimum requirements for the maintenance of elevators and escalators.

The province is taking effective action to improve its already excellent record on elevator safety. As one of many whose life here in Toronto would be quite impossible without these devices, and as one concerned about those who need them for even minor changes of level, I do not support this Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act, although I appreciate the concern it embodies.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, I want to thank you very much, and also my dear colleague the member for Parkdale, for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of his bill. He has done extensive research on this matter. He does not speak only from his heart; he speaks from knowledge and he has put forward to the government and to the opposition statistics on which they can base their support of this bill.

I was quite surprised and concerned that my dear colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel began his remarks with finger-pointing at who has not done enough with regard to this bill and who in the previous government had not done sufficient in ensuring the safety of elevating devices.

I had hoped also that some of my comments would fall on the ears of a minister, but I am disappointed that no minister is here. That immediately tells me that the interest they have taken in the concerns of tenants in this province is just lipservice. However, I do have faith in quite a few of the backbenchers -- I hate to call them backbenchers; my colleagues who are not in the august circle of the cabinet, which carries such words of concern.

The member for Dufferin-Peel pointed out that there are a tremendous number of omissions from this bill of things that should have been there and therefore he is unable to support it. I have yet to find any bill that is presented that is a perfect bill. We put it forward, and then if there are any additions or amendments that members want to put forward, they can do so in committee. To support it in principle but not vote for it is a contradiction. If you support it in principle, you support it and vote for it; then when it gets to committee, you make your necessary amendments.

It was brought very vividly to my attention. My riding of Scarborough North has quite a few elevating devices. A gentleman was going for surgery on his back, and the elevating device had broken down. Mr Richard Cohen, the gentleman in question, had written to me and phoned me and had phoned the ministry and could not get any response. He had phoned every ministry -- the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Housing -- and he said he could not get any response. He had phoned me, and of course I tried to get some response out of those offices too, and to relay this gentleman's concern.

His concern was that, coming back from the hospital, realizing that he could not get back to the seventh floor by walking up seven floors was quite a traumatic experience for him. For two days in his building those elevators did not work. He phoned me concerned for the senior citizens who had to walk five, six, seven floors in order to get to their homes. He talked about people with heart cases who were concerned that they may have a heart attack in that process.

Before I tell members what the bill would have done, I will tell them what it has not done. My colleague the member for Parkdale wrote to the Minister of Housing with this concern and it responded to him. The manager from policy and programs spoke about, "There appears to be no mechanism to provide the elevating devices branch with the ability to make the necessary repairs and charge the cost back to the owner." He also said, "There is no provision in the legislation to require an owner to make the necessary repairs."

This bill states very simply, one, that the landlord shall enter into an agreement with a bona fide contractor "for the maintenance of the device at regular intervals" and, two, that the landlord ensures that "any elevating device intended for the use of tenants...is kept in service at all times."

It is important, at a time when this present government speaks of access and it says that you have a home and you cannot even get to it. As a matter of fact, even to get to your home may cause you some hardship, maybe death. I hope it is not so.

I was surprised that my honourable colleague the member for Guelph said that it is one of the safest elevating devices -- I do not know if he said the world or if he was comparing it with something else. I am very disappointed that he ignored the statistic that talks about over 1,000 incidents that have happened since the NDP -- not because of their fault but just as a matter of measurement -- has taken the reins of government. He ignored that and said it is one of the safest. Six deaths, I gather, have happened. These are things that come back, the agony that could have been avoided if we had had proper elevating devices in place. To say, "Let us not do anything about it because we are one of the safest" -- we are not trying to be one of the safest; we are striving to be safe.

I would like to acknowledge the fact that, especially in private members' bills, it gives the members an opportunity not to go with the government, the Minister of Housing, who has called them and said, "Please don't support this," but to think individually of their own concerns and the concerns of their constituencies and vote for this. If they want amendments, as I said, if it is not adequate, they should put forward their amendments to improve on this bill. We have seen in the past, of course, that members would like to have supported a bill on their own principles and moral obligations and they are then coerced in many ways by ministers and by premiers not to do this. But I urge them to stand on their own principles, to stand on the principle of the safety of tenants that they advocated for a long time, and I urge the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel to do so too.

1050

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on Bill 139, An Act to amend the Elevating Devices Act, with regard to the bill's requiring landlords to enter into agreements for regular maintenance.

Some time ago, back in 1986, the member for Leeds-Grenville asked some questions in this Legislature of the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Wilson Heights, with regard to some of the problems that had taken place in this province with regard to deaths in elevators and the many joyrides that were taking place. From that debate there was a study mandated, the Final Report of the Ontario Elevator Safety Task Force. That report indicates much along the line of what this bill is talking about. It says:

"The Ontario regulation should require that every elevator owner must secure continuously a full maintenance contract that would include replacement parts or have equipment thoroughly examined periodically, at a maximum 12-month interval, by a registered contractor who must certify that all components are fit for safe operation. This would trigger a renewal of the licence for a 12-month period. Prior to expiration, a further examination and certification must be carried out."

That report really says what the member is indicating here today, to amend the act to allow for that very section to be put in.

I really thought this was covered in the act now with regard to staff training and safety. Upgrading of elevator units in apartment buildings I guess is one of the major concerns that many apartment dwellers have. I do not see where, in this bill we are talking about, there is anything with regard to the upgrading of elevator units. Maintenance agreements, I would have thought, are already within the act at the present time. Failing that, I would anticipate Bill 121 would include much of what the member is speaking about here today.

When we are talking about elevators, it gives us a chance to express some of the concerns that have been brought to our attention within our own constituencies, and especially in Metropolitan Toronto, where you have the large high-rises. We ride them every day and take it for granted that they just work. Sometimes we have to wait longer. The member for Peterborough was talking about the waits she sometimes has, and I live in the same building so I know what it is all about, but only once have I ever had to walk down those 31 flights of stairs.

Mr Curling: What about going up?

Mr McLean: Going down would not be bad, but walking up would certainly test my ability.

Anyhow, the presence of this bill here today brings a debate in this Legislature and brings to the minds of the people just how serious this is and how important the elevators are in the buildings and how important this is to our seniors. In the constituency I represent, we have had elevators put in Royal Canadian Legion branches with the help of the taxpayers. I think those types of things are important when we are talking about elevators and the safety within them. But the staff training is important. More inspectors and better-trained inspectors would be important.

I think today what we are doing is debating a piece of legislation that I would have anticipated would already have been in any bill, and the bill would require landlords of residential premises containing elevators to enter into agreements for regular maintenance of the elevator. I know of hardly any building that would not have that in its contract. It requires landlords of residential premises to keep elevators in service. I would think this is in place already.

The Deputy Speaker: You have spoken on this issue already, have you not?

Mr Fletcher: Yes, I have.

The Deputy Speaker: You cannot do it again.

Mr Fletcher: Okay.

The Deputy Speaker: There are four minutes and 34 seconds left for the government side.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I can get the extra time, that would be appreciated.

The Deputy Speaker: If there is unanimous consent, I will give it to the member for Parkdale. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon members: No.

The Deputy Speaker: Two minutes left, the member for Parkdale.

Mr Ruprecht: I want the public to know today that when we talk about the seriousness of the elevating devices, this NDP government -- that is how really generous it is -- did not permit giving me two more minutes to talk about the elevating devices and the problems we are facing today. They should be ashamed of themselves, not being generous enough to give their colleague two extra minutes. They would rather sit there, stony faced, ashamed of themselves because they are unable to sympathize with the seniors and with the tenants of this province. Every time they stand in front of an elevating device that is not working and they have to walk 20 flights of stairs, I want them to think about this bill and that they have said no to this legislation.

Let me just refer very briefly to what the member for Dufferin-Peel said. I appreciate his remarks, and he has indicated that we should go farther than the proposal of my bill. Obviously I think he has a point. Nevertheless, this is the first step and I assume that he would support this as a first step. Once it gets into the committee we can go much farther, and then obviously I would agree with him.

The same goes for the member for Simcoe East, who somehow, along with the member for Guelph, is under the mistaken impression that section 22 already provides for maintenance-of-service contracts. It does not. There is no provision here that ensures that elevators are being maintained, and certainly there is no provision here that an owner is required to make the necessary repairs.

In short, I would hope that the members who are assembled here today would ask a question of the minister, who is probably stuck in an elevator, because she is not here today.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time for the first ballot item has expired.

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

Mr Arnott moved second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

M. Arnott propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 111, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

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

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased today to be here in this crowded chamber once again in private members' hour to bring forward my views on a private member's ballot item, Bill 111, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

The basic intent of the bill is quite simple. The bill would amend the Legislative Assembly Act by requiring each member to take an oath that the member will not only be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Queen but also that he or she will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada and that he or she will conduct himself or herself with integrity in carrying out his or her responsibilities as a member and, subject to his or her own judgement and conscience, seek to represent the views of those who elected him or her.

The oath would replace the oath that is set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. The bill amends only the English version of the Legislative Assembly Act. The Legislature has not yet adopted an official French-language version of this act.

I would like to start, I suppose, by reading the present oath, because I was quite surprised, when I made my views known that I was intending to propose a change to the oath, at the number of members who came over to me and asked me what the oath is at present. Essentially, what oath did they take a year ago? I was quite struck by that, so I will read it again:

"I, ..., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being), her heirs and successors according to law.

"So help me God."

As I say, that is the oath we presently take.

I will read at this time the specific oath I am proposing, an amendment, section 24a, of the Legislative Assembly Act:

"I, ..., do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being), her heirs and successors according to law, that I will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada, and that in carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the Legislative Assembly I will conduct myself with integrity and that, subject to my own judgement and conscience, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents.

"So help me God."

1100

When you are proposing something new you always have to justify why. That is the first question, why do we need a new oath? I believe we need a new oath. I think back about a year ago to the heady days of the fall of 1990. I was at Convocation Hall watching the new government, their Agendas for People clutched in their hands proudly as they were sworn into government.

At approximately the same time I was sworn in as a member of this Legislature, and my friends and family came down to Toronto to be present at what I felt was a very auspicious occasion in my life and something I was very excited about. I took my oath, the picture was taken and so forth, as every member did, but I was somewhat struck about how quickly it was over.

I felt at the time that there could be a more substantial oath. Not that there is any problem with the existing oath, but it could be made more substantial. There could be things added to it to give it more meaning and purpose. I believe the new oath would be an important addition because it could become a symbolic testimony of why we are here. A solemn promise made before the clerk with the Bible and before God is a new, important addition we could bring to this, a promise made to represent our constituents and to do various other things beyond just the oath to the Queen.

Doing some research about oaths, I came across a quote from the 17th century, Samuel Butler. He wrote a brief phrase that I think is telling: "Oaths are but words, and words but wind." I see that as a real problem. There may be an opinion that this is true and perhaps we need to counter that and put more faith in the oaths we take. I think there needs to be more substance to remind us of our responsibilities, our duties, why we are here and whom we serve.

I will take members through the new oath I am proposing phrase by phrase and indicate why I have added parts. First of all, the allegiance to the Queen is exactly the same as the existing oath, which I believe is very important, especially today. We have a situation in our country and in our province where people feel they have very little certainty and very little to grasp on to. The monarchy still remains a very important role in our society and we have to maintain and reaffirm that, I believe.

Second, I think it is very important to give an indication that members are willing to obey and uphold the laws of Ontario and Canada. I find that in the past it sometimes was overlooked. If we do not have a commitment to the laws we make here, we have a big problem. We have a direct influence on how the laws are changed. I do not believe in civil disobedience. I think we should take the attitude that if we do not like the laws, we will work to change them from our place here.

It is important also to have a reminder about conducting ourselves with a great degree of integrity. Some might argue that integrity is a very subjective matter. It may be to some people, but I think everyone has a personal standard of integrity and we often have to be reminded of our own standard, because in the heat of the moment or the day we may take steps towards deviating from that standard we have set for ourselves. I believe it is important that we are reminded of this.

It is very important to talk about the next part, "subject to my own conscience and judgement, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents." I think that goes without saying. There is such a malaise in the land today that members are not representing their constituents. We know we try every day to represent our constituents to the best of our ability, but the people do not seem to know that. If we encourage this in our oath, it can have an effect out there and hopefully add some respect for this institution.

I do not believe Bill 111 is going to change the world. I see it as a very modest and small step in the right direction towards a new path we should be taking. I believe reforms are drastically needed in this place and in this legislation in the way we conduct our own affairs. I am very disappointed at times, and I have been guilty of it too -- I do not want to sound as though I am never involved in interjections, because I am -- because the decorum in this place has been abysmal in the last few weeks. I think we have to keep that in mind.

We have to work towards enhancing the status of the private member at the expense of the executive because we are elected as well. Private members are seen by the people as being weak. We have to enhance our ability to work on behalf of our constituents. We have to work towards restoring the public's faith in this institution of Parliament because we are going to keep the institution but in my opinion we have to reform it from within.

I think we need to encourage the media towards a more positive portrayal of the work we do in this place. It concerns me that they seem to focus on the negative and do not report that we often work together in a common effort to solve the problems of the province. I think this bill in some small way might open the doors of this place. As I have said, in caucus all of us work very hard on behalf of our constituents and passionate views are exchanged, but people do not see that. If we took this oath promising to represent the views of our constituents, many of us would feel freer to express our views publicly in this forum.

I would like to close by talking briefly about where our commitment originates as members. Many of us have brought our ambitions to this place. We have ideas we want to bring forward to enact into law to improve this place and to improve the province. We have devotion to various causes. We have devotion to our constituents. All of us bring ideals to this place. Often our ideals and our passions are somewhat tempered after a period of time when we see the realization of what can occur, but we also have our instincts that we bring forward on views.

If we started with a new oath, if we defined the origin of our commitment with this new oath, it would be a big improvement. I would like to propose this solemn oath before God and before the Legislature, and I hope we can get some support.

Mr Mills: I am very proud and privileged to stand in my place in the House today and speak to An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act, Bill 111, proposed by my colleague opposite.

I would like first of all to speak briefly about Durham East, the riding I represent. Traditionally, the best we could do as New Democrats in Durham East prior to 1990 was, give or take, about 5,000 or 6,000 votes. This time around I was able to increase that figure by roughly another 5,000. As I stand in this House today, I recognize that I represent at least 4,000 or 5,000 who are not traditionally New Democrats. They do not profess to be, nor did they ever profess to be. I recognize that fact here in my decisions daily.

I would like to speak briefly about the amendment and my colleague's words here: "I will seek to represent the views of my constituents" and "I will conduct myself with integrity." I would like to think that is my personal oath to the people I represent in this House.

To go one step further, I would like to let people know that when insurance became an issue in this House -- I campaigned on public insurance -- I was bombarded by people in my riding who complained about it, about the loss of jobs, about what it would do to the economy. I went personally to the minister on two occasions to report my displeasure with public auto insurance and about how it would affect people I represent in Durham East who were not necessarily New Democrats. I think I have a duty and a right to do that.

When we met in Honey Harbour about this I stood in that room and again voiced my displeasure at public auto insurance as it affected the people I represented --

1110

Mrs Caplan: But you ran on it during the election campaign.

Mr Mills: The member for Oriole interjects and says I ran on it, and that is true, I did. But getting back to the private member's bill, I temper that with representing the people in their broad spectrum of political views. I think that is what the member today is saying we should do. I am saying that I do that, and when the member for Oriole speaks I will not interject and upset her train of thought and I hope she would do likewise.

When we came to the Sunday shopping bill, again one has to recognize that we represent so many people -- I do in Durham East -- who were opposed to that legislation. I spoke my piece on behalf of the constituents I represent there, and I do this constantly. I do not see that my principles have been changed and I do not really need an oath to tell me that I have to represent the views of my constituents.

Having said all of that, when people elect me they know that I represent the New Democrats and they know the New Democrats stand for certain things. I like to think that -- I see the member for Oriole shaking her head, I do not know why. People do elect people based on the party they represent basically.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There will be ample time to debate the issue, so I recommend that members remain quiet.

Mr Mills: Given the election process, I think it is very fair to say that when you run for a party, the goals of that party are very up front and that the people who vote for you recognize that you will, if I may put it in these terms, uphold the party line to a degree. That does not stop you from speaking out on behalf of the constituents you represent, in particular the many I represent in the riding of Durham East.

I am going to cut short my comments because another colleague in our caucus needs to speak to this bill. But before I close off, someone said to me from the news media when I completed my first year in office, "What are your goals?" I said, "I have one goal, that at the end of this present term of my office in this Legislature the people of Durham East, Conservatives, Liberals, or New Democrats, can look upon me and say that they got representation of the finest and best quality regardless of party politics."

That is what I intend to do in this House, and I thank members for the time to debate this. I will be supporting the member's resolution, although I think it is a little after the fact. On a matter of personal record, I will support it.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate today in private members' hour, but when I first saw the resolution, the bill that was brought forward by the member for Wellington, I looked at it and wondered why he had brought it forward.

At the present time in the standing orders, as the member has read out, we have an oath that pledges our allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. At first I thought his bill was designed to embarrass the NDP government, which had changed the oath for police officers in this province. I thought perhaps the member's proposed bill was to guarantee and ensure that members of the Ontario Legislature would continue in the British parliamentary tradition in this province and continue our pledge of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen.

I read along a little farther and I saw words in his proposed piece of legislation that I think all members of this House could agree with. Certainly it is the reason we all run for public office and stand to serve the public. In his opening remarks he talked about the need for members to take their responsibilities and duties seriously. I think what he has raised for us is an issue that goes far beyond the very simplistic approach this bill is proposing. He is a new member of the House and I have come to like and respect him. I think his goals are very similar to mine and probably to the goals of most of the members of this Legislature who stand for public life; that is, to try to make a positive difference in this province.

The question was raised about why we need to change the existing oath of office. I would ask that question as well. It seems to me that the reason, the need right now is that in Ontario my constituents and the people of this province do not like politicians very much. They think "political" means self-serving, as opposed to serving the public interest. They are cynical and concerned, and I do not think just changing the words of the oath of allegiance that a new member of this Legislature takes is going to solve that problem.

I have spoken in this House on numerous occasions about the issue of cynicism in our society today. It concerns me greatly. I have also spoken about the need for greater integrity in public office. During election time we all talk about integrity. I have said in my remarks in this House that integrity is saying one thing during the elections and doing the same thing after you are elected. Integrity is doing what you say you are going to do. Integrity is staying true to your principles.

One of the things people in this province do not realize is that there are very specific partisan differences between the political parties in this province. The reason we often sound the same is that we have the same goals. We all enter public life to make a positive difference, to serve the public, to serve the public interest. We do not on the whole generally -- there are always examples of the few bad apples who tarnish us all -- enter public life for ego reasons, not most of us anyway. Most of us do not see politics and partisan politics as a self-serving exercise.

We believe in our philosophical partisan approaches. The New Democrats, the socialists, have a very different philosophy and a very different approach to public policy issues than do the Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals. We can discuss what those philosophical differences are and we can see in the approach to public policy development how the different approaches of those parties are put forward.

I think the member for Durham East raised a couple of very good examples. During the election campaign of just over a year ago, the New Democratic Party was very clear about where it stood on auto insurance. Its approach was very different than the approach that had been offered by the then Liberal government and very different from the system that had been in place under the Progressive Conservatives in this province. The people of this province expected that if there were a Progressive Conservative government, one thing would happen, that if there were a Liberal government, something different would happen, and that if there were a New Democratic government, still another approach would be taken.

1120

Public cynicism is going to flourish in an environment where a party once elected says: "We're not going to do that. We didn't mean it. We didn't expect to get elected." That is an issue of integrity. That is what turns people off, when they hear them stand and say one thing during election time and then they do something very different once they have the opportunity to implement those things they talked about.

I believe very strongly in the traditions of the parliamentary system. I believe very strongly that you do not change those traditions lightly. I was concerned with the way the new government changed the oath for police in this province. It was not debated in this Legislature. It was done by a stroke of the pen at the cabinet table, by order in council, with no debate, no discussion -- an important tradition.

I said we have important issues of public policy to debate. One of the concerns I have is that in private members' hour, when members are free of party discipline -- I say this very specifically to the member for Durham East, who has stood in this House with other members of the government caucus during private members' hour when the whip has been on. That means the members have been told they must vote for or against certain members' resolutions during private members' hour. We have seen it time and again. When members should be free to speak on behalf of their constituents or use their own judgement or put forward their own ideas to debate public policy issues of the day, new members of this House in the government caucus have been told how they are expected to vote during private member's hour.

We see what happens to members of the government caucus when they do not toe the party line. We saw an example just yesterday when my colleague the member for St Catharines raised a question about the firing of the member for Lincoln, the Chair of one of our standing committees, who was fired after he voted against a government bill.

I have been in government and I have seen members of government caucuses, on points of importance to their constituents, vote against a government bill and there was no retribution. But coming from this government party we have seen a cabinet minister fired for disagreeing with the policies of his party and we have seen a committee Chair fired and then reinstated when the issue was raised in this House.

I think these are the things the member for Wellington is questioning in suggesting a change in the oath in this House, but I would say to the member that changing the words of the oath is not going to change the behaviour in this House. It is not going to change the way we treat each other, the lack of respect we sometimes see, and it is not going to change the role of the individual members and their ability to speak out within their caucus or within this House during private members' hour, because in the British parliamentary tradition the role of the party, the role of the caucus, is also a very important role.

When we stand for public office in the provincial elections in Ontario, we run as a member of a party. We can also choose to run as an independent. The member for Wellington chose to run as a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, and he stands for all the things the Progressive Conservative Party stood for during the election. He is accountable to his constituents for the promises and commitments the party made about the approaches it would take.

The members of the New Democratic caucus, the government caucus, the now governing party, are accountable to their constituents for the promises it made during the election. That is the way our system works. They are members of a government caucus, and as a member of this Legislature the role we undertake as a member of our party and our caucus is to speak out on behalf of our constituents with integrity in a passionate way on the issues of the day, those things that we believe in.

We enter public life because we want to make this province a better place. Within our philosophy and our principles, we want to bring forward suggestions and ideas for new legislation, new laws, new regulatory regimes or schemes or funding priorities. But each party sets forward not only its goals; it also sets forward its priorities.

I guess the concern I have is that we are not taking advantage in this House of the opportunity, even within private members' hour, to diverge, to free ourselves from caucus discipline, to free ourselves from the yoke of the whip. I can tell members that within the Liberal caucus, both in opposition and when we were in government, each of our caucus meetings was a reminder to our members that private members' hour was a free time for members to speak their minds. We did not whip our members to support a government position.

The members of this House will know there were sometimes very important issues of debate. Some of those, I would suggest, were framed by the opposition parties to embarrass the government. That sometimes happens in private members' hour. But it was a very good opportunity for us to speak our minds, free of party discipline, free of the yoke of the discipline of caucus.

I would say to the member for Wellington that changing the oath is not going to solve that problem. He has pointed out some of the problems that exist, but I believe that if we simply change a tradition in this House, we will send out a suggestion that we have fixed the problem. My concern is that we will just increase the cynicism we find in this province by suggesting that an oath is going to change anything.

I believe the public, if they are going to have respect for what happens in this Legislature, have to see question period for what it is, which to a large degree is theatre. One of my children said to me that when they watch question period they really think of it as the Young and the Restless, one of the soap operas of the day. I tell them the important debates happen in committee where you often find a lot of co-operation, where people put forward their ideas, usually in a thoughtful way. You find it during private members' hour and through the debates in this Legislature.

I would say we could have an important debate on the enhancement of the role of the individual member, finding ways to permit additional free votes, finding ways to allow members to speak their minds on behalf of their constituents, but as I sum up today, I really believe that simply changing the oath of office, while it is well intentioned, is no more than just a meaningless gesture to solve what is a very serious problem in our society. I think if we each pledge ourselves to take the message to our constituents that what happens here is important, that we are all people of integrity although we may differ in our partisan approaches, then hopefully the people of Ontario will have more respect for all of us in public life.

1130

Mr J. Wilson: I am very pleased to stand and support the resolution put forward today by my colleague the member for Wellington.

Unlike the member for Oriole who just spoke, I know what the word "cynicism" means and I know that voters out there are cynical. They are cynical about politicians and they are cynical and somewhat disrespectful at times of the monarchy in Canada.

This past week we had a visit from the royal family, His Majesty Prince Charles and Princess Diana. I was standing on the docks at Harbourfront last week watching the royal yacht Britannia go by when Princess Diana and Prince Charles were waving to the crowd. There was a young family there, a young couple with three small children. I overheard the husband say to the wife that they were glad to see the bums leave.

I was very saddened to hear two Canadians -- I presume Canadian citizens -- standing at Harbourfront wishing ill of the royal family. The view out there is that the royal family does not work and does not pay taxes, therefore, some people believe it is not worth while having a monarchy. Today's debate is very good in the sense that it enables us to have a few minutes to explain the role of the monarchy and the importance of the monarchy in Canada.

I say the proposed wording of a new oath by my colleague the member for Wellington is excellent. It not only contains our current oath, which is a swearing of allegiance to our sovereign and the monarchy, but it also very importantly says, "I will conduct myself with integrity and that, subject to my own judgement and conscience, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents."

The Liberals were kicked out of office because voters were tired of Queen's Park telling them what is good for them. We have the same problem on the federal level now. Ottawa is constantly telling voters what is good for them, rather than the way Burke and the great philosophers designed the democratic system, which is that we as elected members are to go to Queen's Park and stand up and fight on behalf of our constituents to the best of our ability.

Unlike the member for Oriole, I think it is important that we include in the oath that reminder and that we swear allegiance to not only the monarchy but to upholding our responsibility as elected members to voice the concerns of our constituents on a daily basis in this Legislature. The oath needs beefing up and the member for Wellington has done an excellent job, together with legislative counsel, of coming up with what I think is a superb new oath, and I ask all members to support it.

I want to make a point about swearing allegiance to the monarchy, to the sovereign. I raised this point on April 17, the day after I heard on CFTO news that the NDP had made a closed-door decision to remove the reference to Her Majesty the Queen in the oath taken by Ontario's police officers. At that time -- and I will read it again because it is worth stating -- I read a quote from June 26, 1973, of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, at a state dinner. In this quote she talks about her role as the constitutional monarch of Canada:

"But it is as Queen of Canada that I am here, Queen of Canada and of all Canadians, not just of one or two ancestral strains. I want the crown to be seen as a symbol of national sovereignty belonging to all. It is not only a link between Commonwealth nations, but between Canadian citizens of every national origin and ancestry. The crown is an idea more than a person and I want the crown in Canada to represent everything that is best and most admired in the Canadian ideal."

I think that sums up very well, from Her Majesty, the role of the Queen in Canada. One of the primary roles, particularly at this crucial point in our history, is the unifying symbol that the Queen represents to all Canadians of all ethnic backgrounds. It is a unifying symbol that is most needed at this time, and I do not understand, but will not belabour the point, why the NDP, which seeks in these constitutional talks, and certainly states in these constitutional talks, that it is going to defend the interests of Canada, that it wants a united Canada, why it would take a unilateral, secret decision to remove the reference to the Queen in the oath taken by Ontario's police officers.

I suggest it was done because Susan Eng, who was appointed by the NDP to be the new chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, refused to swear an oath to Her Majesty, so she would not administer that same oath to police officers. I remind the government that the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 imposes a penalty of 500 pounds for any parliamentarian who sits in Parliament but refuses to take the oath. It also declares that parliamentarian's seat vacant. So you have no choice in the matter; if you want to sit in Parliament, you must swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. Also, in addition to declaring the seat vacant, it says that the seat is also vacated in the same manner as if the parliamentarian were dead. I suggest it is a good thing Susan Eng got an appointment and did not run for Parliament, because she would be treated as if she were dead in this chamber by refusing to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen of Canada.

I want to touch briefly on some points that are raised in a book called The Crown in Canada. It is written by Mr Frank MacKinnon and it talks about why a strengthened oath to the Queen is a good idea. It says:

"The crown has helped to reinforce the sovereignty of Canada. The presence of the crown in Canada has prevented Canada and its provinces and territories from experiencing a situation where the question of legality arises regarding the government or of the political power itself."

On that, I point to the NDP government and remind the government, as I did on April 17 in my point of privilege, that our allegiance to the Queen separates us and distinguishes us from the Americans, a point that the NDP normally takes great pride in on other matters, and that our power and our legitimacy to govern are derived directly from the monarchy. As Michael Valpy said in the Globe and Mail on, I believe, 16 April: "Politicians exercise power only on sufferance. The power is on loan to them."

I suggested at that time, and although I was ruled against by the Speaker I still contend that I was right, that the government's unilateral move to remove the reference to the Queen in the oath undermined the legitimacy of Parliament, the legitimacy of this chamber and the legitimacy of our right to govern on behalf of the Queen and for our constituents.

I also make the point that the government itself only got a little less than 40% of the vote in Ontario in the last election. If members really think about it, it is the legitimacy to govern under the monarch that prevents opposition parties from questioning this government's legitimacy and its legality as a government.

Members may want to read some books on the topic. I have not time to go into it today, but this government's legitimacy to govern on 38% or 37% of the vote and our inability to question its legitimacy is all devolved from the crown and from the monarchy and from the tradition of Parliament which this government has shown very little respect for in this chamber and in its actions.

I also mention finally that the important part of changing the oath is, again, not only the swearing of allegiance to the sovereign but also the fact that we are here to govern on behalf of our constituents, to take their advice and to bring that advice forward. It is not unlike the monarchy itself. We are able to accommodate change in this province and to accommodate the views of our constituents against the backdrop of a very solid tradition of the monarchy. There is stability in our country, unlike in the Soviet Union and in China, because we have a monarchy that, as a symbol, unites Canada, unites Canadians; and members of Parliament do not have the authority nor should ever have the will to change that. If you do not have the authority because your authority comes from the monarchy, you do not have the authority to tamper with the monarchy and its symbol and its purpose in uniting the country and uniting Canadians.

I commend the member for Wellington for an excellent new oath. I believe it is a step in the right direction in bringing decorum back to this Parliament and ensuring that members realize -- as I know the NDP member for Lincoln who voted against a tax bill the other day and was penalized for it by his Premier; that was a good example of a member voting in line with the wishes of his constituents. That is what we are here to do. Let us never forget it.

Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this private member's bill, which I will be supporting. As I look at the form that has been put forward by the honourable member for Wellington, although I would like to see perhaps a little different form, on the whole it is substantially better than the oath we presently make and on that basis I am willing to support it. As I have said on a number of occasions, we always find ourselves, when we rise to speak at private members' hour, quibbling with this point or that point, but ultimately a person has to put forward a position and we look at that position. I believe it is in the interests of making better legislation that this be put forward. I have no difficulty with most of it. I will make some substantive comments at this point.

1140

I notice it says, "I" -- member's name -- "do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second (or the reigning sovereign for the time being), her heirs and successors according to law." I have no difficulty with that. I have been a supporter of the monarchy all my life. That is not going to change at this point.

Some of the comments that have been made by the honourable member for Simcoe West I agree with in terms of the importance of the crown to our system and how the powers of the crown have devolved over the years to Parliament. It is one of the single factors which distinguishes us, in our parliamentary form of government, from the congressional system in the United States. In my view it makes us a far more representative kind of system, and all because there is such a role as the crown or the monarchy. I want to affirm that. It is appropriate that we begin with an oath as we become members of this place and representatives of the people who have elected us. It is very important to affirm that.

It goes on to say in this form of the oath that is set forward in Bill 111 "that I will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada." I want to speak specifically to that because of some history I have in my life, and that is, before I was a legislator, I actually was involved in an act of civil disobedience. I make the point that it was before I was a legislator. When you become a legislator, your life becomes different. The way you live your life has to be different.

In fact at my trial, where I was eventually convicted for working with the native people in Temagami and supporting their cause, I was the only one of the people going into the trial who put in a plea of not guilty. The other people with me did not put in a plea because they questioned the whole process. I put in a plea because I was a legislator at that time. I felt that if I did put in a plea, I would be saying that I did not recognize the court. How could I do that as a legislator? Long after I had actually committed the act that I did in working with the native people in Temagami, I decided as a legislator that I now had to approach this very differently. So I did put in a plea, albeit not guilty.

In terms of the oath here and what the honourable member is stating, "that I will obey the laws of Ontario and Canada," it is incumbent upon all those who attain office and who become representatives of the people that indeed they do follow the laws of the land, and I want to affirm that again. I agree with the statement that is here in this oath, "and that in carrying out my responsibilities as a member of the Legislative Assembly I will conduct myself with integrity."

With all the cynicism and negativity that has been brought forward by the honourable member for Oriole, she perhaps is right in saying that a new form of oath is not going to quell that negativity or cynicism. I can agree with that, but there does come a point when it is incumbent upon us as human beings, not just as representatives of the people, that we take seriously our responsibilities as citizens. Surely the days are not past that when we make an oath it represents truly what we believe.

I affirm the efforts of the honourable member for Wellington when he brings this forward because he is accurate and right in saying that there needs to be a focus for our commitment to the state, to the crown and to the people. Saying these things in a ceremonial form means we recognize their importance. They are things that are going to affect the way we think, the way we live and the work we do in this place. Again I affirm that particular point of view.

I am glad the member phrased the final part of this -- "and that, subject to my own judgement and conscience, I will seek to represent the views of my constituents" -- that way because there is a great discussion afield today about recall. If a member votes a certain way on a particular bill and there seems to be, according to some standard which is undefined, a great crowd of people who disagree with the member on this bill within his own constituency, somehow that person is not representing those views. I want to read into the record Edmund Burke's recollections on this. He said:

"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member for Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form a hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member of that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect."

In other words, what Edmund Burke said was that of course we have to represent our constituents. It would be wrong indeed if any member of this House did not on a very regular basis go back to his or her constituents and seek to understand their needs, aspirations and understanding of the pressing issues of the day. For instance, last Saturday I was with the dairy farmers in Victoria county. I am not an expert in agriculture, yet it is vitally important that I as the member for Victoria-Haliburton have an opportunity to address very concretely the issues and needs they raise.

In terms of representing the people, I must go speak to them and know their needs and represent those things. But I must also, in debate with my other colleagues in this House from whatever party, attempt to address the larger issues of the day and make decisions for the common good on the basis of the debate and the discussion.

The member for Oriole talked about the Liberal Party not whipping votes when it came to private members' bills. I have right here the Votes and Proceedings of the last couple of years of that Parliament and what we see, in many instances, is that the Liberal government often voted against private members' bills that came into this place. I do not know where the honourable member for Oriole was on those votes.

1150

Mr Jordan: I am especially pleased to have the opportunity this morning to speak to Bill 111. It has been put forward by my colleague the member for Wellington. To me, he is an excellent example of a member who has been raised and brought up through society in such a manner as to develop a character that has respect for the Queen, the oath to the Queen, the laws of Ontario and the laws of Canada. I am talking about a member who is actually in the next generation, you might say, to me. It is good to see in that age group that responsibility and interest in coming here to serve.

Relative to the bill, I think it has been pointed out that words alone will not change us. I agree. I do not have the time to go on at any length but I would like to make the point that I am definitely in favour of the change and of each member having to take that oath.

I was pleased to hear from the member for Victoria-Haliburton. I thought he made good references to it in many different ways. I would like to tie into the opening of the Legislature each day. If members think about what the Speaker says when he opens this House each day in the form of prayers, it is a reminder to each member of how we should conduct ourselves in this House and then see what happens as the debate develops. I think we should try to think back to the opening of the House and try to apply it to our thinking as we work in the Legislature during the day.

I had the pleasure yesterday to have present in the gallery a person who sat in this House as a member from 1959 to 1971. His parting words were, "I have never in all my life witnessed such carrying on and disrespect for this legislative procedure and this building."

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly this morning on the resolution of my colleague the member for Wellington. The member for Wellington is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson was always a gentleman and very well respected by every member of this Legislature for his ability to be sincere. He was one of the quiet ones, like myself.

Mr Curling: Hear, hear.

Mr McLean: That is right, I say to the member for Scarborough North.

I want to compliment the member for Wellington on his resolution. I hope it will put some decorum back into this Legislature. The part of the oath I really would like to talk about is, "I will seek to represent the views of my constituents." That has always been my view in the more than 10 years I have been here, to bring their views here, whether it be in committee or caucus, regardless of where it is.

I certainly had some problem when the reference to the Queen was taken out of the oath police officers take. I think that is one step in the direction the government wants to take, to do away with further oaths to the Queen. We even see today amendments to the Education Act with regard to prayers in the schools. I have had many constituents bring to my attention the problem they have had when parents agree with religious education and the school agrees with it for noonhour, but this government is taking that right away from those people.

We have a Premier who wants to look at a social charter. Is that social charter going to have anything in it with regard to allegiance to the Queen? I commend the member for bringing this resolution forward and hope members will see fit to support it to put some decorum back into this Legislature. I hope that when members take their oath of office that will mean they will represent all their constituents.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to take a few moments to sum up and respond to some of the comments that have been made.

I would first like to thank the member for Durham East for his participation this morning. He spoke as eloquently as usual and I appreciate his comments.

The member for Oriole suggested that perhaps this is not needed, that perhaps it is not all that necessary and would not change things. As I said in my initial comments, I do not expect it to change things overnight but I do believe the symbolism of the idea is very important and is a step in the right direction.

The member for Simcoe West talked about the importance of the monarchy. I know his very sincere commitment to those ideas and what he brings forward in this House is something very special.

I would like to respond briefly to a couple of things the member for Victoria-Haliburton said. He agreed with the central idea and I appreciated that. I was quite pleased to hear him quote from Edmund Burke, who some members may know was the father of conservatism in the western world. His comments ring true today.

I certainly appreciated the comments of the member for Lanark-Renfrew. He talked about meeting Mr Gomme yesterday, a former member for Lanark and a former Minister of Highways. I was very impressed to meet Mr Gomme. He was a very fine and distinguished gentleman. I recall him saying the same thing the present member for Lanark-Renfrew indicated: This place seems to have degenerated to a low that we have to get out of.

I appreciated the kind words of the member for Simcoe East. He talked about the former member for Wellington. Some of the members may know that I used to work for the former member for Wellington, Jack Johnson. He was a symbol of decency and integrity. I certainly hope to emulate some of the fine qualities he brought forward.

I hope this bill passes and goes to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for further discussion. I am certainly open to discussing amendments. These words are not written in stone, but I do think it would be an improvement if we expanded the oath we take.

ELEVATING DEVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ASCENSEURS ET APPAREILS DE LEVAGE

The House divided on Mr Ruprecht's motion for second reading of Bill 139, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Ruprecht pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 139, mise aux voix, est adoptée.

Ayes/Pour -- 26

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Curling, Drainville, Frankford, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jordan, Kormos, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock, S., Owens, Phillips, G., Poole, Ruprecht, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Waters, Wessenger.

Nays/Contre -- 14

Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Lessard, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Ruprecht: I request that Bill 139 be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Arnott has moved second reading of Bill 111.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Arnott: To the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the Legislative Assembly committee?

All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to this question will please rise and remain standing.

The Deputy Speaker: A majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill --

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There appear to be members who did not vote. It was my understanding that if members are in their seats, they are required to vote.

The Deputy Speaker: The table has reported to me that there is clearly no majority; therefore, I acted accordingly.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

The House recessed at 1208

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DONALD WILLARD MOORE

Mr Curling: I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to a truly remarkable Canadian. This Saturday, November 2, Donald Willard Moore will celebrate his 100th birthday. To celebrate this event and to honour an individual who has given so much of himself to so many others, last week members of the black community held a dinner for Mr Moore. Also in attendance was my colleague the member for Willowdale.

Mr Moore, or Uncle Don as he has come to be affectionately known, first joined Toronto's then small black community in 1913. From the early 1920s onward, he was actively involved in voluntary service on behalf of black people. In recognition of his contribution to his people and his country, Mr Moore has been named to both the Order of Ontario and the Order of Canada.

Among the many causes to which Mr Moore has dedicated his life was the fight he led against Canada's unjust and discriminatory legislation in the 1950s. Donald Moore was instrumental in pointing out the inequalities and discrimination of Canada's immigration policies and seeing to it that these laws were reformed.

Along with another great black Canadian, Harry Gairey, Mr Moore was also committed to improving the working conditions of domestic servants from the Caribbean and elsewhere, who were often subjected to the worst kind of exploitation.

Mr Moore is a courageous man and a compassionate man, a man impatient with injustice and discrimination in all its forms, a man unafraid to speak out and fight for the freedom and dignity of blacks in this country. Mr Moore, happy birthday and thank you very much.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr B. Murdoch: On Monday Sklar-Peppler furniture manufacturers told more than 200 salaried and union workers that both plants in Hanover were being closed. Last night I attended an employee meeting hosted by the company to explain this distressing situation to more than 250 concerned and affected people. The company explained that as furniture sales have decreased severely, the banks have given it no option but to close the factories. They also explained that salaries and vacation would be paid, but this alone is not enough.

The company has developed a restructuring plan whereby a new company would be established with the assets of the two plants in Hanover. The employees, if they wish, may, alone or with a third party, buy this company. The owners of Sklar-Peppler have been working with officials of the Ontario Development Corp to find a solution. They are meeting again today.

This company is one of the major employers in Hanover. Given the difficult economic times that are certainly being felt in my riding, every option must be examined before we allow 200 more people to become unemployed.

The workers of Sklar-Peppler will be voting on the company's restructuring plan on November 18. If both the salaried and unionized employees vote to accept this proposal, I would like assurance from the government and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology that the ODC will do everything within its power to approve a reasonable and fair financial plan to assist these people in my riding to get back to work as quickly as possible.

INTERVENORS AND SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS

Mr Malkowski: I am very pleased to inform members of the House that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has today released its interim report. This is in response to resolution 13, which I presented in the House May 16, 1991.

The ministry is co-ordinating a provincial review of oral and American sign language and langue des signes québécois interpreter, intervenor and captioning services for deaf, deaf-blind, and hard-of-hearing and deafened persons. Three task force committees have been established: oral and sign language interpreter services; intervention services for deaf-blind persons, and text-based services for deafened and hard-of-hearing persons. The committees include representatives from service providers, consumer groups and trainers, and those groups are in the process of collecting information to prepare their reports. The recommendations will then be drafted to obtain feedback from interested parties all across the province. The final report is expected in the spring of 1992.

This type of review is the first ever that has happened in North America and we are very proud of the Ontario government for taking this important first step. They have involved the community, consumers, advocacy groups and educational facilities, and we hope we will arrive at a comprehensive and practical solution.

The interim report is proof that the ministry is on the right track and we look forward to the final report in 1992.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Offer: I make this statement profoundly disappointed with the Premier. It is one that other members may not recognize but which bothers me a great deal.

As a member of the select committee on Ontario in Confederation, we have conducted a great number of meetings throughout the province, listening and responding to people's opinions and concerns over the constitutional issue. The Premier has on a number of occasions complimented the committee on its work and non-partisan basis, and that is well appreciated.

Currently we are conducting hearings over federal proposals. One issue not contained in these proposals, but which in my opinion will be commented upon is the social charter proposal by the Premier. To date, the Premier has cancelled a meeting before our committee to explain this issue and did not appear before the federal committee this past Monday. As members of that committee, we do not know what the Premier means by his proposal, its implications and its impact, and he has not shared this with us.

He has found the time for some back-door meetings with the Prime Minister and other premiers on this very issue. Surely, if the Premier has the time for these meetings, he must have time for the Ontario provincial committee. We are going to be dealing with the federal paper and his own charter proposal. We need to know what his position is on his proposal. I am very disappointed in what I believe is his lack of respect for this committee and its work on this very important issue.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Stockwell: I would like to speak today on a housing issue affecting some of my constituents on Martin Grove Road and Hedges Boulevard in Etobicoke. An application has been approved by the Ministry of Housing for the Martin Grove Baptist Homes Corp to build a multi-unit development in the middle of a residential neighbourhood under the non-profit housing program.

My residents have never been given an opportunity to comment on, review or analyse this application. They feel they have been left out of the process and have been forgotten. Let me be very clear: To approve a site in the middle of a residential neighbourhood on slightly more than an acre of land with a density of 35 units is absolutely insane from a planning point of view. It does not meet the planning guidelines of the city and no planner in his right mind would recommend it. Whether it is co-operative housing, commercial and industrial development, high-priced condominiums or stack town houses in this neighbourhood, it would never be given any serious hearings by the city.

The province has now granted them financing so they may go ahead with this development, which has no planning grounds and absolutely no public input. If any private developer attempted this kind of end run it would be given the bum's rush out of Etobicoke.

It is wasteful and insulting to my constituents to use their hard-earned tax dollars to move forward on a project the government refuses to tell them anything about. It refused to show them its plans and it refused to open it up to public scrutiny.

The planning process in the city of Etobicoke has worked for decades and decades. Why is it that everyone has to live within that process except the socialists at Queen's Park who were once the purveyors of process?

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Wiseman: I would like to comment on an issue of great concern to my constituents today. It is the Interim Waste Authority and the process it is following to find a landfill site.

The first stage of this process was to set up the corporation and its officers. They were then given the responsibility to move forward on the process of finding a long-term dump in Durham. Bids were tendered by various consulting firms to do the site selection process. Within this process, public consultation was mandated. In order to facilitate this public consultation, a document was created setting out the criteria to be used for site selection. The public was then asked to comment on these criteria and to offer changes where necessary.

My constituents were somewhat hesitant to participate in this process, given the long history of landfill in my riding. However, they have participated and are finding this approach to be more open and more likely to find a suitable landfill site than previous methods.

The major change in this process is that criteria for landfill sites were determined before the selection process, and unsuitable sites will be eliminated by the criteria and not against one another. This will ensure the best site and not the best of a bad lot.

A strong component of this process is this stress on waste management and the need to recycle and reduce. As we all know, there is much each of us can do to reduce waste. We can use the blue box and we can compost.

1340

APPOINTMENTS PROCESS

Mr Daigeler: I wish to draw members' attention today to another case of blatant hypocrisy by the NDP. The government continues to claim undeserved credit for having opened up the appointments process to Ontario's agencies, boards and commissions. The government has placed numerous ads across the province advising people to submit their names for possible public appointments. In good faith, many Ontarians took the NDP at its word and sent in their résumés.

As it is, however, the government's self-professed openness is a cruel hoax. People in my riding and elsewhere are wondering why they have heard nothing in response to their applications. For example, two people in my riding sent in their résumés last July for the Nepean Police Services Board. It is now October 31 and they have not even received an acknowledgement of their letters.

If this government cannot handle the applications it receives, it should stop boasting about its fake openness. Advertising for public appointments has turned out to be a complete charade. It is time for this government to come clean and admit that the new appointments process is a total failure.

HOLOCAUST EDUCATION WEEK

Mr Harnick: We must never forget. This week is Holocaust Education Week, which is sponsored by the Holocaust remembrance committee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Toronto. Holocaust Education Week sensitizes all of us to the horrors inflicted on the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. As the sands of time run out and the generation of Holocaust survivors comes to an end, it is important that we remember and deepen our understanding of this dark period in history.

We remember not only the victims but other testaments to human courage. We remember the resistance. We remember the liberators. We remember the spirit of survival of the witnesses. We remember the righteous among the nations. Holocaust Education Week is a significant and vital community event that enables all of us to deepen our understanding of this dark period in our century.

The goal is awareness. The lessons derived from the Holocaust must not be wasted. Millions of deaths must not have been in vain. The lessons of the Holocaust have contemporary implications that are not confined to the Jewish people but have meaning for all of us. Remembering and understanding what life was like 50 years ago will help to prevent all forms of racism, hatred, bigotry and prejudice today. The lessons of history will guide us to shape our children's future. We must never forget.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Christopherson: I rise today to highlight to all members of this House the role small business plays in our economy and at the same time applaud the economic contribution of this crucial sector. Modern economies consistently look to small business as the engine for economic growth. During the 1980s, fully eight out of 10 new jobs were created by small business. It is important for all members to note that small firms make up over 90% of the companies in every broad industry category.

One of the key responses of this government to the challenges facing small business is the formation of a committee of parliamentary assistants under the able leadership of the member for Norfolk. The member for Norfolk, who has been appointed by the Premier to be the parliamentary assistant responsible solely for small business, will ensure the committee dialogues directly with the small business community. As co-chair of the committee, I am pleased that the input we receive from the small business community will play a significant role in identifying a number of priority areas that will be tackled in both the short term and the long term.

Along with my 10 PA colleagues from related ministries, we will also examine the regulatory and financial environment for existing business, as well as the potential role of entrepreneurship in the province's economic renewal. We invite the small business community to work with us in these difficult times and advise the government on new ideas and initiatives. Together we will make our province a strong and prosperous place for small business.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members of the House to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Doug Martindale, member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Please join me in welcoming him.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

Hon Mr Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I am very conscious of these things, and I want to take the initiative to correct the record. Looking at something I said yesterday, I realize that if the paragraph were taken literally and out of the context of what I was saying in the previous paragraph, it could possibly mislead the House, and that is not my intention. I hope members will accept that.

It is in response to the question I was asked yesterday by the member for St Catharines. I said in that answer, "Nothing that would be done by this government would be intended in any way to intimidate or harass or prevent a member of the opposition or any member of the Legislature from carrying out his or her responsibilities."

I then went on to say in the next paragraph, "No police investigations have been ordered or directed by this government." What I should have said in that answer, what is the case, is that no police investigations into the conduct of members of this Legislature on any side have been ordered by this government. I hope members will accept that correction in the spirit in which it has been offered. I am sure there will be more to be said later on.

The Speaker: I thank the Premier for correcting the record.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NATIVE EDUCATION

Hon Mr Wildman: On behalf of my colleague the Minister of Education I would like to outline for members three initiatives regarding native education. The minister is attending a day-long meeting with native leaders and is therefore unable to be here to deliver this message in person.

The initiatives I will be outlining for members are the native languages policy, the release of the Native Studies Guideline and the availability of a computer software program for the Cree language, which is a syllabic language.

First, I am pleased to announce the new policy regarding native languages. Members may be aware that a policy regarding native as a second language has been in place since September 1987. In that policy, the provision for native language instruction was optional for school boards. Beginning in September 1992, school boards will be required to offer a native languages program where the parents or guardians of 15 or more students request instruction of a native language and a qualified native language teacher is available. A school board may offer the program for less than 15 students after considering the feasibility and cost of the program.

Native language classes are to be offered during the instructional portion of the school day. If the parents or guardians wish their children to participate both in native languages and French-as-a-second-language programs or anglais programs, school boards will have to make arrangements to accommodate both programs.

A native language credit course can be recognized to replace the French-language credit course or the anglais course currently among the compulsory credit course offerings leading to the Ontario secondary school diploma. There are six native languages offered through the program: Ojibwe, Cree, Deleware, Mohawk, Oneida and Cayuga.

The Ministry of Education will continue to provide financial assistance to school boards to offset operating costs of the native languages program, and five-year support, at the rate of $200 per pupil, for development costs to new boards offering the program. The new regulation governing native languages will be in place in the spring of 1992. Following the new regulation, a policy-program memorandum will be sent to school boards by the Ministry of Education outlining the new policy in detail.

1350

I would like to turn now to the second of these initiatives, the release of the new Native Studies Guideline. The Native Studies Guideline, intermediate division, 1991, outlines a program of native studies for grades 7 and 8 that explores community organization, social change and social conflict from a native perspective. The guideline also outlines two courses for credit that may be offered in grades 9 or 10. One of the new courses can be used to replace the compulsory course in history. In addition, it provides teachers with a foundation for integrating a native perspective across the curriculum. Native studies courses are available to native and non-native students alike.

The third and last initiative I would like to talk about is a software program for the Cree language. The Cree syllabic text editor is a user-friendly software program which not only displays the syllabic text but also speaks to the user. An audible voice pronounces syllabics which appear on the screen so that the user learns both visually and aurally. The program utilizes both eastern and western Cree syllabic texts and was developed in conjunction with Cree peoples in Attawapiskat, Fort Albany, Kashechewan, Moosonee and Moose Factory.

The text editor is currently being tested in three schools in northern Ontario. It is available to all publicly funded schools in the province, as well as in schools administered by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and band-operated schools. Funding for the development of the text editor and the Native Studies Guideline was shared between the Ontario Ministry of Education and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

Through these initiatives the Ontario government has demonstrated its commitment to improving the educational experiences of native students. These initiatives will provide the opportunity, in communities where there is demand, to build towards some fundamental improvements in the quality of native education.

These changes to native education follow in the spirit of the recently signed statement of political relationship between the province of Ontario and native communities to deal with each other on a government-to-government basis. I would like to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Education and the Chiefs of Ontario for this advance in education for native people in Ontario.

LONG-TERM CARE

Hon Mrs Boyd: Today the Ontario government is launching a series of public meetings and consultations province-wide to discuss long-term care services and programs.

Long-term care is the joint responsibility of three ministries. I am making this statement on behalf of my ministry, the Ministry of Health, which has now taken the lead in this endeavour, and the Ministry of Citizenship.

This morning the Minister of Health made a similar statement in Kingston at Providence Manor Home for the Aged. Just about an hour ago, the Minister of Citizenship also announced the release of the consultation paper at Copernicus Lodge in west-end Toronto. This location was chosen in order to reach out to our multicultural community and encourage dialogue with groups that have traditionally been left out of our deliberations and whose voices often have not been heard.

Our purpose is to review the proposed redirection of long-term care through discussion with the people who use long-term care services, their care givers and workers in the long-term care system. We have produced a document called Redirection of Long-Term Care and Support Services in Ontario, which is designed as a consultation paper. Members received their copies this morning.

This document presents the various issues involved in long-term care, what services are needed and how to ensure that services are available to those who need them. It incorporates the proposed new directions in long-term care announced in June by my predecessor.

Let me briefly recall for the House those directions:

Expansion in funding for community support services, with flexible funding arrangements and assurance of greater community participation; better co-ordination of services through new service co-ordination agencies; realignment of funding policies to further shift the emphasis from institutional to community-based services and to reduce regional disparities; increased funding for supportive housing, and no charge to consumers for services in the home.

This Redirection paper will be widely distributed to people who have an interest in long-term care. We are asking them to read it, talk about it and think about it. Then we plan to hold meetings and workshops in communities throughout the province.

As I mentioned, the response of people who use long-term care services will be particularly valuable, and this will certainly include the consumers: those in nursing homes, homes for the aged and other care giving facilities, those living at home, those in the community and their families. We are going to do our best to include everyone with an interest in long-term care in these discussions. That means people who provide care and people who work as advocates. It means labour groups and women's groups, cultural and racial organizations and representatives of federal, provincial and municipal governments.

We are going to make sure that aboriginal peoples and the francophone community in Ontario have an opportunity to talk about their concerns and needs. We will be guided by aboriginal organizations in designing a separate consultation to plan for long-term care supports for aboriginal peoples living both on and off reserves.

These are some of the topics for consultation:

Reduced reliance on institutional care. We are planning major funding increases over the next five years to build up a solid base of community supports in home and family settings.

New links and relationships between health services and social services to allow easier access to the programs people need.

Reduction of the regional disparities now existing. No matter where people live in this province, we want them to have access to appropriate long-term care services.

This government is determined to make the consultation process both open and accessible. We are committed to listening seriously to every participant and considering all points of view. The redirection of long-term care and support services promises to be exciting. I invite the interest and support of all members of the House as we plan for the future of long-term care in Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Hon Mr Buchanan: A number of members have recently raised questions about our government's response to proposed revisions of the Niagara region official plan. As members may recall, these revisions are intended to relax the severance policies in agricultural areas, including a provision to allow severances to tender fruit growers for economic reasons. Under the proposed policy revisions, a tender fruit grower could get up to seven severances on a 70-acre parcel of land.

Niagara region is to be commended for its past endeavours in land use planning and in particular in its efforts to protect the agricultural land base. We understand the region passed the amendment with great reluctance. In taking this course of action, we also realize council had the interests of the area's farmers in mind.

However, we do not feel the solution to Niagara's tender fruit economic problems will be found by fragmenting the land base. In fact, we believe such actions will create further problems for agriculture in this area. We cannot forget the servicing, environmental and other problems that result from scattered development.

This government is committed to the protection of agricultural land in Ontario, including the unique Niagara fruit lands. The province does not approve of the weakening of long-standing regional policies to protect these unique, irreplaceable lands.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I place great importance on the economic needs of fruit farmers in the Niagara area. I believe we have demonstrated our commitment to agriculture. In spite of tighter budgets, cabinet recently approved an additional $6 million for horticultural crops to assist farmers this year. We are working with the farm organizations to have longer-term programs in place for next year.

In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has initiated other means of supporting Niagara area tender fruit farmers by examining alternative safety net programs and providing marketing assistance. I have also instructed the ministry's Innovation Agriculture unit to address alternative crops and markets for the Niagara area.

The federal government has allocated $100 million for horticulture and other crops across Canada. In my discussions next week with the federal Minister of Agriculture, Bill McKnight, I will be pressing for Ontario's fair share of this funding, which would directly assist horticultural producers in the Niagara area.

Within my ministry, we have a committee looking at other options to help the tender fruit industry, many of which were presented in the Niagara task force report.

I want to share with the House, as we have already done with the regional chairman of Niagara, Mr Wilbert Dick, our initial response to the region's proposals.

It is important that the government respond quickly to these proposals because the region has decided to implement the amendment after November 1. This means that the region's land division committee could grant severances under these new policies after November 1.

1400

We are advising the region today, in a letter signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the proposed policies for economic severances for tender fruit growers, severances for family members, the creation of new lots for infilling in the unique agricultural areas and the removal of the existing grandfathering provision applicable to retirement lots cannot be approved.

We have also decided to defer the decision on the proposed policy that allows downsizing of tender fruit operations, as more time is needed to evaluate this option. We have instructed our staff to meet with regional officials and the farm community to discuss the implications of the downsizing proposal. A decision will be made on this issue very soon.

We have also instructed staff to appeal all severance applications which do not meet the currently approved regional policies to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I hope the members of the House understand the reasons for our actions today. The long-term solutions to economic problems facing our agricultural communities are not achieved by paving over or fragmenting irreplaceable farm land. We will continue to pursue solutions to the economic problems before us, as our collective resources will be needed to improve the viability of farming. In Niagara, we hope these collective resources include the region, the farm community, the federal government and all members of this House.

RESPONSES

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Sullivan: I am responding to the statement relating to long-term care. I am surprised the minister did not wear a clown costume into the House today, because it is Hallowe'en and in fact she is treating this House as a masquerade party, because in this announcement there is nothing behind the mask.

More than two years ago, the then Treasurer announced the commitment of the government to changes in long-term care that would be the most important developments in social services since the introduction of medicare. There was a funding commitment behind that, and I refer back to the introduction of strategies for long-term care. The government of Ontario in the fiscal year 1990 committed $52 million towards reform specifically to strengthen community services. Those new expenditures would rise to $640 million annually by 1996-97, and the total would represent an annual expenditure of $2 billion over the next six years.

That announcement was made two years ago. With that announcement came a consultative document called Strategies for Change, an important document that asked consumers, care givers, institutions and facilities to participate in a serious process of consultation to bring needed change to how we care for people with lifelong disabilities, rationalizing services and making them responsive to the needs of changing demographics and concepts of care.

The document that the minister has spoken about today simply envisages a consultation on consultation, meetings on how to meet and talks on how to talk. We know how this government consults. It makes unilateral decisions, and it has already done so in this field. It has made decisions already on who can have a place on service access agencies. Public health departments have been told they cannot be part of that process. It has made decisions on level-of-care funding based on the Alberta model without consultation with chronic care hospitals. It has made decisions on cutting hospital beds and cutting services, saying that services will be provided by community agencies with no money, no guidelines and no system of support.

Hallowe'en is associated with trick or treat. There is no treat here. This is a trick.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Bradley: The news that is brought to the House by the Minister of Agriculture and Food will no doubt cause a revolution among farmers in the Niagara Peninsula. The reason for that is that while farmers, I am sure, would be prepared to accept that there would not be modifications to the official plan, and those who want to preserve agricultural land in the province would indicate that they would be against the severances which were proposed, on the other hand they will be deeply disappointed that in compensation for these concessions, they will receive nothing from the government of Ontario.

We have a Treasurer in this province who is looking to sell off certain things in the government, certain properties and other things in the government, to meet its financial obligations, but the Minister of Agriculture and Food does not want the farmers to be able to do so. He is prepared to pave farm land so the Ministry of Agriculture and Food can have its weigh station for trucks, but he will not allow farmers to develop their land. He refuses to act upon so many of the suggestions that have been brought forward in task force reports by farmers and by agricultural representatives across the province.

Those of us who live in urban areas will be delighted with the fact that the minister is refusing to grant severances, that he is refusing to make changes to the official plan. But farmers and those of us who understand the plight of farmers in this province will be deeply disappointed that there is not an extra dollar for the farmers of the Niagara region, who are going to be forced to stay on the land, forced to farm land uneconomically because this government, which seems to have a lot of money to help other industries in the province and seems to have lots of money to help other parts of the province, will not devote that same money to the people of the Niagara region -- that investment in people, that investment in farmers, which will allow them to be part of those who would be applauding rather than attempting to criticize this particular announcement by the minister.

NATIVE EDUCATION

Mr Beer: I rise to comment on the belated announcement made by the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to native language policy. I think, as the minister knows, that there is an excellent foundation on which this policy is built, and I would note the role played by my colleagues the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the former Minister of Education, Chris Ward.

I think what is particularly important is that the minister recognize that this costs money and that, when he is asking school boards to carry out these programs, he makes certain they have the money so that they can go on. These are important initiatives and they have to be properly funded.

Mr Harnick: I am responding to the minister responsible for native affairs. I have nothing but praise for the statement he has delivered here today. What he is doing is preserving languages, culture and history that are very important to preserve, and I praise what he has done.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Villeneuve: I want to thank the Minister of Agriculture and Food for making this statement in this Legislature, where statements should be made. I thank him for doing that. The statement he has just made, however, does not alleviate a great deal the major problems that are out in rural Ontario. His second paragraph says that he is allowing policies to allow severances in tender fruit growing areas. Then he says, "Well, all of these won't be allowed, and we've also instructed staff to appeal all severance applications which do not meet the currently approved regional policies of the OMB."

How much money is he going to spend on that? The millions that were spent in Ottawa to fight Terrace Investments and the Ottawa Senators was money thrown away on a purely political exercise, and I do not think we need that right now with the way agriculture is.

I was in Lucknow when over 1,000 farmers told us they are in very, very desperate straits. I was in Leamington and spoke to a number of farmers who have had three bad years out of four. Things are not good in the great southwest. I was in the Niagara area and I saw plenty for-sale signs, as I am sure the minister is aware. Thank goodness he is recognizing it, but he really has not done a thing.

Common sense has to prevail. Yes, we want to preserve the Niagara fruit land; we also want to preserve the people who operate those farms. They are just as important, if not more important. We need common sense across the province. I come from rural eastern Ontario, where things are not much better than anywhere else. When we have marginal land for which an application for severance is requested and his ministry is fighting it tooth and nail as a purely political exercise, that is wrong. He should look at it across the province.

1410

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr J. Wilson: I cannot believe we waited for more than a year for this document concerning long-term care from this government. The Minister of Community and Social Services already announced last June the $647 million. I guess that announcement was made in a vacuum, because today the government tells us it is going to consult about consulting. This is not redirection; this is no direction from the minister's government.

The report released by the former government also recommended more consultation, and that was 18 months ago. When is the government going to take some tough decisions in terms of long-term care? The district health council and the Simcoe County District Health Unit have already told the minister that she does not need to set up 40 new co-ordinating agencies. What she is doing today is telling us that she is going to set up a huge bureaucracy across this province: 40 new agencies in communities that already have district health units and district health councils that can co-ordinate these services for her.

I am surprised the minister is not taking a more in-depth look at this right now, rather than telling us she is going to consult about consulting. It is sad, and I just want to say I am sorry that seniors and persons with disabilities and their families have waited so long for so little.

Mr Jackson: I would also like to comment that this government has false-started announcements on four separate occasions. If this is what we have been waiting for in terms of the minister's direction on long-term care, I agree that it is no direction whatsoever. There are groups in this province which are being assaulted by her funding cuts today, and yet she says she is going to talk about it for the next two years before we will have a budget plan in place to deal with long-term care transition in this province.

The truth is that $37.5 million was ripped away from chronic care hospitals in this province in order to pay for this study and for the ongoing consultation for the next two years. Some 13,000 chronic care patients -- these are children who have been in car accidents, our grandparents who have made their contribution to society, and they are stuck in these institutions -- and what has her government said? It has said she will not get any redevelopment dollars in the next two years unless she redefines her beds and cuts beds.

That is the agenda for this government in long-term care. It is to cut services and to cut beds without providing alternative support services. The member for Bruce two days ago brought to the attention of the House the true agenda. Let me just simply say that the Premier's agenda to con the people has now become the socialist agenda to harm our senior citizens. The government had better look at this document, because that is exactly what it does.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, I would just like to bring to your attention yet another example of this government not allowing me to express my privileges here in the House. Just moments ago, I was informed of an announcement that is going to be made in Sudbury, I believe. This is an announcement to be made by the Treasury on Monday to announce a Canada and Ontario joint initiative for northern Ontario.

I would look forward to being able to make some comments on that announcement, should it be made here in the House, and I cannot believe the Treasurer has taken that announcement to Sudbury on Monday morning, when I will be on my way --

The Speaker: Will the member for Kenora take his seat. The member will know that the Speaker has dealt with this matter before. It is not a point of privilege.

Mr Harnick: I am delighted to see that the government is starting to make statements again in the Legislature, but it is doing it in a very selective way. I notice that the Attorney General has been out making announcements today about Bill 17.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. There is nothing out of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Elston: I appreciate that the government was kind of full in its statements. There were a lot of things happening today, and I appreciate that some of its ministers were able to make it back to make their announcements here. I seriously do appreciate that. It gives us a chance to respond to some of the things that are happening.

I would like to ask a question of the fellow whose picture was the lead so that Diane Francis's column could be read in the current issue of Maclean's magazine. It is our own Premier on there among the three New Democratic Party people, the lean New Democrat from Saskatchewan and the pragmatist from BC. I want to know a little bit more about our own Premier, Mr Speaker, if you will allow me.

This gentleman has decided, and his minister, the Solicitor General, said yesterday that there could be nothing done to save the 3,000 jobs in the drugstore industry that were talked about yesterday. Yesterday they also indicated that they were prepared to intervene and help save the jobs, and in fact even create some new ones, at de Havilland, where there were problems. They also intervened to save some jobs in Kapuskasing, and temporarily, some in Elliot Lake, but they were not able to do anything to save any of the jobs at General Tire or at Kolmar in Barrie, some 300 jobs. I would like to know from the Premier exactly how he determines which jobs will survive to participate in his economic recoveries and which ones will not.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me say to the member that we try to respond in those areas where it is very clear that everyone involved -- the companies, the workers, the creditors and the community itself -- is prepared and everyone out there is willing and able and wants to participate in either a restructuring of the company or in some kind of creative proposal.

If the member is asking me what is it that drives us, for example, with respect to de Havilland or with respect to Spruce Falls, the answer is very clear. It is the fact that everyone involved -- the federal government, the provincial government, the companies themselves, those who are seeking to sell and those who are seeking to find an arrangement -- needs to have some creative work done by this government to help find a solution. That is the approach we have taken in the critical situations the member has described.

Mr Elston: It is an interesting summation that basically there is no overall strategy. If one of the people mentioned appears to have a veto, it seems to me the Premier has just said he is unwilling to intervene to help save any jobs.

Hon Mr Rae: No, that isn't true.

Mr Elston: He indicated he had to have everybody along for the ride or he was not going to participate.

When the Treasurer of the province spoke with some eight or more women from State Farm Insurance, he told them in their encounter in the hallway that there were far too many jobs in the private insurance business sector and that some of those would have to be lost. This was prior to the government's indication that it was not going to take over the business. I wonder if the Premier can tell us which part of his long-awaited industrial strategy will deal with which jobs are, in essence, worth saving and which ones are not.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I should tell the honourable Leader of the Opposition that the Treasurer does not accept the views that have been ascribed to him by the member. Since he prefaced his remarks by attributing some remarks to the Treasurer, I thought I had an obligation to at least get him a chance, if not to clear the record, at least to equal the record with respect to the comments the member has made.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that saving jobs is a very important part of the strategy -- it has to be -- making sure that we are saving as many of the jobs as we can. The honourable member knows full well that was very much part of the reasoning behind our decision with respect to insurance, and I make no apologies for that. That is the reason we made the decision we did, as well as the question of cost. Saving jobs where they can be saved is a very important element of any economic strategy for this province. It has to be.

Mr Elston: While the Premier responds today that saving jobs is a priority of his, he was here when the Minister of Health celebrated that some 217 beds were closed at Toronto Hospital and some 250 nurses laid off, saying, "It was effective management of the system," and, "We are going in exactly the right way." Surely the Premier must recognize the inconsistency between his policy of spending millions of dollars to save some jobs, on the one hand, and the declaration by his Minister of Health that nursing layoffs are going in the right way." I wonder if the Premier can tell us how many more jobs he will let his ministers cut as part of his strategy of economic renewal.

Hon Mr Rae: I like the Leader of the Opposition -- do not ask me why -- but he stretches the spirit of affection which is there in me when by putting together two sentences that are totally different, he attributes views to the Minister of Health that are totally unfair. No member of this cabinet, no member of the government, no person in his or her right mind would celebrate a situation facing hospital workers where potentially their jobs are at risk. Nobody would celebrate that and the member's use of the word "celebrate" is most unfair to the Minister of Health.

It is not an easy time for the economy. There will be some changes in some sectors. There will be some changes with respect to government services. This is a tough reality that we have to face. The fact of the matter is that we are trying to save as many jobs as we can as effectively as we can, and we are also trying to manage the taxpayers' dollars as fairly as we can and create the most effective health care services we can across the province.

1420

Mr Elston: I only observe that there was a certain touting by the Minister of Health about what effective managers they were in cutting all those beds, and as a result all those people lost their jobs. The Premier knows that and they know that.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, who arrived here to deliver the message the Minister of Health delivered a little bit earlier in Kingston. Today, with the release of the long-term care strategy paper, we were really expecting to see the yardsticks being moved a considerable distance by this government. What we received instead was a further delay on service improvements and improvements in quality of life that the people of Ontario expected from this New Democratic Party government.

We now know that we should no longer expect any action on long-term care until well after next year. In fact, the line that amazed me was that there were community groups being established to advise the ministry people on how to consult on the issue. What is the point in consulting when instead of a road map to recovery, all these people are offering to anybody is deadend consultation? Why is it, and what is the real reason they are delaying the improvements in community care for people with long-term care needs?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The reason we need to consult again is that we have made significant changes in terms of the redirection of long-term care. In the spirit of wanting to consult and ensure that we have a consensus in Ontario on the care of the elderly and the disabled, we felt it was essential for us to go back to the community with our new vision.

Our vision is quite significantly different. It involves much more flexible funding arrangements. It involves a system that has no charge to consumers for services that are provided in the home, quite a considerable difference from what was proposed by the previous government. We intend to use the substantial investment we are making in supported housing programs to supplement the kind of care we are offering.

We are reallocating funds from the hospital sector and we have been very clear about that. The only way to improve the community base of long-term care to get it out of the hospital care area is to reallocate funds. That is a direction that requires considerable consultation with the workers involved, with the administration of those facilities and with the communities.

Mr Elston: I would like to ask the minister how she can stand here and deliver a story like that when really all these people are doing is disguising the fact that they are unwilling to put any money into community services. Quite the contrary, as part of their restraint program they are requiring the Minister of Health to cut back on delivering services that are needed in the community. To show us she has done something, would the minister tell the House how much her ministry and the Ministry of Health have put into community services and improved institutional services as new money for this current fiscal year?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think the member opposite is quite aware that this is a long-term plan and that a lot of the delivery systems are projected into the future in terms of the kinds of dollars we will be spending. One does not enter into a consultation process and be redirecting the money. What we are looking at over the long term, by 1996-97, is a total of $647.6 million more per year for long-term care and support services. In that whole package is a reallocation from the hospital budget, revenue in terms of the accommodation costs in long-term care facilities, and $460 million will be in new provincial funds.

Mr Elston: It is pretty obvious that the long-term care here is long-term care of the program consultation, and nothing to do with the people who need services. I would like to ask the minister why they are going on this consultation when they have already made decisions on key elements of reform, like the service access organization, like the levels-of-care funding issue. Is it not a little bit remote, as the minister's colleague the Minister of Health stated this morning, in the name of "consultation" to set up advisory groups to advise her people on how to consult?

In reality, nothing is happening with those people. Gerard Kennedy is right when he says the New Democratic government "hasn't done anything yet that makes any sense." While the minister is busy tearing apart the system, why does she continue to evade the need to do something to put services in the community, at the same time as she applauds the Minister of Health who is tearing down hospital services?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member opposite has characterized the action of the government in a way that is not at all fair. We have continued the consultation at the request of our communities. We had a focus group that involved all the groups I have mentioned with which we will be consulting, which said very specifically that what they needed from us was a longer period of time to make known their needs, particularly consumers, community organizations, native groups, and racial and cultural groups, which did not feel included in the previous consultations that had gone on. They felt their needs had not been assessed.

When the member talks about tearing down hospital services, he is of course quite incorrect. We are reallocating resources and we will have to reallocate those resources gradually to ensure that those now in long-term care in hospital settings are still cared for while we are moving to a community base.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. This morning the minister gave a speech to the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario. In that speech he said he was not convinced of the merits of restoring a right to sue. Last December, when the minister voted for the member for Leeds-Grenville's private member's bill restoring the right to sue, he was convinced then. Last year during the election campaign, the member was convinced of the right to sue. When the Liberals tore the guts out of the rights of the individual to sue, he was convinced of the right to sue. Why is he no longer convinced?

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me say to the member that consultation --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat. The member for York Mills.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Well, good line or not -- and we still like each other, right? Okay. The minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: Let me just very briefly say to the member that consultation can do wonderful things when you sit down and listen to those who in fact ultimately have to receive the benefits of whatever system you put in place to deliver benefits to accident victims. One of the things we learned during the course of our consultations over the last year is that a large number of victims have never been adequately served by the legal system, and our conclusions after listening to those victims --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Take your seat. When the House has come to order, then perhaps the minister will be able to continue and the Speaker will be able to hear what is being said.

Hon Mr Charlton: Our conclusion, after listening carefully to the victims we spent a considerable amount of time talking to, is that we can much more fairly and effectively and adequately deliver benefits to those victims in a benefits package to which they are entitled without having to wait three or four or five years for court action.

1430

Mr Tilson: Interesting policy. This morning the minister told the insurance brokers that the reason he was no longer convinced is that, "For the majority of consumers, the tort system is slow, unpredictable and stressful." That is the new word, it seems, the new S-word.

I suggest that the problems created by the justice system are the responsibility of the Attorney General and not the Ministry of Financial Institutions. Because the system is slow in remedying the rights of the individual, you do not simply cancel his rights.

The minister said this morning he would like to reinstate the ability of more innocent accident victims to sue for pain and suffering. He did not say all innocent accident victims would be able to sue for pain and suffering, just more. How many more innocent accident victims will be able to sue for pain and suffering -- 10%, 30%, 70%? How many?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member has already raised this question in the House and the response to the question is quite simple.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat, please. The member for Dufferin-Peel posed a question. I assume he would like to hear the response. He would be able to hear the response if the member for Willowdale would allow him to hear the response.

Hon Mr Charlton: As I have said to the member across the way and to some of his colleagues, we are in the process of reviewing the threshold -- a threshold which we believe is too difficult -- set by the Liberals in the former piece of legislation. When we are ready to table our legislation, the member will know the answer in terms of what the threshold will be and how many people will pass through that threshold. But I am not about to announce the legislation in this House until I am ready to announce the whole package.

Mr Tilson: The minister obviously does not know the answer. He seemed to know about a year ago, but as time goes on he is asking for more and more time. The wheel is going to fall off.

What the minister does know -- because he obviously does not know the answer to that question -- is that the real need for seeking redress to the courts is the failure of his insurance scheme to accommodate economic loss. It seems more and more clear that he is not going to accommodate the issue of economic loss. Can the minister tell us why he does not intend to reintroduce the right to recover for economic loss?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, I am not going to waste a lot of time on this because the member has now asked this question three times in the House. We intend to deal with the economic loss questions in the benefits package in first-party benefits.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Harris: On September 23 the Premier said, "Renewing our economy must be the centre of focus of our work as a province." I agreed with that statement then and I agree with it now.

Today I released a document called New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario. In the absence of what this House has been given as a comprehensive plan from the government to date, and since on September 23 the Premier asked "the advice of the House," I ask the Premier if he would agree to seriously consider the proposals I sent to his office this morning in the spirit that they were drafted.

Hon Mr Rae: Of course I will. Let me say by means of preface that I have had a chance to read this proposal from the leader of the third party this morning. There are some interesting ideas in it. There are some ideas with which I think we are moving in the same direction, particularly in the training area. If I may say so, I think we are all agreed there.

We just negotiated an agreement with the federal government in which this government has succeeded in achieving an increase of more than 80% in funding from the federal government for training here. I have appointed a deputy minister, Naomi Alboim, with the particular responsibility of pushing the strategy through the bureaucracy and continuing the consultation process with business and labour on that subject.

There are some other areas with which I take issue with the leader of the third party in terms of the net effect it would have on the economy. I very much appreciate his having sent this to me and I think there are some ideas which I will not only scrutinize myself but will ask our officials in Treasury and elsewhere to have a good, hard look at.

Mr Harris: One of the things the Premier said in the September 23 statement was that saving jobs was important. I agree, and this document was prepared in that context. He said, "Our industries have to be able to buy and sell in Canadian and world markets at competitive prices or they will not be able to survive." I agree, and this document was prepared in that context. He also said we need a sustained effort to get people off welfare and back to work. I agree, and this document is a reflection of that.

We really have not seen a comprehensive plan or solutions that seem to address those specific statements. I know the Premier has been busy with other things. New Directions is based on what Ontarians have been telling me and my caucus. It is consistent, I believe, with what I have been saying all along, that the government of the day seems to be moving in a direction that is different from answering those concerns and those questions.

Would the Premier agree to stop heading in directions that are counterproductive to answering those questions and not only truly examine these proposals but, in the spirit in which they were given, have an all-party committee, or have the three of us sit down and work with these proposals that come from Ontarians themselves, who want answers to those very same questions the Premier raised on September 23?

Hon Mr Rae: Of course there will be ample opportunity here to debate the suggestions made by the honourable member. I would only say that I take issue with him, for example, when he says that the steps this government has taken have been contrary to or against the interests of getting Ontario back to work.

I would argue very strongly that the efforts we have made in terms of the budget, in terms of what we have done, while they have been criticized by some, I think many people, including people in the business community, recognize in their private moments that if we had not taken the steps we have taken, the recession in Ontario would have been far more serious than it is right now.

Mr Harris: I truly want to be as non-partisan as I can in this. The Premier's statement on September 23 also said, "Finger-pointing is a luxury our economy cannot afford." I respect that and I agree with him.

It is in that non-partisan spirit that I ask the Premier and the Treasurer to sit down with me and perhaps members of my caucus -- if the leader of the Liberal Party and members of caucus wish to participate positively, I suggest they be involved as well -- to discuss Ontario's economic crisis, the fact that we cannot compete today at the taxation, regulatory and spending levels that we are at, and truly look at how we can set the priorities to get us to that level where in fact we can compete.

I ask the Premier if he will make that commitment. He has said in response to the question that we will have ample opportunity to debate the proposals. I accept that. He knows I do not have a vehicle, nor does my party, to put this document on the agenda for debate, but the Premier does. If he would even follow up on that suggestion in his response and have this document referred to an all-party committee, that report can then be called by his House leader and we can have a chance in a non-partisan way to debate it in the Legislature. I would accept that offer if he were sincere.

Hon Mr Rae: There is a committee responsible for the pre-budget consultation and not only would I have no objection, I would encourage the committee to discuss the member's paper as well as other suggestions coming from the public with respect to economic changes which are going to be necessary.

One small fact the leader of the third party may not have been aware of but which I am sure he would want me to share with the House is that Statistics Canada and Investment Canada this week released information with respect to foreign investment in Canada over the past while. The overwhelming evidence, and it has been trumpeted in the Quebec media but not here, is that three quarters of the foreign investment coming to Canada in the last while has been coming to the province of Ontario. That tells us something about the level of confidence that really exists today with respect to our government and with respect to the general level of the economy that we are heading into.

1440

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Offer: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the strike affecting the Disabled and Aged Regional Transit System in Hamilton, which is now into its ninth day. As the minister knows, this system provides a necessary service to 9,000 riders. As he will also be aware, last week in an article by Emilia Casella the Minister of Transportation was quoted as saying, "People have to be even more imaginative and innovative." I think the minister will agree that type of statement is lacking and unfeeling in the extreme.

He will be aware that during the recent TTC dispute he used all of his resources short of legislation to push for an end to the strike. Can he inform the House today whether he intends to take the same steps he took during the TTC strike to ensure that the 9,000 users of this transit system will have service restored immediately?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the question is a good one. Any situation involving a strike where the facilities that are out take care of the handicapped and some who are not quite as well off as many of us in the community is a serious situation and one that we have been taking seriously. We are looking at it and our senior mediators have been looking at that situation over the last several days.

Mr Offer: During the TTC strike the government not only ordered a provincial mediator but it also held a number of special cabinet sessions, forced an all-night bargaining session and directly supervised the final vote to resolve the dispute. During that strike the public were able to walk to work, took their cars and even rode bicycles to cope with the transit shutdown, but these are not options for the users of the system in the minister's riding.

Will the minister commit today that in the event these efforts fail, he will bring forward back-to-work legislation to provide service to those people who need the service immediately?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member will be aware that was a push almost from day one during the Toronto transit strike. We did not use the back-to-work order. We were able to achieve an agreement there and we hope to be able to do exactly the same in the DARTS strike in the city of Hamilton.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Villeneuve: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has just announced that he will be fighting severances granted by the Niagara land division committee by going to the Ontario Municipal Board. Given the Terrace Investments catastrophe that cost the taxpayers of Ontario probably well over $1 million, how much money does he intend to set aside to fight farmers against severances they are asking for to prevent them from going down the pipe?

Hon Mr Buchanan: As I tried to indicate in my statement, we are going to have discussions with the region in terms of the downsizing operation, but the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is trying to focus on how to help the farmer. We do not believe that the suggestions coming out of the region are the answer.

The answer, as the member said earlier, is to try to save agriculture and save the farmer. That is what we are trying to do in this government. We are not speculating about what it is going to cost to fight anybody; we are working in our ministry to see how we can assist the farmers in that area and how we can get the federal government to work with us to assist the farmers in that area and not focus on what it is going to cost to fight. We think farmers want to save the land. We think farmers do not want to sever those lots down there in that way and we do not expect to have any major fights in the area.

Mr Villeneuve: The minister will be spending millions of dollars to fight farmers for what this government is considering doing. This government is considering selling capital assets to reduce its deficit, yet when the farmer and his family are going down the financial tubes, this government will spend millions of taxpayers' dollars that should go to Agriculture and Food to fight them.

I agree that we have to save the farmers. As I showed the minister a while ago, signs have been appearing and have been prevalent in the Niagara area for several months. They are not crying wolf. Will he not look again, and instead of fighting a crass political fight, put a little common sense into it, not only in the Niagara area but across the province, and allow some severances where indeed common sense would indicate they should have them?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think that is what I indicated a minute ago. We are interested in assisting the farmers. A targeted part of the aid package we have already announced had horticulture in there. There is a targeted part of the federal assistance package that has been announced, and we are going to Ottawa next week to ensure we get as much of that for Ontario farmers as possible. A lot of that money will eventually find its way into the tender fruit industry in the Niagara area. We very much want to save farmers and are doing as much as we can to provide the financial assistance that is necessary.

The region has had a very good track record of living within the guidelines of its own official plan. If the amendments it is proposing are not accepted by the provincial government, then my hope is that the region will continue to honour its own official plan and will not allow the severances that are put before it to go beyond the local approval stage.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

Mr Klopp: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In August he announced at the AMO conference our government's commitment to disentanglement. The municipal politicians in Huron county welcomed that. As a past councillor, I know it is something we talked about with previous governments, to try to recognize that the provincial government and the local municipalities now deal with over 100 programs. This has to be cleaned up in order to save some dollars. The minister made that announcement. Could he tell me now what further commitments there are to show that this was not just idle talk but that we are really committed and taking action? What are we doing at this time?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think one of the most important initiatives of this government is the whole issue of disentanglement. The people in this province want to know which level of government is responsible for what and pays for what so they can hold us all accountable and understand the process of government and see that we are providing government services in the province in an efficient way and are spending the taxpayers' money wisely.

Since the committee representing the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the province of Ontario was announced a couple of months ago at the AMO convention, we have been in the process of establishing the secretariat and doing some of the impact studies within the ministry. As soon as the municipal elections are over, it is our intention, along with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, to get on with the discussions and the implementation of disentanglement.

RESIGNATION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Premier. I was very interested in the carefully worded clarification by the Premier on the issue of the OPP raids on opposition offices. I am going to return to that issue again, but today I am interested in the way the Premier treats my Niagara colleagues.

Yesterday the Premier denied that he had fired the member for Lincoln as the Chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for voting for his constituents rather than the government on a money bill in this House. That was the tobacco tax bill. I am looking at the committee list. If the Premier did not fire him as Chairman of that committee, then why is he no longer Chairman of that committee today?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not appoint or fire people on committees, chairmen or otherwise.

1450

Mrs Sullivan: Watch his nose.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Halton Centre, while perhaps in a good mood, should also know that comments should be made only from where her rightful place is. The member for St Catharines is patiently waiting to place his supplementary.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. After the member for Lincoln voted against a bill he believed would hurt his constituents, the Premier gave the member his walking papers and cut his pay by over $9,000. After the member for Welland-Thorold revealed that this government had betrayed those who voted for the NDP on the Sunday shopping issue, he was chopped from the standing committee on administration of justice.

Everyone in this House knows that the Premier and his ever-expanding personal staff call all the shots in this particular regime. What message do these two dismissals send to members of his caucus who wish to be treated as something other than subservient zombies?

Hon Mr Rae: That is an absurd comment from the member for St Catharines.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I certainly appreciate the relaxed atmosphere.

SUMMERHILL PRESS

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Culture and Communications. The minister will be familiar with the lingering problems following the decision of the Ontario Development Corp and the Ministry of Culture and Communications to give a $400,000 loan guarantee to a failing company, Summerhill Press. ODC was left with the responsibility for Summerhill's debts but managed to sell its assets to Breakwater Press.

Several authors are still owed royalties by Summerhill. While some authors may eventually have their royalties paid, the general manager of the new firm, Wayne Gilpin, has told one author that any other indebtedness to him prior to August 9, 1991, is the responsibility of the Ontario Development Corp, which took over the liabilities of Summerhill Press. This author is owed $29,000.

Given the Ontario Development Corp's apparent responsibility for the debts of Summerhill Press, does this government not feel an obligation to these authors who are owed in total about $60,000? Does the government intend to pay their royalties?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I must admit to the member that I am not totally up on all of that information but I will be glad to find out and return the information to her.

Mrs Marland: It is a very significant subject. I expected that the minister had been in the portfolio long enough that she would have been apprised of this very serious situation.

Another issue in the Summerhill sale is the authors' publishing rights. ODC sold their rights, like the rest of the firm's assets, to Breakwater. It seems very wrong for ODC to act without permission as an agent for Summerhill's authors. At least one author wants to change publishers; however, the purchaser will not release this author's rights even though it refuses to pay the royalties owed to him. The problems arising from Summerhill's sale point to the urgent need for reform, such as a requirement that publishers who are applying for a provincial loan must guarantee that authors' royalties are being honoured.

First, will the minister ask for a full investigation of the role played by her ministry and the Ontario Development Corp in the sale of Summerhill Press? Second, when will she introduce the reforms which the manager of the new Ontario Publishing Centre, Sherrill Cheda, promised seven weeks ago would be ready soon?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I am well aware that the writers are concerned about their royalties. As a matter of fact, when I announced the $5 million for the Ontario Publishing Centre, I did speak with writers at that time. However, with regard to the Ontario Development Corp, I do not have all the information on that particular issue.

When the member talks about the publishing industry, we all know two very important publishing firms went under recently, just when I came into the ministry. That is why I was very pleased to announce the $5 million.

We are looking at it. We have the papers out to both the French and English publishing firms. We have asked for input. The date is October 31. We have extended that dateline so that they can get back to us with their input on those criteria. We do hope to have the money flowing before Christmas, which is what I announced in August.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Farnan: My question is to the Minister of Labour and concerns dislocated Cambridge workers. The owners of Kanmet Foundries in Cambridge walked away from Cambridge Casting Centre. The workers were left without severance pay, pay in lieu of notice or statutory holiday pay. In addition, credit union money and union dues were never credited to the respective accounts. To add insult to injury, the company also failed to pay the Green Shield benefits, resulting in out-of-pocket medical expenses to the workers.

What is the status of the investigation into the wages owing those affected workers of Kanmet Foundries and why has a claim placed before the Ontario Labour Relations Board as far back as June 14 gone virtually unheeded?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The question is a very good. One of the beauties of now having Bill 70 in place is that the workers are entitled to up to $5,000 for the severance, termination, anything that is owed in that plan.

Some of the other concerns the member has expressed are currently with the legal department in my ministry. We also have the authority, as I think the member knows, to take action, if necessary, in terms of the company and the directors of the company.

Mr Farnan: My constituents are justifiably upset. They are aware that the Burgess family, which claimed recently that it was ceasing all operations in the province, still has a corporate office in Sudbury, still owns the Sudbury Wolves of the Ontario Hockey League, still operates a warehouse plant -- Saubra of Brampton -- still has employees onsite at the Cambridge plant and still has traffic accessing the Cambridge plant every day as recently as today.

Why is this allowed to happen? Why is it allowed to carry on? This is especially disconcerting when this company appears to be in direct violation of the Employment Standards Act and a collective agreement. It is not taxpayers' money to pay these workers that we want; we want the company to pay the workers the money that is their due.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I tell the member once again that this is exactly why this issue will be in the hands of our legal branch. We are aware of the responsibility and the authority we now have with the new legislation.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Phillips: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It flows from an answer she gave last week to one of the NDP members about making certain that when you look at contracts, you read the fine print.

A fairly large group of my constituents feel they have been defrauded and would like to know what recourse they can get through this ministry. Several months ago, after seeing an advertised offer, they agreed to a contract with a whole list of things to be done. They bought the program. Now it is several months afterwards and virtually none of what my constituents who bought this program thought was going to be delivered has been delivered. What recourse do they have through her ministry to go after someone who advertised a whole list of things and then, once the sale was made, delivered on virtually none of them? Of what assistance can the minister be to those people?

Hon Ms Churley: I suggest the member get the particulars of the case to me and my ministry and I can look into the specific case. I know we are getting a tremendous amount of these kinds of situations. I think all of us in the House are concerned about it. If he will get the information to me, I will have it looked into and get back to him.

Just on the contract, at the risk of making everybody laugh again, I am glad the honourable member raised it again, because quite often people do not read the fine print and do not see the particulars. They end up signing things and getting stung afterwards.

I thank the member for raising it and I will look into it for him.

1500

Mr Phillips: Luckily I brought the contract along today and I plan to send it over. It is the Agenda for People. I have actually been through it and there is no fine print in it. It is all very clear. I wonder if one of the pages might deliver that. I appreciate the offer of help and I certainly will await advice from the minister on what sort of prosecution or legal action she might take to ensure that my constituents have redress done.

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to thank the member for the contract. I have to ask, I wonder if there are any contracts from members opposite that we can have a look at, read the fine print and see what happens. Just let me add again that as members know, we are soon going to be introducing the new consumer code and it will be improved. I am sure everybody in the House looks forward to the introduction of that new code. Some of these problems will be solved, but I will look into the member's case for him.

RESIGNATION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mr Sterling: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and government House leader. Did he or his staff ask or suggest to the member for Lincoln that he resign as Chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs?

Hon Mr Cooke: No.

Mr Sterling: Does the government House leader know if anyone else has suggested to the member for Lincoln that he resign? If so, who did?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the member, of all the people in the Legislature, knows there is a process within every caucus that if there is to be any discussion at all about whether members of caucus are going to follow caucus discipline or not, it is a decision that is made within each caucus by the chief government whip or by the chief whip for the opposition parties. That is the tradition in Parliament, it has always been the tradition and it is a tradition I respect.

HUNTING AND FISHING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Drainville: The constituents of Victoria-Haliburton are rather concerned about a pamphlet that was released about a week ago. It has to do with Algonquin Park. In this pamphlet there are specific allegations made about decisions the government has made. I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he could respond in this House as regards the inflammatory and I believe inaccurate picture that is set forth.

For instance, it says in this pamphlet that all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and trucks will have unlimited access to the park. On top of that, it also says there will be unlimited hunting and fishing in Algonquin Park. I know, as I has sat in the House and heard responses from the government, that this is not the case, but I think it needs to be cleared up for the people of Victoria-Haliburton.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a very important issue. The pamphlet -- I have a copy of it -- by the Ad Hoc Committee, RR 1, Dwight, Ontario, says in it, as the member has indicated, that there is unlimited recreational hunting and fishing and unlimited access by trucks, ATVs and snowmobiles for the Algonquins of Golden Lake in Algonquin Provincial Park. Mr Speaker, you will know, as will all members of the House, that the interim agreement with regard to hunting that was signed by the government and the Algonquins specifically gives limits to the number of deer and moose that can be hunted and taken throughout the land claim area in eastern Ontario. It also specifically limits the ancillary hunt.

Mr J. Wilson: What is the enforcement provision?

Hon Mr Wildman: If the member will allow me, I will respond to that. Perhaps he would just remain silent so I can complete what I am saying.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The ancillary hunt says specifically that rare, endangered and threatened species will not be taken, that wolves will not be taken, that loons will not be taken. It sets out a period of the season when hunting will be allowed, sets out specific areas where hunting will be allowed and it specifically limits and prohibits the use of motorized ATVs and snow machines for hunting.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Caplan: I have a question of serious public policy for the Premier. In the province today, on Sunday as well as every other day, people can rent and buy videos that span the whole range of entertainment and they can buy books of all kinds to read, but they cannot buy Brahms or Beethoven or an educational record. I would ask if he thinks it is consistent that you can rent a video to see and buy a book to read, but you cannot buy music, Brahms and Beethoven, to listen to.

Hon Mr Rae: I will refer that to the minister responsible for the legislation, which is now being discussed in committee; that is to say, the Solicitor General of Ontario, the member for Oshawa.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As the member can well appreciate, there are a number of exemptions under the existing legislation, which her own government brought in, Bill 113, and it did not include the use she now seeks at this late date. The government has no intention of expanding and enlarging the number of exemptions of product mixes that are in the market presently by way of exemptions for Sunday shopping. Our emphasis is with respect to a common pause day and worker protection, and is not to expand or dilute that circumstance.

Mrs Caplan: The reason I went to the Premier on this question of important public policy is that neither the Solicitor General's office nor the Attorney General's office -- my constituent Mr Marty Herzog, who is the owner of a record store that sells Brahms and Beethoven, is now renting them over 15 years so that he can comply with the legislation. His concern is that he wants to be able to talk to somebody in this government. We have not asked the Solicitor General nor the Attorney General -- we know they are very busy people -- but we ask if their policy people would meet with Mr Herzog to discuss this important public policy issue. I wanted to appeal to the Premier to direct the policy people to meet with my constituent.

Since the Premier will not answer this question, will the Solicitor General at least direct his staff to meet with my constituent to discuss a matter of serious public policy as it relates to the ability of someone to be able to listen to music, as well as buy a book to read and rent a video to see? Will his policy people at least meet with him?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In response to the member for Oriole, the government went to many municipalities, I believe for the whole summer, receiving briefs both written and oral, and presentations. There was a full and exhaustive opportunity by the standing committee on administration of justice, including members of her own caucus who were a part of that committee, to hear those.

Mrs Caplan: So the answer is no, you won't meet with him. That is why I wanted to ask the Premier. Open government.

Hon Mr Pilkey: If this particular individual did not avail himself of that opportunity, that is regrettable. However, I would indicate to the member opposite, who is hollering across the floor in a continuous fashion about open government, that I am prepared to accede to her request and have a member of my staff meet with the gentleman in question to hear his representation.

1510

RESIGNATION OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Mr Sterling: I have a question for the chief government whip, the member for Niagara South. Upon whose instruction did she remove the member for Lincoln as the Chairman of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs?

Hon Mrs Coppen: This is an internal problem within our own caucus. The member for Lincoln has said to the local news media back home that he admits to making a mistake, and because he felt it was an honourable thing to do, he resigned.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the members of the House to come to order. This was just at a point where we were enjoying the greatest number of questions ever placed during question period. If members would come to order, then we could continue.

Mr Sterling: I believe a minister of the crown and the Premier and the governing party have to answer to the opposition about how they are running the government of Ontario and how they are running this Legislative Assembly. Did the government whip talk to the Premier on this matter and is she aware of conversations between the Premier and the member for Lincoln regarding his Chairmanship of this committee?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a minute. It appears that while a question was posed, the members of the opposition choose not to hear an answer. When the members have come to order, then there will be an opportunity to hear the response.

Hon Mrs Coppen: If I am not mistaken, a tradition of Parliament is that an internal problem within caucus is to remain with the caucus.

PETITIONS

CLOSING OF TREE NURSERIES

Mr Miclash: Mr Speaker, as you will know, I have been quite concerned about the closing of part of the Dryden tree nursery, and today I present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario which reads:

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

"We oppose the proposed closure of the bare root section of the Dryden tree nursery due to the loss of substantial employment, the Dryden tree nursery purchase of materials and services, income dollars spent locally and the MNR local presence in Dryden."

This petition is signed by 2,128 people from a town of 6,000 people, and I too attach my signature to it.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I have the pleasure to present a petition to the Legislature of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds; and

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

That is signed by a number of good people from the town of Stayner in my riding of Simcoe West, and I too have affixed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONSTITUTIONA L AMENDMENT REFERENDUM ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA TENUE DE RÉFÉRENDUMS SUR LES MODIFICATIONS CONSTITUTIONNELLES

Mr Beer moved first reading of Bill 145, An Act requiring Referendums on Constitutional Amendments.

M. Beer propose la première lecture du projet de loi 145, Loi exigeant la tenue de référendums sur les modifications constitutionnelles.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Beer: The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the people of Ontario have an opportunity to express their views on any proposal for constitutional amendment. Before a resolution authorizing a constitutional amendment is adopted, a province-wide referendum is required and a report setting out the results of the referendum must be tabled in the House.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT, 1991

Mr Christopherson moved first reading of Bill Pr53, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE ACT, 1991

Mr O'Connor moved first reading of Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

Motion agreed to.

COURTS OF JUSTICE AMENDMENT ACT (PAYMENTS TO SUPERNUMERARY JUDGES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES (RÉMUNERATION DES JUGES SURNUMÉRAIRES)

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, 1984 in respect of Payments to Supernumerary Judges.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1984 sur les tribunaux judiciaires en ce qui concerne la rémunération des juges surnuméraires.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1520

Hon Mr Hampton: This bill will withdraw the provincial government's payment of $3,000 annually to each of the judges presiding in the Ontario Court (General Division) and the Court of Appeal as of the date they choose supernumerary status. A supernumerary judge is one who has reached retirement age but chooses not to retire and continues to work part-time. Judges of the General Division and Court of Appeal are appointed and paid a salary by the federal government. When they go supernumerary, they retain their full federal status.

The $3,000 provincial payment to federal judges is now an anachronism representing compensation for services they are no longer called upon to perform such as persona designata, jurisdiction and membership on provincial boards and commissions. Only two other provinces continue to pay their judges this sum. Because we did not wish to alter unilaterally the conditions of employment of judges, we have chosen to discontinue this payment only when a judge chooses to go supernumerary. If a judge continues on full-time service until mandatory retirement at age 75, the payment will continue until retirement.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Mr Johnson moved, on behalf of Mrs Wark-Martyn, second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981.

M. Johnson propose, au nom de Mme Wark-Martyn, la deuxième lecture du projet de loi85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1981 de la taxe sur les carburants.

Mr Johnson: This bill, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, will implement tax changes contained in the Treasurer's budget of April 19, 1991. In addition, the bill is intended to counter unlawful sales of taxable motor fuels. Millions of dollars of revenue are lost annually because importers bring untaxed fuel into Ontario without declaring it for tax purposes or because of those who export untaxed fuel out of the province and then reimport it or divert it for sale to retailers in Ontario.

The amendments specify the responsibilities of collectors, importers, wholesalers and retailers to collect fuel tax. Importers, who will have to be registered, will not be required to pay tax at the Canadian border but will be required to pay the taxes upon filing their returns. This gives us greater assurance of compliance due to the bond the importer must put up to be registered. At the present time, importers who are not collectors are required to pay the tax at the border on fuel to be used in Ontario. Exporters will also need a registration certificate and will have to account for all exported fuels.

The proposed amendments will allow the detaining of vehicles to ensure that transporters and carriers are complying with the act. If a transporter or carrier fails to comply, fuel could be seized and disposed of to make certain it does not re-enter the market. The proposed amendments will increase penalties and fines for violation of the act.

In 1989, the standing committee on public accounts recommended registration and bonding of importers and exporters of diesel fuel as well as increased fines and penalties for violations of the act. I am pleased to be able to bring these measures before the Legislature today.

An information exchange on fuel tax issues among provincial, federal and state governments will complement existing anti-evasion measures and federal collection of Ontario fuel tax at border crossings. This exchange means that operator and vehicle information held by non-tax authorities such as the Ministry of Transportation will be available for registering fuel transporters.

There are also provisions in the legislation which will make it easier for a wholesaler/dealer to apply to be a collector of fuel. Previously, to be collectors, wholesalers/dealers were required to own or operate a terminal facility and to colour middle distillate fuel. By eliminating these conditions, collector status will now be available to those whose sales of middle distillate fuel are usually at wholesale level.

Improving the fuel tax compliance system by more strict regulation and penalties for non-compliance will increase provincial revenues and the Ontario taxpayer will benefit. In accordance with the Treasurer's budget, the tax on clear fuel will increase in this legislation. The proposed legislation amendments in Bill 85 are important measures in the fuels distribution network by the elimination of unfair and unlawful competition.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act, 1991. In his April 29 budget, the Treasurer announced a number of increases in fuel tax; I reiterate, increases in fuel tax. Increases on the tax of gas for automobiles and aviation fuels are covered in amendments to the Gasoline Tax Act, which we will likely deal with next week. Taxes on diesel fuel for trucks, trains, boats and other vehicles are covered in amendments to the Fuel Tax Amendment Act, which we are now dealing with this afternoon.

Bill 85 implements further tax increases. The new diesel fuel tax increases introduced in Bill 85 will raise over $90 million in new revenue annually. This represents an over 30% total increase. I repeat, a 30% total increase in fuel taxes for both railway locomotive and other diesel fuels initiated by a government that is interested in building bridges with business; I repeat, building bridges with business. Those two facts do not seem to go together.

The budget raised the general diesel fuel tax by 1.7 cents per litre to 12.6 cents per litre and raised the tax on diesel fuel used by railway locomotives by 0.55 cents per litre to 3.95 cents per litre, effective April 30, 1991. A further increase of the same magnitude will come into effect January 1, 1992, against much informed advice, I may say, increasing this diesel fuel tax rate to 14.3 cents per litre and the railway locomotive diesel fuel rate to 4.5 cents per litre.

These changes will make Ontario's new general tax rate the second highest in Canada. I repeat, these changes will make Ontario's new general tax rate the second highest in Canada. Is this a policy and program that will keep Ontario's industry productive and competitive? The Premier stated that his goals are productivity and competitiveness as late as September 23, 1991, right here in this very House.

I ask sincerely, is this government really going to strike another blow at an industry that is suffering, strike another blow at the transport industry, which is already in serious decline?

With this move to increase diesel fuel taxes, the NDP government again finds itself in a catch-22 situation, an anti-business situation in this case. Its mismanagement of the economy leads to unemployment and then plant closures and bankruptcies, thus lowering government revenues. To counter this loss of revenues it tries to raise more revenues by increasing taxes. This in turn forces more businesses to close, increases unemployment and leaves the government with a further revenue shortfall or overexpenditure; a nicer word, overexpenditure. This is a vicious circle of higher taxes leading to higher taxes and the ultimate victims of this policy are the Ontario business community, the Ontario workforce, and indeed each and every Ontarian.

1530

At a time when existing railway lines are closing -- we all have very personal experience of that -- and the NDP government is busy jumping on the bandwagon to make automobiles environmental public enemy number one by continuing to implement higher and higher taxes on gasoline, thus attempting to change people's behaviour, how can this government justify further disincentives to the railway industry, already struggling to provide cheaper environmentally friendly intercity transportation, in a province where this service is much needed and wanted by those people who rely on the trains to take them to visit family and friends in the distant corners of Ontario, and often daily to take them to their places of employment and business activity? This tax increase will no doubt have a negative impact on the price and availability of railway travel in Ontario.

Harder hit by these increases than even the railway industry, however, and by Bill 86 in particular, are Ontario's truckers who are already feeling the pressure of increased US competition. Earlier this month, this government's own report confirmed that Ontario's trucking industry is at a competitive disadvantage with respect to its US competition. What is the response of the Treasurer and this government to this information? It is Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act.

The Treasurer is not even going to reconsider, and he has repeated day after day in this House he will not reconsider, anything in budget 1991 that would help the competitiveness of the trucking industry by giving a trucker a break on gasoline taxes. He would rather blame the plight of the truckers on someone else. Day after day, week after week, month after month, we hear the chorus: "It's not our fault. We're doing the best we can. It's a very complex issue."

Each of us in this House knows trucking company after trucking company that is examining its future in our province. Unfortunately many and some with over 50 years of service in Ontario have already sold out. They come to the members and to me with deep regrets because they did not want to fold the family business.

Many trucking companies have driven their last mile in this province. I find that a very sad situation and I have very little to say to the people who come to me, when this government will not listen to their requests day after day to show them a symbol that they are willing to help, a very small symbol, by not implementing the second half of budget 1991 with the 1.7-cents-per-litre increase in fuel tax.

Trucking is a $5-billion industry in Ontario. For every trucker on the road in Ontario there are many other workers employed to service and repair the trucks, to load the trailers and to manufacture, sell and maintain those trucks, trailers and related parts and equipment. Members and I likely know people in that industry.

The Ontario Trucking Association estimates there are over 228,000 workers directly employed in the industry in Ontario, and that does not give any indication of indirect employment. The direct employment then is 5% of the provincial labour force. These are the jobs this government is jeopardizing with its tax policies.

Truck transportation is responsible for over 70% of our trade with the United States and anybody who has driven our highways knows that. This is an industry that must be given the tools possible to be able to compete in an international marketplace. The diesel fuel tax increases introduced in the 1991 Ontario budget can cost truckers $15 in additional tax every time they fill up their tanks. That is not an insignificant amount out of anyone's pocketbook.

The new diesel tax outlined in Bill 85 will cost independent truckers at least $4,000 a year in new taxes; I repeat, $4,000 a year in new taxes. Is this one of the Premier's and the NDP government's policies and programs to keep Ontario productive and competitive, to keep the trucking industry productive and competitive in the North American market?

When the truckers first came protesting to Queen's Park in early April, before the budget, the NDP promised to help them become more competitive. Later that same month, when the budget was introduced, the truckers brought their protest back to Queen's Park in great disappointment. We all remember what went on on Highway 401 at that time.

One of those truckers was Vernon Erb of Erb Transport. Mr Erb was unhappy about the gas tax increases introduced in the NDP budget. In an interview during the truckers' blockade, he put it squarely on the NDP's shoulders. He said, "I was surprised because the Ontario Trucking Association has been trying to get relief from taxes so we can be more competitive." Is that not a very worthy goal? But he asks whether this is the kind of result they can expect after pre-budget consultation, which they engaged in, which the Premier of this province encouraged them to do, and year after year, here they are, not being listened to.

The trucking industry is looking for specific help from Queen's Park. They engaged in the pre-consultation and they are not being listened to. They are asking again to be listened to in the second stage of the implementation of this tax; no response. They want to improve their competitiveness, but to do that they must have fuel tax cuts and sales tax exemptions.

The NDP government seems to have forgotten that it has been in office over a year now. They hold the responsibility of government. They hold the responsibility to help the trucking industry in this province compete. Yet again the NDP government has blamed every other government in North America, whether it be in Ottawa or Washington, for the problems of the trucking industry. Day after day we hear this. But it must be remembered that it was the NDP government in this province that introduced a 30% increase in the diesel fuel tax in this Bill 85, totalling 3.4 cents per litre. This is entirely a made-in-Ontario tax. This is entirely a made-at-Queen's-Park tax against an industry that is really hanging on by its fingernails.

During the truckers' blockade, the Treasurer was quoted acknowledging that the industry wants the diesel tax put on hold. He actually heard people say, "Put the diesel tax on hold." So the Treasurer has admitted that this was a made-by-the-NDP crisis. He heard but he did not listen. Rather than putting this fuel tax on hold, this government is going to increase this tax. That is hard to believe: a two-stage increase on an industry that is but barely hanging on. This tax on fuel, which will become even higher in January, will make Ontario's fuel tax the second-highest in Canada; I repeat, the second-highest in Canada. Is this going to make Ontario productive and competitive? Are these the policies the Premier feels will make this province productive and competitive? It is certainly not what we are hearing from the trucking industry, those of us who are speaking to them.

1540

I ask if the Minister of Revenue can deny in this House that the $4,000 in new diesel tax cost facing individual truckers this year -- that figure is a minimum estimation -- that this really strenuous load is going to be a direct result of this government's policies? Can she deny that this $4,000 burden on individual truckers -- I am not talking about major corporations; I am talking about individual truckers; I am talking about family businesses -- cannot help but negatively impact our trucking industry?

In preparation for these damaging tax measures, I ask the Minister of Revenue, did she conduct any impact studies? Did she talk to truckers? Did she explain those impact studies to them? Were any studies conducted to discover just how much damage these diesel fuel tax increases would inflict on the trucking industry in Ontario?

If she did, can the minister share with the House the information she has that will tell us how many more small and large trucking firms can be expected to go bankrupt because of these tax increases? She knows and I know and every member of this House knows that this second stage of the implementation in January 1992 is going to be the breaking point for yet more truckers in this province.

I ask the minister: What new measures has this government or has her ministry initiated to offset the impact of the diesel tax increase? At first blush and certainly as of today I know of none. That too is less than encouraging.

If the minister examines these questions -- I hope she will because these are questions I am being asked as I travel in the province and certainly in my own riding -- she will see a clear picture that this government is a government of inaction, a government that talked a good talk in August 1990 when it promised the world to everyone in Ontario, a government which after more than a year can boast an incredible string of broken promises, as we heard in the House today. The sad part is that many of these broken promises are fiscally irresponsible policies that are going to take ages and ages to turn around.

This NDP government, which hands only further punishment to sector after sector of Ontario's economy at the worst possible time and for reasons which it does not seem worried about clearing up or explaining, continues to place hardship on industries, one of which I mentioned this afternoon.

Bill 85 is another nail in the coffin of Ontario's transportation industry, and with that unhappy note, I close.

Mr Johnson: I listened with interest to the member for Ottawa-Rideau and I think she made some attacks on our government and on this bill that quite frankly I find unjustified. I would like to remind her that when she was in government and when her government was raising taxes in Ontario, for example, it raised the tobacco tax by 222%, it raised the tax on cigarettes by 80% but, even more important, it raised the gasoline tax by 40%. Today the member stands in the House and tells us she is concerned about our increases. As a member of the government, I remind her, and I am sure she is aware, that we have choices to make. One of the choices we made with respect to revenue was to increase this tax somewhat.

How this will affect the trucking industry I think has not been mentioned correctly either. Those truckers from the United States who run through Ontario pay prorated taxes on their fuel, so they contribute by making their payments to the Treasury of Ontario by remitting their taxes. I think that is an important factor we do not want to forget. As the number of truckers from the United States increases, or if the amount of business from the United States increases, that in fact will bring in more revenues as they pay their prorated taxes to Ontario.

Mr Sola: I commend the member for Ottawa-Rideau on a well-prepared speech. I would like to emphasize what she said: that tax increases on diesel fuel will amount to 30% this year, with an added increase in January 1992, and that despite the Premier's goals of being productive and competitive, this does the opposite. It makes us unproductive and not competitive. Some $4,000 a year in new taxes is hard to take, even when things are on a roll.

For instance, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings complains about the fact that when the Liberals were in power, they raised taxes, but he must take the situation of the economy into consideration. At that time the economy was expanding. Things were on a roll. Companies were making money and could afford to pay more. That does not justify increasing taxes. The argument put forward is very hard to take.

For instance, we have had three parties in power here in the last seven years. The analogy would be that if you are loading a beast of burden and the Conservatives put on a certain part of the load and say, "That's bearable," then along come the Liberals, who put on more and say, "That's bearable," and now along comes the NDP, who say, "We have to put on as much as the Conservatives did seven years ago and as much as the Liberals did five years ago." The animal can only bear a certain burden. I think the burden this NDP government has placed on the competitive members of our economy is such that they will be broke and will either have to move out of the province or go bankrupt.

Mr Ruprecht: I too want to congratulate my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau for a fine presentation. What she has done is to specifically outline the problems the trucking industry is faced with. The major point I gather from the remarks is obvious: that this NDP government is not producing the kinds of legislation that will help the trucking industry. The increases in taxes can only be borne so much until the beast, as my colleague the member for Mississauga East says, goes broke.

To my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, who says it was the Liberals and previously the Conservatives who added the tax burden to our truckers, that might be the case, but he should remember one thing: He wanted to be in the seat of government. He wanted to make sure the NDP got to be on the levers of power to ensure it would make right Ontario, and whatever the opposition had done was obviously bad.

They have that opportunity now. They have total control of the budget of this province and, I might add, total control over what happens to the truckers. They cannot simply go and superimpose their ideological glasses on the trucking industry. What do they expect them to do when they go broke? It is obvious: They have to come to Queen's Park. They have to demonstrate. They have to strike. They have to get their wives, daughters and children over here and talk to the government because it has in its possession the key for the success or failure of this industry.

1550

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, you have two minutes.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I find it passing strange that the only defence of this tax and this bill is that when we Liberals were in government, we passed such a bill. This NDP government was to be different. Indeed, times have changed. I used to sit in the pre-budget consultations with the present Treasurer and listen to how he said, "Oh, we must listen to this group, this group or this group," and then we would come back into this House and he would say, "You haven't listened." Now he is Treasurer, and as my colleague the member for Parkdale has just said, "Things could be different."

This time these truckers came before and after the 1991 budget. They think they have a double chance because it is a double-implementation period, but they have not been listened to. I thought there would be some response to my request, "Have there been any impact studies?" because we know times have changed. We know there is deregulation. We know there is free trade. We know cross-border shopping has picked up. The excuse I am given is, "Well, you did it in government so we're going to do it because it's a nice, comfortable source of revenue."

Companies are going out of business because they cannot pay taxes, so how are we going to increase revenues if we do not have the companies there as the base? Truckers are begging. Family businesses are failing. I have heard from them on an almost daily basis, and certainly on a weekly basis, and find it more than passing strange that no reference to that is made.

"This is just efficiency. We're going to have more revenue, folks, and it is doesn't matter where it comes from."

Mr Turnbull: This is an extremely important measure the government is taking in the sense that it has the potential for pushing truckers who are already on the verge of bankruptcy over the brink. We know the trucking industry is in serious difficulty. Indeed the Ministry of Transportation issued its own report just four weeks ago which concluded: "The Ontario truckers are at a competitive disadvantage to their US counterparts. Costs of repair, maintenance, fuel and overhead are lower in the United States."

I fail to see how the government is reacting to the problems of this industry. Indeed we know the industry is reeling from the effects of deregulation and recession. As the recession rolls along and we have less and less jobs in Ontario and less and less product is manufactured, there is less and less need for trucks to transport it. Indeed, we have excess capacity.

I fail to see how the government addresses the problem of bankruptcies, which were up by 156% in 1990 over 1989, and up by 74% in the first five months of 1991 over the same period in 1990, with this kind of measure.

As has previously been mentioned, there was extensive pre-budget consultation with the Treasurer, who was told very clearly by members of the Ontario Trucking Association that they could not afford the taxes they were paying then and that indeed they needed relief. This tax represents a 31% increase in diesel fuel, which is a substantial increase by anybody's measure.

One of the comments made about the previous speaker was the fact that the Liberals had raised taxes by some 40% during the time they were in office. I point out that the Liberals got thrown out. Indeed, we said many times in the last election that the Liberals had never met a tax they did not like. It seems incongruous that the government of the day is now reacting to comments by the Liberal Party and saying, "Well, you raised taxes." That is not the solution. The trouble we have in this province, and to a certain extent in this country, is that everybody wants to point at somebody else as being the cause of the difficulties we are having.

Fuel costs represent some 30% of the cost of operating. When the government starts increasing fuel taxes by 31%, given the fact that 30% of its total operating costs is fuel, that has a profound effect. These companies are already in a squeeze. There is overcapacity and there is a real crisis. During the roll-out of these measures the Treasurer had the audacity to suggest this was to encourage the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles. That is a laudable goal, but I do not know how they will pay for more fuel-efficient vehicles if they have no money and no profits. In some cases it is not just that they have no profits; they are taking substantial losses. We have already seen two very major companies go bust in Ontario. We are not going to address the fundamental problems we have in Ontario by having US truckers and out-of-province truckers transporting our goods, and that is what the effect of this is going to be.

We are in a hypercompetitive industry, and we cannot increase prices to customers. One of the problems the truckers have is with load brokers. They say, "They're bidding down our prices." That is because there is overcapacity. It is not easy to solve that problem, but the quickest fix is to at least back off on this fuel price hike.

I do not know how this government can possibly spend hundreds of millions of dollars on bailouts of Algoma and de Havilland and yet for a relatively small amount of money -- it is still a big chunk of dough, but compared with the other bailouts it is small -- it is just simply going to roll ahead with more taxes. On the one hand, the members opposite complain about the previous government that left the mess it is in. I have a lot of sympathy for the situation they inherited, but nevertheless we cannot fix the problems we are in now by forcing more people into bankruptcy.

Indeed the collection of fuel taxes from US truckers who come here loaded up with US fuel is a good move, but we have to have more enforcement. The government could probably get a fairly large amount of extra income if it were to have more auditors and more enforcement in the US. We have two man-years of enforcement in the US auditing and collecting those taxes that we are not getting.

Mr Mills: Get more civil servants.

Mr Turnbull: My friend the member for Durham East across the floor suggests more civil servants. This can be one of the few times that you can get civil servants to pay their own way. In fact, I would have no opposition to putting them strictly on commission, "You collect the money, you keep a percentage of it."

1600

Mr Mills: Tax collector by commission is disgusting.

Mr Turnbull: This is the problem. A member from the NDP laughs at the idea of efficient government. They simply do not understand the fact that we have to make Ontario more competitive.

The ability to pay for more fuel-efficient vehicles, as I said before, is indeed impaired by this massive increase in taxes. In the study that was issued by the Ministry of Transportation, the minister said, "Ontario-based truckers face enormous challenges due to deregulation, the recession and increased competition from the larger American carriers." He went on to say, "This government is committed" -- members should please pay attention to this because this is the important point -- "to assisting Ontario's transporter carriers in responding to the changing markets and increasing competition." This is a hell of a way of responding to them, by increasing their taxes.

David Bradley, the president of the Ontario Trucking Association, gave a quote in the Toronto Star in which he said, "This industry is still reeling from the first round of diesel fuel increases, and the thought of paying higher taxes in January is simply too much for many truckers."

I am absolutely flabbergasted that we are moving towards having the second-highest tax rate on fuel in the whole of Canada. By January 1, 1992, Ontario is going to share with Nova Scotia the very dubious distinction of having the second-highest fuel rate in the country. The only province which will have a higher fuel rate is Newfoundland, with 15.6 cents per litre.

The tax increases imposed by the bill are projected to raise an additional $45 million this year and $90 million in a full year. I would point out that this is substantially less than the cost of the bailout of Algoma or de Havilland. The interesting thing is that our friends across the floor always like to blame the federal government. They do not have that luxury, because the Canadian federal fuel taxes are less than the US federal fuel taxes. This is entirely an Ontario problem.

How is the Conservative Party reacting? My leader, the member for Nipissing, today announced a new program called New Directions: A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity. Among the many recommendations are the following:

"Gasoline and fuel taxes should be immediately cut by 10%. This would benefit all sectors of the economy, including transportation, tourism and manufacturing. Combined with the reduction in the PST, these cuts would begin to address ongoing concerns and job losses associated with cross-border shopping.

"The full-year cost of a 10% gasoline tax cut would be approximately $160 million. For fuel taxes, it would be $37 million. Again, both costs are in the form of forgone revenues to the government and can be fully offset by new revenues generated by economic activity, along with expenditure controls."

Expenditure controls are of course anathema to the New Democratic Party, the new socialist party of Ontario. They only understand spending, and now they have hit the brick wall. They cannot spend any more because they know the whole burden of the debt they are piling up is such that they are just going to back up the province. If they want to have a single member left in this Legislature next time, they are going to have to start fixing the problems now.

One of the problems is that they only relate to big unions that pay money into their coffers. They do not relate to anybody in independent business. But I should point out that there are many big unions involved in the trucking industry and they are suffering too, so that might be a reason for the government to think about cutting back on its taxes.

Mr Sola: I would like to congratulate the member for York Mills for pointing out several things, but I would like to touch a little bit on the finger-pointing he was mentioning and what one ordinary member of the Canadian and Ontario public thinks, as published in a letter to the editor of the Windsor Star on October 24 of this year. It is entitled, "Ontario Suffering More Than The Other Provinces." This relates to the finger-pointing among governments.

"Well into the second year of his mandate, Premier Bob Rae has revealed much about the character of his rule. I have a strong sense of déjà vu. I reference the big changes I was expecting to see in 1984 and thereafter in Ottawa. The parallels are remarkable."

Would you believe that Merv dePendleton from Windsor sees the similarity between Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and the Premier of this province?

Later on in the letter he says:

"Ottawa lately has had a penchant for raising taxes. Remember cigarettes and the GST? The Treasurer of Ontario has been emphatic that there will be no tax breaks to anyone, border town or special circumstances notwithstanding. The provincial taxes rise on schedule for tobacco and gasoline." And I may as well add, since we are talking about Bill 85, on diesel fuel.

Towards the end, Mr Merv dePendleton says:

"Ottawa is widely viewed as having savaged the economy. Yet it is Ontario where the damage is greatest, where people are actually leaving in large numbers. Why is the rest of Canada with all its disadvantages doing better?"

That is a question the NDP government should be taking into consideration and that is a question it will have to answer.

Mr Johnson: I again listened with interest to the member for York Mills and cannot say I entirely agree with all the comments he made.

With regard to the truckers, it certainly is a concern of all of us; I have no doubt about that. We are all concerned that truckers are at a disadvantage, or at least there is the impression that they are at a disadvantage, in this province. I just wanted to share with the member that there was a report commissioned by the Ministry of Transportation which concluded that the main factors favouring US carriers are higher equipment utilization, lower unit costs for tractor-trailers and lower overhead costs. These of course are not directly related to taxes. Other material factors include repair, maintenance and cleaning costs and non-unionized-driver wages, which are higher in Ontario.

The question is asked, what are we doing for the truckers? The Treasurer is presently leading a review, prior to the 1992 budget, to see just what the problems are affecting the truckers. If additional measures are felt to be required, they will be announced by the Treasurer in due course. I might remind the member opposite as well that the Minister of Transportation did place a moratorium on trucking licences to the US -- well, trucking licences in general -- to make sure the problem does not get any worse. I think that is something that certainly has to be taken into consideration.

Another interesting fact is that American truckers have a better system of trucking just generally, I think, than we have here in Ontario, and they have an advantage as a result of that.

1610

Mr Ruprecht: I want to commend the member for York Mills for producing a very interesting report. I listened to him very closely. One thing he perhaps would like to mention later on is the string of broken promises this government has made. Somewhere along this road, there has to come a stop, when these promises are being adhered to.

I remember quite clearly what my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau said. I think what happened here is that the Premier apparently had indicated that there would be no fuel price hikes, and the next thing we know, there is not only a minor fuel price hike, but there are major fuel price hikes.

As the member for York Mills indicated, Ontario is the province with the second-highest fuel prices in the whole country. At what point, we ask, do we become the highest in terms of fuel prices? If we do, it is obvious that not only will we not be able to be competitive with any other province, but we will be totally uncompetitive with what happens in the United States.

I would say directly to the NDP government that it obviously has the power today to maintain a trucking industry which is viable and healthy, or to ensure that another industry goes belly up. It is totally in their hands. They have to make that kind of decision. They simply cannot add a fuel tax that is already costing the operators 30% of the cost of operating their businesses.

I want to thank the member for York Mills for having produced a fine report.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to spend my two minutes, first of all, complimenting my colleague the member for York Mills for a very good presentation. I know his riding is not located in an area where cross-border shopping is of importance, but certainly mine is. It is very interesting to note that the number one attraction for people from Ontario going to the United States is the price of fuel. The price of fuel in the town of Massena, New York, is $20 for an average fill-up of an average family-sized car. In Cornwall it is $30. But a place between both New York state and Cornwall is the Indian Akwesasne Reserve, where to fill up with gas is $16 for the exact same number of litres.

Bill 85 will compound the problem of cross-border shopping even more. It will be even more of an attraction for people from Ontario to go south of the border and fill up their trucks and their cars with fuel. I was on Highway 401 about 18 months ago when the truckers had a blockade at the Ontario-Quebec border. Several thousand truckers were stopped on Highway 401 and another several thousand on Highway 417, both in my riding, a situation that was caused by rising fuel costs. Bill 85 will compound that even more.

I find it interesting that this government very often blames the federal government. You know, Mr Speaker, the GST replaced a manufacturers' sales tax. I want the former Minister of Transportation to realize this: Truckers get their GST back. They apply to the federal government and get their GST back. Why not set up a scale here where on the first 50,000 kilometres, a trucker pays maybe full price, and then a reducing scale for the next 50,000 and the next 50,000 and the next 50,000? What would be wrong with that?

Mr Turnbull: I found it rather curious that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings would suggest there was an impression that there is a problem with the trucking industry. If he would read the Ministry of Transportation's own report, it is very clear that there is a serious problem.

There are many reasons for it. Fuel tax is not the only problem; we recognize that. But fuel tax allows us to do a fix at the moment so that more people do not go bankrupt. Perhaps it is the government's agenda that it wants people to go bankrupt. It is true there is excess capacity. If that is their intent, they should be honest about it, but they should not bring in huge increases in the fuel tax at a time when they were told, before the budget, in the pre-budget consultations, that they should not, that they should actually back off on fuel taxes; instead, they increase it twice.

The suggestion that the moratorium suggested by the NDP government is going to fix the thing is absolute nonsense. The whole problem we have is that socialists always think of regulation. Our leader has said many times that if they have anything that moves they tax it, and if it still moves they regulate it, and if it does not move any more then they subsidize it. That is their approach to business. They have to wake up. There is going to be nothing left of the province if they keep on taxing. They should not keep on pointing at other people taxing. They are wrong too. We have to reduce taxes.

The member for Parkdale commented on the broken promises. On page 3 the House leader talks about, what about the GST? The GST is rebated to truckers, unlike their tax.

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Thank you.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure for me to rise in this House this afternoon and debate Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act, as it relates to diesel. First of all, I want to touch on the tax increase and what I feel are some pertinent points to make about that in relation to my experience as the member for Durham East. As members probably know, in the redistribution of seats, Durham East was cut up like a dog's breakfast and it made me have several centres of importance. I have a centre of importance in Port Perry, I have one in Bowmanville and I have various other locations.

When I got elected, I thought: "What am I going to do about this? How am I going to represent my constituents out there to best of my dollar ability as per the regulations we're allowed to run our constituencies by?" I decided that I would better serve the people of Durham East by having one central location with all my facilities and all my staff in that location, with the benefit of an 800 number so that people did not get into the problem of calling my office at their own expense. In addition to that, I have taken it upon myself to go out into the riding at different times during the month and rent a church hall. That way I am helping the church out with my $35 to $45 and I am also providing a service to my constituents. It so happens that last weekend I was at Manvers township on Friday afternoon or Friday evening from 4 through until 8 o'clock talking to the folks, and on Saturday I went to Port Perry and met the folks there from 1 through to 4:30.

When you let your constituents know you are in the riding, it is almost like going into a prize fight, because you have no idea what they are going to come in with and what they are going to talk about. On Saturday afternoon a gentleman came in to see me. I had no idea what was on his mind but I could see that he was a little bit agitated, to say the least, so I tried to calm him down by shaking hands and offering him a coffee or a soft drink. When he sat down, I said to him, "How can I help you?"

Mr Turnbull: What's this got to do with the fuel tax?

Mr Mills: We are coming to that.

I said to him, "How can I help you?" He said, "I'm concerned about the deficit. It's bothering me." So I said: "It's bothering us all. What do you think we should do about it?" He said, "I think we should cut taxes for a start." I said, "Pardon me, but what do you do for a living?" He said, "I must confess that I don't do anything."

Mr Sterling: He's probably a tax collector.

1620

Mr Mills: Give me a break.

He said, "I don't do anything, Mr Mills. I am on social assistance." I said, "You come in here and you talk about the deficit and you talk about reducing taxes. Do you not realize the government I am a member of chose to support the people who were up against it by increasing the deficit so that we would be able to give you money to survive?" He said, "I never thought about it that way," and I said, "Those are the facts of life."

Mr J. Wilson: That's not the solution. It has been tried and tried. That's what Trudeau did for 16 years and it didn't work.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I do not interrupt these members and I would appreciate it if they did not interrupt me, because I have a short --

Mr J. Wilson: Your memory is a little vague.

Mr Mills: I have a memory problem.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Mills: We are going through this House. We are trying to raise up the level of manners and I do not think that sort of comment needs any rebuttal.

While we are talking about taxes and the self-righteous group across the road there, I always have to hit on their unique ad valorem tax which they did to diesel. They were not satisfied with the tax that was introduced at budget time. They socked it to the people every three months and added a little bit more and a little bit more. I was very amused to listen to the member for York Mills, who suggested that we return to the Roman times of tax collection and the Zachariahs et al era. That amazes me, that statement, coming from a party that claims to be Progressive Conservatives. They want to step back in a time warp to the Romans' way of harassing people so that they collect taxes on a commission. That form of collection of taxation is absolutely diabolical and unthinkable. We are in the 20th century now.

As I said last week when we debated tobacco, we live in a society that demands more and more of the elected officials in this Legislature. I do not know --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: I think you all understand the procedure. We must let him express his opinions, and after that, if you want to comment, you will do so.

Mr Ruprecht: A point of privilege, Mr Speaker --

The Deputy Speaker: You know what a point of privilege is. I will listen to it.

Mr Ruprecht: That is why I want to raise it, Mr Speaker, and I certainly appreciate your comment. If the member for Durham East, who I have listened to with great interest, will promise not to point fingers across the --

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Thank you very much. That is a waste of time.

Mr Mills: I will continue, hopefully uninterrupted. What these interruptions do is that they disturb my train of thought and I do not like that. Anyway, I am going to finish up on the point of the tax increase, because as we all know here the demands on the people in this Legislature are enormous. Personally I do not know where we should turn to satisfy the demands made on government other than through some tax increases, which those folks really became quite expert at over the years when they were in government.

I want to turn now to an important point in Bill 85 which none of the other people have ever thought of making a comment about. That refers to the provisions designed in Bill 85 to reduce the evasion of tax. I know the evasion of tax is costing the people of Ontario not a couple of hundred dollars, not a few thousand dollars, but millions and millions of dollars, and that is a fact. We have all kinds of shenanigans going on. We have trailers that are supposed to be going to the United States full of diesel fuel. They claim the tax back and in fact the fuel never went to the United States. We have fuel that is supposed to be coloured that can be purchased in Ontario tax-exempt, which is supposed to be used here, but in fact clear fuel is loaded up and that goes across to the United States and is purported to be coloured fuel.

The evasion of tax that has gone on over the last few years is an enormous problem in this province. I can speak with considerable experience of that issue. The schemes the so-called entrepreneurs come up with to avoid paying taxes are unbelievable. You seem to be able to close off one avenue of tax evasion and another one springs up. You seem to put this person out of business and he reappears the next week with another name. Numbered companies are all over the province, and they are costing and they have cost this province millions and millions and millions of dollars. I know that from my personal experience.

This bill is addressing that concern. It is such an important concern that is being addressed that none of the other members have even thought to speak about it. That is why I am bringing it up here. This new component of the bill goes a long way to prevent the evasion of tax.

I think this legislation we are operating under now -- and I knew the member for Parkdale would perk right up, because I am going to point some fingers -- is an absolute shambles. When those folks were in power, they knew that this tax was absolutely uncollectable. They knew that people were finding all kinds of loopholes in it and ripping off the province and the people of Ontario by millions, so they said to themselves: "What are we going to do about this? We've got a problem here. We've got a bill. We can't collect the tax."

I remember that lovely morning when I was assigned to fan out over the province and identify all the poor, little people who were selling propane. I said, "What am I doing this for?" They said: "It's going to be a surprise. We don't want to let you know yet, but we want you to go all over the province. We want you to identify the people who sell propane. We want their names and addresses, and we're going to tax propane."

I said, "My God, I can't believe this." We had been promoting vehicles as environmentally friendly, as the member for Ottawa-Rideau complained about the trains, and then Liberal legislation directed us to go out and raise a tax roll of people who sold propane.

I remember I went into this one place and the fellow was sitting on a chair. I said to him, "Hi, how are you?" He said: "I don't like uniformed inspection people. What do you want?" I said, "I'm here to talk about your propane." He said, "What about it?" I said, "We're going to tax it." He said, "What?" I said, "We're going to tax it." He said, "I've never heard anything so preposterous in my life."

Then I said to him, "Have you got a meter?" He said, "No, I haven't got a meter." So I said, "You're going to have to pay tax on everything you buy." He said: "Just a minute. Sit down. Go over this again." I went over it with him again and I said, "Are there any questions?" He said: "No, but I've got something to tell you. You get your backside out of here in 30 seconds or else I shall attack you."

This is their approach, how they solved the diesel fuel tax act. They created a monster. They could not collect it; it was impossible. It was open to all kinds of scams. So they introduced it in their wonderful way of introducing a new tax: "If we started off fresh, perhaps we could collect it."

1630

Interjections.

Mr Mills: I bring that up in defence of the self-righteous attitude of people over there who think this government is some sort of hairy monster that is going to destroy the province, business and trucking.

I would like to talk about the effects on registration for trucks that come into Ontario from out of the province. There is a scheme that is very effective. Every truck registered outside the province of Ontario bears a sticker on the door that changes colour every year. That allows the fine band of fuel tax inspectors across Ontario to enforce the Fuel Tax Act very easily by looking at the door of the vehicle as they pass it and seeing whether the truck is registered for fuel tax in Ontario. That band of inspectors catches thousands of people trying to circumvent the Fuel Tax Act in Ontario. They are aided and abetted by all the weigh scale stations across the province required for a truck to enter, and they also enforce the Fuel Tax Act and bring in the revenue to this province.

There has been some talk about the advantages of being an American trucker, a Quebec trucker or a trucker from New Brunswick, and I can say there is none, because the Fuel Tax Act administers it two ways. You register with your sticker, and at the end of the year you are audited to see the miles you have driven in Ontario and if you bought enough gas and paid enough tax. The other way you can do it is that you can stop at the border and purchase a single trip permit. That permit is prorated at the rate of the diesel tax, and I think it works out at the moment to about five cents a kilometre from your point of entry into Ontario to your destination. To weigh out of Ontario, you pay exactly the same fuel tax as an Ontario trucker. This myth that the people from the US can come in and get a break is not true. It is a fallacy.

I would like to close, because I know some other folks would like to get on the agenda, by saying I too do not like tax increases. I find them obnoxious. Before I was elected to this Legislature, of which I am very proud, I made a number of speeches about taxation, and I always used to finish up with the line that even as you are fed up and you want to leave the country, you have to pay a departure tax at the airport.

I am no lover of taxes and I would like to see us keep a lid on them, but the fact of life is that we just cannot do that in this time of recession when we have to look after the people who, if it were not for this government, would have difficulty surviving.

We are a compassionate government. There are 50,000 children, I believe, on welfare in Ontario and I am proud to say that this government is looking after those children. We do not want children sleeping under cardboard boxes on the streets of Ontario. This is really the bottom line. You cut taxes, you cut the services, or you care for the people together. You care for the people who live in this province with us. I am proud to stand here and be part of a government that is caring for all Ontarians.

Mr J. Wilson: The member for Durham East talks a great line about social justice and wanting to help the poor. He reiterates the Treasurer's defence of the $9.7-billion deficit -- and climbing -- but I think the point I would like to make as respectfully as possible is that we had 16 years of socialism under Mr Trudeau. It was spend, spend, spend and tax, tax, tax. The actuaries at the time told him he was bringing in programs he could never pay for and, before every election, if members look at the history of spending during the Trudeau years, on which there are now a number of good books, they will find he increased a number of the programs and payments to individuals regardless of whether he could ever pay for them.

My father, who is about the age of the member for Durham East, a very wise man, calls that the big lie, that we lived through some 16 years of the big lie. Geoffrey Stevens, I think, in the Globe and Mail succinctly put it not too long ago when he said, "We've had about a generation and a half of Canadians grow up" -- I did not think it was the member's generation but I guess it is -- "believing we can get something for nothing and believing that government can spend itself rich." We are simply trying to bring some common sense back to the system, in my leader's proposals this morning, for instance, in setting a new economic direction for this province.

The government cannot spend itself rich. We and our children, the people of my age group, are going to have to pay for this government's deficit, which is just deferred taxes. We have had enough of the big lie. We have had enough of governments using the old Visa card to try and prop up the economy and to try and get cheques to individuals. The greatest dignity the government can give an individual is the opportunity for employment. Government does not create jobs, so members opposite should get that out of their noggins. Governments create the economic climate so that businesses will create jobs. The government increasing taxes and Bill 85 will do nothing to help competitiveness in Ontario.

Hon Mr Philip: I want to make a few comments based on the remarks of the previous speaker. First of all, he says that somehow he and the Conservative Party have a unique way of creating jobs and of investing. If members compare the kinds of economic policies of the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan and British Columbia and across --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You are supposed to comment on Mr Mills's debate.

Hon Mr Philip: I am sure the member for Durham East would agree with me that if we compare the economic theories he has espoused this afternoon with those of the previous speaker, then we will see the difference, because we have had a comparison. We have a comparison with foreign investors investing in this country. Some 77% of all money from foreign investment, as Statistics Canada will tell you, has gone into one province since April 1 -- the province of Ontario. That is where investor confidence is. They say we are managing the ship. Saskatchewan did not manage the ship. Of course, they are no longer in government. BC did not manage the ship; they used the kinds of economic theories the Conservative Party has asked for, and we can see where they are.

The Ontario economy has started to recover in 1991-92, with a real growth rate of 7.6%, while the rest of the country is at 4.9% increase. If we take any economic indicator, Ontario is growing faster than the next fastest-growing province, British Columbia. Who is doing the best job? Clearly, the New Democrats in Ontario are doing the best job. Every indicator in the books says we are growing faster.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Philip: The member does not like to hear that. That is why he wants to interrupt me.

Mr Sola: It is a pleasure to disagree with the member for Durham East, but even more so with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. What we heard from the minister was nothing but a bunch of hogwash.

First of all, I agree on one point the member for Durham East made, that the $10-billion deficit not only bothers me, I find it horrific. On the other hand, when he says his government is compassionate, I must ask him to ask the taxpaying public of Ontario how compassionate it is. Then he will get an answer.

1640

He mentioned that there is an important point on Bill 85 that the opposition members have been unwilling to comment on, that is, the evasion of taxes, which costs millions of dollars. I would like to point out that tax evasion is not prevented by additional taxation. Additional taxation fuels tax evasion, if I can use that term. It encourages tax evasion. We do not have to look at just Bill 85; we can look at the bill on tobacco.

When we find that the corner store is selling contraband cigarettes, that people smuggle in cigarettes and that organized crime finds it more profitable to deal in smuggled cigarettes than drugs, that shows taxation has gone too far. Every measure they have introduced in this budget has just added tax upon tax. Just look at cross-border shopping. It is encouraged by every tax they add.

Mr Sterling: I could not help but rise to the bait when the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology stood up. For him to compare what is happening in Ontario to what is happening in Saskatchewan shows how little he understands the different economies of the two provinces.

Hon Mr Philip: I said British Columbia.

Mr Sterling: Saskatchewan is going through a painful time because of the world prices for grain and agricultural products. Its total economy is based on agriculture. We know what is happening to the farmers in Ontario and what is happening to the farmers in Saskatchewan, and that is why any government --

Hon Mr Philip: How about Quebec and BC?

Mr Sterling: Let's talk about BC. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology wanted to talk about the great election victory of the NDP out there. They got fewer votes this time than they did the last time. All that happened in BC was that the people who are against the NDP divided into two camps. That is all that happened. That is a great victory for Michael Harcourt. That is what happened there.

I really should not rise to the bait. I wanted to talk about the very sage remarks of the member for Durham East. The member for Durham East has a special knowledge of Bill 85 and Bill 86. In his previous job before becoming a member he was a fuel tax inspector, so he speaks with great knowledge with regard to these particular issues. I think there are some good parts to Bill 85, and those are the ones dealing with the enforcement of our existing regulations. What we object to is the disincentive to the trucking industry and to business in Ontario by these high diesel fuel taxes.

Mr Mills: I will be quite brief and succinct. By my nature, I refuse to subscribe to the doom and gloom from the official opposition and the third party. I will not subscribe to that doom and gloom because I am an optimist. I am sure this government is now showing a degree of compassion that will turn around to a vibrant, full, plush, business-loaded Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr Mills: I do not like that shouting. I think it is very bad manners and I do not think it should go on. I go back to that sweaty June day when all that mob were out there with their little phones and their watches glinting in the sun and complaining about the taxes. Where were all those people when the official opposition plunked that dreadful tax on propane? That was a misuse of their power. If I had had a propane vehicle, I would have encouraged everybody from here to Timbuctoo to block the highways with their Winnebagos in protest. They did not do it, but they should have done it, and those were good times.

Mr Miclash: I rise today to speak about what this tax will do to us in the northern part of the province. It is unfortunate that the minister, who is actually from the north, is not here today to hear my comments. As a matter of fact, I see no ministers from our northern area here to listen today.

When the budget came in on April 29 we found that the NDP government had brought forth this increase on diesel fuel and that it would affect trucks, trains and other vehicles. They raised the fuel tax, as the member for Ottawa-Rideau indicated, by 1.7 cents a litre to 12.6 cents. As well, they raised it on the fuel which will be used by locomotives -- as members will know, a very useful transportation mode in northern Ontario -- to 3.95 cents per litre. As well, this tax will again be raised. I think a lot of people do not understand that fact and a lot of my constituents do not realize we are looking at another tax increase, coming January 1.

In total, this fuel tax is being raised 30% across the board. That is a very important fact people are beginning to realize. People who use these different vehicles and sources of transportation I have mentioned are looking at a 30% increase. Only this afternoon I spoke to a resort owner in northwestern Ontario and indicated to her that another increase is coming. Of course, she expressed dismay, realizing that this was going to have a very real effect on her as an owner as she heads into the next tourist season.

Let me get back to the bread and butter issues. Let me refer to us in the north. As members will know, we are a population that depends on resource industries throughout the north. Resource industries are very important to us. When it came to bringing forth this tax, I have to wonder whether the cabinet actually sat around the table and discussed what they were doing in terms of these resource industries.

I mentioned that the Minister of Revenue herself is from northern Ontario. We have heard over and over about the six ministers we have sitting in cabinet representing northern Ontario. I really wonder whether they actually realized what they were doing in terms of our many industries throughout the north. I think of them sitting around that table and saying, "We've got to consult." I would like to know with whom they have consulted. Anybody I have spoken to regarding an increase in this taxation is saying he knew little or nothing about it until it was announced. They know little about not only what was announced in the April budget but what is coming for them in January.

I will let members in on a secret. Just recently we have found that many people throughout the north are being faced with a very difficult competition factor from Manitoba firms. I think what is happening here is we have a cabinet, a cabinet with six members from the northern Ontario area, maybe consulting with the people in Manitoba. They certainly are not consulting with my constituents.

A lot has been said about the trucking industry. The member for Ottawa-Rideau indicated that this is going to have a devastating effect on the trucking industry. The Speaker has travelled the north. He is familiar with the entire province. Only yesterday I was speaking to the pages. I indicated to them that for me to go from one end of my riding to the other end is not possible by vehicle, but for me to go from one end to the other end where I can drive takes me four hours. So members can imagine what it is costing an industry that has to bring raw materials to our local manufacturing plants when we have distances that great. A lot of these trucks that travel and bring the raw materials to our industries and take the finished products away have extensive distances to travel. When I talk to them about the increase in this taxation, an additional $15 per fill-up, an additional $4,000 per year, they cannot believe they have been dealt yet another blow by this government.

1650

When the member talked about the trucking industry, she indicated it was a very important industry. It contributes $5 billion to the economy of this province each year. Again, I refer back to northern Ontario and the vital spinoffs we gain from the trucking industry. A lot of people have talked about them going broke. I must emphasize that when the trucking industry goes down, a lot of people will go down with it.

As I have often indicated, we rely wholly on our raw materials in the north, and with that is the transportation of those raw materials to our plants and the finished products away from our plants. A lot of our finished products go to the United States of America, so we have the trucking industry in northern Ontario having to compete with the industry in the United States. A number of factors have been pointed out where they are having a very difficult time in this competition. A member earlier mentioned it was another nail in the coffin for the trucking industry. I too must agree with that. The competition may become just too difficult for them at this time.

As well, Mr Speaker, you will know from travelling throughout the north and northwest that tourism is very important. As I indicated earlier, I have spoken to some of our tourist operators. Earlier this spring, I introduced to the --

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum, nor as far as I know is the minister or the parliamentary assistant who has carriage of this bill in the House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Mr Clerk, is there a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is present. The honourable member may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Miclash: I go back to the point I was on in terms of tourism. In the spring, members will remember, I mentioned that the tourism industry was in a situation where it was facing a good number of burdens placed on it by this government. Finding out that another burden was going to be placed on it through this fuel tax bill, as I said about the trucking industry, it may be one more nail in the coffin for the tourism industry, finding out that it is going to be faced with a 30% increase in just diesel fuel costs alone.

When I speak about diesel fuel costs, I am talking about the plants that run their operations, run electricity for their lights, their refrigeration and their water pumps. A lot of people take these things for granted, but we must remember that in the tourism industry, we quite often have remote resorts where they depend solely on generators and diesel fuel for this. As I indicated, the additional 30% will run a tourist operator anywhere between $2,400 to $3,000 a year on the average in increased costs. That is going by the fact that presently they pay between $8,000 and $10,000 a year for their diesel fuel to run their operation.

We can see what is going to happen. We can see that the tourist operators are going to have to raise prices for the clientele coming to them. In a very difficult market, one they are facing today, they are going to have a tough time. This is just another thing to add to their difficult times.

We have often heard about the gas guzzler, and the Treasurer has spoken a good number of times about his gas guzzling tax, but I must remind a lot of the members in the House that a good number of people in the north rely on diesel fuel for their private vehicles. As members will know, we do not have the mass transportation system that a lot of southern Ontario people rely on each day. In the north, we rely on our private vehicles.

I mentioned earlier about the tourist operator. Many of his vehicles must be four-wheel drive, and in order to cut down on costs he has gone to diesel-powered four-wheel drive; not only the tourist operator, but a lot of people who provide essential services such as the doctor who has to get around in the north in a very severe climate. A lot of the members will know that I was actually stuck earlier this week in a snowstorm, as was the Minister of Northern Development. A very severe climate has already come to the north and a lot of our essential services depend on these diesel-driven vehicles. So I must emphasize that it is not only the truckers we are talking about, but vehicles that apply to other areas of the north as well.

This government sold itself to the north, saying a good number of things. As I indicated earlier, there are six ministers from the north in cabinet who should know what is happening around us in the north. I must say as I travel throughout the north, as I have done fairly extensively over the past 14 months, I find that the people across the north do not feel we are actually getting through to these cabinet ministers. I have just illustrated various areas where I do not think they gave much thought when they talked about bringing in this additional tax, which is going to affect very much those industries I have talked about.

They remember people in the last campaign saying that we would take a look at equalizing gas prices across the province, a very specific promise made by the present Minister of Northern Development and Mines. They are looking for that. Rather than getting that, all they are seeing from this government is an increase in taxes that possibly will drive them out of business and increase the hardship of people throughout the northern Ontario area.

Mr Ruprecht: I was quite impressed with the statements made by the member for Kenora, especially when he was talking about the north and how we can make this industry competitive. It is clear that the Premier said in a statement in this Legislature as late as September 23, "We try to make Ontario as competitive as we can possibly make it." This kind of increase in taxation is not going to make Ontario competitive. When we look especially at one important figure, that is, the number of bankruptcies, it is now clear that bankruptcy rates in the trucking industry are up over 156%.

To those who can figure it out, 100% means twice as many bankruptcies as the year before, and 156% obviously means more than twice the number of bankruptcies in the trucking industry as in the year previous. These rates are obviously unacceptable and there is no doubt that the promises that were being made are being broken.

I did not get a chance to address myself to the member for Durham East when he mentioned that there were some members in the NDP who also found tax increases, and his word was, obnoxious. I thought I did not hear that right. I know the member had indicated that this was a caring government, but what is more important is that he said he found tax increases obnoxious.

I would expect that he would talk to some of the ministers who are in this House. Really, we appreciate it. I see the House leader is here; I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is here; I see the minister responsible for car insurance is here, but what we want to see is the minister who is responsible for this bill. Where is the minister responsible for this bill? Why is she not here? Is she not supposed to be in charge? Is she not the Minister of Revenue? While on the one hand we applaud the people present, we cannot applaud the minister's absence.

Mr Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Parkdale mentions that the minister is absent today. I think it is appropriate -- and I think it is something that is done regularly when ministers cannot be available in the House -- that parliamentary assistants sit on their behalf.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, it is a point of information.

Hon Mr Philip: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The tradition of Parliament is that one does not draw attention to the absence of a particular member.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. That is also a point of information.

1700

Mr J. Wilson: I thought the member for Kenora made a number of very good points. As the former critic for Tourism and Recreation for the Ontario PC Party, I want to back up what the member said in terms of the high cost of diesel fuel and the impact that and gasoline and cigarette and alcohol taxes have on the tourism industry, particularly in northern Ontario, in northwestern Ontario and in the border towns.

I remember visiting a border town where taxes were the number one reason why people of that community would cross the border to shop in the United States. It has been raised earlier that gasoline taxes and diesel fuel taxes contribute very negatively towards the tourism industry. As the member pointed out, particularly the cost of goods and services in the north skyrockets as these sorts of taxes go up. Because of the great distances that need to be travelled, the cost of tourism services and tourism accommodation goes up significantly.

We are having a very difficult time in that sector competing with the Americans. At one time people would go up and hunt and fish in northern Ontario and northwestern Ontario, but in the last year or so people have simply said they cannot afford Canadian prices. That is a direct result of the high taxation of this government.

I would also like to point out that the member for Kenora was part of a government that raised taxes some 33 or 34 times. I think we had a 132% increase in taxes overall. I find it somewhat ironic that he would now be complaining about taxes when his government, contrary to when we were in office some seven years ago, really sinned the greatest when it came to increasing taxes and making Ontario uncompetitive. One industry that is hurt very badly by taxes that I do not think gets enough consideration at the cabinet table is tourism and recreation.

Mr Johnson: I agree with the member for Kenora and say that the north is still suffering from the recession that was caused by the previous Liberal government and is still suffering as a result of the present PC federal government that we have in Canada right now. I think we cannot forget these facts.

The Canadian dollar right now is higher than it has been in recent years. This has impacted very negatively on forestry and mining in northern Ontario. The 1991 budget reflected on some of the hardships that are suffered by people in the north, especially with regard to transportation. All members are aware that we removed the registration cost for those people who have great distances to travel in the north.

Mr Sola: I too commend the member for Kenora for giving a northern perspective to the effects of this tax increase and for pointing out that a 30% increase in price in the north is especially devastating when you consider that northern areas already have the highest rates and the highest prices. The distances travelled are the greatest and the weather conditions are the most hazardous encountered anywhere in the province.

They have no alternatives. There is no TTC up north. There is no GO Transit up north. There are no alternative modes of transportation; you have to use the roads, which are not four-lane highways as they are in the south. There are no fast routes from point A to point B. The only alternative is airplane travel, which most people cannot afford. By increasing fuel taxes in an area that has no alternative but to use that fuel, the government is making things very difficult to sustain.

When the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings says the dollar is at its highest and that the problem stems from Ottawa, that may be the case. But adding a tax on to the problems that Ottawa has already placed upon the north does not alleviate the problem. It just adds to the burden, makes it that much more unbearable, and makes the NDP seem to be that much less a caring government than it was when it made the promises during the election in 1990.

Mr Miclash: I would like to thank the members for their comments. First of all, I have to thank the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings for giving us that $33. But I want to inform him that at the same time he raised our gasoline prices to an average of $115 per vehicle per person. That means if a person has a vehicle in northern Ontario, this government says it will take the registration of $33 and get rid of it. At the same time, it raises the price of gasoline that person is going to put into that vehicle, on an annual basis, $115. So I really cannot see any way this government can say it did something for those who live in northern Ontario.

I have said many times that we do have those greater distances. We spend a lot more money on gasoline than people would ever expect to spend here in southern Ontario and, as the member has just indicated, we do not have the luxury of public transportation and four-lane highways that they have here.

The member for Parkdale actually brought up a very good point. He said the Premier has often said he is going to try to make Ontario competitive. When we take a look at what the Premier and this government have done to make Ontario competitive, we must take a look at what they have done in northern Ontario, and I must say we have to question certain things that they have done for us. I just indicated that they gave us back $33 but took $115. How can that help us in the north?

The member for Simcoe West indicated that taxes were raised when we were in government, but as we have indicated before, we were in fairly good times. This government keeps saying it is in recessionary times. It keeps telling us that we are suffering through this heavy recession, yet it is going back and hitting the people of northern Ontario by increasing tax in areas such as we have talked about here today.

Mr Sterling: I want to indicate at the outset that both I and my party oppose this legislation. That is not surprising in view of the fact that my party has taken a very strong stance against tax increases. But before I get to the issue, I want to indicate to members the lack of co-operation which I have received from the Ministry of Revenue with regard to this legislation.

Some month and a half ago I was called to a meeting by the Ministry of Revenue along with the Liberal critic, the member for Ottawa-Rideau. We were asked to go to a meeting to explain these bills. It is a good idea to have a briefing, and I thanked the officials at that particular meeting. But at that meeting I asked several questions and was promised an answer by the officials at that meeting. I asked, "What are the fuel tax rates on diesel fuel and railway fuel in place by our federal government at the time?" I also asked, "What are the fuel rates of the surrounding American states and the federal United States government on these same commodities?" I wanted to know whether the increase in these fuel taxes was comparable or way out of whack with regard to the taxes in those states.

That was some five or six weeks ago and I have not received a response. Therefore I do not think that I can properly debate this as the Treasury and Revenue critic for my party, and I move adjournment of this debate.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Carleton has moved adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some negatives.

All those in favour of Mr Sterling's motion, please say "aye." All those opposed, please say "nay." In my opinion, the nays have it. The debate will continue. The honourable member for Carleton still has the floor.

1710

Mr Sterling: If the government wants these tax bills and its legislation considered in some kind of co-operative and expeditious way, the officials of the Ministry of Revenue, who are asked questions, should at least communicate to my office that they cannot answer the questions or they are unable to find the answers to my questions. That is a matter of respect to members of the opposition when in fact they are called to the minister's office to receive information.

I am very angry that I was led to believe at that time I would receive that information. Had they said, "We cannot provide that information," I would have sought that information myself. It would probably have been much more difficult for me to do that because, as you know, Mr Speaker, as opposition members we have a limited budget. I would expect that when the Minister of Revenue for this province sits down with the Treasurer and strikes a 30% increase in diesel fuel taxes on our people in this province, they would know what the taxes are in the surrounding jurisdictions.

I can only assume, because I have not received that information, that (1) it was because of neglect by the Minister of Revenue or (2) they never had that information to begin with. If we assume it was the latter, that they did not have that information to begin with, then I am very concerned about how the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue are striking tax rates on not only gasoline but incomes, tobacco and everything else we are encountering here.

I do not believe that they can now make tax policy in isolation within the borders of our province alone. I think perhaps they could have as long ago or as short ago, if you want to put it that way, as two or three years. I believe today, however, because of the fact that the world market and the domestic market are shifting so dramatically and have shifted so dramatically over the last three, four or five years, we no longer can sit in our office here at Queen's Park in the Frost Building and say in isolation, "We are going to increase the taxes on diesel fuel by 30%," without regard to what New York state, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and the other states which carry on trucking across the borders are charging for their diesel fuel and how much of that is made up of tax.

That is the great worry of my party with regard to all the taxes that have been introduced. We do not like taxes and we have stated unequivocally that we are against all taxes. but I have to admit that if I were sitting on that side and faced with the situation they are faced with, I would be tempted into taxation. My concern --

Hon Mr Charlton: You're starting to look like Dean Martin.

Mr Sterling: Like Dean Martin? It is not the same stuff as Dean Martin drinks, unfortunately, on Thursday afternoon. Maybe I should not say that about him. I do not know what Dean Martin has in his glass. That is drinkable water.

I will not let them knock me off my spin here. Our very great concern is what happened with regard to tobacco taxes. It invited people to break the rules. An increase in diesel fuel will invite some people to break the rules or try to break the rules more frequently. The good part of the act tries to address that particular problem. However, our greatest concern is our ability to compete, not only for the trucking industry but for those who use the trucking industry on a regular basis, our badly assaulted manufacturing sector, which is going to feel the effects of increased diesel fuel taxation.

I think it is important for the people of Ontario to know that we are talking within this one act about two diesel fuel hikes. We are talking about two railway fuel hikes as well. With regard to diesel fuel, which I think is more relevant to our competitive situation, we are talking a tax increase from 10.9 cents a litre to 14.3 cents a litre. That is a pretty hefty hike in one act and in one government.

We are indeed concerned about the overall competitiveness of our business. We have seen, however, that the actual cost of moving goods by truck in this province has decreased in the last five years. That is because of one of the very few good things that the former Liberal government did, and that was the deregulation of the trucking industry. I believe very strongly in the deregulation of the trucking industry because before it was a monopoly.

What happened within our trucking industry before was if you had a licence, you put up the prices because you had a monopoly. There were only so many truckers, there were only so many people you as a shipper could go to in order to get your goods across the country. In fact what happened in my riding, which I represented -- part of which you now represent, Mr Speaker -- in the county of Grenville, under the old rules you could ship goods from Prescott, Ontario, to Chicago on the American side cheaper than you could ship goods from Prescott, Ontario, to Toronto, Ontario. Under the present rules there is now competition. The very basis for a licence is on safety. That is where the basis should be.

What we have seen from this government in a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that arose in the trucking industry was the attempt to reregulate the trucking industry. We are going to discuss that bill in particular a little bit later, but it relates to this bill. It shows what happens when they get in trouble by taking one step and then having to react in another way in another policy area, which makes us more uncompetitive.

Because of a varied number of factors, our trucking industry has had a difficult time competing with American trucking companies. We understand that. But instead of attacking the problems and saying, "What are the factors which make our people uncompetitive?"; instead of saying to our truckers, "Let's make you more competitive with your American counterparts" by having reasonable diesel fuel taxes, by having reasonable sales taxes on what they buy, by having other reasonable taxes which they would have to pay; instead of looking at the American model and saying, "Hey, those guys can ship goods from one point to another point cheaper than we can. Why can't we do that? Why can't we match them"; instead of doing all that, what our Minister of Transportation, who is now our Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, did was reregulate the truck industry.

What the minister wants to do is create within our economy a monopoly of the trucking industry, so that people can say, "Okay, we can't get into this business any more, we can't transport goods any more, you can't start a business any more because there are only so many people in it," and that leads to higher prices. That is what we had before trucking was deregulated in this country and in this province.

What we have seen through these two bills that are now before this Legislature is, first, an action by the government to increase diesel fuel tax, which makes our trucking industry less competitive. What is the reaction? Create a monopoly so that prices will rise on the transportation of goods. What happens? Manufacturers who truck their goods with these people no longer can compete because they have to pay higher shipping costs among other things. What happens? We lose jobs.

So the story goes from higher diesel costs, to restricting people from getting into the trucking business, to creating a monopoly, to closing down manufacturers, to losing jobs. This tax loses good, paying jobs for the people of Ontario, paying jobs in the manufacturing sector, jobs that are very hard to recover, if it is possible to recover them at all.

1720

My party speaks very strongly against this bill and will speak strongly against the re-regulation of the trucking industry, because we want to maintain jobs in Ontario. That is the issue in Ontario today. The creation of a tax for diesel fuel higher by some 30% in one year is going to cost this province jobs.

I want to talk a little bit about fuel taxes and fuel prices, because not only are we faced with unfair increases in fuel taxes in Ontario, but we are faced with an unfair fuel-pricing situation. That compounds the problem of the increases in taxes in this piece of legislation and in the next one, Bill 86, which basically deals with the same issue but deals with gasoline.

In the city of Ottawa and in the Ottawa Valley, which you know fairly well, Mr Speaker -- probably you know the valley a little better than I do now, particularly the lower part of it -- we are paying, on average over the past year, 3.8 cents per litre more than they are in the greater Toronto area. No one can explain it. No one can explain why we are paying on average 3.8 cents per litre more than the people in the greater Toronto area. In fact, if you drive maybe 10 miles outside Ottawa, from time to time you can actually buy gas cheaper by maybe four or five cents a litre than you can in the city of Ottawa.

It seems the federal government has taken some steps to look at this problem, and is awfully slow in coming back with the results of the study. But this party, which complained about the high gas prices in the city of Ottawa, in eastern Ontario and in the Ottawa Valley when they were on the opposition benches, and complained and railed against the former Liberal government and complained and railed against the former Conservative government -- I was part of that government -- has done nothing to alleviate the discrepancy in gas prices between the Ottawa Valley and down here.

Because they only have one member east of Kingston, I suspect they really do not care. It does not really matter to them what is happening in the Ottawa Valley.

Mr Johnson: You want us to interfere?

Mr Sterling: I get from the parliamentary assistant, "Do you want to interfere in competition?" The problem is that we suspect there is no competition. There is a problem down there nobody is addressing. Everybody is sitting around on their hands and doing nothing about the tremendous discrepancy and the price that people in eastern Ontario are paying and the gouging of the people of eastern Ontario that is going on by the gasoline companies.

The people in Ottawa and the valley are fed up and are starting to take some positive action in terms of boycotts against the major oil companies until there is some fairness put back in the situation.

No one can tell me it costs 3.8 cents to transport a litre of gas from Toronto to Ottawa. You can transport a refined litre of gas probably for a fraction of one cent, maybe 0.1 or 0.2 cents per litre, from this city to Ottawa.

I think that if the Ontario government cared at all about the gas prices the people in eastern Ontario are paying, it would do something about it. It would get after the federal government and say: "Look, get this study on. We want going to find out what is happening with regard to this gouging and we're going to stop the gouging that is taking place in eastern Ontario."

I want to tell members that when we put this particular matter into committee of the whole House, it will get some longer debate because of the very late arrival of information. I have just now received it on a pink sheet. It is dated September 25. I do not know why I did not receive this until right now. I thank the parliamentary assistant for finally responding to my question. It is very difficult for me to read this information and debate it at the same time; therefore, I will sum up.

Mr Winninger: You could do it.

Mr Sterling: I could do it? Probably I could. If I get enough interjections from the members of the opposition party I could probably do that.

In the United States the federal government takes six cents a litre. Our federal government takes four cents a litre. The state government takes 30 cents a litre and our provincial government takes 12.6 cents a litre. In that regard we are very competitive. I wish I had had this information and thank them for it.

With regard to New York, I am not as concerned as I was before. With regard to Michigan, we are not as good. They only take 4.5 cents a litre, whereas we take 12.6 cents a litre and that is going to go up. Ours is really 14 cents a litre when we put the two chunks into it, 4.23 cents, so we are three times as great in terms of our take in diesel fuel with regard to Michigan. Minnesota is about a third of ours as well. Well, we are like two and a half times what Minnesota does.

While we compare favourably with the state of New York, we do not compare favourably with Michigan and Minnesota. That is important information for me to have when I am talking about these taxes. I do not know whether the cumulative effect of other taxes on diesel fuel in New York state or the fact that we have a greater amount of trade with Michigan and perhaps more traffic moving through Michigan means that we should be more concerned about Michigan than perhaps New York state. At any rate, I thank the parliamentary assistant very much for that information, which I requested some time ago. It probably was an oversight that it was not given to me prior to this time.

Anyway, I want to sum up because I have just been offered a financial incentive to do so. I want to indicate that we are adamantly against this piece of legislation because it does increase taxes when our truckers and our manufacturers are having a tough time competing. It is one way we could make them more competitive.

Mr Johnson: I regret that the member for Carleton did not receive the information he requested. I did receive it and I believed he had received it as well, but obviously that did not happen. He has that information now.

The member mentioned that there was some gouging maybe or that there is greatfluctuation in the price of gasoline. We are not dealing with gasoline; we are dealing with fuel tax, Bill 85. Nevertheless, I just want to remind the member that it is the federal government that looks into this; it is not the provincial government. We cannot regulate the prices of commodities. It has something to do with the national energy policy, as I understand it. I just want to let him know that I can buy gasoline in Toronto for almost 10 cents a litre less than I can buy it in my own home town of Cherry Valley.

1730

I also want to remind the member for Carleton that in no way does this fuel tax increase make the trucking industry in Ontario any less competitive, because truckers from out of province, whether they be from the United States or from other provinces in Canada, pay the tax. It is prorated according to the amount of travelling they do in the province, so this tax revenue actually comes to the province of Ontario and is paid equally by our truckers and by truckers coming into the province. That does not make us any less competitive.

The member for Carleton has already agreed that the relationship in tax rates to some of the states nearby is not as great as was previously thought, I believe, and I am glad he has this information now.

Mr Ruprecht: I enjoyed the remarks by the member for Carleton, especially his metaphor on the knee-jerk reaction. This government is obviously looking around for some revenues to raise and it has found a cash cow. Obviously they are saying: "Where do we get the money to pay our bills, because we're broke? Let's raise taxes in terms of the diesel fuel for all kinds and modes of transportation."

Obviously by raising taxes, they are driving other people out of work. Many bankruptcies -- a 156% increase, as I mentioned earlier -- have occurred. Consequently they are caught up in a vicious cycle: higher taxes, lower employment, bankruptcies. That is the cycle they are in, and it is obvious.

On January 1, 1992, we are going to be hit, especially the trucking industry, with a 14.3-cents-per-litre increase. This kind of an increase obviously is unacceptable. Why is it unacceptable? Because directly affected will be a number of people who are working for the trucking industry. The Ontario Trucking Association tells us today that there are 228,000 workers directly employed by the trucking industry. Higher taxes making the whole industry less competitive will obviously affect the whole industry and the infrastructure that is keeping Ontario, at least at this point, still somewhat operating.

I am not admitting that it is competitive, because it is not. What they are doing with these kinds of increases, especially as they affect the trucking industry, is closing down shop for many people. The effects are devastating, because the Ontario Trucking Association says the jobs of 228,000 people are directly affected. I am not saying all of them are going to be bankrupt, but some will lose their jobs.

Mr J. Wilson: I take objection to the parliamentary assistant, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings, who took objection to the member for Carleton's comment that the trucking industry is less competitive as a result of Bill 85. It is true that the trucking industry will be less competitive.

The government tells us, "We also force Americans to pay the tax to the Treasury of Ontario, so therefore it is a level playing field with regard to this tax," but the point is that the Ontario truckers object to this tax; they tell us it will make them less competitive. Trucking industry costs are anywhere from 15% to 20% higher in Canada than in the United States.

The point the government must understand is that this is an ugly spiral. If trucking costs are high in Canada, that raises shelf prices. It raises the price of tires that truckers need for their trucks, all the input costs required, because there is a tax all the way along the system. Anywhere you put a tax in the system, if you are delivering the product, your increased taxes add to the shelf price of those goods. Truckers who buy supplies in Canada very clearly tell us that their inputs are some 15% to 20% higher in Canada than in the United States. It is an ugly spiral. To say that in one specific area, with regard to diesel fuel, Americans and Ontarians are relatively on par is untrue, because that diesel fuel tax works its way through the consumer chain and through the economy and affects shelf prices and input costs of truckers on items they need to run their businesses. We know they are uncompetitive; they tell us that themselves, and I do not deny the word of the truckers.

Mr Sterling: I want to respond and thank the members for speaking to my comments with regard to Bill 85. I just want to say in wrapping up that someone informed me that they were flashing "Bill 86" on the TV screen. This one is a bill dealing with diesel fuel and railway fuel, and Bill 86 is gasoline. That is the next one we will probably talk about in terms of these bills.

At any rate, in responding to the parliamentary assistant, I want to also emphasize, as the member for Simcoe West has just pointed out, that to say that because American truckers who are here have to pay the same diesel fuel as Ontario truckers makes us equal and therefore there is no competitive downside to it is a fallacy. It does not matter who is hauling the goods; the price of hauling those goods is going to be increased because the taxes have been increased. Therefore this is an item which makes it more difficult for our manufacturers to compete, and we will lose some jobs as a result of those manufacturers not being able to compete. It is not a question of just saying the Americans versus the Canadians in terms of which trucker is here.

There is another factor too, though. Because most of the Ontario truckers would operate more frequently here in Ontario, there is a tremendous cash-flow problem with regard to paying higher fuel taxes, even though the American may have to pay the same.

The final thing I would say to the parliamentary assistant is that Cherry Valley cannot quite be compared to Ottawa-Carleton in terms of size.

Mr Winninger: I am certainly pleased to engage in debate with my friends on the opposite side of the House and perhaps to refute some of the incorrect assertions that have been made from time to time during the earlier debate.

I suggest that this tax is in line with fuel increases in other provinces. At the present time our rate of 12.6 cents is matched by that of Quebec, a comparable economy to that of Ontario. So we are tied, as it were, for the fourth-highest rate across Canada, after Newfoundland, with 15.6 cents, Nova Scotia with 14.3 cents and New Brunswick with 13.7 cents.

I have heard the member for Carleton indicate that his party is opposed to all taxes, and especially the fuel tax. I note with interest that the member for Carleton was a very distinguished member of the government in 1981, when the the diesel and railway fuel taxes were increased not once in a year, but four times in a year. In 1981, the diesel tax was increased four times. In 1982 again, four times in one year the diesel tax was increased. In 1983 -- my friend was still a distinguished member in the government at that time -- the diesel tax was again increased four times. In 1984 the record improved a bit; they only increased it three times in 1984.

1740

Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, and by that time I believe you were also a member of that distinguished government, by 1984 the tax was up to 9.3 cents a litre. What was it in 1981? It was only 5.9 cents a litre. So the third party, while in government, virtually doubled the tax. It ill behooves the member for Carleton to lecture this government on tax increases when they increased it on a quarterly basis.

I tell the member for Carleton that I can sympathize with the position of his government at the time. They too were facing a recession in the early 1980s. They too needed cash to fund their programs, similar to what our government's needs are now. However, our government's needs are more acute, because the recession we are facing now is the worst recession we have seen since the Depression -- nothing compared to the recession my friend and his government faced in the early 1980s, when companies had to struggle, but at least they could recover from the recession and resume operations. If anything, this recession has caused many companies to close down on a permanent basis, and I attribute that to the federal colleagues of the third party.

I would like to go on to mention that the record of the opposition was not much better, because from 1985 until 1990 the diesel tax was increased on an annual basis. I would point out that one of the major reasons, and I believe my colleagues have also emphasized this, is the fact that federal government deregulation of the trucking industry is really the main villain in this scenario. It is not a modest increase in the diesel fuel tax; it is deregulation, too much competition, too many American companies entering the market in Ontario and driving down the revenues of our own domestic trucking industry.

A recent issue of the Globe and Mail Report on Business magazine, which I am sure my friends on the opposite side have perused, has indicated that if our dollar were capped at 85 cents US, the cost of doing business in the trucking industry would be exactly the same in the United States for American truckers as it is for our own domestic truckers. I think that ought to be remembered.

Certainly our government has taken active steps in easing the plight of Ontario truckers by reducing the number of licences issued. This is one way it is within our jurisdiction to deal with a situation that was created by the federal government and by those inimical economic policies that can only do great damage to the trucking industry. It is not a modest increase in the diesel fuel tax; it is macroeconomic policies at the federal level that have done great harm to this industry.

In conclusion, I think that the member of the third party ought to remember the kinds of increases his government had to introduce during a very difficult economic time during the 1980s, and certainly now, in one of the worst recessions a government of Ontario has ever faced, in order to maintain and improve the progressive programs this government's agenda is dedicated to, modest increases of this kind have to be condoned. I think the taxpayers are prepared to support the government, knowing the benefits that flow from these kinds of modest increases.

Mr Sterling: I got a kick out of the member's remarks. He said from 1981 to 1985 the former government which I was a part of -- the member baited me and I am taking the bait; I should not take the bait, but I am taking the bait -- over four years we increased the gas tax by four cents, and because we did it in seven hits -- seven times we increased the taxes over four years -- he is complaining. But the real fact of the matter is we increased it four cents over four years.

What do we have in this government? A government that is increasing the tax by 3.4 cents in one year; 3.4 to 1 is the ratio of what they are doing with regard to the diesel --

Hon Mr Allen: Allowing for inflation, one and a half cents.

Mr Sterling: Okay. I will allow a little bit for inflation. I will give him 2.5 to 1 in terms of what they are doing as opposed to what we did over the four years. I do not like an increase in any taxes at all.

I might add that at that time our businesses in this province had many other tax advantages over other businesses. At that time our businesses in Ontario had a 10% advantage over businesses in Quebec in terms of corporate income taxes, and now we are operating at a negative. That has happened over the last five or six years since you and I were on the governing side, Mr Speaker. So there are a lot of other taxes which come into play, not only diesel taxes and all the rest of it.

I only can say to the member, why does he want to argue for an 85-cent dollar? This works against the poor and disadvantaged who have limited incomes, fixed incomes and cannot stretch their dollars further, by lowering the value of the dollar.

Mr J. Wilson: I would pick up on what my honourable colleague has just said and respond to the member for London South, who talks about the federal government's macroeconomic policies. Being a member of the third party, I have the opportunity to sit back and look at both what the federal government is doing and what the provincial government is doing. I just ask the member for London South, if he does not like the federal government's macroeconomic policies -- and I would agree with him; I do not necessarily like them either -- why is his government repeating the mistakes of the federal government? Why is the NDP government insisting on such a high deficit? Why are they borrowing money from foreigners, which up until recently was driving up our interest rates and certainly is keeping the dollar high?

This is a party that did not believe in foreign ownership, but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology told us about an hour ago in this House that he is proud of the amount of foreign investment that has come into Ontario. It just makes me cry to think that the NDP candidate in Simcoe West must have misread his briefing notes during the last election, because he kept talking about how, "The foreigners own everything and we have to have Canadian companies and taxes have nothing to do with our competitiveness."

The Treasurer goes out every month and borrows billions of dollars from the Japanese -- it was from the two Germanies, but they have withdrawn their money because of reunification and that is pushing up the dollar -- and from Wall Street, from New York. They talk about foreign ownership being bad at one time and now it is good, I would say because of the macroeconomic policies of the federal government, which have this country open for business.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot lecture us about foreign ownership and investment on the campaign trail and then try and use recent statistics here that show that foreign ownership and investment are good, whereas before they thought they were bad. I would be interested to know where they stand now on foreign ownership.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable member talks about having it both ways. If you look at the competitiveness paper that was released by the federal government, that is having it both ways. They talk about the need to lower the deficit, yet this party, in its so-called competitiveness study today, talks about decreasing taxes, which of course only adds to the deficit they are trying to talk about.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable minister to address the member for London South's comments.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for London South was fairly correct when he said that --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1750

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable opposition members do not like to have the government tell the truth to the public.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This member is misleading the House.

The Acting Speaker: That I cannot accept. The honourable member for Carleton, please withdraw those remarks.

Mr Sterling: I will withdraw those remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, and that was not a point of order.

Hon Mr Philip: What is really misleading is the kind of government that would say, as the Mulroney government has done in its competitiveness paper, that one of the roads to economic prosperity is to increase research. When one looks at what it has done, the federal government's spending on research and development has dropped from 0.45% of the gross domestic product in 1986 to 0.39% in 1989. Ontario's research and development spending has increased in real terms 100% between 1986 and 1990.

Having it both ways then is for the federal Conservative government to say one thing and do exactly the opposite. That is exactly what the provincial Conservative governments have done in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. They are both out of power now because their economic policies do not work and they do not create jobs. That is why Ontario is attracting investment which the other provinces cannot attract and which the other provinces would love to attract.

Mr Winninger: The member for Etobicoke-Rexdale is perfectly correct. The federal policies have forced this government to take corrective action, and what corrective action has the government taken? As the members opposite well know, 250,000 jobs have been lost as a result of this recession. Housing and car sales are down. It was incumbent upon this government to help replace some of those jobs lost as a result of federal policies: the high interest rate, the high dollar, the GST and the free trade agreement.

In response, jobs were created through an anti-recession fund and public spending was used to help ease us out of this recession. Certainly a number of illustrious economists have supported that approach to dealing with recession. Certainly the wage protection fund to protect laid-off workers costs money. Taking 120,000 low-income earners off the tax roll costs money. All these things may contribute to the deficit, but in the long run they put more money in the hands of taxpayers who have jobs created for them or low-income earners who cannot afford to pay the kinds of taxes the federal government may demand from them.

Certainly the federal government capping the transfer payments has called for a lot more money to be spent by the province on health, education, social services and municipal government. These things cost money. When my friend across the House asks why we are emulating the federal government by increasing our deficit, certainly we can show a lot more positive economic consequences flowing from our fiscal policy than the federal government can show for all its $400 billion of deficit.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to join the debate on the bill. I think there is, rightly so, a lot of focus on the jobs aspect of this. If we look at the various sectors that are feeling the most pinch in terms of job losses, and as I look at agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade and finance, it is actually the transportation sector in this province that has seen the most significant decline in jobs. It is down over the last two years by around 15%. There is no question but that it is struggling more than any other sector.

There is no question also that right now, to add to its problems by putting up a major cost component of its business is just the final straw for it. All of us appreciate this is not the only problem it has, but if you are running one of those businesses right now and you are faced with another blow, it can very well be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I accept that firms that come into Ontario from across the border and attempt to ship here -- we have a way of charging them the same price. But as the member for Carleton quite correctly pointed out, and this is an important point for all of us to realize, I do not think there is a manufacturing operation in Ontario that is not right now doing its analysis on where it wants to be for the future. I do not think, if we go and see the manufacturing operations in any of our ridings, they are not doing or have not already done the analysis of where they are going in the future. Any manufacturing operation worth its salt has an awful lot of capital investment to keep its equipment and its technology up to date, and as it looks at those investments it says, "Where do I want those investments to be?"

As the member for Carleton said, transportation is a major component for all our manufacturing sector. If they look at the analysis of their costs down the road and where they are going to be, yes, a US trucker coming in here is going to have to pay the same fuel, but that is not the issue any longer. The issue is, "Where are my costs of transportation going to be the most effective?"

At this particular time, if you are looking at things we should be doing, the Treasurer should be saying, "How do I stimulate the economy?" After all, as you know, the Treasurer spent $7 billion, I think it was, of his budget on job creation or job retention. But here we are taking one of our most vibrant sectors, one of our most important industries -- we are not creating jobs with this, we are not using the $7 billion the Treasurer has allocated for jobs, we are driving jobs out.

The point I would like to emphasize is that our manufacturing sector is looking right now at where it wants to be for the future, where it is going to survive in the future. There is no manufacturing operation in this province of which transportation is not an important element, and here they look at a 30% increase in fuel costs over the next few months. We cannot deny that this is going to be a significant issue for our transportation sector. I repeat, I am not saying this is the only problem facing our transportation sector; that is nonsense, there are lots of problems facing it. But any of us who have been in business -- and I guess in one way or another virtually all of us have at one point in our careers -- will appreciate that for an average business looking at perhaps another $4,000 cost, it can be extremely significant.

I guess what surprises our transportation sector is that the election took place about a year ago and there was an NDP plan at the time for managing the economy. If we look at the various tax considerations they were looking at, diesel fuel certainly was not one of them. They were looking at minimum corporate tax and other things, but it was not fuel they expected to see.

I see you are getting a little anxious, Mr Speaker, and seeing that it is almost 6 of the clock, perhaps I should move adjournment of the debate.

The Acting Speaker: That is not necessary, but the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt will have the floor when we next debate Bill 85. I would now like to call on the honourable government House leader for our schedule for next week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: Pursuant to standing order 53, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, November 4, we will begin second reading of Bill 126, the Electronic Registration Act, Bill 131, the Fire Marshals Amendment Act, and Bill 135, the Ontario Medical Association Dues Act.

On Tuesday, November 5, we will deal with second reading of Bill 76, the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Repeal Act, Bill 75, the Law Society Amendment Act, and Bill 42, the Arbitration Act.

On Wednesday, November 6, we will resume the adjourned second-reading debate of Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act.

On Thursday, November 7, in the morning, we will deal with private members' business ballot item 43, standing in the name of the member for Lincoln, and number 44 standing in the name of the member for Nepean. In the afternoon, we will continue the second-reading debate on Bill 85, followed by Bill 86, the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act.

The House adjourned at 1800.