Journal des débats 1993-déc-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I rise in my place today to update the House on the events that are happening with the mining tragedy in Kirkland Lake. I'm not usually at a loss for words. I have a sense that I should be saying something about it, and I certainly feel a lot about it. I'm not really quite sure what to say.

I was very deeply moved attending a candlelight vigil last night in Kirkland Lake, where it's estimated 2,000 citizens came out, walking throughout the town, coming to the "tree of life" that is situated at the post office on Government Road in Kirkland Lake. It was a tremendous ceremony, filled with tremendous warmth and hope.

Most of us, unfortunately, at that ceremony hadn't realized the news that the mine had announced a couple of hours beforehand: that it looked like it would be another 30 days before the mine would be able to now recover the miners. This has now changed from a rescue operation, it looks like, to a recovery operation.

It was heartening to see the townspeople come out and lend support for the mining community and the miners and their families who have suffered through this.

I and all my constituents, and I know the government, are encouraging the company and the industry itself to find the reasons for this and to develop the technology in order to detect this and in order to prevent this type of thing from happening ever again.

REGIONAL DIALYSIS CENTRE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Tomorrow I will have the pleasure of attending the official opening of the new regional dialysis centre at Orillia's Soldiers' Memorial Hospital. This new facility is dedicated to the memory of the late Edward F. Monck, who crusaded for a local service to meet the needs of people like himself who had to travel to Toronto General Hospital three times a week for treatment. The service was launched in late 1987 as a small satellite unit of the Toronto General Hospital and now serves 30 patients.

In 1992, the Ministry of Health approved Soldiers' Memorial Hospital's proposal to build a new $1.3-million, five-station unit to serve the region of Simcoe county, Muskoka district and northeast Durham. The ministry has contributed $1.1 million for equipment and will fund the annual $1.6-million operating budget. I want to thank the minister for lending this new regional dialysis centre the appropriate level of support.

It should be noted that there was a great deal of dedicated behind-the-scenes work undertaken that resulted in this project coming to a reality. Robert Kehoe, who has served more than 36 years as a health care administrator and hospital chief executive officer at Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, presented the necessary proof to the county district health unit that this regional dialysis unit was a viable project and that the city of Orillia was the appropriate venue. On behalf of dialysis patients in Simcoe county, Muskoka district and northeast Durham, I want to offer my sincere thanks to Robert Kehoe for a job well done.

PART-TIME FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): It is with great concern that I stand before you today.

Part-time firefighters who are not represented by unions or associations have no protection under the Employment Standards Act. In my riding, three part-time firefighters have been fired and no just cause has yet been produced.

Under current labour laws, our local council does not have to defend its decision. These men have served Stoney Creek with a combined service record of almost 50 years. What happened to these employees' rights: Robert Hicks, 16 years of service; Raymond Elliott, 12 years of service; and Colin Coleman, 22 years on the job?

What would make a person miss those once-in-a-lifetime moments with his family and loved ones? It is not for money, not for recognition, but instead it is for the commitment they have made to their community.

It is time this government started looking at current legislation. As a labour party we should begin to put our efforts into representing the people who have worked in these part-time positions. We must place equal value on their efforts -- the same value we would for a full-time worker.

Let's start working towards legislation that offers protection to all workers.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I want to talk today about a rare specimen from the animal kingdom, a political chameleon. We all know that the chameleon changes its skin colour to blend in with its surroundings.

In this very chamber, we have a living example of a political chameleon, the leader of the third party, Mr Harris. We all know that Mike has changed his colour before. I remember the social contract discussions: yes, yes, and then no; or how about Kim Campbell: no, no, then yes.

Here's a new one to add to the collection: In 1986, when the Liberal government wanted to allow the sale of beer and wine in corner stores, the Tories were in an uproar. In fact, they defeated the legislation with a full whip vote on Bill 135. Mike Harris voted against allowing beer and wine in corner stores. Now he's changed his mind. Just last Saturday during a cable TV show, Mr Harris said he was in favour of beer and wine in corner stores.

Do you believe that, Mr Speaker? Yet another flip-flop. I can hardly imagine what the other members of his caucus who also voted against beer and wine are feeling; honourable members like Ernie Eves, Cam Jackson, Margaret Marland, Al McLean and Norm Sterling. What went through their minds when they saw their fearless leader perform a complicated backflip that he's becoming so famous for? Were they concerned for his safety or just theirs?

WASTE REDUCTION IN BROCKVILLE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On November 25 the city of Brockville won a national award for reducing the amount of garbage it produces by a full 50%. Through a number of very aggressive initiatives, the city of 21,000 has cut its garbage from 40 tonnes a year in 1987 to just 20 tonnes in 1992.

Brockville is probably the only Ontario community that has met the province's goal, set for the year 2000, of a 50% reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfill. Brockville's waste-reduction initiatives now include curbside blue boxes, backyard composters, the banning of certain items at the landfill site and limiting the number of garbage bags residents are allowed to put out each week. As well, the city built a one-acre municipal composting facility and now collects old Christmas trees for chipping and reuse in the city's parks.

As this recent Environment Canada award shows, Brockville has taken the 3Rs seriously and it must be said that Brockville really had no choice. The city dump is over capacity. It has applied to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a five-year extension at the dump to tide residents over until a regional site can be found. For Brockville, it's been a case of working hard to look good in the eyes of the ministry or risk being turned down for the dump expansion.

Given Brockville has upheld its end of this unspoken game of the carrot and stick, I strongly urge the Minister of Environment to look favourably on the city's request for a five-year dump site extension. Brockville has earned it.

1340

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Tonight, the Oshawa YW and local women's shelter, the Denise House, will co-sponsor a candlelight vigil in commemoration of the tragedy of December 6, four years ago. They call on us to follow their lead to first mourn and then work for change. It's highly appropriate that we mark this day, the fourth anniversary of that tragedy.

Both the Oshawa YWCA and Denise House have a proud history of serving the needs of women in our community, especially as havens to victims of domestic violence. They have seen and continue to see in astounding numbers the consequences that acts of physical brutality and emotional manipulation leave on women and children. We are reminded that acts of violence are perpetuated not only through guns and knives but also by fists, by putdowns, by controlling action.

There are many facilities that respond to the desperate plea for help from the physically and emotionally abused and bruised women in Durham region, many of whom have no support system and continue to be victims. They would continue to be victims without the intervention of the Oshawa YW and Denise House.

The Oshawa YW and Denise House have made the issue of violence against women a priority in their programs. Violence against women, whether physical or emotional, degrades, devalues all of us. Violence against women will not and must not be tolerated.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The people of Ottawa-Carleton are continuing in their quest to bring paramedics to Ottawa-Carleton and they will not be satisfied until we join the ranks of the good citizens of Hamilton, Oshawa and Metropolitan Toronto, who have for many years now enjoyed the benefits of paramedics in their communities.

Paramedics in these communities are funded by this provincial government, and I, like the 42,000 people of Ottawa-Carleton who have to date signed our petition cards, can see no justification whatsoever for denying this same funding to the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

Paramedics are found in over 50 Canadian cities and over 2,200 American communities. Paramedics have evolved in order to constitute an important link in the chain of survival for our pre-hospital emergency health care.

In combination with the other two links, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, paramedics have proven to be most effective in saving lives of people who require emergency care before getting to the emergency ward if they are to survive.

Ottawa-Carleton has a survival rate for its heart attack victims of 2.4%. This is one of the lowest survival rates in North America. In communities with a full chain of survival in place, the survival rate is between 20% and 30%.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton will not be satisfied until this government funds paramedics for us. Not only is denying Ottawa-Carleton paramedics unjustifiable, it is, given that lives are at stake here, unconscionable.

I want to assure the Minister of Health and the Premier that this issue will not go away. It will haunt them now and, if necessary, at the time of the next election.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): The township of Holland wants to upgrade three existing open roads: a street in Walters Falls, the Holland-Euphrasia town line and the concession road leading to the HollandSydenham town line.

They wish to do this because repairs such as cleaning and reditching are necessary to ensure safety for those using the roads. However, they have been told they cannot do this work without first getting permission from the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Neither I nor the township of Holland nor the township of Sydenham, who was asked for comment, can understand why upgrading existing roads for public safety is any business of the NEC. The maintenance and the upkeep of the roads is a municipal responsibility and should remain that way.

A development permit should not be needed to fix road allowances which have fallen into disrepair. Judge J.F. Laing of the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that although someone had rebuilt an existing laneway in the escarpment area, the work did not constitute a change in the use of the land and therefore no permit was needed.

I would ask the Minister of Environment and Energy to bring this case to the attention of the NEC and remind the commission to stop meddling in areas where it should properly have no jurisdiction.

I agree with Holland and with Sydenham when they say that they object to having to apply to the NEC for permission to undertake municipal road projects and I ask the minister to take strong action in the very near future to ensure that this procedure, which is nothing but a waste of time and the taxpayers' money, comes to an end.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): The United Nations has recognized December 6 as the International Day of Disabled Persons. It was proclaimed by the UN for the first time last year, marking the close of the Decade of the Disabled.

The proclamation was made worldwide to urge governments and organizations to observe not only the day and promote public awareness, but also to intensify their efforts to improve the situation of disabled persons. I have a personal commitment to see that the government of Ontario continues to keep the issues of the disabled on the legislative agenda.

Over the last three years I have been extremely proud of our government's efforts in producing progressive employment equity legislation and the Advocacy Act. Also noteworthy, disabled persons now have access to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board through the persons with disabilities committee.

Our government set an extremely important precedent in North America with the passing of Bill 4 in July of this year, a bill permitting the use of American sign language, ASL, and la Langue des signes québécois, LSQ, as languages of instruction for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

I am proud of our accomplishments, but we still have a lot of work to do. Disabled persons need more and better access to education, jobs and training through improved support services. There should be a more systematic approach to compensation issues for persons with disabilities. I encourage our government to take action.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I believe we have unanimous consent for a three-party statement on the provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

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

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am rising today on this most solemn of anniversaries to commemorate the 14 women who lost their lives in the Montreal massacre four years ago today.

Today is the third annual provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It is a time for us to remember the victims and their families and it is a time to reflect on what this crime tells us about our society and women's place in it.

In the wake of the massacre many of us recognized the killer's rampage as an extreme expression of society's attitudes towards women. We said that this was not the random act of a madman; rather it was a horrifying manifestation of the aggression towards women that we know to be commonplace. Others challenged this analysis and denied the extent of violence against women in this country.

Unfortunately, statistics are bearing out what many women have long said about violence. The federal report on violence against women released last month by Statistics Canada has indicated that the problem is even more widespread than we had feared. As Sunera Thobani, president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, has said, "Violence against women is 'a national crisis.'"

The Statistics Canada survey indicates that more than half of Canadian women have been physically or sexually assaulted, using the Criminal Code definition of these assaults, at least once in their adult lives; almost half, 48%, of women with a previous marriage reported violence by a previous spouse; and women aged 18 to 24 were more than twice as likely to report violence in the previous year than were older women -- 27% of women in that age group said they had been assaulted during the previous year. These statistics are shocking, even to those of us who have worked with assaulted women for years.

December 6 is etched on our national consciousness. Whether we attend a vigil, wear a white ribbon, make a donation to an organization assisting assaulted women or volunteer our time to help push for tighter gun control legislation, we will each find our own way to mark this day. We must remember, we must never forget and we must resolve that it never happen again.

Women across this country have asked that legislators, the media and their community leaders refrain in our statements on this day from mentioning the name of the perpetrator of the Montreal massacre, understanding that for many violent criminals, notoriety is a motivating factor. We believe it is necessary for us to ensure that on this day we remember those bright lights, those 14 bright lights, that were extinguished on December 6 by using only the names of the women who were victimized.

Mr Speaker, I wonder if, through you, we could ask all members of this Legislature to stand as we remember the 14 women who were murdered on December 6, 1989.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members, and indeed visitors in the galleries, to stand for a moment of silent reflection.

1350

Hon Mrs Boyd: Sonia Pelletier, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Michèle Richard, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Maria Klueznick, Annie Turcotte, Annie St-Arneault and Maude Haviernick.

The House observed a moment's silence.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today we remember the 14 young women gunned down at l'École polytechnique in Montreal four years ago and we grieve with and for their families.

As we commemorate a Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women we must ask the question, were their deaths four years ago a turning point in the battle against violence or were their deaths in vain?

Just a few weeks ago a report from Statscan revealed that spousal violence is so pervasive that half the women in Canada have experienced sexual or physical attack and 60% fear for their personal safety in their everyday lives.

The question is no longer, does the violence exist? The question is now, why does this violence occur and how can we stop it? There is no doubt that we have made progress in offering support for victims of violence and it is very important that we continue to offer resources to those who have broken the silence and who have come forward, but we have to ask the question, are we going to the root cause of violence?

The first step has been to break the silence but now it is imperative that we break the cycle. I believe our provincial government can take specific actions to help break this cycle of violence.

First, I would call on the provincial government to support programs for male batterers so that they can learn to deal with their anger and they can learn to change their attitudes.

Second, often the forgotten ones when we're talking about violence are the children and the impact on our children. I would ask our government to review and support special counselling programs for the children of those who have had violence in their family.

Third, we have to stem the violence in entertainment, which has become all too pervasive. Some of the responsibility in this area does lie with the federal government, and we will be calling on the federal government to join in the cause. But there are specific provincial initiatives which I believe can be taken, initiatives which would help stem the tide of violence in entertainment. We must revamp and review the mandate of the Ontario Film Review Board.

The government must act to curb these violent slasher movies that are beginning to proliferate in our video stores. Our government must protect our children by restricting the sale of killer trading cards. They must act on the matter of violent video games. We cannot afford to wait for other jurisdictions, other governments, to act. There will be those who say that this is government interference. I say that this has reached a state where it deserves government interference.

Several weeks ago my colleague the member for York North, Charles Beer, read a quote from the organizers of the White Ribbon Campaign. They said: "If it were between countries, we'd call it a war. If it were a disease, we'd call it an epidemic. If it were an oil spill, we'd call it a disaster." It is a war, it is an epidemic and it is a disaster. I think the men and women of this Legislature should do everything within their power to see that those 14 young women did not die in vain.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today marks the fourth anniversary of the murder of the 14 university students in Montreal. While most of us may not remember much about the victims, we all know why they died -- because they were women.

They were part of the everyday violence that, as Statistics Canada has recently confirmed, affects one half of all women in Canada. The Montreal massacre differed only in its magnitude and in the fact that the perpetrator acknowledged his motive. He separated the women from the men and deliberately killed the women.

The Statistics Canada report has only confirmed what abused women and those who work with abused women have known for a long time. Abuse does exist and it is very widespread. Violence does breed violence, and women with a violent father-in-law are three times more likely to be assaulted by their partners. Moreover, unfortunately, most violence does go unreported.

So what do we do? We as individuals, we as members of this House must dedicate ourselves to the task of eradicating violence against women. We must change society's attitude about violence against women. Apart from funding women's shelters and sexual assault centres, providing education programs for judges and police officers and initiating public awareness campaigns such as wearing the remembrance red rose button to symbolize change and awareness, we must start to focus on much more preventive action.

Parents have a responsibility. They need to exercise discipline at home and teach children of both sexes to be kind, gentle, compassionate and understanding. Boys need to know that macho is not cool. We need to let teachers discipline at school to curb some of the tendencies that will grow into behaviour that will later brutalize women.

We must reject sexist language and behaviour which, no matter how casual or seemingly innocent, does contribute to the continuation of violent and abusive behaviour. We must acknowledge and we must deal with the influence of media violence, which we are now seeing in video games as well as in the movies and in the printed press.

These are just a few of the preventive actions that we must act upon. However, if we are ever going to create a culture of safety, equality and justice for women, it is absolutely imperative that men and women work cooperatively together. We need to do more than remember one instance of violence today. We need to take collective action such as I have mentioned so that the day may come when no one, no one in this country, whether man, woman or child, will ever again be abused. Today, as we remember, let each one of us personally consider what we can do to ensure that this tragedy is never repeated.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, we have three very special visitors with us today. They're seated in the members' gallery west. I would invite you to join me in welcoming them both to our chamber and to our province: the Liberal leader from British Columbia, Mr Gordon Campbell, who's joined by two MLAs, Gary Farrell-Collins and Linda Reid. Please welcome our special guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question today is to the Minster of Labour. This morning a number of employer and business groups held a joint news conference to protest the Workers' Compensation Board's job-killing rate increases.

Let me go over the facts again for you, Minister: 145,000 businesses will see their rates go up; over 27,000 employers will have their rates go up by over 25%. In addition to these rate increases, all employers will be hit by the Workers' Compensation Board new 3% surtax. What makes this harder to understand is that these increases come at a time when accident rates have declined by 30%. Accident rates are down by 30% and yet costs are up by over 50%.

1400

Minister, what makes you think that employers can afford to pay these increases? Employers are telling you that these increases will mean thousands of lost jobs. Employers are angry because these increases were imposed at the last minute, with no consultation or study.

My question is, Minister, have you or the Workers' Compensation Board done any studies at all on how many jobs will be lost due to these rate increases?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member across the way knows very well, because we've indicated it a number of times, that the increase this year is an average 3% across the board. He also knows that there are decreases as well as increases going on over the last two years as a result of the reclassification and that the rates now being charged more closely relate to what the injury rate is in any particular business. The member is well aware of that.

He should also be aware that in terms of the difficult times we're in, it's why the increase was no more than 3%, yet I've heard a steady stream of calls to deal with the unfunded liability. He should also know that for two years prior to this, the board froze the rates where they were.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, pardon me, but somebody is telling an untruth around here and I don't know who it is. We had business people this morning at that press conference telling us and showing us facts that showed increases for 27,000 businesses of over 25%, and yet you stand there and say it's only 3% on average. Their figures come from WCB figures. Either you're misleading them or they're misleading the public. I don't know which it is.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member knows better.

Mr Mahoney: I'm just posing the possibility, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Mahoney: At a time when the Premier talks about creating jobs, the Workers' Compensation Board, headed by your former NDP colleague, is killing jobs. This morning in the paper, who's the spokesman for the government? Leo Gerard -- amazing. We've been getting letters from employers across the province who are upset that these rate increases will force them to lay off staff. This morning, even an injured worker interrupted the press conference to say he supported the concerns being expressed by the business community.

A contractor from Thorold says: "We cannot absorb these costs. We will simply have to consider layoffs." A manufacturer from Brampton says: "Wage freezes have been in effect" --

The Speaker: Will the member place is question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- "for the past four years. An increase such as this one will be fatal. We will be forced to lay off more workers and possibly close down." Finally, an aerospace manufacturer from Simcoe says, "You must reduce these costs or you will have all of my people on your welfare rolls."

Minister, what do you say to the workers who will lose their jobs because of these rate increases? What do you say to the families of those workers who will lose their jobs because of this unprecedented WCB tax hike?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like once again to point out that the rates were frozen two years ago; that one full year ago there was either a 3% increase or a 3% decrease and it averaged out to no increase; that the average increase this year is 3%; that the differences in individual groups are due to the fact that the classifications have been changed from 109 to 219 categories and some of them came nowhere near their accident rate in terms of what their assessment was. There is a three-year effort under way -- this is the second year -- to try and deal with the differences between what the accident rates indicate the rates should be and what they're actually paying. It seems to me that's absolutely the fairest way to deal with this issue.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): What are you doing about it?

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. Final supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: Here are some of the letters, Minister. I'll be happy to share copies of them with you. Maybe you'd be just a little interested in the people who create jobs in this province and what they are saying. As far as average, what's that old saying: "Your head's in the oven and your feet are in the refrigerator"? That's your definition.

Minister, it's not too late to do the right thing. On December 17, the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board will be meeting to review these rate increases. Businesses are ready, willing and able to help solve this problem. This hurts all business, particularly small business. They are asking for the rate increases to be phased in, as was originally promised and planned and then abandoned by the board.

Minister, you say the average increase was only 3%, yet the surtax alone on every business, no exceptions, is 3% by itself. You know that a 3% average is not true. In fact, employers would be happy to live with a 5% cap. These ideas will be presented to the board by employers on the 17th as a way to save jobs, but the employers are deathly afraid that your NDP chair, Odoardo Di Santo, will simply overrule them, as he did when the rate increases were first brought in.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Mahoney: My final question: Minister, will you make sure that the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board puts jobs first at the December 17 meeting and will you tell him and the board to review these rates to protect those jobs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The current rate is $2.95 per $100 of earnings. It goes up to $3.04 with the 3% increase that's there now. If we went for the recommendations that have come from the business community, the current $2.95 would decrease to $2.83. Can I ask the member across the way how he's going to deal with another one of his pet concerns, the unfunded liability, if he's decreasing rates rather than trying to meet it in a reasonable way? An increase of 3% is not unreasonable.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Last week, Minister, as you know, we got the report card on the Rae government's first three years of running the economy. I think any objective analysis would give you an F if you were grading this report card.

The number of people who are unemployed is at a record high in the province: 575,000 people in 1993. In fact, every week you've been in government, another 1,500 people -- every single week, week after week -- become unemployed. Social assistance is at record numbers. Every week you've been in government, another 1,900 people have had to go to social assistance for help. Housing starts are down dramatically. Ontario once had the lowest unemployment rate in all of Canada, and we now find four provinces substantially lower.

I've now heard for three years about Jobs Ontario, about partnerships, about jobs being a priority. I've heard talk, talk, talk. My question is this: Why is it that all of those programs you talk about, now that we have the report card, have proven to be a failure?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite won't be surprised to find out that I disagree with the premise of the question he puts forward. Can I first of all suggest that we should ensure we're starting from the same basis of information with respect to what the economic outlook is and what the facts and figures are right now?

We can take a look at the GDP. During the second quarter of this year, in fact it rose by 3.2%. The member opposite talked about housing starts. Housing starts were up 10% last September. In fact, they were up 29% in October. If you look at exports, exports are up 15.6% in the first three quarters of this year. It's even higher than that in the auto sector.

Certainly we have experienced the effects of this recession in a very deep and meaningful way in Ontario. For the member to suggest that these facts and figures are only occurring here in Ontario I think is not credible with the members of this Legislature or the public. This is something that's been experienced right across this country.

Mr Speaker, as I can see you starting to urge me to wind up my response, I'm sure the member knows there have been real results from the various jobs initiatives, and I believe there will continue to be. I'm sure I can address more of that in his supplementary question.

Mr Phillips: Frankly, that's drivel. If you look at the gross domestic product, if you look at the output in this province, and the Premier should know this, the output in this province in 1993 is way below where it was in 1990. Three years later, this province is producing less than it did in 1990. For the minister to not understand that worries me.

1410

My point is this: I understand, Minister, that you are planning to take the taxes up on business on January 1. If you look at your report card, you will find that the profits of the corporations in this province, in Ontario, before taxes, are about half what they were in 1989. The business community is struggling, yet I understand it is the intention of the government to actually increase taxes January 1.

I might also say that the Fair Tax Commission, that was asked to look at a comprehensive review, is scheduled to release its report in about a week and a half, yet I understand the government is committed to proceeding to increase business taxes in this province on January 1.

Why would you even consider, just when the business community is beginning to get on its feet, struggling to its feet, hoping to create jobs, why would you choose, at that very moment, January 1, to give them a shove right back down the hill with another tax increase?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I think it's very important that the member get his facts straight and give them straight to the public. With respect to corporate taxes, and I believe this is the area of taxation he is speaking to, let's deal with the manufacturing sector, the sector that's been the hardest hit through the recession as a result of the restructuring of the economy, trade adjustment etc. As of January 1994, our combined taxes will be lower in the province of Ontario than any of the US Great Lakes states which are our main manufacturing competitors. To talk about this from a competitiveness aspect, quite frankly, we are looking good compared to our competitive jurisdictions.

He speaks about a rise in taxes. With respect to the minimum corporate tax which is being brought in and which we hope to have effective January, that is being constructed in a very moderate way. Small business, where we know the growth in employment will come from, is being exempt. It is being brought in very moderately and, quite frankly, it will close loopholes for those companies who have been profitable, who have been managing to write off through different ways and avoiding paying any taxes. It will not affect the overall tax burden of companies here in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: They'll be interested to hear it won't affect their overall tax burden, so I gather it won't raise any more money. I gather what the minister says is that there will be some corresponding decrease, if it won't impact the overall tax burden; I gather it's not designed to raise revenue. It is designed, in my opinion, to give business another push in the face. I think we all know that jobs are created by small business. I don't think there's any doubt about that, that if we look at trying to get jobs created, it is the small business sector that will create them.

The survey among the small business organization in the province suggests that about 20% of the businesses with between five and 19 employees will be hit by the minimum corporate tax, at least the tax that was originally proposed. Everyone, as I say, knows it will be that sector that will create the jobs that will get our economy going again. That tax is hitting 20% of our small businesses, the businesses with five to 19 employees. Minister, why would you choose this time to hit those particular small businesses that will be the ones that could get our job creation going? Why will you hit the small businesses with a corporate minimum tax?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite knows that the majority of small businesses in this province, which, I agree with him, are the generators of jobs, where the growth will come from, will be exempted from the impact of the corporate minimum tax. Let's get this straight, and as we present it to people let's inform them of that.

May I also remind the member opposite that in fact in 1992 we made a change to taxes with respect to small business. In order to be of assistance to small business, we moved the corporate income tax rate down from the level that the Liberal government, when it was in power, had assessed against them. The member conveniently forgets that.

We take seriously the need to help businesses maintain their competitiveness, and I spoke many times in this House around what we're doing with respect to try to keep our costs down in order not to impose more tax increases on businesses out there: with respect to what we're doing in health care and how that's a competitive advantage for our businesses; what we are trying to do in working through the restructuring of the WCB; Ontario Hydro energy rates. I spoke about the combined statutory corporate income tax rates --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- the fact that we are now lower than any of the US states we are main competitors with. I think there is still much to do, but the member opposite does the public a disservice not to set those facts out in a clearer context before he places these partisan questions.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, and it follows up on the question by the member for Mississauga West. The reason I want to ask you this, Premier, is because earlier this year, and in listening to your statements following the last budget, you seem to have understood that you cannot hike taxes any further without having a devastating effect on jobs in this province.

I have heard you state this, Premier. I have heard your Treasurer state this as well. Premier, I got a sense that you have understood, through the social contract and other areas that have led to immense popularity for you and your cabinet, that to deal with the deficit of the province of Ontario we can't go out there and continue to hike taxes, that we're actually going to have to cut costs, that we're going to have to cut the size and cost of government.

Premier, since the Minister of Labour seems to be defending WCB hiking the payroll taxes once again in spite of all the evidence that this will cost us jobs in this province -- in spite of all that evidence he is defending that -- I am now appealing to you, Premier. There is a meeting, as has been pointed out. On December 17, the WCB will be meeting. You appoint those folks, Premier. I'm asking you to call those members of the board, explain to them what you have learned through your own budget and the finances of the province of Ontario, and make a last-ditch appeal and tell them: "Board, you cannot continue to hike taxes. You must deal with your liability, your $12-billion deficit, by controlling your own costs."

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

Mr Harris: Will you make that call on behalf of businesses in this province and on behalf of those people who are looking to hang on to jobs in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want the leader of the third party to understand that we have been working at the board to streamline administrative and other costs. We have been looking at the problems that we carry. The 1994 assessment rates limit the growth of the WCB's unfunded liability to $133 million, the lowest increase in over three years.

In response to the employers' request, the WCB modified the rate groups so that firms with good safety records would not continue to be penalized by subsidizing employers with high accident rates. The WCB is introducing the new standard rates over a three-year period to make it easier to do it during these tough economic times.

Mr Harris: I am really distressed on behalf of workers in this province, those who do not have jobs, those who are concerned about losing their jobs. General Mills Restaurants Canada estimates the new rates will cost it $1 million over the next three years, which may lead to layoffs. Mid-West Silo Systems of Wellesley is facing a 40% increase in its rates. They write, "If this situation cannot be rectified, our firm will have no choice but to close, putting 14 people out of work."

Minister, for a government which professes to give job creation a priority -- I hear it every day in the rhetoric from all your ministers, and yet you bring forward a policy, when it is well within your purview to begin to attack the costs of WCB, you continue to go out there and hike taxes, which is costing us jobs every day. We don't understand this.

Let me ask you this: In view of the mounting evidence of company after company whose safety record is improving year over year, and yet they're facing these massive increases in payroll taxes and they are going out of business and are laying off workers, why do you continue to bring in a policy that is destroying jobs in this province?

1420

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If the member across the way would stop and think for a minute, he might find that the GST and free trade have destroyed an awful lot more jobs than anything we've done to try and bring the WCB costs into balance. If the WCB had adopted the assessment rate put forth by the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, the unfunded liability would have grown by $275 million. Certainly, we would have heard from the member across the way if that had happened.

The administrative proposal adopted by the board of directors offers a workable compromise. In a time when a real rate of $3.20 would be needed to fully finance the system, the employers are being asked for $3.04 and not a decrease to $2.83, which would simply add several hundred million dollars to our costs.

Mr Harris: We heard at a press conference this morning of company after company whose safety record is improving and yet their rates are going up as well. The minister continues to tell us that's not the case. It is the case. We have example after example. Kenmore Developments of St Catharines writes: "Our company has 25 full-time employees. The increase will likely cost in excess of $10,000 per annum." Ameron industrial coatings in Lively says: "You can shear the sheep every year but you can only skin them once. We've now been skinned."

We know there is an unfunded liability of $12 billion, just as the provincial finances have this deficit that must be dealt with. But you continue to advance the case that this deficit can be dealt with by continually hiking taxes and we, and the business community and the brothers and sisters worried about jobs, continue to tell you that the more you do it that way, the more jobs are lost, and the more you defeat the purpose of trying to balance the books at the WCB.

Will you today begin to attack the real causes, the out-of-control costs of the WCB? Will you begin to do that? You can start by firing the chairman and the vice-chairman as we speak. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't find the suggestions from the leader of the third party very useful, but that seems to be par for the course these days. If we were trying to add to the employers' costs, as he says, why did we freeze the rates for the last two years? Why did we come up with a 3% increase on average this year alone? Why did we also take a serious look at the classifications and those who were not paying their fair share and those who were paying too much? That's where the adjustments are going and surely the member across the way is smart enough to understand at least that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I am asking you why. Do you want me to answer why? We'll be here all day.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

TEACHERS' PENSION LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a new question for the Premier. This afternoon we are debating legislation, Bill 121, which tinkers with the formula for who is going to reap the benefit of any in-year surplus in the teachers' pension fund. Will it be teachers or will it be taxpayers? We have no actuarial assessment done to date on any potential surplus. Therefore, we don't know, as we pass this legislation -- or you ask us to pass it -- who will benefit from this new formula.

Premier, since we have no way of knowing who is benefiting from this and you tell us you're going to do the actuarial assessment after the legislation is passed, would you not agree with me that we should suspend dealing with this legislation until the actuarial assessments are done so that we have some sense of knowing what it is you're going to ask us to vote on today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I could just take the question as notice since it stands in the name of the Minister of Education and Training as well as the Minister of Finance, but I guess my basic comment to the member would be that it's my understanding that this bill is going to go to committee and I would think that if there are technical questions of the kind he's raising, those could be raised and handled in committee in the normal course of events.

Mr Harris: I want to impress a few things on the Premier. Number one, the bill is not going to committee. I'm told the subject matter is going to committee but the bill is not going to committee.

Let me refresh the Premier's memory, because I think the Premier will remember something. In 1989, the then Minister of Education, Sean Conway, the member for Renfrew North, brought in a bill. He asked us to pass it, and he went ahead and passed it anyway, in spite of some concerns.

That bill said that the unfunded liability was $4 billion. Then he said, "After you pass this, folks, we'll do the actuarial study to find out what the unfunded liability is." That seemed backwards to me and I'm sure the Premier would have felt that was the backwards way to do it. What happened after that was that after the Liberals told us it would be $4 billion and they passed the bill, then they did the study by Mercer. We found out afterwards the liability was close to $8 billion, yet the Liberals forced this bill through, not knowing the liability.

Given that you have that precedent before you of what happens when you barge through with legislation without knowing what it is we're talking about -- I appreciate you said you'd take it as notice, but we're being asked to debate this bill today -- would you not agree that we should not be proceeding with this bill until the actuarial study is done and we know who it is it's going to benefit, taxpayers or teachers?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it's possible that both taxpayers and teachers will benefit. I'm not sure that one should see those two groups as exclusive of each other. But I would say to the honourable member that it's my understanding that the government -- and the minister, as you know, has carriage of this bill -- has agreed that these issues can be dealt with in committee.

Mr Harris: Given the disastrous record of the Liberals on this whole issue, the legislative changes they made without knowing the cost -- they did this to us as well on the Workers' Compensation Board. Remember? They brought in changes to WCB and then we found out that the changes -- they said they were revenue-neutral -- cost us billions and billions of dollars. They've been a disaster.

Then they did the same thing on the teachers' pensions. They told us it would be $4 billion. I have the press release, October 19, 1989. A deficit of about $4 billion, they told us. Then they did the actuarial study afterwards and it turned out to be $8 billion.

Given what can happen, Premier, when a government barges ahead without knowing the true cost -- you have two or three living examples from the Liberal Party here before you took over this province -- would you not agree that we should now do the study first, instead of making a commitment to do it after, before we finish this bill? Would you agree with that?

Hon Mr Rae: I like those long preambles, particularly when they involve a major attack on another political party rather than my own, so as much time as you want to go on on that subject. As to any comments you want to make with respect to the sheer profligacy and the political irresponsibility of the Liberal Party of Ontario, I wouldn't want to cut you off in any way.

But I would say to you in all seriousness that in terms of the response to this question, it's my clear understanding that the kinds of technical questions you're raising are ones that will be and can be dealt with directly tomorrow in committee.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. We're quite surprised that you didn't stand in the House today and make a statement concerning the special investigations unit. You know as well as anybody that the SIU is in total disrepute. It is clear that neither the police, the public nor the victims have any confidence in what the SIU is doing, not an ounce of confidence.

Last month a coroner's jury in the Raymond Lawrence case recommended that you fix the SIU and fix it soon. Last week the leader of the official opposition called for the resignation of the director of investigations for the SIU, particularly for his actions in the Vega case.

We now have, over the last several days, an admission from Mr Morton that he in fact told the Vega family that no charges would be laid against the constable involved and did not tell the constable for a period of five months. Can you imagine the unfairness, the gross error in conduct on the part of the director of investigations? So I'm asking you today, will you do the proper thing and replace Mr Morton as director?

1430

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Mr Morton indeed has been very clear and has admitted his error in that. He has also explained that this occurred because of the process that had been set up whereby he was unable either to inform the chief of police or the Attorney General until a full report was ready. That was under the processes that had been set up from the beginning of this unit, which, I must remind the member, was set up under his previous government.

When I met with Mr Morton last week and we talked about what the issue was and he explained what the circumstances were, I made it very clear to him that I agreed that that was inappropriate conduct under the circumstances and that we needed to revise that protocol immediately. We did that at that meeting. Henceforth, when a determination is made that an officer is no longer suspect in a case, a quick verbal report to that effect will go to the chief of police involved and to me with reasons to follow, a process that is followed in many complex investigatory cases and court cases. We believe that this will resolve the issue.

With respect to the member's other comments --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have stated in this place very clearly that I agree with him that the processes that were set up under the previous government and have been followed are not adequate. We are working with the SIU and will be working with the police community and the regular community, the community at large, to ensure that those processes are improved.

Mr Chiarelli: The issue here is what you have been doing as a government for the last three years: nothing at all concerning the SIU. The issue is the 16 months of management by Mr Morton of the SIU. It isn't only the Vega case that's in question. In Ottawa there was the David Nurse case where it took 15 months to give a response in the investigation. In that particular case Mr Morton publicly apologized; in this case he's acknowledging a gross error.

Newspapers are rife with what's wrong. You haven't denied what's wrong, including an internal audit which says that Mr Morton is incompetent as an administrator. You can't hide behind a previous government. You can't hide behind "looking into the process" any more. You have to act and you have to act now. What are you doing today and this week to solve the problem at SIU?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is quite incorrect when he says that nothing has been done. When Mr Morton took over this unit, the backlogs were enormous. The vast majority of those backlogs have been cleared and there has been a great deal of work to try and resolve some of the morass of problems that have existed.

The problem remains that was identified in the Lawrence inquest and again in this particular case around the duty to cooperate. That is a very thorny issue and one which we agree must be resolved in some way. But there are diametrically opposed viewpoints on this, obviously, and always have been, as the member is well aware. The police community takes one view and the community at large takes another, as this is the issue of civilian control over police behaviour and how it can best be achieved while supporting the police in their job and yet ensuring that the community has confidence in the accountability of police officers.

So I would say to the member that there are a great many changes that have been done. I've talked about some of those in terms of the increase of resources, the changing of the unit from the Solicitor General's ministry to the Attorney General's ministry --

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- the audit which is ongoing. I would say it is important in this House to get on the record that the audit report has not been received. It has been critical of organization but it has not called for the resignation of Mr Morton.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Premier: Over the weekend Ontario's supply-managed farmers received confirmation from both the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Trade that our system of supply management would not survive the current GATT round. This is a monumental betrayal of agriculture by the Liberal Party of Canada, which promised Canadians during its recent campaign that it would definitely have a supply-managed system after the election.

To date, our dairy and feather industries have not had to rely on government support. If article XI of the GATT disappears, there will be huge demands for assistance to counter surplus products entering our country and our province, and our farmers in the feather and dairy industries will face very difficult times.

Is Ontario aware of the cost to both agriculture and to the provincial treasury of this betrayal at GATT? Or have we been too preoccupied with free trade and NAFTA to worry about GATT?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the question from my good friend from eastern Ontario. I must confess to the honourable member that I suspect our reactions, his and mine, were very similar to the attitude and to the positions that have been taken by the federal government in this area. I was discussing them in Oxford county, where I was with my good friend the member for Oxford on Thursday.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What's his name?

Hon Mr Rae: Kimble Sutherland. He's a very fine member, a very hardworking member and a very effective member. I had a meeting with representatives of the dairy farmers at that time. I've met with the representatives of the farm community twice in the last two weeks, at the OFA convention and again at the Vision 2020 conference.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food and I and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and I have been discussing this issue. We are very, very deeply concerned. We've conveyed that concern as directly as we can to the federal government. We are not in support of any move by the federal government to drop article XI, and strengthening article XI is a critical task and target for Canada in trade matters. We think this has provided enormous stability for this part of the agricultural economy and it is a fair way to do business in this country. We don't see any logic or any reason for dropping it as a basic element of Canada's trade strategy.

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

Hon Mr Rae: We would urge the federal government to stay the course for the dairy farmers, for the poultry farmers, for all those people who are covered by a strategy which has worked effectively in this country and in Canada for 25 years.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: We ask the Liberal government to live up to at least one promise that it made to the people of Canada in the last election campaign.

Mr Villeneuve: I and my party have been saying for years that GATT is where the action is, and yet the Liberal Party of Ontario and the government of Ontario have been against the free trade agreement, which is GATT-compatible. Don't they understand it's GATT-compatible?

If the government is ready, perhaps the Premier can provide answers to some very basic questions. Will Ontario and the federal government match assistance that producers receive elsewhere in other provinces? Banks will be greatly concerned with the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been lost in quota value and farm income. Quality standards and food safety tests will have to be instituted for products coming in from other countries. Quebec has instituted already a large support program for its dairy and poultry producers in the event that article XI did not survive at GATT.

Producers must get answers. What is the government of Ontario ready to do in these areas where other provinces have already acted?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say directly to the honourable member, I have urged the federal government to stay the course and I would urge it to do it again today. I would say to the honourable member, I would hope that he would support us in that and that he would not be announcing today that he's giving up on that question, because, let me tell the honourable member, if he were to give up, if he were to abandon that, along with others, he would know that the impact is not confined to the producers.

What we have built here is Team Ontario with respect to the food processing business in this province. I've been discussing this with the producers over the last two weeks very intensely. We have people at the farm gate. We have the companies that are involved. We have the exporters that are involved. We have all those who are trying to deal with this process of change.

I would say to my friends in the Conservative Party, please stay the course with us in fighting the Liberals in Ottawa. Don't give up now just because it's the conventional thing to do or because you read about it on the business pages of the Globe and Mail. Stay the course on supply management. We will be there. But I want to say to the honourable member, the implications of abandoning article XI are not confined just to the producers.

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

1440

Hon Mr Rae: The plan that would have to be produced would have to involve all those people, processors and others, and I say to him, that's the reason why we have attached so much importance to staying the course.

The federal government told us that it was going to be giving up on a number of other areas, in terms of patents and all those other areas, in an effort to get tradeoffs.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I must say, I haven't been very impressed by the capacity of the horse-traders up in Ottawa to do a job for the farmers of this province, because I don't think they've lived up to their commitments.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, Peterborough county has recently suffered a reduction in physician services because approximately four area general practitioners have for different reasons decided to withdraw from family practice. Unfortunately, they have not located replacements and their patients are being told other doctors in the community are unable to provide service.

The explanations given for this are twofold: We're advised that other GPs have full patient loads and, further, that restraints imposed by the social contract restrict doctors from taking on new patients. It has even been suggested that individual doctors will have to suspend practice for several months in order to meet these restraints, forcing thousands of patients to attend hospital emergency wards for routine treatments. Can you reassure the people of Peterborough on these points?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this issue again, because I certainly know that the member for Peterborough and the member for Hastings-Peterborough have been receiving a lot of calls from constituents who have been worried that because physicians are closing their practices for a variety of reasons there may not be services in Peterborough.

I hope the member has reminded her constituents that physicians are self-employed and make their decisions based on their wishes to retire or to move or to close their practices. I hope also that she will reassure them that the efforts of our government to protect the health services of this province by containing their costs do not justify the kind of fearmongering or mass disruption of health services across the province that are occasionally being talked about by some physicians and by some constituents.

Our government has asked everyone who is paid by the taxpayers to do their share in helping us to reduce costs, and so physicians, as a result of our agreement --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- will find their OHIP payments reduced by 4.8%.

There is no reason for a physician not to take new patients should he wish to do so, and in fact I understand that in the Peterborough area there are some physicians currently practising part-time. I would hope --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that some of them would pick up the new patients who might be available.

Ms Carter: Sensationalist claims are being made locally about the number of people who may be without medical care in Peterborough, and yet up-to-date figures show average patient loads in the Peterborough area to be well below the Ontario average. Madam Minister, who is responsible for ensuring a sufficient supply of doctors to meet local medical needs?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said, fee-for-service physicians decide where to open a practice and where not to, but the Ontario Medical Association has taken responsibility to try to help people who wish to find a new doctor to in fact make that contact. I would advise her to contact either the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or the Ontario Medical Association as well as the hospitals, which might keep the kinds of lists that she and her constituents would find helpful.

I must also say to her I am delighted to find that there is a group of citizens in Peterborough county who have been talking with my ministry about the prospect of opening a community health centre, because they recognize that a community-based, community-directed health centre would meet many of their primary health care needs. But in cases of emergency, health care will be provided right across this province to anybody who needs it.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Madam Minister, recently Kenichi Ohmai of McKinsey and Co in Tokyo, a world-recognized leader in global strategy, advised Ontario that it should not wait for a Canadian strategy but in fact should take a made-in-Ontario strategy to reach out to those opportunities that are available to it in many areas of the world, including the Far East.

Could you please tell this House how Mr Ohmai's advice reconciles with your government's stand, where you've closed all of our trade offices around the world, with the advice that he has given that we should be reaching out with an Ontario strategy to improve trade opportunities?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite does know, and I have spoken to him on a number of occasions in answer to questions on other occasions, that in fact we have developed an international strategy, which is an Ontario strategy, to reach out with respect to Asia Pacific, for example.

We have continued relations with the Asia Pacific Foundation, with the Japan External Trade Organization and with other organizations that allow us to continue to develop the connections necessary to develop the commercial intelligence in order for us to respond in a timely and effective way.

We have developed, I think, the capacity within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade with the various trade speciality areas to respond in a very effective way on a sectoral basis. We've much better information than we had before. We have also gone a long way to work with the federal government to develop a more rationalized delivery of services between the federal government and ourselves and using its resources in the international offices that it has abroad.

Mr Kwinter: Given the minister's explanation of the strategy that they've put in place, it seems strange that at the very meeting of the Japanese society that Mr Ohmai addressed, which was held in Toronto and which was attended by leaders of the federal government, there was a very obvious non-appearance of any representatives from her particular ministry.

This was also the case at the Canada-China Trade Council, another important meeting at which no Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade representatives were there. How can you have a strategy that is supposed to be expanding our influence in areas of the world when at these meetings which are held right here in Toronto you can't even muster the representation to go and put forward Ontario's point of view and at least show to these key markets that Ontario has an interest in their activities?

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, I should point out that in fact only one of the conferences was here in Toronto. We were aware of both conferences and we made a conscious decision. Let me tell the member why. With respect to the Japan society conference, it was a one-day event. I have the agenda here and I'd be pleased to share it with the member. It was a combination of academic and other speakers.

The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade officials made an assessment that at a $500 cost to attend this conference, there weren't business opportunities to pursue there, there wasn't the need for a representative to be at that conference and that wasn't the place where we should be concentrating our efforts with respect to expanding our representation in various networks throughout Japan.

With respect to the Canadian-China business council conference, the conference he was speaking about was held in Vancouver. Rather than attend that conference, again at a cost of sending people, last week the minister responsible for international trade, Minister Allen, met and spoke directly to a council meeting and met with one of the lead ministers from China, who was over here on a delegation.

You will know that Minister Allen also recently attended with a delegation a trip to China, as did the Premier. We're looking at the Premier going to China again in the new year.

I think all of this speaks to the kind of special attention we have given to the Asia Pacific, including leaving our agent general over there until March, which the member and his party were very critical of as well, I remember.

1450

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade as well. We are having a great problem with the collection of sales tax in the Ottawa-Carleton area. We are experiencing a tremendous underground economy in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I am informed by many of the building supply dealers in the Ottawa-Carleton area that the province of Quebec came into their businesses under the understanding that they would be given the right to examine the records of these businesses in order to determine the quantity of business that is being done by Ontario companies over into the province of Quebec.

Under that false premise the Quebec government then came to the Ottawa-Carleton companies, the Ontario companies, and held them responsible for collecting Quebec sales tax, whereas these companies have never been asked to do so before.

Is an Ontario business legally obligated to collect Quebec sales tax when it sells retail goods in the province of Quebec and, vice versa, is a Quebec company legally responsible to collect Ontario sales tax when it does business in the province of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I will try and answer the member's question. He asked for an actual legal interpretation. He will know that the Ministry of Finance is the portfolio responsible, and I have been speaking to the Minister of Finance about this issue. The practice that has been in place for a number of years with respect to the cross-border application of this policy is --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned.

Hon Ms Lankin: My time isn't up yet, I know it's not; I've just started.

The practice is one in which on neither side of the border are companies required to collect taxes. You asked the specific question: Is there a legal obligation? I will have to get back to you on that. What I am very disturbed about is the province of Quebec unilaterally changing this practice, which has been in place and has been respected by governments on both sides of the border for an extensive period of time.

The member will know, I hope, that we have taken steps to try and sort this out with the government of Quebec. There have been meetings that have taken place between revenue officials, Ministry of Finance officials, in both provinces. Those meetings are continuing to try and bring some conclusion to this that will resolve this problem for this particular business and others that may experience this in the future.

Mr Sterling: The province of Quebec came in and looked at the books of 18 building suppliers in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They said to them when they came in and looked at the books that they were not going to take any action. Subsequently, the province of Quebec has now seized the assets of these Ontario firms which are presently in the province of Quebec.

One firm is being asked to pay some $380,000, another around $230,000, and what has happened as a result of this is that the Ontario firms going over into the province of Quebec have ceased to do business over in that area. Some of these firms cannot pay these taxes, plus penalties, which the Quebec government is now claiming that these Ontario firms should have collected from them.

Meanwhile, building supply firms like Pilon Ltd, which is doing $10-million worth of business, I am told, in the Ottawa-Carleton area and advertises absolutely no sales tax charge on materials delivered to Ontario in advertisements, are continuing to come across from Quebec to Ottawa-Carleton every day to ply their trade.

You can imagine that the building and material suppliers in Ottawa are not very happy about losing the business in Quebec, while their Quebec counterparts come across the border.

Minister, under our laws in Ontario you have the right to seize the assets of the Quebec firms.

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

Mr Sterling: Will you put our building supply dealers on an even playing field by doing what Quebec has done and seizing the assets of firms like Pilon lumber which are bringing across their lumber here and not collecting Ontario sales tax?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises a very good question. It is an area of concern that I share with him, as I do generally the issues with respect to Quebec, Ontario and trade and particularly as it affects the Ottawa-Carleton area.

As I indicated in the answer to the first question, the Minister of Finance is the minister responsible for this portfolio. The question you have raised with me is one that I have already taken up with him and will be continuing to discuss. I believe steps have to be taken to end the practice in Quebec and I think it is necessary for us to pursue the discussions that are ongoing, again, as I have always approached these issues, hopefully with a negotiation to resolve the issue.

I am unable to give you a full answer. I will take it under advisement and I will raise it with the Minister of Finance and undertake to get a response to you.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. As we've heard, the dispute between the OMHA and the CAHA and the OHF has been ongoing for a while. I want to know, as a parent who has a young child in the minor hockey association -- the dispute that is going on between those two organizations is causing hardship to a lot of families: distance travelled, can't play in tournaments that OMHA supports and CAHA supports. Last week --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Jim Bradley asked that question last week.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Hope: It's amazing some of the comments that come across.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Hope: I want you to know that this weekend a lot of the parents around the rinks were talking about somebody getting a resolution to this dispute, so that their children can play in closer communities near them, play in a tournament season that is coming upon them for Christmas.

Madam Minister, last week you indicated that you had put a mediator in place. I wonder if you could report to this House the findings of that mediator and hopefully some information that will be provided to those citizens.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member for Chatham-Kent, because he's one of the members who, along with many other members on all sides of the House, have continued to ask those questions of me. I know that not only the member for Chatham-Kent but many members on the other side of the House will be interested in knowing that, following my appointment of the provincial mediator last week, a settlement has been arrived at between the three parties involved.

The Ontario Hockey Federation, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association worked very hard with the assistance of the mediator and came to an agreement over the weekend that will now mean that all of the boys and girls who play hockey under their auspices in this province will be able to engage in the tournaments following the hockey season.

I want to thank the various parties involved --

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

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- because they clearly did put the boys and girls of this province first. They clearly worked very hard to arrive at this settlement. I want to close also by thanking the provincial mediator, John Berger, for his assistance.

Mr Hope: That's all well and good, but my concern is about the deal itself between the two organizations, because we're talking about children here. I wonder if the minister can inform us about the details of the package that was agreed to between the two organizations so that I, as a parent, will know about it, and the constituents in my community and other communities that are affected by this dispute will know a resolution has been put forward.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I believe the parties involved in fact should be able to release what they prefer to release themselves. They are making a separate media statement today with regard to their feelings and what they're comfortable with sharing with the public at this point.

I would like to, just in final conclusion, say I'm very much hoping that the parties will use the good faith they developed in this negotiating process to implement the terms of the agreement they arrived at over the coming months. I think of course, as usual, the proof of the pudding will be in the mix. I'm hoping that good faith they finally developed between themselves will help to make sure that the girls, the boys and the families of this province will be able to truly enjoy amateur hockey throughout this province.

1500

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that's been forwarded to me from some of the residents of the Quinte area, in particular members of the congregation of the Hastings Park Bible Church who are quite opposed to Bills 45 and 55. I'd like to submit this to the Legislature today.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'll sign this in agreement.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the voters and taxpayers of the St Gregory school community have been requesting funds for a much-needed renovation and expansion of the present facility for 11 years;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board has placed St Gregory school as one of its highest priorities on the capital expenditure forecast list;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to allocate capital funds to St Gregory school."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? The member for Brant-Haldimand.

LANDFILL

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought you'd missed me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Environment mandates that all municipalities, whether upper- or lower-tier, which require to expand or relocate municipal sanitary landfill sites must conduct a waste management environmental assessment study; and

"Whereas it is the policy of the Ministry of Environment to assist in funding these studies at the upper-tier level of local government only; and

"Whereas of the 830 municipalities in Ontario, only 39 are upper-tier municipalities organized at the regional or county level;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Environment to cease this discriminatory policy and give funding assistance to all municipalities that are required to conduct a waste management environmental assessment study, and that this funding be made retroactive where applicable."

It's signed by 265 residents of my constituency, and I've affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a second petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

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

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation (still undefined). This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality, for example, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition from a number of people who are concerned about the provincial government providing financial assistance for abortion services. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that no public funding from the taxpayers of Ontario be allotted to the building or support of the Henry Morgentaler abortion clinic in Ottawa or any other location."

That's been signed by 182 residents of eastern Ontario, and I have also signed the petition.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve our heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private member's Bill 46, An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

I have signed this.

SALE OF LAND

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and Joe is going to be taking it to the table:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold $450 million worth of land without public consultation; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold the Whitevale golf course, the Seaton golf course, 195 acres of open space in Pickering and 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby; and

"Whereas the government now plans to sell $500 million of our finest jails at the very time of a weak real estate market;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to halt its sale of golf courses, open space and jails until the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the policy."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I want to correct my own record. With the first petition I presented this afternoon, regarding Bill 45, I omitted to read the last sentence, which says:

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I did read that when I read Bill 55, but I didn't when reading Bill 45.

1510

TAXATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario;

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, on a point of order, if I might.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it petitions or --

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, if I just might correct the record. On Friday, December 3, an article released by the Canadian Press indicated that in the discussion regarding the casino bill, I indicated that such was the raising of blood money. I have discussed this with the press gallery and they indicated that due to an error in the seating plan, this is not the case, and I just wish to correct the record on that.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order, and neither is it a petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Daigeler from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 16, 1993, this bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr Cordiano?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I would like to say that this completes the works of the public accounts committee on the report on non-profit housing.

The report is a culmination of work, and I would like to thank the efforts of the members of the committee for their input. I think the process was a unique one, given that the ministry worked with the committee to make certain changes in administrative policy and practices which were ongoing as the committee reported.

The process is not complete. The ministry will once again come back to the committee with further reporting, but I would say that the committee, in its unique way, brought the ministry forward in terms of administrative practices and policies, and the ministry cooperated with the committee in doing so.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Cordiano: I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REFERRAL OF BILL 121

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 22:

That the matter of issues related to teachers' pensions be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice for consideration on Tuesday, December 7, 1993, and that the Ministry of Education and Training provide the committee with a technical briefing on the matter at the commencement of that meeting.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I think the motion is fairly self-explanatory.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We are about to debate the bill on teachers' pensions, Bill 121. This is a companion motion. While we would have preferred actually to have had the bill itself in committee, we were unable to agree upon the abridging of the five-day notice period to prepare the legislative committee for a committee hearing on the Teachers' Pension Act.

We believe there are some very important issues which have to be publicly put on the record, and we have agreed with the government House leader and the Conservative House leader that at least this matter could be dealt with in a bit of a new way. This referring of the matters related to teachers' pensions is actually the substitute reference of the bill itself in the committee.

The Liberal Party believes that there are some interesting features to this bill that should be well understood, that should be well versed in the circles that understand finances. We want to have the technical briefing from the Ministry of Education and Training and from those who are interested in this issue put publicly on the record. Our critic for Finance, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, will have carriage of this matter and will be dealing with some of the salient features that we as a party believe are already included in the Teachers' Pension Act.

With Mr Phillips's attendance in the committee, we will then be able to assure ourselves of the actual effects of the Teachers' Pension Act that are being proposed by the Finance minister, important features indeed that must be publicly on the record. We therefore support this motion.

I think it's necessary for us to say that we would have preferred to have actually had the act in the committee, but this will suffice on short notice. I thank both the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Parry Sound for allowing us at least this courtesy to try and get the public record to contain an analysis of the contents of this very important piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

TEACHERS' PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Martin, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 121, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act / Projet de loi 121, Loi modifiant la Loi sur le régime de retraite des enseignants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I do. These amendments, which are of a technical nature, are put forward with the agreement and support of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, our partner in the Ontario teachers' pension plan. The government and teachers reached an agreement to operate the teachers' pension plan as partners in 1991. This agreement represented a first, an agreement between government and teachers to work as full partners in the operation of the pension plan, with sharing of responsibilities and rewards.

A key feature of the agreement was to have a transition stage leading to a full partnership after the 1997 valuation of the pension fund. During this transition period, gains were to be shared on a sliding scale. In the early stages of the transition, the government would receive the greater portion of any gains. This allowed us to use the government share of the gains to offset the special payments we are making to pay off the initial unfunded liability of the plan. These special payments were instituted by the previous government in 1989. Under the 1989 Teachers' Pension Act, payments commenced on January 1, 1990.

Now we have agreed with the teachers that we can bring forward the government's share of the gains that would have appeared over the full period of the transition. This agreement does not change the portion of the gains that would have accrued to the government had the agreement not been reached. We expect that this share will allow us to offset our special payments to the fund for approximately three years.

As these special payments have been estimated at $1.2 billion over the three years, this represents a considerable saving to the Ontario taxpayer. It will also allow us to move more quickly to a full partnership with the teachers. Full partnership means that when gains are available, the partners can negotiate the use of these gains. Gains could be used, for example, to improve benefits, achieve temporary reductions in the rate of contribution and establish a contingency fund. The next opportunity for such negotiations will follow the triennial valuation of the fund in 1996.

1520

This legislation proposes an exemption to the Pension Benefits Act to give the Ontario teachers' pension plan board full authority to repay to the government special payments that the government has already made to the plan. The partners have agreed that these payments may be replaced by gains disclosed by a January 1, 1993, valuation of the fund. This does not in any way affect benefits that are payable to plan members. This measure does not represent a failure to make payment; it simply allows the refund of money that has already been paid but that the valuation showed did not need to be paid.

The legislation proposes amendments to change the way in which the special payments required to pay off the unfunded liability are calculated. The new method of calculating payments will provide more flexibility. It allows the calculations to reflect the actual changes in teachers' wages. This will bring government payments more closely in line with government revenues. This change will help stabilize the plan. It is supported by the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the pension plan board.

In conclusion, this legislation is built on the spirit of our partnership with Ontario teachers. It has the support of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. It is a product of our partnership and of our commitment to working together to resolve mutual concerns. I ask all members to support this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just a question: I've requested for tomorrow's hearings the schedule of payments that are planned to be made against the unfunded liability and I hope that we can have those available tomorrow. I'd like to also know what the series of unfunded liabilities will be and I wonder if the member can also give us that. At the end of this three-year period, what will the unfunded liability be? Thirdly, why has the government rejected what many people thought was the sensible thing to do, and that is to schedule a series of lower payments? Why has the government decided to take a three-year holiday from any payments into the special fund?

I wonder if the member might, in his response, provide answers for those three things: the schedule of payments that will be made over the next three years; secondly, the unfunded liability at the end of this period of time; and why the government chose to take a three-year holiday rather than what I think many people outside of government might have thought was a reasonable proposal, to continue to make a series of reduced payments.

The Deputy Speaker: You have two minutes to reply.

Mr Martin: Just to remind the member that this was a negotiated agreement, a coming together of some groups to find a way to do this in a cost-effective manner that was durable and would have benefits for everybody concerned. On the more technical questions that he asked, I would ask to be able to respond to that at the end of the debate when we wrap up.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to begin the debate on this motion. The member categorized it as kind of technical amendments. I would say, to ourselves at least, that what we're talking about here is changing the planned payments into the teachers' pension by $1.5 billion. This isn't a small little technical amendment. The government is going to take a holiday on making payments against what's called the unfunded liability, a 42-month holiday, I gather, of about $1.5 billion.

My interest in this is twofold. One is that I think one makes the assumption that down the road when there's an election held, there may very well be another party that will be responsible for dealing with this situation, so I'm anxious that we understand what we're getting into with this. I understand that there's an agreement between the two partners, but my judgement is that this is because for one of the partners it doesn't matter too much, I gather, because the taxpayers, the government, are going to be clearly on the hook for this.

What first got my interest in the bill was that the first thing we should realize on this technical amendment is that this bill exempts the teachers' pension plan from the operation of section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act. Alarms go off whenever I see a bill before the Legislature that exempts anyone from that provision. What is that provision in the Pension Benefits Act? It's what I call the Conrad Black provision, which is designed to prevent employers from taking surpluses out of pensions without agreement and without notification of all the various people who are involved in the pension.

The one the government wants to exempt itself from is section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act: "No money may be paid out of a pension fund to the employer without the prior consent of the commission." They plan not to do that. "An employer who applies to the commission for consent to payment...that is surplus to the employer out of a pension fund shall transmit notice of the application" to "each member...any other individual who is receiving payments out of the pension fund; and the advisory committee established in respect of the pension fund." There's a series of things here that are required of the employer when it is planning to take money out of the pension fund.

That was the first thing that got me worried about this act. Believe me, if this were Stelco or General Motors or any private sector company that wanted to get agreement to bypass that provision, I don't think there would be an NDP backbencher who would ever agree to it, yet you want to pass a bill that allows you to specifically bypass that.

The second thing is that what I think is planned here -- and let's all of us recognize that there is an $8.8-billion unfunded liability in the teachers' pension. That's straight out of the government's books: December 31, 1993, the unfunded liability is $8.8 billion. There's now been, I gather, although I have yet to see it, although I've now asked two different sources for it, the actuarial report that confirms that it isn't an $8.8-billion unfunded liability, that it's now about $1.2 billion less than that, I gather. So it is perhaps a $7.6-billion unfunded liability.

We have a huge debt and there is only one person responsible for that: the taxpayer of Ontario; nobody else. What are we going to do here on this bill? We are going to take a 42-month holiday from making any payments against that $7.6-billion unfunded liability and it's going to grow dramatically over the next 42 months. I'm anxious and I will be looking tomorrow, I gather, or later today, when the member responds, to what it will be at the end of 42 months. What will the unfunded liability be at the end of it? It will be at least $1 billion more than that $7.6 billion.

I understand completely why the government wants to do it. It allows them to show spending every year about $300 million less than they would've had to do. It allows them to borrow presumably $300 million less than they would've had to do. When bond rating agencies and the public look at it and say, "My, my, how well Mr Rae is managing the finances of the province," it is a mirage, it's purely illusionary, because it's --

1530

Interjection: A shell game.

Mr Phillips: -- a shell game, because that amount of money is running up the unfunded liability, with the taxpayers having 100% responsibility to pay it off. It's hiding the debt, completely hiding the debt and hiding the spending. As you try and get these "technical" amendments through, you may get away with it for a month or two months, but not much longer.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Not beyond the next election.

Mr Phillips: "Not beyond the next election," my colleague says. Let's make no mistake about what's happening here. It's creative and it's interesting. It's consistent with a pattern, in my opinion, of trying to mask the real finances of this province, whether it be selling $500 million worth of jails, which the government plans to do, selling its jails to itself and then leasing them back; whether it be what happened last year on the teachers' pension. Do you know what happened last year on the teachers' pension?

The government was supposed to pay $500 million to the teachers' pension on January 1, 1993. They reschedule it to April 1, 1993, rescheduled it for three months. Surprise, surprise. Why did they do that? So they could show $500 million less in spending last year. Do you know what that costs the taxpayers? It cost $3 million. All we got out of that was the province reported its spending as $500 million less than it really was.

The taxpayers of the province spent 11 1/4% interest on that. The interest penalty on that was $3 million. The taxpayers got nothing. To the taxpayers who may be listening to this, it cost you $3 million for absolutely nothing other than that Bob Rae reported his deficit as $500 million lower than it really was.

Luckily, the Provincial Auditor spotted it.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Oh, come on.

Mr Phillips: Well, ask the auditor. Read your own reports.

Mr White: You were $2.5 billion out.

Mr Phillips: The member across the hall is heckling, but the Provincial Auditor spotted it and refused to give an unqualified opinion on the books, for the first time in the history of the province, because he said, "That's not right." The member is shaking his head, but those are exactly the facts.

For the taxpayers, it cost us $3 million. You know what? You're going to do it again this year. You're going to delay that $500-million payment again this year. The shenanigans are going on.

Mr White: You were $2.5 billion out.

Mr Phillips: The member chooses to heckle, but I think the teachers and the Ontario Teachers' Federation, who are watching this, will want to ensure that we know how to manage this fund and that we don't do what I think is being planned here, and that is to run up the unfunded liability by more than another $1 billion.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): How did Nixon do it?

Mr Phillips: That is what we're talking about here today, is the game that the government's playing. They choose to heckle because I don't think the member across the hall, across the Legislature, wants to recognize -- you would never, ever, ever have agreed to any employer bypassing this provision of the Pension Benefits Act and not notifying the pensioners that you're going to -- do you know what you're going to do? You're taking $300 million out of the teachers' pension. There's only one way you can do that. You have to try and get a bill through the House that exempts you from this -- I call it the Conrad Black provision -- the surplus provision of the Pension Benefits Act.

But perhaps more important is what we are doing here. The government is cutting out $1.2 billion of its planned contribution to the pensions. It's going to let the unfunded liability run up dramatically. We will find out that number tomorrow. Here's the problem, I think, for those who are interested in ensuring that the teachers' pension is properly and adequately funded. By the way, I don't think there is any penalty to the teachers in this. The problem is that at the end of 42 months, at the end of this program, this unfunded liability, which right now I gather stands at around $7.6 billion, will be at least $1 billion higher than that -- at least $1 billion, perhaps more. We are kidding ourselves by taking this holiday and letting the unfunded liability run up.

I will be interested as well in determining, when we delay the $500-million payment to the teachers' pension, what interest we are going to pay on that.

What started out as small, technical amendments -- I hope we understand we're not dealing with a small, technical amendment; we're dealing with a fundamental change in the funding for the teachers' pension plan. We're talking about the unfunded liability being run up dramatically. We're talking about doing something that I would have thought, for many, was almost the last thing you do.

As a matter of fact, if you read the Agenda for People -- which I do frequently -- you'll find that there's a whole section on pensions and withdrawal of surpluses, how bad they are and how much the NDP objects to them. Wait a minute; I do have -- this is fortunate -- the Agenda for People. Here we are, "Pensions."

Mr White: Where? Talk about housing.

Mr Phillips: The member wants to talk about everything but the pensions, and I understand why he prefers not to talk about the pensions. But unfortunately for him, that's the act that's before the House, and so we will talk about pensions.

Mr Sorbara: What does it say in the Agenda for People?

Mr Phillips: "Pension 'surpluses' would belong to the members of the plan, not to employers." Here we are bypassing section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act. Again, I'm not saying that from the teachers' perspective this has a negative impact on them. It may very well be that the government has committed that: "Don't worry. Don't worry that the unfunded liability is going to go way up. Don't worry that we'll take a 42-month holiday for making those payments. Don't worry that at the end of the 42 months the unfunded liability will be dramatically higher than we previously estimated."

Mr Sorbara: The government guarantees it.

Mr Phillips: The government guarantees it, as my friend said. But there is no doubt that all this is running debt off book. Frankly, as a matter of fact, now that I recall the bond rating agencies that looked at the government's finances, one of their concerns was this. One of their concerns was what we're doing with pensions. One of their concerns was that we were running up debt in the pension funds rather than putting ourselves on an orderly stream of payments into the pension funds.

As I said earlier, what started out for me at least as a minor bill, as we get into it and I see the implications for the teachers' pension fund and the implications for those who are managing it, I have increasing questions. I'm looking forward to tomorrow because I very much want to see what the benefits are in this proposal. I see lots of problems. I see a lot of problems in what's proposed here.

The only benefit I can see is that for a very short period of time, until everybody realizes it, the government will be able to say, "We're spending $350 million less than we really are." It's only a matter of time before everybody says: "Wait a minute. We're just kidding ourselves. The real debt is running up in the unfunded liability."

What should be done? That perhaps is the question. I hope that tomorrow we can talk about a different schedule of payments, where we can say, "Why don't we?" To use the terms of someone who's an expert on this, you can take all of the savings right away.

In fact, if you remember what happened when there was a change in government in Ottawa, the Auditor General -- as they call the auditor there -- indicated his concern with the way that "pension savings were reported federally," and the federal government restated those savings.

I've a feeling that we are dealing with very much the same thing here, where there is a "savings" over the 40 years that the government wants to take all at once, let the unfunded liability run up and show spending perhaps $300 million lower than it is.

1540

The alternative, it seems to me, that one needs to discuss is to do what a pension expert told me. He said the other way of doing it is you simply reduce your annual payments by an appropriate amount. You continue, then, in the books of the province to reflect your true annual costs -- you don't take this 42-month holiday -- and then the province's finances are established in a way that show your true annual expenditures. Certainly if this were a company, I wouldn't think there'd be many companies that would want to attempt to distort their finances to the extent that this will for the province.

We have some severe reservations about it. I understand why the teachers' federation can agree to this, because from its perspective, "You can do it one way, you can do it the other way, you can pay me now, you can pay me later, the government's guaranteeing it." It can accept, I gather, the unfunded liability running up. I have no difficulty with the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its organization saying, "This is fine with us," but we're here representing one of the major funders of the fund, namely, the public. From the public's perspective, I see some significant concerns in this, not the least of which is that we are not accurately reflecting our annual costs. We're taking a 42-month holiday, and then the costs go all the way back up with a substantially higher unfunded liability.

I hope I've got on the record our concerns about this bill, and they're substantial. I look forward to tomorrow's debate at committee where we'll have a chance to, I hope, get a much better understanding of where the public benefit is in this. I will just say that in my opinion this is going to cost the taxpayers of this province money; it won't save them money. It may be that temporarily we are borrowing less money, in one case, but we're running up a lot more money on the unfunded liability, in the other case, I suspect at a higher interest rate than we could be borrowing the money. I have a feeling that the taxpayer is out money, and the only possible benefit to the government is the understandable one, and that's the ability to report a lower deficit than it really has.

With those comments, we'll look forward to more detailed debate at committee tomorrow.

Mr Sorbara: I followed as well as I could the comments of my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and I just say to you, I don't think there's anyone in this Legislature who understands these issues better than he does.

There was one point, however, that he didn't make, and I would appreciate from him, if he would, a comment on this. He mentioned the fact that part of what is contained in this bill, if I understand it correctly, is a contribution holiday; that is to say, that the government will not be making contributions to the plan for the next 42 months. It seems to me that this represents a way of spending money now, the money that you would have contributed to the plan, spending that on other programs now and deferring the taxes that you're going to need to raise to make the payments until a later time.

The government did that very same thing, for example, when it changed the driver's licence period from three years to five years. Basically, what they did is they grabbed the money that taxpayers and drivers would have paid for their licences in the fourth and fifth years and they brought that money into revenue in the first fiscal year, so that they made their revenues artificially higher.

Here, it seems to me, one of the other negative things that the government is doing is deferring the payments that it otherwise would have had to have made into this pension plan until 42 months hence. It's pretty obvious from what you hear on the street that 42 months from now the New Democratic Party is not going to be in government and it's going to be for the successor government to have to come up with those new and higher payments to begin to make the plan whole again.

I thought this perhaps was one other aspect of this rather unfortunate fiddling with the teachers' pension plan, as my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said. The teachers have agreed to it, but there is a larger issue, and that is the burden it places not only on taxpayers who are paying taxes this year but the taxpayers who will be paying taxes over the next several years to come.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Martin: I want to make it perfectly clear that the government is in fact not taking a holiday, that rather the government is using gains from this plan to offset payments. Government payments towards unfunded liability will continue to be paid. Nothing in this bill affects the size of this unfundability in any way.

There was a reference to exemption from the Pension Benefits Act. I would ask that the member opposite who asked this question would wait until tomorrow, when that question will be addressed in some detail in the briefing that will happen after the passing of second reading today.

We repeat again that contrary to what the previous Liberal government in this House did on many occasions, we in fact have a deal here that was done with OTF and it's in agreement with these amendments.

Mr Sorbara: Oh yes, indeed you have, at great cost to the taxpayer.

The Deputy Speaker: You had your turn, please.

Questions or comments? Further questions? Further comments?

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to respond to both members. The member for York Centre is absolutely right. What we've got here is a bit like you owe money on your house but you can't afford to make your mortgage payments. You're not making enough money to make your mortgage payments so you say to the bank, "Listen, give me a three-year holiday." The bank says: "Sure, we'll do that, but the interest and principal keeps growing on it. If you can't afford it now, what makes you think you can afford it in three years?" You say: "Just trust me. I'll be able to afford it in three years."

What we're doing here -- there's not much doubt about that -- is we're letting the debt run up on the unfunded liability because we can't afford to pay for it now and we somehow think we can pay for it down there. That's not going to happen. We should be showing our true cost. If we did that, the public would understand our true cost.

I just have a difference of opinion with the other member, the member for Sault Ste Marie. I know the language that's used here. They'll say: "Well, we're not really taking a holiday. It's just that we won't be making any payments into it. It's not really a holiday. We won't make any payments. The reason we won't is because we thought we owed $8.8 billion but we only owe $7.6 billion, so we'll take a three-year holiday." We are playing a semantic game.

The fact is, as I understand it -- and I'll know a lot more tomorrow because I can't get the numbers today; I've been asking for them -- I think that as of January 1, 1993, the unfunded liability was $7.6 billion, and the government plans, as of January 1, to make no payments against that for 42 months. That to me is a holiday. That's a holiday. That's a plan to not spend any money for 42 months and let the unfunded liability run up. That, as I say, in my opinion is potentially dangerous.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I know that the member for London North is going to give a very important speech on this issue. I think it would be appropriate that there be a quorum present in the House for this address.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum?

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

1550

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): The occasion this afternoon, in December just before Christmas, brings back a few memories of a couple of years ago. I can remember speaking at that time to Bill 66 on December 20, wishing of course that, like all other people who are trying to manage their lives, this Legislative Assembly would not in fact have been meeting two or three days before Christmas Eve at all, because that was not the House rules. We had to break them to continue on.

Secondly, the important business of the House was being discussed at that time with very little time for thoughtful consideration and communication with the people whom we represent. That was the Liberal legislation. It was called Bill 66. It merged the teachers' superannuation fund and the teachers' superannuation adjustment fund into a consolidated Ontario's teacher pension fund. The actuarial surplus in the teachers' superannuation fund was used to offset the deficit in the teachers' superannuation adjustment fund.

So far, anybody who's trying to follow what I'm trying to say will say, "That is pretty complicated, very complicated stuff." At that time, on December 20, we were dealing with some pretty complicated legislation. The government of the day, for some reason, had to rush this stuff through. The government assumed full responsibility with that legislation for the unfunded liability and agreed to make special payments of $4 billion over a 40-year period. The real problem at that time was the Liberals did not have the numbers. We didn't know what the true unfunded liability was, and we were being asked to vote on legislation where we didn't really know the facts.

At that time, the teachers had entered into negotiations and it was then our responsibility to take a look at what had happened, to carefully consider the ramifications of any piece of legislation that's passed by this Legislative Assembly and to report back to the constituents, including teachers, as to the results of our discussions. There was no time for thoughtful consideration of a very important bill.

I find myself again in the month of December having to look at a very important piece of legislation, extremely technical. Quite frankly, I think the parliamentary assistant to the minister from Sault Ste Marie is looking forward to a briefing in committee tomorrow so that he too can have his questions answered. I have to say to myself: What is the rush? Why are we forcing this legislation through in this manner? The teachers agree to it, they have been working with the government to come up with these solutions.

I have to tell you, we were informed last Friday that there would be a briefing. My staff attended because I was elsewhere, in fact speaking to an education group at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education that very morning. Over the weekend our advisers worked on this legislation trying to find out just what kind of details would be important to discuss with us this morning. We find now that we don't know what the implications are to this piece of legislation, and it takes us back to the very situation we found ourselves in in December 1989.

I will say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt -- he wasn't the minister at the time but he was still a member of the government, and he's noted for his thoughtfulness and his expertise in this area -- I think at that time, if the Liberals had had the same kind of consideration and took the time to think things through and understood what they were doing, they would not be in the embarrassing position they must find themselves in this afternoon. Because at the time we passed the legislation on December 20, 1989, we were advised that the liability was something like $4 billion, and after William Mercer was hired and took evaluation on the unfunded liability, they reported that the unfunded liability was $7.8 billion, almost double the government's estimate of $4 billion.

At that time, I can tell you that the NDP members in opposition were asking the same kind of questions that the Liberals, who are now in opposition, are asking and that we're asking. Doesn't anything ever change when it comes to process? I think not. My colleague over here from Durham is shaking his head in agreement. As a result, I think we will see another government just kiss their jobs goodbye, and rightfully so. We would be absolutely irresponsible if we were to stand up here today without the information we need to support this kind of legislation to vote for it.

The teachers have assured us that this legislation is in order, and I certainly respect their opinions from time to time. Maybe they have the information this afternoon, but we don't, and we won't have it until tomorrow at some government briefing. Certainly the parliamentary assistant couldn't readily answer the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's questions this afternoon. In fact, on one issue, the issue of the transition period, he couldn't answer the question at all.

I was very interested this afternoon to listen to my colleague talk about something that I think has been very important to this government in the past, and that is with regard to the amendment that authorizes the return of payments to the minister and exemption from section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act.

What does this really mean? A non-application of the Pension Benefits Act. That's an act that was set up to assist employees in getting information. People refer to it as the Conrad Black amendment. It's a clause that makes certain that employees understand what changes any employer will be making to their pension benefits. What is the provision designed to prevent? Employers taking surpluses from employees without communicating to them. That's what happened during the negotiations around the Pension Benefits Act.

Now we find as one of the amendments to this act that we're going to ignore it. I can hardly wait for the government to explain tomorrow why this would be an amendment. Whatever took place during the social contract negotiations this past summer to make the government, this NDP government that cares so much about employees, put this into an amendment that takes away a provision that forces employers to give the employees information with regard to their pensions or any surpluses within those pensions?

I actually see members of the government shaking their heads and asking themselves. It is totally irresponsible for any of us to be even speaking to this legislation in the House this afternoon. This is the kind of legislation that should be carefully considered. We have a responsibility on behalf of both the teachers of this province and the taxpayers to clearly understand what is happening as a result of any legislation.

1600

The amendments contained in Bill 121, the one we're speaking to this afternoon, the government says "are required to implement the memorandum of understanding agreed to by the Ontario Teachers' Federation at the partners' committee on August 19, 1993. The amendments are supported by the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the teacher's pension plan board."

Implied in that is probably a responsibility on our part to support an agreement. Under most circumstances, that would happen, but we still have a responsibility to question what's happening here and we have a responsibility to represent the public when we have no idea what the actuarial studies are going to tell us about the unfunded liability in the teachers' pension plan and what this new arrangement will really do. Until the government has given us those numbers, it would be irresponsible for us to support it, no matter what the agreement.

The Teachers' Pension Act is amended as follows:

(1) Changing the names of the minister and ministry. I believe that's as far as the parliamentary assistant got in his reading of the amendments. That one we all understand: to change the names of the ministry and the minister.

(2) Removing the transitional period provisions as per the partners' agreement in subsection 3(2). That one takes some careful consideration. It removes the transitional period. It's a very different agreement, and we don't have the numbers to know what an equal share in any future surplus or liability would be.

The third part, and I've already spoken to it in part, is authorizing the return of payments to the minister.

Interjection: Housekeeping.

Mrs Cunningham: Housekeeping, but exempting from section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act absolutely astounds me, and I'm eager to hear the explanation of that amendment on behalf of the government of the day.

(4) It adds a definition for cumulative wage experience factor. That is clearly spelled out in subsection 8(2). There is probably a housekeeping need for that, but those will be our questions tomorrow.

(5) It confirms a 40-year payment schedule for the unfunded liability and provides instruction to the actuary for the calculation of the special payments at each valuation. It allows the Minister of Finance to pay down the unfunded liability from the consolidated revenue fund and offset gains from special payments.

Right now, we have to ask ourselves: This unfunded liability is $7.6 billion, perhaps $7.8 billion, and we will have at least another $1 billion before this agreement concludes. Therefore, we are looking, on December 31, 1993, on the government books, at $8.8 billion in unfunded liability relating to the teachers' pension plan. In fact, it was that number, as my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt addressed so ably in his remarks, that caused the Provincial Auditor not to sign the government books in the province of Ontario.

In August 1991, we all know that the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Ministry of Education -- at that time the minister was Marion Boyd -- signed an agreement on equal partnership in the teachers' pension plan. As a result, teachers and pensioners, through the Ontario teachers' plan, were to share the management and financial responsibility for the plan. The agreement, effective January 1, 1992, included the following clauses:

-- Equal representation on the teachers' pension board of directors. The government and the OTF each selected four representatives with a neutral chairperson chosen by mutual agreement. The term of office for all members will be two years with a maximum of four terms. At the time of the deliberation of this Liberal legislation, many of us understood and supported that concept.

-- Continued commitment by the government to pay the unfunded liability as of January 1, 1990. We understood at that time that this would be a $4-billion liability, but because we weren't given the numbers and there had been no actuarial studies, we then found out a few months later that in fact that liability was $7.8 billion. The taxpayers had a lot more money to pay off in cooperation with the teachers, they paying part of the share.

-- Equal share in any future surplus or liability. This was to be phased in over five years and there was a table, and this is the table that is being changed in the new legislation.

-- The government could use its share of the gains to offset its payments for the unfunded liability. We certainly know about the tinkering of the books this year. We certainly know that instead of paying off $500 million on the unfunded liability, the government of the day just shifted it to April 1 so it looked like we had that much more money in the budget and made its deficit look at least half a billion dollars less.

I'm happy we've got an auditor who corrects governments when they play with the books in the manner that this government did. As a matter of fact, the Liberal government before them did the same thing. Even when they went into an election, they said they had a billion-dollar surplus, and we all knew very quickly afterwards that in fact they did not.

-- The level of gain or loss will be determined by evaluation every three years.

The fourth part of that agreement stated negotiation of benefits and contribution rates every three years. Where agreement cannot be reached, there will be compulsory binding arbitration. The arbitrator cannot impose a rate increase of more than 0.5%.

The last point negotiated in this partnership agreement was ongoing discussions of non-monetary issues. I have to ask myself, what did happen during the social contract negotiations this summer? A partners' committee was set up to resolve disputes on issues other than benefits and contribution rates. I'll be asking those questions tomorrow, and I put the parliamentary assistant on notice. The Ontario Teachers' Federation and the government each appointed three members.

Then this summer, during the social contract negotiations, the Minister of Finance announced $500 million in pension contribution savings. The savings were the result of a changing economic environment, such as lower than expected salary growth and inflation rates, which had a direct impact on public sector pension plan liabilities.

The government will apply the resulting actuarial gain from the teachers' pension plan and the public service pension plan to its scheduled special payments to eliminate the unfunded liability. Special payments for both plans will total $1.5 billion over the next three years, or $500 million annually. The gain will consist of $1.2 billion in the teachers' pension plan and $300 million in the public service pension plan.

The government and the OTF have reached an agreement to conduct a validation as of January 1, 1993, and as part of the agreement, the first $1.2 billion of actuarial gain will be established as the government's exclusive share and will be applied to the government's special payments. I hope so.

The teachers' pension plan board has instructed this actuary to perform the necessary valuation to determine if the gains are present. After the valuation, teachers will become full partners in the plan. The transitional period provisions are deleted from the Teachers' Pension Act, subsections 5(5) and (6).

The question to be considered and the one I would hope the parliamentary assistant will take down so that we can have it answered tomorrow is this: Why has the government decided to terminate the transitional phase-in? I want that question answered. He can't answer it today; we've already asked it.

The government could have used its 40% sole share of any gain to help pay down the $7.8-billion unfunded liability. How much will this decision cost the government?

1610

Whenever we postpone payments on any debt -- and it's interesting to note that this debt in fact has not been included in the mix of debts for this province. Whether we're looking at Ontario Hydro, the provincial debt itself, the WCB unfunded liability, the teachers' unfunded liability, the $7.8 billion, that was not in the mix --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Was that not included?

Mrs Cunningham: Not in the mix. I wonder what our credit rating would have been if that had been in the mix.

Our greatest fear is that this government will let the unfunded liability run up. It's either $7.6 billion or $7.8 billion right now, I can't remember. At the end of the program, it could be even $1 billion more. We're increasing the debt to our young people. The liability to them through the years will only be increased taxes. We have seen the track record of both the Liberal and the NDP governments in adding even more taxes on to the small and meagre wages of so many of our young people to pay down debts that were built up during booming economic times by the Liberals, no doubt, in the province of Ontario.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How well did Brian Mulroney do?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mrs Cunningham: The member for Downsview, Mr Speaker, as you have well noted, loves to talk about the past. We're here to talk about the future and our responsibility to make changes in the best interests of the taxpayers of Ontario and of our young people.

I can only say today, as I speak to this legislation, that I am absolutely frustrated with the process of government in this Legislative Assembly, through its committee system, the total lack of respect for the public in asking their opinions, listening to them -- we don't listen -- giving them information, looking for input. You tell me how this could happen when this legislation came to our attention last Friday? My staff were briefed. We've had a few hours over the weekend to look at it. The government cannot tell us the actuarial numbers now, today, in December 1993, not unlike the Liberal government of the day on December 20, 1989, with -- I'll never forget it -- Bill 66. They didn't know what the numbers were. The well-respected member for Scarborough-Agincourt stands up today giving this government all kinds of assistance, I think, in understanding what they're trying to do, but more importantly, criticism for what they're doing, yet the Liberals did exactly the same thing.

Government in Ontario is not working. I would have thought the socialists would have picked up on that, at least around process and asking the public for its best advice.

I know the teachers and the government negotiated this during the social contract hearings this summer. That wasn't the way we would have found money to help balance budgets and pay down debts and deficits in this province. There would have been a 5% across-the-board cut to everybody. That way young teachers moving along the grid would not have been penalized, stuck in the same position, those who need the money the most. We wouldn't have gotten into all these agreements that no one knew anything about -- side agreements, I call them -- that have absolutely every impact on the taxpayers' ability to pay down the road. Nobody cares what the implications of the social contract are all about, and this is just another indication.

So tomorrow in committee, we will be asking these questions. It isn't that we don't want to honour agreements that are made with teachers and with this government, but if our questions are not answered satisfactorily in the best interests of the taxpaying public, including teachers, we will not support the legislation.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to any legislation in this House. I do not appreciate the fact that a piece of legislation this important has been allowed a couple of hours during this House's deliberation this afternoon and we have been told on the order paper, resolution:

"That the matter of issues" -- issues -- "related to teachers' pensions be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice for consideration on Tuesday, December 7, 1993, and that the Ministry of Education and Training provide the committee with a technical briefing" -- the technical briefing that the parliamentary assistant talked about had to do with changing the names of the minister and the ministry, which he did understand, but he did not understand the other four issues; I'm absolutely appalled -- "on the matter at the commencement of that meeting."

I object to this process. It's totally unacceptable, and it's not the way this government should be operating the province of Ontario in the best interests of the taxpayers who support the programs that are necessary. They're not interested in people's opinions. They don't know how to consult. People come before committees; they're disregarded. Most of us get amendments such as this with no recourse. We have to buy into them all the time and we're getting sick of it. That happened with the former government. They kissed their seats goodbye and I believe the same thing will happen to this government.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to rise and compliment the member for London North for her fine presentation this afternoon on the issue of teachers' pensions. She made a number of very relevant points, most specifically, the absence of information this Legislature has at the present time upon which to make a determination of whether or not this bill is good or bad. We're being asked to consent to second reading debate -- of course, that is the principle of the bill that we're discussing this afternoon -- fully in the absence of all the relevant information.

There's been a commitment made by the government that there will be an actuarial study presented at the committee tomorrow, but in effect we don't have all the facts, we don't have all the information and it's premature to be bringing this to the House for second reading in advance of all that information.

Certainly, it's the obligation of the opposition parties to closely scrutinize legislation before we give our assent or before we determine if we're going to support it or not. It's very important that the public know and the public have confidence that the opposition parties will indeed closely scrutinize legislation such that the public interest will be served.

During the course of this debate, we've heard some specific concerns about how the government's policy of undervaluing the deficit figure is creating problems in Ontario. When we see the government having difficulty explaining to the public service that the social contract is required, that a 5% rollback of their salaries was required, and yet they consistently continue to understate the deficit figure in a deliberate way, it's no wonder people don't fully understand the level of indebtedness in this province and why the social contract was required.

I don't think the public interest is being served with this bill. In terms of the process, we see that important information has been denied to -- on two minutes, Mr Speaker, am I concluded?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, you are. I'm glad you noticed that we are having difficulties with the clock. You've been very patient. I congratulate you. But your two minutes has expired. Questions or comments? The member for Sault Ste Marie. Again, we will keep a record of your time.

Mr Martin: Listening to the member opposite is like déjà vu all over again. She says she doesn't have the information, but she has noted that a briefing was offered to the PC critic, to herself. In fact, the briefing was provided on Friday to her staff and all questions at that time were answered by the ministry staff. Perhaps she should have spoken to her staff before she came here this afternoon. When members of the House requested a briefing at committee, the government agreed to do that, and a full technical briefing will be provided tomorrow.

She has referred and her leader suggested earlier today that there is no valuation available. In fact, a valuation has been completed and has been filed with the Pension Commission of Ontario. Again, we will be proffering some details on that tomorrow, and perhaps at that time we'll be able to get into the kind of discussion that venue offers certainly more comfortably than here.

I need to note that the tack this member takes seems to be always the same, it's either not enough or it's too late or it's a process question or the parliamentary assistant somehow is to blame in it all because he doesn't understand what this is all about. I suggest to her that other members of this House besides herself do in fact do their homework and know what we're doing here and that this government is taking care of business in a way that has been wanting around this place for a long time. She criticizes the Liberals in the same vein as she criticizes us, and I would suggest that perhaps she should look in her own backyard first.

1620

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for London North.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the parliamentary assistant doth protest too much. I would recommend to him that if he thinks that phoning someone's office on a Thursday afternoon would allow the member to be available on a Friday -- maybe his schedule's open on a Friday, but personally I was speaking at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I'd set that up for some five months and I don't have that kind of time in my schedule. I can understand why he might in his, but I don't want to be any more personal than he is in his remarks today.

I say to him that when he's in opposition two years from now, I expect him to stand up and ask the same kind of questions. It's his responsibility to take more than a weekend to take a look at a major piece of legislation. If that's his standard, he can keep it, and I hope the citizens of Sault Ste Marie treat him accordingly.

Mr Bradley: I hadn't necessarily wanted to debate this this afternoon because there are others who have capably done so, but I've listened to some of the comments made and they can't go without rebuttal. I've listened to them a couple of times this afternoon. There's a history to this, of course, a history that has come home to haunt some people around the province.

I well recall in cabinet having to deal with the issue of the teachers' superannuation fund on many occasions, and one of the things I know -- and I listened to the leader of the official opposition, who --

Interjection: Third party.

Mr Bradley: Third party, sorry. Mr Harris from North Bay, the member for Nipissing, on many occasions talked about this. We all remember what happened to Pinocchio when things weren't so accurate: Pinocchio's nose would grow. I expect when I see the Leader of the Opposition --

Interjection: Third party.

Mr Bradley: -- the leader of the third party, the member for Nipissing, in the House the next time, I suspect that his nose is going to be hitting the microphone or reaching right across the floor because of the kinds of things he's been saying in this House, and similar things are going to happen to him as happened to Pinocchio. That's all because one cannot accuse another person of misleading the House and I don't want to do that.

I do want to go into some history that some of the members who've been in the House will well recall, including the member for Lake Nipigon, who is sitting there and followed provincial politics very carefully. He will recall that in the days of the Davis administration the Progressive Conservative government of the day put a cost-of-living escalator clause in the teachers' superannuation fund but -- and here's the important but -- he didn't fund it. It was on paper but nowhere else.

As the plan started to get into some trouble and the Liberal government spotted this trouble, it hired three different actuaries -- count them, three different actuaries -- to look at the plan. All of the actuaries said the problem with the plan was that in fact the previous government had not funded the cost-of-living escalator clause in the pension plan.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Are these the great money managers?

Mr Bradley: The great money managers, as the member for Durham West speaks, did not fund it. It looked very good on paper. Everybody said: "Isn't this nice? Bill Davis and his money-managing colleagues have put in a cost-of-living escalator." But everybody knows that if you put in a cost-of-living escalator, then you have to make sure that you put in the money to fund it.

They got all the credit -- and then here is the best part of it for new members of the Legislature -- so when the bill came before the House or the issue came before the House, guess whose side the Conservatives were on at that time? The teachers' side. When the Liberal government had to raise both the contribution of the provincial government and of the teachers, it was horror of horrors, said the Progressive Conservative Party. "How can they do this? The fund is fine. We don't have to worry about it."

Today, they're talking about, "Well, the fund wasn't fine back then." If the fund wasn't fine back then, I don't know why members of the Progressive Conservative caucus didn't stand in this House and demand that the contributions go up even higher on the part of the government and the teachers. But they were on a different side, a different bent, in those days. They weren't cutting and slashing and burning and they weren't interested in user fees and things of that nature in those days.

I was provoked into this, because I usually try to be restrained in this House --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): And balanced.

Mr Bradley: And balanced. But when I hear the leader of the third party rewriting history, as he has so often -- I heard him talk about AAA ratings. Remember when he was in the House the other day talking about AAA ratings? It was only 11 years that the Conservative government had an AAA rating. They lost the AAA rating in 1985 and the Liberal government had to recover that AAA rating. The member for Nipissing had the story just slightly different. But when you looked at the facts and figures, you saw that the member for Nipissing, of course, was wrong.

We have this bill today, here I am debating this bill, and I don't even have the briefing notes that my assistant is supposed to bring down to me now, if the assistant is watching on television.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a period of questions and comments and I would encourage members to take advantage of it. In the meantime, please do not interject.

Mr Bradley: So we have an unfunded liability which is a Progressive Conservative unfunded liability. They wouldn't tackle it. They wouldn't put up the rates. They did not want to incur the wrath of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and their affiliates, and I don't blame them. That's a considerable wrath.

The government that took over, the Liberal government, had to face this reality, the reality of an unfunded liability, of the fact that the plan could go broke by about the year 2007. The easy thing to do is to ignore it and say: "Oh, well, we don't worry about that. We probably won't be around in 2007 anyway the way they change governments these days, so just let the plan coast along the way the Progressive Conservative Party let it just coast along."

But we didn't. We got three actuaries in, looked carefully at the plan, had great fights with the Ontario Teachers' Federation. Some of my best friends are members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I come from the teaching profession and I used to read all the things that would come in on the bulletin board about the teachers' superannuation fund, and they were convinced that it wasn't necessary to raise those particular contributions. But we had to do it to put the plan on a sound funding. As I say, I was very surprised that the Conservative Party -- "conservative" means to conserve, supposedly to manage well, they say, and I find out that in fact that was not the case.

I'm a bit concerned. Having said that about the Conservatives and their faulty memory, I just want to share now some of the problems I have with my friends in the New Democratic Party on this issue. I'll tell you why. I recall them sitting on this side. The Treasurer and the Premier sat on this side of the House, the Education critic, and they would stand up in this House and say such things as, "Of course, this pension plan is fine." When we get into the other issue of what you do with surplus pension funds, we heard that Conrad Black was going to take the money for himself out of this; he was going to use the surplus funds. So there was a clause put in -- was that our bill?

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: That was our bill. We put a clause in called the Conrad Black clause. I wanted to make sure, because I want to be accurate in this House. So the Conrad Black provision was put in. It said, "Big Conrad and Dominion stores can't take the money out of the pension plan. They're not allowed to take it out of the pension plan," because Conrad Black was bad, to the members of the opposition, in their view.

But today, lo and behold, this government has learned from Conrad Black. I'm not surprised, because when the Ontario Federation of Labour convention was going on downtown, I didn't see Bob Rae there. I saw him making some fun of the labour people and their protests.

1630

What did I see on the front page of the Toronto Star? I thought it was Conrad Black, but it wasn't. It was Bob Rae, in tails, going to the new North York centre for the arts. He was going up there in his tails and tux, and the heck with those people down at the Ontario Federation of Labour meeting.

I'm going to get that photograph, because that epitomizes the metamorphosis -- I learned that word once -- of Bob Rae. He metamorphosized -- Hansard has got that -- from the person who used to stand at the labour convention railing on against Conrad Black to the person in black. He was the person in that black tuxedo and the nice frills and all this, the tie, going to the North York centre for the arts. There he was, $100 a ticket or more.

Mr Arnott: It's $700 a ticket.

Mr Bradley: I'm told it's $700 a ticket. There was the Premier, while the labour people were fighting for their rights down at the Sheraton hotel.

Why do I bring this into this debate? I bring this into this debate because of the Conrad Black provision, and that is that the government today is doing exactly what it said Conrad Black shouldn't do: taking the money from the surplus and using it for other purposes.

The Conservatives, I would have thought, would have twigged into this years ago and would have said responsibly: "You know, we are getting all the credit for the escalator clause, for the cost of living that we put in the teachers' superannuation fund, so we should fund it. We should take the flak as well for funding it." They didn't do it. But now I find the NDP, which justifiably was, in its view, annoyed with Conrad Black, adopting the same tactics as Conrad Black.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, please.

Mr Bradley: I know how much that hurts.

Mr Mammoliti: You should be kicked out for saying that.

Mr Bradley: The member for Yorkview and the member for Downsview, both of them must be just beside themselves being lumped in with Conrad Black.

Mr Perruzza: Where are you, sir?

Mr Bradley: I'll tell you where I'm not. I am not on this list; that's where I'm not. I'm not on the list of traitors. I'm not on the bottom list either, because there wasn't enough room on this. But I'm not on that list. Anyway, back to the bill.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, are the words "Conrad Black" parliamentary?

Mr Bradley: Is this is a question? I could sit down if it's a point of order. Is this a point of order? No?

There seems to be not as much information as we would like available. I'll tell you why this is. This is because Bob Rae has decided the House shall not sit as often. If this House sat more often, more days of the year, then we wouldn't have to cram things in at the very end of the year and we'd have lots of time to deal with the information that might be available. So there we are.

I know there is a potential problem with this bill. Now, I hope there isn't. I hope in committee it's ironed out. I will show this to my friend the member for Bruce and he will be suitably amused. I know that this bill has a lot of problems with it. My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt spoke at some length. I did not want to be repetitious of what he said, but I'll tell you that what he said is fair warning to all of us here.

I think in pension plans and everything else we have to make sure there's sufficient money there. If you keep waiting and waiting, what happens is that the action you have to take becomes more drastic. That's what the previous government found out in 1988 or 1989 when the bill was brought in, that it just had to take drastic action, because for years and years the plan had been underfunded.

It was fine as long as there was not a cost-of-living escalator clause. But with the cost-of-living escalator more money had to be put in, by both the government and the teachers. I think the last figure I saw was something, and I could be corrected, like about $1 billion a year that was going into the teachers' superannuation fund. All I recall is that it was more than the Ministry of the Environment's budget or other budgets. Today, of course, that would be most certainly the case because of the budgets having been cut in various of the ministries.

It's an interesting proposition. I always think it's wise to notify people, everybody in the plan, when there's a change to be made, when the government has the right to withdraw funds from the plan. I think that's why the Conrad Black provision was put in: so that you'd have to notify everybody involved in the plan. The government is going to bypass that. Any information they get will not be on an individual basis; it will have to filter down from somewhere else.

I could stand to be corrected if the member for Sault Ste Marie tells me that every teacher in Ontario will have a mailing explaining what is happening in this bill from the government of Ontario, which is in fact the employer in this case. Then I would say, "I guess everybody is going to be notified, so it's not such a big deal." But I suspect the information's going to have to be passed on another way, and not directly to those people. I think that's what so very important.

The member for Bruce has come back, again with the briefing notes from another bill. That's always very nice.

I think the best I can say this afternoon to you people is, listen to what Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, had to say. I was watching on the monitor, while doing several other things in my office on behalf of my constituents, and I'll tell you I was very impressed with his remarks. He, in a succinct and well-informed way, pointed out the potential problems with this piece of legislation and made some suggestions on how it could be improved and how the government might act in another way in the future. I can see some real potential problems coming forward if we're not careful on this kind of legislation.

I know there may be other members of the House who are eager to rise and speak on this issue, so I want to yield the floor to my colleagues from other parties and my own party.

Mrs Cunningham: I don't think the member for St Catharines would expect me to sit here and not respond to some of his statements, especially with regard to my leader and his questions. I can only say that in 1975 I think he would personally have been -- all teachers would have been -- very happy to have the 1% contribution increase put there to in fact protect the benefits. That's what it did. It was an inflation protection for benefits, and in 1975 no one would have guessed that in the early 1980s that wouldn't have been enough money. He's quite right that the unfunded liability did grow.

But I have to say with regard to management that when we were in government, school boards that wanted to build new schools got a 60% capital grant. They didn't have to postpone and borrow money and debenture. We went to the government of the day, got permission, built and got the capital grant. Right now, school boards are going in debt to the tune of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, in capital construction, and that was a Liberal government policy.

I can also state that while we were in government school boards did not run debts, and we now, for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario, have school boards running debts. I can also tell you it's illegal, but in the last two or three years we now, for the first time to my knowledge, have debts for school boards.

The social contract application: Instead of cutting everybody by 5%, we now have larger classes and fewer resource teachers. All the gains that we made in the last few years to help children learn have been lost in the last few months, and that's what it's all about.

As far as management is concerned, during the Liberals' term in office the debt increased 28.3%, rising from $32.9 billion in 1985-86 to $42.3 billion in 1990-91. During booming economic times, they increased the debt from 1985 to 1990 by $10 billion, and this government's debt is $78.6 billion in 1993-94 estimates.

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

Mrs Cunningham: Don't talk about management when it comes to the Conservative Party. We did a great job for Ontario.

Mr Martin: I just wanted to rise for a minute to take exception to the characterization of this piece of legislation and in fact to our leader and the reference to Mr Black and what he did.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): So it's Mr Black now? It isn't what you used to call him.

Mr Martin: Or Conrad Black. It's facetiously Mr Black for you, if you don't mind.

Mr Bradley: He's Bob's friend.

Mr Martin: Is that right? Okay.

Anyway, it's an unfair characterization in every sense of that word. In this piece, as I've said probably two or three times now this afternoon, this is an agreement between us and the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which we believe speaks for its membership, and because of that we feel we have indeed found a deal here that is acceptable and will be in the best interests of the province as a whole as well.

1640

Mr Elston: It's interesting to listen to the various people perhaps pointing fingers around this room about the management or lack of management of this whole issue.

Let's be very, very clear. The reason we're here today is because a special arrangement has been arrived at, through whatever means possible, some of it heavy leverage by the government, to try and extract a social contract local agreement, sectoral agreement, from the teachers. The teachers obviously are not so concerned about what happens to the pension plan as long as they have a promise to repay any of the moneys which are, I would say, "borrowed" by the government to hit its targets.

It's very interesting to look at what is being done by this administration with the books to conceal where the real debt is and the size of the real debt. That, to be quite honest, is the reason the Liberal Party of Ontario has asked that this matter go out to committee, so that we can understand exactly, through our technical briefings, which will be held in the justice committee as per the motion that was tabled and passed just prior to entering this debate, and so that we'll all know exactly what is going to happen through this Teachers' Pension Act.

It's important for the people to understand that whatever the books are going to say in this province, there will be another set of figures which will have to be dealt with at some point in time. There is unequal treatment throughout the province as a result of the social contract. This teachers' fund just happens to be something that is available to the teachers and, to be quite honest, superintendents and directors of education to access to help cushion the blow of the social contract. I just want to point that out, because it's going to be very important for the committee to arrive at the real effect of this bill, and people should stay tuned for that.

I rise as well because I know Mr Bill Rayner, who's here with me today from Southhampton, would like to make sure that the public finances are well dealt with in this place.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr Arnott: Mr Speaker, do I have two minutes this time? You'll give me two minutes. Thank you.

I'm pleased to rise in response to the speech given by the member for St Catharines this afternoon. It was a thoughtful, amusing speech, as he generally puts forward in this House. He chastised the Davis caucus, the Davis government of some years ago for putting into effect a cost-of-living --

Mr Elston: They were all Tories.

Mr Arnott: Yes, that's right. I was in high school at the time, I'll tell the member for Bruce, so I don't really assume too much responsibility for what happened in 1985.

The reality is that if the government of the day increased pensions to a cost-of-living focus and didn't properly fund it, then indeed I think it deserves to be chastised. I don't understand entirely and I don't have the information about what the decision was based on at that time, but if indeed that was the decision taken and the contributions were actually, in effect, delayed, then there was a problem and it was a decision that probably shouldn't have been made.

But what we're seeing here today is the same thing. We're seeing a contribution holiday on the part of the government, the government being the employer contributor for the teachers' pensions, being deferred for 42 months.

We all know in this House that the NDP will not be in power in 42 months. One thing we don't know is what the economic situation will be in the province and whether or not the taxpayers will be able to make up this contribution which has been deferred for 42 months. Teachers have every reason to be concerned, every reason to be worried. The OTF, I suppose, as the parliamentary assistant has indicated, has signed on to this, but what do the individual teachers say?

The teachers I talked to are very concerned about the prospect of a 42-month deferment. Again we see a government going forward with a misrepresentation of the true financial situation of the province which the Provincial Auditor will not endorse.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines, you have two minutes.

Mr Bradley: I almost wish the other parties were higher in the polls so that a couple of things wouldn't happen: first, the Progressive Conservative Party would start attacking the government instead of the Liberals all the time. I saw in Essex South that about 70% of the vote went Liberal, but I wish sometimes we wouldn't be so high because then we wouldn't be the target.

The other thing I'm concerned about is that the government is so low in the polls. I wish the government were higher in the polls, as a result of the comments I've heard, because what I see happening now, with the government as low as it is in the polls, is that it appears to be offloading as much debt as possible to whatever government comes in next.

If you look at the social contract provisions, for instance, they expire at the very time you'd have a new government in Ontario. There's going to be a lot of pent-up demand for rectification of what they felt was wrongdoing on the part of the government. I think people have to look at that very carefully and say, why 1996? Why is this all coming undone in 1996?

When I see them start to move the debt and other charges back to 1996, some members would be interested, in case they didn't know -- for instance, if you buy a licence now, to get your licence renewed, it's five years ahead you pay. That means that for the next four years after that, there's not going to be any money coming in from that. All of this is done to make the government look good in its books so it won't have to go on bended knee to the Wall Street people and plead for something other than a single A credit rating, which would put us in a very precarious position.

I hope the government abandons this. I hope they come up in the polls so we don't see any more of this loading into the future.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Interjections.

Mr Martin: Mr Speaker, I apologize. I entered into intelligent discussion with the members across the floor and got carried away.

This is a complicated issue, as some across the way have referred to, and we look forward to the opportunity to have the members of the justice committee learn more about it tomorrow and to enter into further debate and discussion about it with them. A detailed briefing will be provided by the ministry staff. This will answer the questions members have raised and will provide for them a schedule of the payments and some of the details around the kind of technical information that was asked for here this afternoon.

It has been stated by members of the opposition that the government is going to allow the unfunded liability to grow. I want to emphasize that this bill does not reduce the government's payments towards the unfunded liability in any way whatsoever.

Mr Elston: It defers.

Mr Martin: Defers, yes. This bill does not give the government a 42-month holiday, a holiday of any sort. On the other hand, I'd also like to emphasize that gains are not being taken out of the plan for the government's own use. The gains are being used to offset the payments on the unfunded liability so it stays within the loop.

The public can be assured that this bill will not increase the unfunded liability. The opposition has expressed concern that the government is trying to hide its legislative changes. In fact, the teachers' pension plan board has already notified all plan members and pensioners in writing of the memorandum of understanding and this proposed legislation. The Ontario Teachers' Federation has also informed all teachers in writing of the proposed changes.

That would be of some interest to the member for St Catharines, if he were paying attention. I was saying that the teachers have already been made aware of the fact that we have this agreement of understanding and --

Mr Bradley: Every individual teacher?

Mr Martin: Any one of them who reads their mail. We believe this legislation is in the best interests of taxpayers and of teachers in the province of Ontario.

1650

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Martin has moved second reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall it be ordered for third reading? Agreed?

Interjections: No.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill go for third reading? Agreed? To which committee shall it go?

Mr Elston: It should go to committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Therefore, it shall be referred to the committee of the whole House.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)

Mr Pouliot moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 122, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge the diligence and the presence this afternoon, taking time with conflicting and very busy agendas, of both critics of the opposition: Mr Daigeler, who is the critic of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, joined by Mr Turnbull, who is the critic for the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party.

The reason I wish to begin my remarks by paying tribute and mentioning the interest and the diligence of both critics of the opposition is by virtue of not only their contribution, for they were searching, they were consistent, they were positive, but also on account of the guidance that they have blessed or privileged, I should say, their respective caucuses with.

That leads us to an uncommon situation in this House where when it comes to the human dimension, when it comes to the public good, sometimes this House rises above common partisanship. You, sir, can attest perhaps better than anyone in this House to the passion, and at times some will even say the vengeance, the positioning that characterizes our system, a constitutional monarchy with little latitude for individual members. It encourages; it doesn't always bring the best out of people.

In this case, because we're talking about public safety, it is one of those rare occasions that we are in the process of achieving unanimity. We're referring to Bill 122. More specifically, it means a safety initiative. The intent, the compendium, the spirit of the proposed legislation is to make it a little more difficult but to make it more responsible for people entering the system. People getting their driver's licence in good standing will be more responsible.

Let us briefly examine the statistics. Let's go back, to illustrate, to 1988, 1989, 1990, let's say the last five years. At one time we've had close to 1,000, 1,400, Ontarians who in a period of 12 months lost their lives on Ontario highways and Ontario roads. In the year 1992, we have noticed that ours was a record of constant improvement, but yet a record that falls far short of our objective. Our record is simply this: It is to strive to enact legislation, to monitor compliance; simply put, to do everything that we can as a Parliament with this government to make Ontario's roads and highways the safest, not only in Canada but in the whole of North America.

It's quite a task indeed: 23,000 kilometres of roads and highways; 3,000 bridges; 6,500,000 people with a licence in good standing; seven million cars. Add to it nearly 500,000 others, ie, other motorized vehicles, transport, and you have grosso modo, in a nutshell, the picture of what Ontario is vis-à-vis its transportation system, with a focus on roads and the users.

Each and every year, more than 250,000 new arrivals come and join the system. They come from many directions. The majority are young people, aged 16, 17, wishing to be like the others and to get a driver's permit. It's one of the very noteworthy happenings in their young lives. It is something that you recall vividly, no matter how old you are, the day you got your driver's licence. It is a happening.

Two hundred and fifty thousand, a quarter of a million new drivers, most of them 16, 17. Add to it, to complement, to make up the quarter of a million new drivers, the demographics -- immigration. We have in Ottawa, with the contingencies, with the applicants and the refugees, about 250,000 also who come to pay Canada the compliment of their visit.

On a permanent basis they're Canadians in the making, and where do they choose to live? The majority of the 250,000 new Canadians, or Canadians who will soon have that official status -- residence -- come to Ontario, more than half. Some 65% or 70% of that, more than half choose to reside in urban centres. You will see them with that vibrant culture that they bring with them, those sounds and smells that make Toronto and surrounding municipalities the mosaic of the world.

You will see them, Mr Speaker, if you go to a driver's licence office. That's the reality of the world we live in. They want their little piece of heaven. They want to be like you, sir. They want to have access to the privilege to drive a car.

So here they come into the process. Young people, new Canadians, all new drivers, each and every one of them new drivers, unaccustomed to the laws of the land, if you wish, no experience behind the wheel, anxious to do driving big time, full-time in some cases, a new sport. I don't wish to impute motives, but when I look at the newspapers, when I read report after report, week after week, weekend after weekend, I can't help but to be saddened, to be chagrined, because statistics will tell us -- and they're real people, those stats -- that traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death if you're an Ontarian and if you're aged between 16 and 24. I'm not the one saying this; the OPP on the 401 at 12 o'clock at night in the left lane will attest to that better than anyone, those women and men in blue, those foot soldiers who have to extract, only too often, the body because someone, between the ages of 16 and 24 in some cases, was not experienced.

In some other cases, that lack of experience was compounded by consumption of alcohol and it was also encouraged by excessive speed. When you compound these elements, these components of fear, components that become fatalities, you say, "If I have a chance, if I can make a small contribution respecting the right of people to access the system" -- but you have a moral obligation to ease the carnage.

1700

I don't wish to be melodramatic. My job here is not to catastrophize. Just the facts, just the facts: 1,100 lives last year, an improving record, a record which is heading in the right direction. Ninety thousand people got hurt. When we say 1,100, those are people who went straight from the roads to the bag. They're dead, dead, dead. On top of it, 90,000 other people were injured -- you've seen them; you've read about them; we all know of someone, maybe ourselves -- at a cost of $9 billion.

Laughter.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Some people may think it's a laughing matter. I don't need people like that. My colleagues don't need people like that. They share in the sorrow. We're doing something about it. We're doing something under several pieces of legislation. We've got a plan of attack here. We have an agenda.

We say that you have a responsibility effective in 1994. Next spring, in a few months, you will enter the system in two stages. In the first instance, what we're saying is that you come in, your vision is good, you're sound of mind and body, you pass the test, fork over, shell out a few dollars; you get a ticket, you're at the wheel, you're in the arena. Welcome to the show.

The show stops two years after you've entered the system. So it now takes you longer. You can't just come in and get out at the intermission; you've got to come back for the second half so that you will be more responsible, you will be more experienced. You will graduate like you do at school. You will go from one grade to the next; you will go from one level to the next. But if you take a graduated driver's licence seriously and if you take a course, if you enhance your skills, your knowledge, then you get a recompense, you get a reward, you win a prize, because you've earned your stripes. Then you save four months in the system. It won't take you two years; it will take you two years minus four months. If you fail to do so, it's going to take you a full two years.

I know that the pages, and they're right here, those young people, those honour students sharing with us the work in the assembly, I know they're listening intently, because if I were to ask them -- and I know they can't respond now; they know decorum, they know the rules of the House and they have extremely good manners. But I know that they are looking forward to obtaining a driver's permit when they turn 16. It's a normal reaction. It's something that most Ontarians do and wish to do. And why not? It's a way of life and we appreciate it. You have that opportunity. It's not a right, it's a privilege, but it's a right to access the privilege.

No alcohol, sorry. Now that you're in the class of new drivers, we're saying you can't have a drink -- zero tolerance. Don't even think about it. Don't even stop with one of the critics opposite and invite them for a drink. Whether they're your sons or daughters, it won't work, Mom and Dad -- zero level. Not even half a beer, not even a 0.5 beer. That won't work. For two years you can't drink and drive.

Because you're a learner, you're new, you need coaching. The driver beside you -- not your pal; maybe your pal -- has to be the holder of a licence in good standing, a valid permit with at least four years' experience, a person who has arrived, a person who has learned, who knows the pitfalls and the shortcomings; simply put, someone who has put time behind the wheel, four years' experience. It's going to make it safer.

If you've never heard of a curfew, we're not going to make it impossible; we're going to make it safer. We don't wish to punish people; we wish to reward people. After 12 o'clock midnight, there's no big time behind the wheel. You have a curfew between 12 and 5. You can't do it between 12 and 5. You can be in a car, but no, I'm sorry, between midnight and 5 o'clock, if you're an apprentice, if you're a neophyte, a novice, you're not allowed to learn. You have 19 hours in the day to do so, and we encourage you to use daytime.

It's another restriction that did not exist before. It is not a restriction that people can't live with. In fact, if one was to have a play on words, you could say it's a restriction that people can and will live with. Remember the 1,100 who no longer have a voice, who are not coming back; 85% of those were the result of driver error.

We just can't do it. We're not going to let them do it. The opposition, Mr Turnbull and Mr Daigeler, with commitment, with sincerity, with a good dosage of professionalism, have said: "Let's do it together. We're not going to score political points on this one. This goes a little step above. Let's do what we are elected to do. Let's do it together."

1710

Like soldiers at their post, after listening to parents, after looking at the statistics, being cognizant of what is being done elsewhere, doing their homework, leaving nothing to chance, looking at different programs, considering all the alternatives, going line by line, striking an equilibrium, a balance, not deterring anyone's human rights, the rights of the collective, the money in the pockets of people, the high insurance premiums, the coroners etc -- they've tossed all that. The three of us, the parties, came up with a product that strikes a balance.

Some will say, on the one hand, that it doesn't go far enough. A minority, and it's a democracy, will invite us to share in their opinion that those measures are too draconian, that they're too tough, that they're unfair. But 90% of Ontarians are saying: "Do it. It's long overdue." We have a recognition factor beyond normalcy. We're seizing the opportunity to do something which is positive. It is a win-win-win situation for everyone.

We've had consultation galore, considerable consultation with all groups. To a group, people were unanimous, in terms of the overall, in terms of the intent and the spirit that something had to be done. Sure, there were differences as to process, what should and should not be done, but general acquiescence, unanimous acquiescence. Everyone said: "Yes, do something. We know it's going to take a little time because you've got to put the nuts and bolts in place, but do something."

I'm on my feet today to say, yes, we have. We're doing something, and it's coming to a neighbourhood near you. Well, it's coming all over Ontario and it's coming next spring and it's going to be good news. It's going to lessen the fatalities on our roads, the number of accidents, and it's going to put money into people's pockets. Less traumatic; one more workable, reasonable, measure that will come forward.

You know the way the system works around this honourable place. Sometimes it is agonizing and I too say: "Due process. Please don't take so long." It takes so long to get from point A to point B, the system of committee, people at the table -- well, they too as citizens wish it would go quicker.

I see sometimes some of them roll their eyes and they have some difficulty. We had a unanimous report from the House here. We're trying to push it through so that there's a beginning, a middle and an end. We've consulted everyone. We want to get it done, and unanimity goes a long way to achieving that goal.

But in order to do that, we had to come up with a practical model, something that works, something that can be checked, something that can be enforced, something that can be monitored; otherwise, it wouldn't work. If we had made it too complex, people would not abide by it. They would see something illicit in it, something cumbersome. So we kept it simple, straightforward and workable. That's the key to these proposals. They are simple, they aren't too numerous, but they work. We've used that model to encourage one another as we push, literally push, things through the system.

I see in terms of the time allocation that I have, as the porte-parole, another hour. It's easy to go on and on. Words come easy when you're talking about the sincerity that Bill 122 deserves. I could read statistics, recite names. I will not do that, although it would be food for thought for each and every one of us. We can all, each of the 130 members here, go into graphic details; not tell tales but relate stories that have cost dear ones their lives; near misses; people being robbed of their future. I'm already so tempted to do that, but I will let others tell their stories, tell of their contribution.

They're backing this because it makes sense. It makes sense for all of us. It puts everything into perspective. It's one of those rare times in this House where politics matter little. They matter not. The essence of life, Bill 122, simply put.

Peut-être, en guise de conclusion, vous allez me permettre en bref de dire quelques mots en français pour informer les Ontariens et les Ontariennes, les motoristes. Comme je le citais il y a quelques moments, ce sont 6 500 000 Ontariens et Ontariennes qui ont un permis de conduire sous les auspices de la province de l'Ontario.

Vous savez que chez nous, nous avons, durant la seule année de 1992, 1100 personnes qui ont perdu la vie sur nos routes. Dans 85 % de ces cas, c'était dû à une erreur de celui ou de celle qui était au volant. Dans la plupart des cas, c'était aussi à cause du manque d'expérience.

Le projet de loi 122 permet aux novices, aux gens qui veulent accéder au système, une ligne de conduite un peu plus rigide. Elle leur donne de nouvelles obligations. On leur dit simplement que ça va leur prendre un peu plus de temps, que la consommation d'alcool sera entièrement éliminée et aussi qu'il va falloir être accompagné d'une personne avec un minimum de quatre années d'expérience au volant, et ça jusqu'à ce qu'elle ou lui puisse, au fil des jours, au fil des mois, devenir comme la plupart des 6,5 millions d'Ontariens et Ontariennes.

We have taken some time at Transportation, and I wish to thank the people in the Ministry of Transportation. It's not often that people voice their sincere appreciation for those who do, quite often, obscure work. They were part of our team: the committee, the opposition, the people at Transportation. They did the drafting, the counterdrafting. Patience was virtuous. They stuck with it.

Today, also on their behalf, I stand here, and I'm proud to do so, to support and to sponsor with my friends Bill 122, which will take our province closer to that goal of offering all motorists in this large jurisdiction the safest roads in North America.

1720

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you to the Minister of Transportation, and now we have two minutes for anyone who has questions or comments to the minister. Seeing none, are there any further speakers who wish to address the assembly?

M. Hans Daigeler (Nepean) : Peut-être d'abord je voudrais dire quelque chose à Monsieur le Ministre : c'est peut-être assez difficile de faire des commentaires et peut-être aussi des nuances sur son projet de loi parce qu'il était si complimenteur envers les critiques des deux partis de l'opposition. J'accepte volontiers les mots du Ministre envers nous deux et nous autres, mais il faut quand même souligner que l'unanimité était surtout sur les objectifs du Ministre et sur les objectifs de la sûreté dans nos rues et dans nos méthodes de transport. Dans tous les détails du Ministre, il y avait quand même certains commentaires et certaines objections à certaines initiatives du projet comme tel.

Il y avait, c'est bien correct, notre appui de l'initiative, de l'objet final, et je crois que tout le monde dans ce parlement est d'accord que l'objectif de prévenir les accidents et surtout les accidents fatals, c'est un objectif que tout le monde tient vraiment à coeur et qui certainement me tient personnellement à coeur.

I would like to say that while the minister praised us on the opposition side for supporting the safety objective, I also want to say that it was not unanimous in all respects. We did put forward some amendments and some concerns. In fact, I will be moving some amendments later on this week to this bill, because I think there can be certain adjustments made. Certainly, different views are still being expressed about details of this project.

What is, however, supported and strongly supported is obviously the objective of saving lives, of preventing accidents and making sure the many tragedies that are unfortunately still happening on our roads -- that we do our very best across party lines to make sure that we prevent what we can prevent.

Even after this initiative will be passed, there will be accidents, unfortunately, and there will be errors made by young people and by older people, but I think we have an obligation as legislators -- the government has an obligation, and it is recognizing that obligation -- to try to prevent those accidents, to try to minimize the errors as much as possible.

I think this bill and this initiative of the graduated licences falls within this category and falls within this framework of trying to protect lives, trying to decrease accidents, and I think this is an objective that no one can disagree with.

Frankly, I am on the public record of having called for something like this graduated licensing scheme. At the time, I was going even further. I have in front of me a London Free Press article from November 10, 1989, and it reads as follows:

"The province is considering a new system of licensing new drivers that would restrict when and where they may drive until they gain experience, Transportation minister William Wrye said Thursday.

"'We are examining very closely the system of graduated licensing now in place in California and Maryland,' Wrye said in an answer to a question in the Legislature from a Liberal backbencher.

Guess who the backbencher was: "Hans Daigeler, MPP for Nepean," -- and now comes, I think, the important point, why I was calling at the time for this initiative and why I continue to call for this initiative -- "said recent findings by a Queen's University research department indicate young people between 16 and 24 years old account for 31% of traffic fatalities, yet they represent only 17% of Canada's population.

"Traffic accidents remain the single most common cause of death among this age group."

This is an article that appeared, as I say, in November 1989. We're now almost into 1994 and I would say we finally see now a bill before the House that tries to address this concern. It does take a while to let an idea mature and develop, but as you can see, already the Liberal government was seriously considering a similar initiative. We have now had another four years where we've had serious accidents but also where the ministry officials have had time to review the project, to consult further, to study the matter and to come forward with a project.

Why was I in support of this initiative then and why am I still in support of the principle itself? Because frankly, despite the many flowery words that the minister uses so well, and I do think that his flair and his rhetoric are unsurpassed in this Legislature, and I think he can be congratulated, I think that on this matter what we need are figures and statistics, even though what's behind the statistics and what's behind the figures unfortunately is a lot more than just plain figures and just plain math, because what's behind them are lives and real people who have been affected by these incidents.

I think what will convince people out there and what we have been putting forward, what I put forward four years ago, what the third party is putting forward is the information that was provided to us by the ministry officials and the statistics that show a very clear and very obvious relationship between the lack of driving experience and accident rates. I think that's the argument which in my opinion carries the day.

I think for us Liberals there is an important consideration here. We do not like the government to come in right away with all kinds of laws and a Big Brother attitude and, "We know best." We, as Liberals, try to promote individual responsibility and individual freedom inasmuch as possible, but at the same time, we take the middle-of-the-road approach. We say yes, there are instances where individual freedom and individual liberty has to be balanced by the rights of others, has to be balanced by our own inability to sometimes cope with that freedom and by our own need to learn how to manage that freedom and that responsibility.

So even for us Liberals I think there is a moment where we do try and have to sit down and think, is this restriction on our freedoms and our responsibilities warranted by what's at stake? I would argue, on the basis of the figures and on the basis of the reports we've received, and I would also say on the basis even of personal experiences, I think this particular project is one where we can say yes, that the restrictions are warranted, the restrictions especially on the younger people, but it isn't just restrictions on the younger people; it is restrictions on new drivers.

1730

Again, I think this is an important point to be made, that we're not out here, as it were, just to punish or go after the young people, and the 16-year-olds in particular. I have nothing against 16-year-olds. I have a 16-year-old daughter, I have a son who's 18 and I have another daughter; she's 13. They're all very much involved in this question of driving and of learning how to drive and how to avoid accidents. But what I'm trying to convey to my own children and what I think we all have an obligation to convey is that there is this relationship between lack of experience and accident rate.

Here's what the ministry gave us in terms of documents. Frankly, I think this was a very good one that was presented to us, and if anyone is interested and would like to have this information, if they contact me, I would certainly gladly make this available. Here's what it says:

"New drivers, regardless of age" -- so this relationship of higher accident rates and lack of experience relates not just to young people, but also to newer drivers, even if they're already older. If they are taking their driving lessons and their driving courses later on in life, even they show up much, much more in the accident statistics. "New drivers, regardless of age, have a higher collision rate than the provincial average. This is because driving is a complex activity involving knowledge, attitudes, skills, judgement, and risk perception in an environment that is continually changing."

On this page here -- you won't be able to see this, Madam Speaker -- there's a graph. "Figure 5 reproduces a graph from the 1990 New to the Road." It's a Traffic Injury Foundation of Canada 1990 publication.

By the way, as an in-between -- I'm just stopping here a little bit before I go on with the quote -- the Traffic Injury Foundation I think is something that we in Canada should be really proud of. It's an institution located in Ottawa that has been doing inquiries into the causes of accidents for many, many years. I think they are world-renowned on the work they have been doing on behalf of traffic safety. I think we should be proud as Canadians that we have that institute in our nation's capital and that it continues to do such good work. In fact, they appeared before the committee as well.

To continue with the quote, however:

"This figure shows collision rates for males who were licensed at different ages and which indicates that the collision rates declined with increasing experience regardless of the age of licensing. This figure also indicates that age is also a contributing factor to collision involvement. In other words, collision involvement decreases as driving experience increases regardless of the age of the new driver. However, the collision involvement rate is lower for older new drivers than for younger new drivers."

So in fact the accident rate for younger new drivers is higher.

"Driving experts agree that there is a minimum two-year learning curve to develop the basic skills of driving and that it takes at least five years to develop the specialized judgement skills which allow drivers to reduce their risk of collision in a complex traffic environment."

They do add here, "Older new drivers may master these specialized skills more quickly than younger new drivers." So while there is a definite relationship between lack of experience and higher accident rates, that relationship is a little bit weaker for the older new driver.

What is the reason for that? Frankly, that brings us to a point in all of this that I think is extremely important. It's that point about younger people being more willing to take risks. At least, that's from our own I think normal experience, and that's what we were told at the committee hearings, that obviously young people are willing to take risks. I guess they haven't got the experience of life where some of the risk-taking can lead to very serious and unfortunate consequences and the older driver is no longer willing to take quite the risks that the young driver is willing to take.

But I think all of this should not hide the fact that it is very clear, from the statistics and from the facts, that experience and decreased accidents go together, both for the younger people and for the older people. This, in my opinion, is the main reason why I'm here to support this initiative.

I think there certainly can be, and there is, disagreement on some specific initiatives, details of the government's proposal, but I think overall, when it comes to the final question, "Am I in favour or am I against a graduated system, a more increased effort and emphasis on gaining experience?" I'm in favour of that.

Over the summer, and the minister referred to it, we had hearings. This was a rather unique experience because what we had hearings on wasn't really a bill. Frankly, I'm not quite sure whether this is the ideal way to do it. The committee was appreciative of the fact that the minister was putting out some ideas and was testing them, but in reality it was, for all practical purposes, a bill that he was putting forward. Because now we are no longer going out for hearings; we now have a project very quickly, in the last week of the House, before Parliament and we don't have that much time to give my colleagues an opportunity to comment. The hearings we had in the summer -- and we had them here in Toronto and then we went to Ottawa and went to St Catharines -- for all practical purposes were hearings on the draft legislation.

I would say 95% of the people there said frankly that they want it to go even further. They want it to have tougher restrictions on younger drivers. They came in with precisely the same argument that I just put forward from the Traffic Injury Foundation of Canada, saying that because it takes between two and five years of driving experience, let's go to the five years rather than the two years. Certainly, at the committee level and the government as well, I don't think we want it to go to the toughest end of the proposals. In particular, and I think some of my colleagues will be speaking to that, people from the rural areas, people from the north were concerned.

We had several people who came from the rural areas, and my colleague the member for Renfrew North very often put forward the question to the witnesses, "How do you see the impact of this bill and of this new rule on people in rural areas who don't have the public transportation system that may be available in some of the bigger cities and where in fact the car is the only way to get around and where it is very difficult to get to the neighbour who is way down the road who might be able to perhaps drive the young child?" This was a concern that was put forward at the committee level and that was listened to very carefully by members of the committee.

In fact, in order to respect that point of view, I will be putting forward an amendment by my party to reduce the requirement of experience for the accompanying driver from four years to essentially two years, to make it a little more easy for the people in the rural areas to get to each other and to get to the various events at their high schools. We had people speak very forcefully that this may impact very negatively on some of the after-school activities for rural students. I think that's a concern we want to be sensitive to while maintaining and protecting the basic principle of the bill, that principle being, let's have some gradual experience for the driver himself or herself.

1740

Minister, I think you did well in congratulating your staff. They were very, very prudent; they were excellent in the information they provided in the committee hearings. However, I should say that we did miss you. We would have appreciated it if at least you had come once or twice to the committee, heard what the committee had to say and put forward your views. Even though you were ably represented by your parliamentary assistant, nevertheless, you're the minister, and you have the ultimate responsibility for this particular bill.

At the committee, one of the concerns that was raised, and I think something the minister and the government will have to continue to work on, was the quality of our driving teaching and the way we supervise and control the driving schools in this province.

There were quite a few people, including representatives of the driving schools, who had some questions about their own industry. Fortunately, they indicated that they're working very hard themselves in regulating their industry more and making sure that the quality of our driving educators and of our driving courses is going to continually improve. I certainly hope it will. This question was raised: What kind of requirement do you have to have in order to pass as a licensed driving educator?

I think there is an ongoing role for the ministry and the Minister of Transportation to make sure that in fact the standards for our driving schools are high ones and are good ones. What's the sense if we pay for the driving education and it's not up to the level it really should be? That certainly is a concern that is still out there, and I certainly hope the minister will be working on this.

It is a relatively complicated system. The minister already referred to these two levels, and some people are still quite confused. Some people feel the whole method and the whole system is going to be much tougher than it actually is.

Essentially, we are raising the driving age by, I would say, one year, to sum it all up, because you have to have at least eight months of experience with someone else and there are certain restrictions on you for at least eight months; it's 12 months if you don't take the driving course. For at least eight months after you're 16, you have to have another driver and you have to have zero alcohol, and we certainly agree with that. You can't drive after midnight, and you cannot drive on the 400 series.

But after those eight months, if you took the driving lessons, you are basically free of all these restrictions except one, and again we agree with that: zero blood alcohol. So for that second year of your driving experience, there are basically no restrictions, the only one being that after those two years you have to take another test.

That's the point I was trying to make, that the minister will have a number of rather complicated bureaucratic initiatives to take and he probably will have to hire new staff. I asked that at the committee hearing. Already it's very difficult to apply for a driver's licence and to get the driver's licence in time. I understand that much of that has to do with people who are trying to take their driver's licence now and avoid the new system that's coming in in the spring, but it has always been quite complicated to book a driving test.

So most likely the minister will have to hire new staff, because what's required is first the entrance test, which is basically a vision test. Then there's a test after that first year or after the eight months of experience, and that's a road test and you have to have somebody from the ministry who will be in the car with you. Then there's that final advanced road test at the end of the two years.

Frankly, I'm still not clear, and that's one of the things that is still very much open, what that advanced road test is going to be at the end of the two years. We were assured at the committee that the ministry officials are working with the experts in the field and they're working to put that advanced driving test together. Frankly, I would have liked to see that in black and white to get some idea about what the minister and what the officials actually have in mind. I certainly hope that over the next two months the ministry is going to get its act together and we'll know exactly what that advanced driving test is that's going to happen after the two years.

Again it will require more knowledgeable and probably a greater number of driving testers and of driving examiners. That will come at a cost. I asked the officials and they said: "Yes, that's true. You're right there. But" -- here comes the hook -- "we intend to recoup that cost through higher fees." Now, the minister did not really put this out in his press release and he was rather shy in mentioning this, but that of course is going to be the other side of the coin. There are going to be much higher fees for your driver tests and your driver examinations because the minister is planning to recoup all these extra costs through the higher fees. I think the public should be aware of that as well.

Nevertheless, I want to say -- and I do not want to speak too long, because I know that several of my colleagues wish to be on the record as well on this important matter -- that the minister is right: This is a topic that is most serious. It is something that we do not want to be partisan about, because we are dealing with lives. We're dealing with tragedies. In fact, the very day that we were holding hearings in Ottawa in September, there was an article in the Citizen where, unfortunately, in an accident involving two young people just south of my riding, one was killed and the other was seriously injured. The driver was a young teenager, a 16-year-old who had just gotten his licence two weeks before that terrible accident happened.

If we can avoid these kinds of most unfortunate occurrences through some limitations on our freedoms, I think I am ready to support that. This project we have in front of us tries to strike a balance between giving the younger people the experience to drive and the ability to drive. We all know how important the automobile is in our environment, especially giving people in rural areas and in northern Ontario the opportunity to go around. I, as a father with three children, being absent so often from my own home, know how difficult it is and continues to be for my own wife to take the children around if they cannot drive their own car. It is quite a burden, so we do not want to be overly restrictive on our new drivers.

That's why I support this particular initiative being put forward, because I do think it is trying to reach a balance. In fact, as I said, at the committee level many of the people who came before us wanted us to be even tougher, wanted us to bring in even tougher restrictions.

In fact, at the committee level we did make one change that will make it a little tougher for the new drivers out there. The change we made at the committee, that we proposed to the minister and I understand he accepted, was that there can only be the accompanying driver in the front seat. Before, it would have been possible to have others. I have a car where you can seat three people in the front. This will no longer be possible for the level 1 driver. There can be only the driver and one accompanying driver. That is a restriction we put in at the committee level, in that sense making it a little bit tougher.

But other than that, we left it the way it was because we felt there had to be a reasonable balance between learning how to drive and the ability to get around. We felt that at age 16 you are ready to take that experience, because in other situations in life you can begin to take part in the political process. That's why we felt we did not want to put unnecessary restrictions on the younger person.

At the same time, we wanted to say: "You are not quite ready. You need a little bit more experience. Let us help you, with the accompanying driver, with some of the regulations that are being put forth, for example, not being able to drive after midnight. That will help you in the longer term, that will help your family and help you avoid some of the terrible situations we heard of at the committee as well." There were several parents and relatives of people who had been involved in fatal accidents who came to us. Obviously, their story was one that was very difficult to hear, but we heard it and that's why I think we are ready in principle to support this initiative.

As I said, we have some amendments that we want to put forward, but I look forward to continued debate. I know that all of us will want to treat this project and this issue with seriousness and with the sensitivity that I think the minister has put forward, and also with the willingness and the encouragement to the people out there to make sure that the objective we're after is going to be followed, and that it's not just a rule but really what we're after here is safety and the prevention of fatal accidents and of any kind of accidents. For that we need the cooperation of everybody, of the drivers, of the parents, of the driver educators and of us politicians as well. In that regard, I'm pleased to offer that cooperation. Thank you very much.

Report continues in volume B.

6 décembre 1993