EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU
TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC
Report continued from volume A.
1529
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, Just before I call the order, I'm going to be calling Bill 79 and I believe we have an agreement, so I seek consent to divide the time in the debate for two hours equally among each of the three parties.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Do we have agreement to divide the time? Agreed.
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI
Ms Ziemba moved third reading of Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Projet de loi 79, Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): This is a very important day for all working people in the province of Ontario. Today we proceed with third reading of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act.
The purpose of this legislation is to provide equality of opportunity and equitable treatment for all groups in our society who have, for far too long, faced barriers to their equal participation in the workplace; that is, aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women. But when it is implemented, Bill 79 will improve the working lives of all Ontarians.
Since our government took office three years ago, we have been clear about the direction we must take to put Ontario back on the road to prosperity. From the beginning, we have followed the course of economic renewal and social justice. From the beginning, our goal has been a society in which all people are treated fairly and equitably, a society in which all people share in our prosperity and a society in which all people share in the work of creating that prosperity.
Economic renewal and social justice work hand in hand, and they are inextricably linked by employment equity. For it is through employment that people especially have an opportunity to make their contribution to society as a whole, and it is through equity in employment that society ensures the full participation of all its people.
Economic growth and prosperity must develop at the same time that we create a fair and better society. They are complementary goals. They support each other. The two are, and must be, interdependent.
How does employment equity help us achieve these goals? By being a tool to help us make the best use of our most valuable resource, our human resources; by being a tool we use to maximize the skills, talent, expertise and experience of everyone in the labour force; by being a tool to ensure that the process of recognizing skills and capabilities is inclusive and free of discriminatory barriers.
For if certain employment policies and practices prevent us from seeing and using all the talents that are available to us, then they are also preventing us from realizing opportunities both at home and in markets abroad. We cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford the economic cost and we cannot afford the social cost. Wasted talents cost dollars and cents. Wasted lives harm our entire social, political and economic fabric.
Our government is building up an investment portfolio as we work to restore and renew Ontario. We're investing in education and training. We're investing in the environment and the province's infrastructure. In every case, we are investing in people.
Employment equity will help ensure that everyone will reap the benefits of these investments. We have brought forward legislation that will make employment equity mandatory in Ontario workplaces.
The bill we are debating today is the most progressive of its kind in North America. Certain components of it are unique; for example, the joint responsibility provisions that will bring employers and bargaining agents together to develop and plan employment equity programs. The link between economic renewal and social justice is recognized by a number of employers, employer organizations and trade unions in Ontario, and this is why a number of them are already putting some form of employment equity to work in their organizations.
Some employers have been required to do so because they are federally regulated companies, and others have clearly profited from the benefits that employment equity brings to an organization, to its employees and to its clients and customers.
As some of these organizations told us during public hearings of the standing committee on administration of justice, employment equity works. It makes good business sense. You can be sure that they would not invest valuable time, money and effort in it if it did not.
Why does it work? Here's an employer's explanation. This is what Robert Sutherland, executive vice-president, human resources, for the Royal Bank of Canada, says about the effect employment equity has on his corporation: I'm quoting from Mr Sutherland now.
"The entire organization wins with the infusion of new ideas, a broader perspective, better decision-making and greater sensitivity to all the cultures and groups that we serve. We gain access to broader markets and greater insight into product development.... The effects of employment equity on the Royal Bank have been very beneficial."
What does Mr Sutherland answer to those who say, as some have, that employment equity threatens the merit principle? Mr Sutherland responds by saying:
"The merit principle is alive and well in the Royal Bank and other firms currently applying employment equity on a national scale.... You begin by hiring the most qualified. You just extend the talent pool wider."
You extend the talent pool wider: This is the heart of the matter. This is what employment equity is all about.
Employment equity ensures that all groups that make up our society can fully participate in our workplaces. So when you extend the talent pool wider, you are really hiring, training and promoting people on the basis of merit. You're no longer overlooking the significant skills and talents that members of the designated groups have to offer. You're looking beyond their race, gender or actual or perceived disability.
Achieving equity doesn't mean treating everyone in the same way. Employment equity means, rather, that we recognize people's different experiences and needs, and adapt our workplace practices accordingly. It might mean, for example, that employers implement flexible working arrangements to accommodate the different people who make up their workforces, such as working parents. By using these kinds of employment equity measures, we recognize and allow for diversity in the workforce.
When you extend the talent pool wider, you improve your access to all of the available skills you may be looking for. When you have better access to available skills, you improve your ability to achieve excellence.
The Royal Bank has clearly understood this, and so have the other employers, trade unions, designated groups and other organizations with whom we have consulted for more than two years in the process of developing Bill 79 and the draft regulations.
I want to take this opportunity now to acknowledge once again the contribution that these organizations and individuals have made, for it has been considerable. I see in the various galleries this afternoon that we have many representatives from labour organizations, from business and from the designated group members. I want to thank you all individually, as I have this opportunity, for the contribution that you have made to Bill 79. You have been incredible. And of course to our Employment Equity Commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, for her leading vision in this bill, thank you very much, Juanita.
Every important piece of legislation has a long history. An incredible amount of work is involved, and people both internal and external to the public service give a significant amount of professional time, and often their own time, to its development. The commitment required and the commitment people give is tremendous.
The many organizations and individuals involved in employment equity have come to the table with different, complex and sometimes conflicting interests. Bill 79 has been debated vigorously. I'm in favour of this kind of debate. I think it's not only healthy but necessary, and very productive. It is almost never possible on a public policy of this magnitude to satisfy everyone. You go into the debate on an issue like employment equity knowing that from the start, but you have a responsibility to the people of the province to consider all perspectives and finally to make a decision based on what you believe it is important to achieve and what you have learned from your consultations.
As I have said many times since the beginning of the consultation process on employment equity, the government knew that we wanted to develop legislation that was fair, effective and workable. It had to be practical for the people who will implement it and it had to achieve real results for the designated groups.
Effectiveness and workability have been the focus of our special advisory groups, our consultations, our meetings, our testing, our modelling, the public hearings of the justice committee, and the 700 or so submissions that my ministry and the Employment Equity Commissioner's office have received and reviewed. Effectiveness and workability are at the centre of the bill we are debating in the House today.
I have to tell you that I'm very proud of the bill we are putting forward for final debate, just as I am very proud to be a member of a government that has made employment equity a priority. I think it demonstrates that we kept our promise to listen, to learn and to be open to change.
We have made amendments to Bill 79 as a result of our analysis of the issues that we heard about in our consultations during the public hearings of the justice committee and that are raised in the written submissions received by the justice committee. We have made changes to the bill whenever and wherever we felt such changes would improve it; that is, where they would make the bill more effective and workable.
I want to say once again that we could not have been presenting this assembly with a bill that meets those objectives if we had not had cooperation from all the interested groups and individuals. I should add that all these people have been willing to assist us and to work with us continuously. They have given us their input well beyond the call of duty.
1540
The members on the other side of the House who sat on the justice committee have also played an important role in our deliberations. I'd like to thank those members for their valuable participation and for their support for the principles of employment equity. Of course, on our own side of the House, I want to thank the members of our standing committee on justice for their leadership role in helping us with our amendments as well.
While I expect that they will continue to express various opinions on specific components of the bill during third reading, and I now refer of course to the opposition because that is their role, to bring forth opinions that vary from the government's, I have been pleased to see their acceptance of the principles behind the legislation and that they joined with us in their abhorrence of any form of discrimination.
The process of cooperation and consultation that we initiated will not of course come to a halt once the legislation is passed. In fact, it is imperative that the government and the new Employment Equity Commission -- and it will be a commission -- continue to work with employers, trade unions and designated groups. It is equally important that all workplace partners work together if employment equity is to be successfully implemented in Ontario.
Just as partnership has been the hallmark of the development of the legislation, so too must partnership be the mechanism that makes employment equity work.
Those employers, trade unions, designated groups and other organizations that have already had experience with employment equity can be of assistance to those who have had none. These groups have expertise and knowledge that are extremely valuable. Those with experience of employment equity, and those who don't, will also be able to provide us, and particularly the Employment Equity Commission, with concrete, practical advice about what organizations, institutions and their employees are going to need to make employment equity effective and to implement it efficiently.
Employee education and information, for example, will be a critical component of employment equity and employers will be assisted in this area by the commission. Different organizations will have different needs and will require different tools to assist them. We recognize this and we are committed to giving the assistance that is in our power to provide.
Because we recognize that different employers do have different needs and different resources available to them, we have deliberately enabled employment equity to be phased in over time. So the bill sets out specific time frames for developing employment equity plans.
Let me emphasize here, because this is a common misconception, that the initial time lines are for the development of the employment equity plan, not for achieving the employment equity goals that employers and bargaining agents have set for themselves. Because one of our main objectives was to have legislation that was workable, we also recognized that it must be adaptable to the many and varied industries and sectors in which Ontario employers are engaged. That is why another hallmark of the bill is its flexibility.
Bill 79 gives employers and bargaining agents the ability to design employment equity plans that respond to the realities of the communities in which they are situated, the particular sectors, the specific workforces, their own corporate cultures and the economic circumstances in which they find themselves at any given time.
That is why the numerical goals that the bill requires employers and bargaining agents to set are so very, very different from quotas. It's important that we understand this difference, because it is a big difference.
The numerical goals that employers will develop for their plans will be based on the proportion of opportunities for change in a workforce. Most important of all, they are the goals the employer and the bargaining agent set themselves based on certain factors, such as the number of qualified people in the community. They are based on what employers can reasonably expect to achieve. They are not quotas. Quotas are arbitrarily imposed by an organization such as the government or another agency. Quotas do not take into account the real circumstances of a particular employer's workplace.
We do not expect employment equity to be implemented overnight, just as we do not expect we will see the results of employment equity overnight, but we do believe that Ontario would not achieve employment equity without Bill 79. That is why we have brought forward employment equity legislation and why we remain committed to it.
In closing my remarks I would like to say one more thing. In my time in public office I've had an opportunity to talk to people across the province. If I've learned anything in that time it is that Ontarians are generous people who believe in fairness. They believe in working hard to make decent lives for themselves and for their children and their grandchildren. They are more than willing to share all the good things in life this province has to offer. They truly support the notion that all who live and work here must have an opportunity to achieve their hopes, dreams and aspirations.
It is this fundamental belief in fairness that has given Canadians an international reputation for being a caring society. It is one of the things that make us who we are. It is one of the beliefs that unites as all.
The Employment Equity Act ensures that the fairness we all believe to be so very important is extended to every person in the labour force. By enshrining this fundamental belief in law, we are following an important Canadian tradition, one that has been responsible for such legislation as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in Ontario, of course, the Ontario Human Rights Code. It is a tradition that we should be very proud of, and I know that all the people on this side of the House are very proud of that tradition.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): It is an important day in the House, a day that I hope all members of the Legislature are looking forward to -- not in such a hurry, really.
First, before I get into any comment on the bill, I wanted to support the words of the minister in thanking the legislative staff who worked so hard in giving us support; also, especially the members of the justice committee, who all during that time listened carefully, I hope, and showed a keen interest in defining what was one of the most difficult pieces of legislation I've seen in almost a decade in this House.
I also want to thank many of the presenters who came before us with their point of view, with their vigilance in the support of equity and to pursuing equity in our beautiful country of Canada and in Ontario as we address those inequities that are so evident at times for some designated groups. I want to thank those.
I also want to thank the parliamentary assistant, who all during that time was subjected to some very direct questions on positions that were taken by his leader and by his minister. Of course, he struggled through in answering for them, because quite naturally they wouldn't have been there. I want to say to him that he -- as a matter of fact, he lived through that.
I want to say thank you to the advocacy groups who stayed after the public hearings to watch the proceedings, painful as it was. They stood by their commitment.
Bill 79 is important legislation. Before we can even address that, we must start to understand what employment equity is.
Employment equity is about fairness in the workplace. Employment equity legislation is about identifying and removing systemic discrimination. I would say at the outset, so you can understand where I'm coming from, it has not done so.
As I said before, it's a very complex piece of legislation. We're talking about dealing with individuals who have been constantly shut out of the workplace just because of their colour, just because of their class, maybe because of their sex or sexual orientation or what have you, or because of their disability. Somehow they've found themselves shut out of the workplace. As the minister said, the entire society suffers for that, because those people who are qualified are not being given the proper opportunity to display their ability.
1550
Bill 79 is supposed to address designated groups which have been identified as being subject to systemic discrimination. First, I presume it's an admission of failure of other equity legislation that has caused us to bring in employment equity legislation. It's the failure of the Human Rights Commission not to deal with some of the discrimination that develops sometimes, so we must do that. It's the failure of not paying people adequately at times, and that's why we introduced other legislation like pay equity. Again, that has become sort of gender-specific in regard to equity concerns.
Having admitted that, I presume the government of the day would have to say we must address the inequities in our society for those who have been targeted who suffer most from that situation. As I said, they are the aboriginal people, the women, the disabled and visible minorities.
As I said, this legislation requires very careful consideration, proper drafting, and even at this stage the government rushed this bill through because it feels it is so important to get it through to score political points. And that is where we start breaking down. Even today, rushing this legislation through will cause a misunderstanding of what it's all about.
Today we have, as a matter of fact just a few hours ago, the completion in writing of Bill 79. At 1:30 today I got it on my desk. As the minister would say, "We're following procedure." Let me point out to you, Madam Speaker, that if we're following procedure, we are here today to either approve or disapprove of this legislation on third reading. I ask the members over there: Of the 70 NDP members, how many -- would you put your hands up -- have read Bill 79? We have one hand. Oh, two. Two people have read it.
I make this point because we're going to approve something; we're about to say we're fully in agreement with it. When it was introduced in 1992 for first reading, it was not the same bill as it is today, December 9, 1993. If it were the same, we could easily say, "We will not approve of that bill." I'm not at all surprised that only two of the 70 --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough North has the floor. You may comment later.
Mr Curling: I hope through my speech he'll understand a little more about employment equity, that it is not anything to do with a partisan shot but the reality of dealing with something that is very serious. If you can stand up today, right now, and tell me you have read this bill in its entirety and agree with it, then I will say to you that I have great respect for you for your speed-reading and for your understanding of one of the most complex pieces of legislation.
The bill is a disappointment in its present state of reading. The government, from the inception, has failed to consult adequately. Of course, the minister stood up today and said, "We have consulted extensively." Groups all during the hearings and after the hearings have written to us and to the minister and said they have not been consulted. It was very important that we hear from all sectors of society about this extremely important legislation before us.
Another concern I'd like to address before I get into the bill itself is the fact that the government continued to state that it was the opposition that delayed this bill. As a matter of fact, one of the Conservative members asked to have it stayed for two days, in second reading, to review it and have a better understanding of it, and they refused that. However, during the second reading, they had to withdraw the legislation so they could have it amended because it was extremely vague and lacked definitions. They themselves took it away for almost two weeks to get the legislation written properly; 50% of the legislation was withdrawn so it could come back to us.
We have some rather major concerns about this legislation. Let me address the public sector. They have a terrible history in regard to employment equity in the public service.
I can tell you this and report to the House and the ministers weekly, that members of the public service have come to me and stated that they are visible minorities, and while it is perceived that the doors are wide open to receive everyone, in the meantime, through the windows upstairs they are laying off many visible minorities, laying off women and laying off disabled people. It is seen at the front door that they're all dressed up and receiving all these people the employment equity bill is supposed to help, and the bottom line is that people are being let go and we continue to have that kind of discrimination in the workplace.
So I would say first to the minister and all the ministers over there, you'd better clean up your act so that the private sector could see you as good leaders.
Another concern we have that is not being addressed is that we consistently raise the merit principle. I should state at the beginning that those designated groups that have been shown to be discriminated against in the workplace need not have any favours done for them. What they need to do, as we said, is remove those discriminatory practices, the systemic discrimination, so that they can perform.
Merit, as we have told you over and over again, is the principle. Give those people the opportunity to perform by removing those barriers, and they can perform. The aboriginal people are saying they are qualified people who can perform those duties. Remove those barriers and let them perform on their own merit, and not only on their own merit; on the merit that is required of all for that job.
Visible minorities ask for the same thing: "Remove those barriers. Identify them and remove them. As a matter of fact, if you can't identify them, we will identify them for you. If you find it discriminatory, we tell you we'll compete for those jobs and we will perform just as well as anyone else. Don't do us any favours," they're asking. Women ask the same thing too.
Of course there are other factors that go along with access to the workplace. The disabled group needs transportation not only in the workplace but coming to the workplace. If this government feels that employers are going to solve employment inequity and make sure all these people will be performing and things are going to be wonderful and great, it has to work hand in hand to have proper transportation, proper day care, proper education. If people are being shut out of education, visible minorities, disabled people and women, we will still have that problem of not having people come into the workplace. We've got to work hand and hand on that. We cannot feel the employers are the ones to pay the price because none of those designated groups are within the workplace. Merit is the principle by which they would like to perform, because they do have that merit.
1600
I'm not speaking off the top of my head. Many of the ministers here have known about the report about access to trades and professions, which has identified that we have individuals within our society who have not been given those opportunities although they are qualified. We do have qualified people. This government has yet to act upon that report. Why? Because we're going to play politics with employment equity to see that it's going to be opened up and everything will be okay. Yet there are still people who have credentials who are refused to be accepted, who have the accreditation that is desired of them and should be recognized. But we are talking about employment equity that, when it opens up, will be really wonderful and everything will be just great.
Businesses have expressed their concern about the confidentiality. I agree with what the minister was saying at times, that we must be very careful, that there could be resistance to changes by employers saying, "I don't want to show you anything because of confidentiality." But in the meantime, one has to be careful about their business plan. That is not often out there, but everyone could have it and may not use it for the purpose they should. I think the government of the day has moved a bit in addressing some of the concerns of business about confidentiality. I feel that is an honourable way in which they have gone, but not enough.
Then it comes to another concern we have. The Liberal Party has expressed, and I have expressed, over and over concern about the seniority aspect of this, that it conflicts with the basic principles of employment equity. They refuse to address that issue. As a matter of fact, when it was introduced first, we objected to that. When we debated that, they moved a bit in their amendments; in other words, to recognize the fact that seniority flies in the face of employment equity. I don't know what happened afterwards, behind closed doors with the unions and so on, but somehow, maybe because of what they have done to the social contract, they decided that they will bring back with more reinforcement that seniority will be a part of this employment equity, which flies, as I said, very much in the face of the principles of employment equity.
I respect the fact that the unions, through their contracted agreements, have fought for seniority. But I tell you, there are laws on the books that themselves discriminate. If they discriminate, what we should do is remove them. Of course, we can recognize that someone who has been with the company for 20 or 25 years has something they can show for it, having an ability to do the job. But if they don't, it should not hold as a barrier before anyone.
The minister, maybe in her wrapup, will talk about the fact that people can appeal that and it must conform to the Human Rights Code. Nonsense. Why do I say that? It is depending on the individual to challenge that. Tell me, how many people in our society, when working their ordinary day-to-day job, are going to challenge their employer and say, "Your seniority program conflicts with me moving up in employment"? Therefore, I feel that if we address seniority with sensitivity, we are then moving forward to better employment equity legislation.
We have seen a bureaucracy that is created. As I said earlier on, the failure of some of the legislation that we have and the failure of some bureaucracy to carry out this job is why we have to create another bureaucracy. We have the Human Rights Commission where, as you know, and I don't want to bore you with the fact, there's so much backlog. Although the minister decided to throw some funds at it and hope that it goes away, it does not go away. The old cliché says that justice delayed is justice denied. There are people in the Human Rights Commission who are still waiting after three years now just to have their case heard. I'm telling you, if someone has been fired because of some discrimination practice, how can they wait three years for justice to be done to them? Therefore, the backlog is one of those that flies in the face of the ordinary individual, so to speak, getting justice done.
We have the Pay Equity Commission and we have the Employment Equity Commission -- all these commissions. We have made suggestions that the NDP government could have adopted towards its piecemeal approach to equity issues. We feel that employment equity could be a part of the Human Rights Commission itself. I'll give you a scenario.
If you, Madam Speaker, had been discriminated against because you felt that someone doesn't like your sex as a woman and you decided that you would go forward and put your case before the Human Rights Commission, after waiting, of course, three years, you may find out that: "This is not really personal discrimination against you. It's really systemic discrimination in that company. Maybe you should go up to employment equity and join that line." Again, justice delayed is justice denied. Who has that kind of time as an individual to address that kind of concern?
We're throwing money at something here, Mr Speaker -- as we change the Speaker here -- and feeling it is going to address the inequities. It will not.
We propose that the government restructure and rename the Ontario Human Rights Commission, maybe to an equality rights commission. What it would do is keep all the equity issues under the jurisdiction of one comprehensive agency, ensuring that equity issues are dealt with expeditiously. But that was not done. I feel, again, that if we set up big bureaucracies, we will be able to feel and instruct the people that we are doing something.
My colleagues and I have debated, and I have consulted them constantly, because they represent millions of people out there who are maybe putting their concern in. One of the most respected individuals in my caucus, the person whom I regard as a gentleman and quite an honourable man, my friend the member for Quinte, Hugh O'Neil, expressed to me that some of the citizens of his community feel, is this legislation going to be reverse discrimination? Is it equity for all? Are we going to, as we always say, have a level playing field? The fact is, are we discriminating against some in order to include the others? He said to me that he hopes that this legislation, regardless of who brings this in, is fair to all, that white males, white females, black males, black females, get a fair treatment in our society, that we don't bring in laws in order to address only one concern itself but to recognize some of the problems we have. If we find those individuals violating those laws, we should make sure they are treated in the proper way under the law.
That brings me to the enforcement aspect of it. No matter what laws we bring in, it doesn't matter. We could have all the fancy laws. We could get all the fancy lawyers to draft up the very fancy legislative terms. But if we are unable to enforce them, what's the use? If we have a law about speeding on the highway and no cops are enforcing that laws or pulling people over and the courts are not dealing with them decisively, what's the use of that law?
We hope this legislation -- you have your numbers, you will rush it through and ram it through and you will feel that you have achieved everything. You'd be very much surprised to know that there is no meat to this legislation. It is told that most of what the substantial part will be will be in the regulations. That's another matter. Another matter is the fact that when we saw the legislation we found how vague it was. Most of it addressed itself to say, "We'll find it in the regulations." The minister told us that by the end of October 1993 we would have that regulation. At that time, she and her government felt that because it means employment equity, it's a motherhood thing, we will just say yes to it.
1610
But we are legislators who must make sure that we have legislation that is fair to all; not fair to some and unfair to the others, but fair to all. She felt: "Trust me because this bill is a 'trust me' bill. Trust me that when we brought this legislation in a substantial part that governed the legislation is in the regulation. Trust me, it will come October 1993 and the regulation will help you to define all this. Trust me."
I don't trust them. I don't trust individuals themselves in that sense because the fact is that aboriginals and all the designated groups have been waiting a long time for legislation there to be fair. Trust me.
October came; no regulation. They would say of course they had a draft regulation. Why should I consider the fact that a draft regulation that is here can be changed at any time? But I must trust them that even the draft regulation will be an approved regulation behind closed doors in the cabinet and, when people read it outside, say it's the Lieutenant Governor who will make all those decisions. The Lieutenant Governor is in a little cupboard up in his little chambers there waiting for them to bring all this up before they can approve that. "Trust me that the regulation will be good." I don't trust the fact that it will be a good regulation to support the legislation. That's not the way we draft legislation. We are elected people who are here to draft proper legislation.
Let me read to you what the -- and these are credible people -- the Canadian Bar Association-Ontario said, "The very substance of the employment equity process will be governed by the regulation." This is the question they have. "Laws generally reflect the views of various interests and are advanced by elected representatives. Where there is no opposition to a particular view, it is generally because there is some level of consensus on the policy being advanced. There's no such consensus on the manner in which employment equity is to be carried out in Ontario. The act therefore, not the regulations, should reveal the government's policy and be subject to legislative scrutiny."
Then this democratic party, this New Democratic government which talks about democracy hides itself behind regulation and doesn't have legislation which can be examined and which they can be accountable for because they're elected individuals. That's what we were shouting for. We're saying that if you want to bring legislation forward, bring it forward in a substantive manner. Don't hide behind the regulation. It's time that we decide to come clean with the people of Ontario.
We, the Liberal Party, as you know, believe in a just society, one in which all individuals, regardless of circumstances of their birth, whoever they are -- white, black, yellow, green -- get a fair chance to reap the rewards that society has to offer. We must make laws that are fair to all, and if we find individuals in there who discriminate, we should then give them the full force of the law itself.
Of course, we have those outside who are of extreme views, who feel that this society should be white only and white should be privileged. We don't embrace that, not one bit. There are blacks who feel that there should be a separate society. We don't embrace that. This is a society for all people, recognizing all and giving them a fair chance in our society to offer. They have contributions and they're willing to contribute in the fullest way that they can, if they are allowed.
Let me just speak for a moment about my constituency, because it reflects in a way a microcosm of what Ontario is about. In Scarborough North we have people of all walks of life: the disabled, aboriginal people, francophones, all, Chinese Japanese, Somalians, Ethiopians, Jamaicans, everyone. What they need is that this society, as is promised, treats them fairly: a society in which they can send their children to school without discrimination, a society where their children are not being barred from any kind of education because they are women or aboriginal persons, but to be given that fair access. They want that and they believe in that; they'll fight for that. They want a government that believes in that kind of situation, but I'm not quite sure if we have done that.
When Bob Rae was the Leader of the Opposition, he had written his private member's bill. Many of us on the Liberal side said he seemed to have understood what employment equity was all about. Some of it I disagreed with, but quite a substantial part of it I agreed with. When Bob Rae became Premier, his realities changed completely. This bill, this watered-down, vague bill, most of which is in regulation, hiding behind regulation --
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): It's better than the Liberal bill.
Mr Curling: Of course some people will say it is better than the Liberal's. The only way we can get a substantial piece of legislation is to say it's better than the other. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good. Even if it's better than the Liberal's, you say, because we did not introduce an employment equity bill, it is not a good employment equity bill.
Sure it will be passed. Sure we will stand up tomorrow and say that this legislation will be law very soon.
I got carried away, Mr Speaker. My colleague has a tremendous contribution to make and I should leave him some time. I got carried away.
I want to say that I will not support legislation that is weak, because when you have weak legislation it's worse than having no legislation. We are legislators. We must stand up and be strong about what we believe in. I am not convinced that even they over there believe in what they're doing. It's patronizing.
I bow to my colleague Mr Murphy.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): As we embark upon third reading debate of Bill 79, the employment equity amendment act, I want to say initially that it is extremely unfortunate that the NDP government took so long to finally admit what many people had long suspected about its employment equity legislation: that it was not based on fairness and equal opportunity, nor was it devoted to ending discrimination in the workplace, but rather that it meant reverse discrimination and that for a growing number of jobs white males need not apply, or even if they do they will not be considered.
This position was finally confirmed by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet when he defended an ad for a public service job that said only applications from the four designated groups -- aboriginals, females, visible minority members and disabled persons -- would be considered. Indeed, he went even further when he said that the practice is going to be around for 10 to 15 years, until the workforce is "fully in balance," whatever that means.
I can assure him and I can assure the people in this province that when a Conservative government is elected in Ontario there will not be this reverse discrimination. There will be equal opportunity for everyone in this province. Fairness and equal opportunity in the workplace means giving equally good candidates an equal chance of securing a job. It does not mean substituting one form of discrimination for another form of discrimination.
1620
The minister's blunt comments were surprising, as the Minister of Citizenship has always described employment equity programs in soothing, ambiguous terms. When I inquired about quotas shortly after the bill was introduced on July 6, 1992, she denied they existed and instead spoke of numerical goals and timetables. Reverse discrimination was never mentioned, only positive measures. This government insisted throughout the debate that no one would be denied employment because of skin colour or sex, and now we have learned differently.
Herein lies the problem: This government has been less than truthful about the intent of Bill 79, and this reality now sullies the idea of non-discrimination and equal opportunity. Moreover, this reality may damage the legitimate attempts to promote hiring those who have previously suffered discrimination. Even though the ad I referred to was killed, its philosophy continues to haunt the employment equity bill.
Most people in this province would agree that measures are needed to overcome discrimination in the workplace. The obstacles should be identified and should be eliminated. Employers should be required to actively recruit and train members from the four designated groups and assist them in moving through the ranks. We also need to provide education and training opportunities, employment counselling and language skills, and we need to remove the physical barriers to access to the workplace.
However, in the end, merit should be the most important principle in hiring and promotions. No one -- and I repeat, no one -- should ever be precluded from a job because of their skin colour, their sex or their ethnic origin.
The government's fixation with numbers or quotas could potentially embarrass those members of the target groups who through hard work and their own talent have created their own success. I just want to refer to at least one example that I have personally received from people who are members of the designated groups and who feel they can compete through hard work and through their own ability and their talent. That is the case of a girl who approached me and said, "Mrs Witmer, I know I was accepted because I was able to check off three of the four boxes. Yes, I am a female, yes, I am a visible minority, and yes, I am disabled." She said, "I wanted to get that position at the university because of my ability and not because I was entitled to check off those three boxes."
If this government wants to end discrimination and provide equal opportunity for all people, it should tackle the real obstacles rather than try to compensate for yesterday's sins. It should remember that employment equity invokes removing barriers to employment for the designated groups, not creating new barriers for another group: white males.
Let's take a look at the bill. This bill was introduced on June 25, 1992, and it introduced mandatory employment equity legislation which targeted four groups: aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, racial minorities and women. On June 16, 1993, about a year later, the minister released the draft regulations for Bill 79. The regulations provide detail on the definition of the designated groups, the reporting procedures and employee participation in both organized and unorganized workplaces.
Who is going to be impacted by this legislation?
First, the Ontario public service, the broader public sector employers such as our hospitals, our municipalities and our school boards with 50 or more employees and private sector employers with 100 or more employees will be subject to the full requirements. What does this mean? This means that those people will have to do a workplace analysis to determine the present status of their employees; they will have to do a review of formal and informal hiring employment practices to identify any that may be discriminatory, and they must develop and implement an employment equity plan which includes numerical goals and timetables.
It is important that we recognize that this compliance with the legislation is going to mean additional dollars. This review is going to require that companies either retrain individuals on their staff or that they hire consultants. Many employers in this province believe that the government has underestimated the cost and effort involved in performing this exercise, that it is one more burden that is not going to create a single new job for anybody.
Second, we're going to have streamlined requirements for those in the broader public sector with 10 to 49 employees and private sector employers with 50 to 99 employees. Small business with 50 or fewer employees will be exempt, as will the broader public sector with 10 workers or less.
We're going to set up an expensive Employment Equity Commission, already in place. It's going to implement, administer and monitor compliance. We're going to have another fat, ineffective bureaucracy. This commission is going to be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of measures being taken by employers.
I can tell you that people throughout this province foresee many problems with the legislation, because the government in its consultation did not fully listen to all the concerns that were expressed by people throughout this province. They were very selective in responding and making changes.
The first problem: They are concerned that the collection of workplace information will create problems because section 9 allows employees the right to decide whether or not to answer the questions in the survey which is going to provide the information. As a result, how can employers be sure they are getting accurate workplace information when employees do not even have to fill out the forms, nor is there any obligation for them to fill them out accurately? There must be some vehicle available for employers, other than this self-identification, that they are able to use in cases where the survey data are either not completed or are inaccurate, as an employer is going to need accurate and reliable data for that individual to put in place an employment equity plan. That's problem 1.
I'm not going to have time for all the problems, but I'm going to go through a few.
Problem 2: Employers will prepare an employment equity plan which must provide for the elimination of the barriers identified. They must implement positive measures to recruit, retain and promote members of the designated groups, and introduce specific goals and timetables for changing the composition of the workforce to ensure that workplaces in all occupational categories reflect the number of individuals from the four designated groups in the same proportions as these individuals exist in the community at large. However, if you use the words "community at large" as the basis for comparison, this is not accurate because all people in that particular community do not have the qualifications for the positions, nor are they even available to do the job. Therefore, the employer's workforce should be compared to the qualified and available labour pool that is available at that particular time and in that particular community.
1630
The third concern: The government has introduced a section that is going to make it even more cumbersome and costly for employers who have more than 500 employees. They must now provide additional information about the number of designated group members in four salary ranges and the number of employees in subgroups as defined by regulation of the designated groups.
I can tell you that this is a tremendous burden to put upon the employer community. We are going to further divide people. Not only are we going to have four designated groups, but we're now going to subgroup the four designated groups. It's extremely unfortunate that what's happening in this province is that it matters that you're a member of some particular group. At one time, I thought we were all Canadians or we were all Ontarians. Now it matters that you're a member of some particular subgroup.
Problem number four is a concern about something that could happen. It is the fact that bargaining of employment equity could occur. Employment equity is of such importance that it should not become a bargaining issue. Furthermore, if you make employment equity a bargainable issue, it could add to the length of time it takes to develop an employment equity plan and it could delay the implementation of a company's employment equity initiative.
It would be detrimental to all concerned if employment equity becomes even more adversarial, more litigious and more expensive to implement than was originally envisioned. Resources, if they are going to be allocated, should be allocated to achieving real benefits, not to expending resources to have disputed issues adjudicated in litigious forums. Furthermore, it is inequitable for an employer to be responsible and accountable when that employer is forced to bargain employment equity with the union. I hope the government will take that very serious concern into consideration.
The next problem of concern is the fact that we have set up another cumbersome commission and another tribunal. There are many in this province who believe that the issue of discrimination could have adequately been dealt with by the Human Rights Commission rather than by establishing a new commission. There is no guarantee whatsoever that this new commission is going to be any more effective than the Human Rights Commission. Why not clean up the Human Rights Commission and make sure that the issues of discrimination are dealt with effectively, efficiently and quickly?
I have to tell you at this time that I am extremely disappointed that the commissioner for employment equity never appeared before the employment equity hearings, because there are concerns about the duplication of the two commissions and there are some concerns about some of the definitional problems. I tried to arrange a meeting myself with that individual and I was totally unable to do so in recent months.
The next concern, the amendment to Bill 79, section 51, I am certainly extremely concerned about. This is an amendment which removes the fundamental right to appeal to the province's Human Rights Commission if a person believes he or she was unjustly treated under the legislation. These discriminatory hiring practices that are going to be introduced under employment equity do not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. I've had many people say to me, "I'll just simply appeal it to the Ontario Human Rights Commission." There is now a section contained within the bill which would make that totally impossible. If you're treated unjustly, so be it. What we've done is simply eliminated one form of discrimination and replaced it with another form, although this time it's discrimination against the group known as white males.
The next concern I want to speak about is the commission itself and this tribunal to enforce the act. That is being set up. It's now estimated it's going to cost at least $6 million per year. This has increased from the original projection and we know that by the time it is fully operational it will cost probably many more millions.
It's charged with hearing complaints from employees or third parties who believe an employment equity plan has not been implemented or is ineffective. Should an employer fail to comply, by the way, the tribunal has the authority to appoint an administrator, at the expense of the employer, to develop, implement, review and revise the employer's plan. This will result in quotas. Non-compliance with an order from the Employment Equity Tribunal will result in a maximum fine of $50,000.
I personally believe that the power of the Employment Equity Commission and the adjudication body, the tribunal, is extremely troubling and is going to cause some intrusion into the lives of people in this province.
The final concern I want to mention -- and I see time is moving along -- is the difficulty employers are going to face at the present time in meeting these numerical goals within a timetable, because it is going to be compounded by the economic recession and the fact that many companies are downsizing. Therefore, we are simply not going to have the same number of new jobs and opportunities existing that are going to enable us to change the makeup of the workforce that quickly.
This bill, unfortunately, has raised expectations among the four designated groups that they will quickly have access to employment. I want to say that is not the case because companies are downsizing; they're not doing much hiring.
The government introduced some amendments and, unfortunately, they introduced an amendment that expanded the employee definition to include seasonal and term employees. That's going to have a negative impact on the agricultural and the tourist industry, and certainly I'm concerned about that.
Also, the government introduced an amendment, and this is an interesting amendment, because the legislation no longer identifies seniority rights, both layoff, recall and promotion, as a barrier to achieving employment equity. In this instance, this was a concession to the unions and although this preserves the principle of fairness to existing employees, it does entrench the employment of older white male employees and disproportionately affects recent immigrants and women recently moved into non-traditional jobs. It's certainly going to make the employer's task of changing the makeup of the workforce even more difficult in a poor economy.
I'm also concerned that the government, at the last minute, expanded the regulatory powers. Even though the business community had asked for fewer regulatory powers, they, at the last minute, increased the regulatory powers.
The government amendments, I would say, were a major disappointment. They did not reflect the comments that were put before the standing committee on administration of justice during the three weeks of public hearings. In fact, the government was poorly prepared to deal with the amendments. When I asked for a recess in order to do justice to the presentations that had been made, they indicated that was not possible, and yet they were never organized until the very last minute and did not introduce their amendments until the final weeks.
1640
If there's been a delay in this legislation, and I know there are some equity groups that are disappointed, I can assure you the reason for the delay is because the government did not have its amendments ready. I want to tell you what the PC Party attempted to do.
We did vote against the bill at second reading. I did table 30 amendments to Bill 79 in an attempt to make the legislation more workable. We attempted to introduce an amendment which included a new preamble, which included the merit principle and made the preamble more positive, because it was extremely negative. We asked that the employer community be excused from non-compliance if it is due to a seniority clause, because legislation that now protects a union's seniority clause and places no obligation on the union for implementing employment equity while at the same time holding the employer liable for failing to comply with the legislation without exception where the employer's efforts are effectively frustrated by the seniority clause is totally unacceptable. Unfortunately, the government did not support this amendment or any others.
Employers, we said in our amendments, also must not be required to achieve employment equity by terminating or demoting existing employees who are not members of the designated groups. We asked that a section of regulation dealing with goals and timetables be put into the bill to prevent future modification of the regulation without public review. We asked that the bill be made consistent with the federal contractors program and the Pay Equity Act, which require data to be maintained internally by the employer for examination by the government only if there is an audit or a complaint.
We also asked that the commission provide 24 hours' notice before arriving at an employer's workplace and that it confine the scope of its inspection to documents related to employment equity. As you know, at the present time, the commission can go in without any warning whatsoever and ask for the information.
We also asked, and I spoke to this before, that we eliminate the commission and the tribunal and put it all in the hands of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, because what we have here is duplication for dealing with concerns of discrimination.
We asked that the third-party complaints be eliminated. We are concerned about the possible additional litigious work that might be involved. We asked for the removal of the tribunal's authority to establish an employment equity plan for an employer requiring the employer to set aside funds for an unspecified purpose or appoint an outside administrator at an employer's expense. We asked, and this is certainly needed and the government did make some moves here, that the confidentiality protection be expanded and every attempt be made to ensure that any information that is provided by the employer remains confidential.
The PC Party, I can tell you, remains opposed to Bill 79. We believe that rather than legislating quotas, we would prefer an approach that deals directly with the employment access problems such as those I've mentioned: training, education, physical access, language skills. These are the types of approaches that can put the designated groups at an advantage in the employment market. These are the areas where the government needs to take steps to ensure that all people in this province have equal opportunity to access jobs in the marketplace. We believe strongly that this legislation, this arbitrary government intervention, is no substitute for merit and fairness in the workplace.
It is unfortunate that although the commission asked for public input during the three weeks of hearings, the government's bottom line has always been that employment equity will be legislated. There was no option whatsoever. It will be mandatory for both public and private sector workplaces in Ontario. People in this province have had absolutely no choice, no opportunity, to make other positions known and listened to by the government. The government really had decided a long time ago, in its Agenda for People, in the first throne speech, that we would have employment equity. It's just unfortunate that the government was not up front when the bill was introduced regarding the intent: that it was not based on fairness and equal opportunity, nor was it based on ending discrimination that existed in the workplace, but rather that this legislation means reverse discrimination and that, for a growing number of jobs, white males need not apply. Even if they do, they will not be considered.
That is the reality we are seeing at the present time. I can tell you, it has certainly caused uncertainty and hardship, particularly for young people as they approach a university education. They go out and look for the job. There are many white males now who feel particularly disadvantaged, who are under a tremendous amount of stress now they recognize that this is indeed the intent of the legislation.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying discrimination is real in this province. Its effects can be cruel and destructive. But what the struggle against discrimination has been all about is eliminating barriers to opportunity, not creating new ones for another group. The goal must be to give everyone a fair and equal opportunity. It is not, as this government is attempting to do, to prescribe the results. However, as long as governments themselves promote discrimination in the name of ending it, it will not achieve that goal of equal opportunity.
I trust this government will listen to the concerns that have been expressed. I hope they will now do their utmost to ensure this bill provides equal opportunity for everyone in this province. I can tell you, equal opportunity is not the same as employment equity. Equal opportunity means that everybody in this province has equal access to any job that is available if they have equal ability to do that job.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): It's a pleasure to rise today on Bill 79. We've been listening to the myths surrounding employment equity. We've heard from the fearmongers and those who perpetuate those myths. We've also heard that instead of employment equity, what we should do is wait and let time be the healer. Yet we've waited how long?
We've heard from the people of the designated groups while we were in committee. We heard of the stories of frustration, broken dreams and disappointments when they went for their jobs or their job interviews.
By the year 2000, approximately 80% of our workforce will be people from the designated groups. These people have waited far too long for this province to enact any legislation that will give them an equal footing when it comes to employment opportunities.
We've heard about commitments to employment equity. I ask the Liberals, I ask the opposition, where is their commitment? They can't even vote for this legislation. They didn't vote for it on first reading and they didn't vote for it after that and they're not going to vote for it now, I understand. I'm just surprised the Conservatives are even talking about it.
Many institutions are painfully slow. Most of us spend at least a third of our time in the workplace. Work can be a source of self-respect and also dignity, but it can also be a place where it can be a humiliating reminder of subordination and discrimination.
Stereotyping and systemic discrimination vary in the workplace, whether they be intentional or unintentional, and will not become extinct simply because we embrace the concepts of employment equity. Change will take place in this workplace only if we change the way we assess our people and assess our workplaces.
1650
Research shows us that for decades we've been intentionally and unintentionally excluding about 60% of the people at the starting gate, and that's at the recruiting and hiring. How can we get a system of merit if we keep excluding people?
Despite the fact that 20% of our racial minorities have university degrees, compared with about 12% of other members of the labour force, racial minorities still earn less than their white counterparts and experience a higher degree of unemployment and underemployment.
Women in this province make up 52% of Ontario's population and yet they are clustered in about 20 of 500 occupations. Racial minorities must apply at least three times as many times to get a job interview. People of first nations face unemployment rates of 60% to 80%. The rate of unemployment for persons with disabilities is twice that of other members of the labour force, and that statistic does not include those who have stopped looking for work.
A study in 1985 found that for every job offered to a black person, three jobs were offered to a white person with the same level of education and experience.
A 1992 survey by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association showed that unemployment agencies are still willing to meet requests for whites only. This is the fifth time in 16 years a survey has been conducted with similar results.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Did you see what they said about the legislation?
Mr Fletcher: Well, here we go, Mr Speaker, through you to the third party. Our taxfighter friend, Mr Harris, the leader of the third party, was very quick after the last budget that the government shouldn't go ahead with employment equity because it would cost too much money. It would have been a sad day in Ontario and for the people of Ontario if governments had followed that sterling example of wisdom when it was time to set up the Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the rent review board.
Should we have told Ontarians, many of whom are here today: "It's too bad your boss fired you for filing a health and safety complaint, but we can't afford a labour relations board"; "It's too bad that your landlord hiked your rent illegally, but we can't afford a rent review board"; "It's too bad that you got turned down for a job because you're a woman; we can't afford a Human Rights Commission"? It will be a victory for tight-fisted ignorance the day any government nickels and dimes the Human Rights Commission and nickels and dimes the people of this province.
We have a responsibility to address this issue with fair, workable legislation. We must tap into the growing, valuable proportion of the workforce to remain competitive.
It will cost us, if we do nothing, in social assistance and unemployment insurance and lost spending power to keep capable people unemployed. It will cost us in creativity and productivity to keep talented people in low-paying jobs. It will cost companies clients in a growing market if they cannot serve women, people with disabilities or our culturally diverse communities. It will cost business opportunities in a growing global market if they lack the diversity and skills and the expertise to compete. It will cost each and every one of us the loss of human dignity. These are the things we can no longer afford, and the people of Ontario can no longer afford to wait for this.
I'm ashamed of some of the things I've heard from some of the members of the opposition. When we said in committee that we would like to travel the province so that everyone in the province could have input, they said, "No, we don't want to travel the province." When we said we wanted to go to the northern communities so that we could speak with aboriginal groups, they said, "No, we don't want to." When we started to bring in our amendments, in fact when we accepted a Liberal amendment that would have made technical changes, the opposition walked out of committee, not wanting to discuss this.
To perpetuate the discrimination that has been going on and to be the fearmongers that we see in the opposition parties is no longer tolerable to the people of this province. We owe too much to the people who have fought so long for this legislation.
I'm very proud to be part of a government that recognizes the abilities of every person of this province.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. Let me say first that I support employment equity in principle and support a bill that would implement employment equity. This isn't that bill.
I only have a few minutes left in the time, because the government has yet again, without any justification, decided to stamp out democracy by imposing time allocation on this bill, but I will talk about it briefly.
Interjections.
Mr Murphy: The minister, passing by, refusing to even stay in the House to listen to the speech, making a comment as she leaves the assembly, is showing I think a fundamental disrespect for this institution and for the committee that she showed by not showing up at all through the public hearings, not showing up through the clause-by-clause debate --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, Order.
Mr Murphy: -- very typical of the inability of this government to listen to the people. We proposed a whole series of amendments --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury, you're not even in your seat. The member for St George-St David.
Mr Murphy: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe it's totally out of order for a member to talk about the absence of another member from this chamber.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for St George-St David.
Mr Murphy: Let me say that it's quite correct for me to not refer to the continued absence of the minister from the chamber, as I speak right now.
Let me go through very quickly some of what I think are the real, fundamental problems with this bill. First of all, an incredible regulatory burden is going to be created by this bill and that frankly -- as I said in committee and as the parliamentary assistant knows, and if the minister were here, she would too -- we're going to transfer a lot of money to lawyers in the process of trying to achieve employment equity.
It's creating a new commission, a whole new bureaucracy. We're going to have people being bounced back and forth for years and years between the Human Rights Commission and the Employment Equity Commission and back to the Human Rights Commission. It's creating an incredible bureaucracy of requiring people to have reports, file information and create plans, instead of one simple plan.
It also requires the imposition, possibly, I admit, of quotas by virtue of subsection 50(2). The government has left itself that possibility. I have a problem with quotas and that provision continues in this bill. The provision of allowing opportunities to be arrogated on the basis of goals is appropriate, I think. But let me say that this bill also permits the kind of ad that raised as much ruckus as it did a few days ago, which was that opportunities were going to be limited to certain people, and that's a real problem for many Ontarians.
I agree that after positive measures have been put in place and barriers removed, those are kind of appropriate measures. But once those have been instigated and once those have been put in place, everyone who comes to the table should have an equal chance to participate in the economy, to have an equal chance at the job once the barriers have been removed. An amendment that I moved on behalf of my leader, Lyn McLeod, to say that was defeated by the government.
It's interesting that we did a little phoning around to the constituency offices of some of the government members, and there was an amazing amount of agreement with that policy. The member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food said, "No, I'm opposed to a policy that would limit competition in that way," and yet the government has refused to rule out that competition.
Interestingly enough, more waffly but similar messages came from the member for Yorkview, the member for Downsview, the member for Kingston, the member for Huron, and I only had time for those calls.
I also have concern about the inability of this government to support an amendment that would have said, "After you've gone through the process of eliminating barriers, of taking positive and supportive measures as the bill says, you hire the person who's best able to do the job." I know my riding has a high number of people from what this bill will call "designated groups," who say: "I have the talent. I have the ability. Give me the opportunity. I have the merit." Yet this government refused to support an amendment that said at that point merit should apply.
1700
This government voted down an amendment I moved that said part of what should be taken into account is to look at the provisions that limit access to trades and professions. This government voted against that amendment. We also moved an amendment that would have the government support some of what's in the Cornish report to eliminate the bureaucratic entanglements in the Human Rights Commission and the new one created by this Employment Equity Commission. We moved an amendment to that effect. The government voted that one down too. I asked in committee of the minister whether she would commit to me a proclamation date. She has been totally unable to do that.
Let's talk about the real world impact. Where are most of the jobs going to be created in this economy? Everyone says 80% or more of the new jobs are going to be created in small business. This bill does not impact small businesses. The deal this government made with unions, in providing that security of tenure by virtue of union seniority provisions would prevail, has made this bill toothless in those contexts. I think too about the non-unionized workforces, which frankly predominate in this province. This bill provides entirely inadequate consultation mechanisms for those individuals.
What is of significant concern is that this bill leaves an enormous amount of what is actually going to be the pith and substance, as lawyers like to say sometimes, of what the bill means to regulation. We were supposed to have those regulations by October 29. They are sort of finished; they're not finished; they're not prepared to commit. I heard the parliamentary assistant talk about the refusal to travel. That's not quite correct. In fact, subsidies were provided to people to come to the committee, to travel from other places.
The only reason the members of the opposition refused to participate was because of the government's own incompetence. It was not prepared to give us the amendments in time, on time, to allow us an opportunity to review them. Four separate times it gave amendments at the last possible moment. It changed its mind on certain amendments, back and forth and back and forth. It, time and time again, was not ready to proceed in that committee, until finally it brought in a time allocation motion to limit the amount of time we could examine its own incompetence in the management of this bill. It was incredibly incompetent.
I think too about the disabled community. I moved amendments to make sure the standards as applied to the disabled community in the Ontario Human Rights Commission would apply in the Employment Equity Commission. The government voted that one down too, lowering the standard of accommodation required for disabled people. It lowered the standard and you voted it down. You voted in favour of a lower standard and you should be ashamed of that.
Finally, I heard the parliamentary assistant referring to civil libertarians. It's interesting; the view of Alan Borovoy, one of the most prominent civil libertarians in this country and certainly in this province, on this is that this is the wrong way to go about it. This is mandating a result in a way that limits the participation of everyone equally. I tell you, this is an imperfect, flawed and impossible bill to support.
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I'm glad the member for St George-St David indicated Alan Borovoy had taken a position on this issue, because I have an article from the Toronto Star by Alan Borovoy, dated November 24, 1993. He says some very interesting things in this article. For those who are watching and don't know who Alan Borovoy is, he is the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. He says:
"Although the Ontario government killed that job ad barring applications from white males, its philosophy continues to haunt the employment equity bill.
"Consider the government bill on employment equity. Its aim is for every place of business to contain, as soon as possible, the same racial and gender mix as exists in the general society. This explains the government's dubious statements about the contentious ad. Management Board Chairperson Brian Charlton, for example, reportedly said of white males, 'Their time will come...there is only a problem until the workforce is in balance.'"
The reality of that statement, if that is the government philosophy -- and a senior minister says it is -- is that someone who is a white male, for instance, may have 15 years taken out of his worklife while we reach employment equity under this government plan. No one opposes the concept of employment equity. What we oppose is the concept of discrimination to get there.
Let me tell you what Mr Borovoy continues on to say.
Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): You can't have it both ways, Charlie.
Mr Harnick: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says I can't have it both ways. Let's see what Mr Borovoy says about that. Maybe the minister will listen. Maybe the minister will listen and maybe she'll learn something.
Mr Borovoy goes on to say, "While Charlton argued that such jobs restrictions are only temporary, he also acknowledged that temporary could mean 15 years -- in many situations, much of a person's working life. Who, then, can be sacrificed?
"The government approach has been justified as a way to provide compensation for past wrongs," and this is very important. He says, "But if certain women, aboriginals or blacks were improperly denied jobs yesterday," and this is Alan Borovoy, the chairman of the civil liberties association, "how does it compensate them if other members of the same groups receive preferential treatment today? Legitimate compensation could give preference to some of the actual individuals who suffered such past discrimination. But that compensation can't be legitimately transferred to others simply because they have the same gender or skin colour."
Mr Borovoy says, and this I want to emphasize for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: "The legitimate purpose of employment equity is not to compensate for yesterday's sins or to quickly mirror the community mix. Rather, it is to avoid discrimination from now on." Employment equity, he says, is to avoid discrimination from now on, and that is something I am certain every person in this Legislature would agree with.
Mr Borovoy goes on in his article to say that the hiring of such numbers to mirror the racial mix of communities and the preferential mix as the minister has set out "should depend not necessarily upon the community mix -- but rather upon a calculation of how many from those groups would likely be hired if there were proper recruitment and no discrimination in the final selections.
"Moreover, even during employment equity plans, employers should remain legally obliged to avoid discrimination against all individuals -- white males as well as women, racial minorities, and others."
He concludes his article by stating: "In short, the rejection of the philosophy behind the government's ad does not necessarily require a reversion to the inertia that preceded employment equity. But it does require a lot more wisdom in the kind of employment equity that is adopted."
I want to acknowledge those in the gallery today who I saw with regularity at the hearings. They have a very legitimate and decent and realistic goal to achieve. But if you listen to what Mr Borovoy is saying, he is saying that "even during employment equity plans, employers should remain legally obliged to avoid discrimination against all individuals." He's saying, "The legitimate purpose of employment equity is not to compensate for yesterday's sins or to quickly mirror the community mix. Rather, it is to avoid discrimination from now on." That should be the goal of an employment equity plan. That should be the structure of an employment equity plan.
1710
This bill does not accomplish these goals. This bill will promote racial disharmony. This goal of employment equity will be destroyed by this bill.
I am proud to say that my party supports the idea of employment equity without discrimination. I take great comfort in siding with Mr Borovoy as opposed to siding with a government that's going in the wrong direction. I will stake my claim in the philosophy as expressed by Mr Borovoy, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, before I'll stake my claim with this government, any day of the week.
Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm pleased to participate in the debate today on third reading of employment equity, a very important, progressive piece of legislation. I would remind the Liberals across the way that during the NDP-Liberal accord in 1985, this was a part of the agreement which you failed to institute. You gave us a guarantee that this would happen in two years, and then you had a majority government for three years and you did absolutely nothing. You talk a good line, but you do nothing in office.
We are the government that is going to take this forward. The stuff we hear from opposite is really unacceptable. We don't need lectures from you on what we're doing. We are taking up progressive legislation. We have many different kinds of people here in the gallery, women, aboriginal people, visible minorities, disabled people, many people whom this legislation is going to go a long way to help.
I know the Liberals and the Conservatives have tried very hard to upset the apple cart and to make sure to a certain extent that this isn't going to happen. But I want to say, where's your own accountability to the people in your own ridings? You have people of the four target groups in your ridings. Where are you on this issue for those constituents in your ridings?
So stop talking and let's get down to action. I want to say to all of you and to all of you members, I know that you're trying to scare the other people. Severely disabled people and other people out there who are counting on this legislation are going to be hurt if this legislation doesn't come through, and that will be on your record, not ours. You're setting up false expectations trying to scare people into not supporting employment equity.
I'm telling you, 1993 is here, employment equity is going to happen, and it's going to help all disabled people, severely disabled people and other kinds of disabled people, and the other three target groups.
I will remind you, as I've said before, you're only an accident away from being disabled yourselves, so some day you might need this legislation, my friends. Remember that. This legislation is going to work for all the citizens of Ontario and it's going to give people real hope to get in the door and get that job they so well deserve and to give them that real chance they need.
I would appreciate a little cooperation from the members opposite in supporting employment equity, in making sure this happens not only for myself as a disabled person but for disabled people across the board and the other three target groups. I am pleased to stand in my place and support this legislation.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It distresses me that I only have three minutes to speak on such an important subject as opportunity for people with disabilities for access to employment. I would like to tell the member for York East that I am very accountable to the people in my riding. I'm also glad the member mentioned the severely disabled, because one of the reasons I am voting against this bill as critic for the disabled for this party is because it does absolutely nothing for people with severe disabilities. Disabled People for Employment Equity have asked that a task force be set up --
Mr Malkowski: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm rather offended. I am not severely disabled; there are severely disabled people here. I really think that to a certain extent, you people are hypocrites. You talk --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Did I hear "hypocrites"? I won't accept this language. I would ask you to withdraw.
Mr Malkowski: No, I don't accept those points. You're saying this is severely --
Interjections.
Mr Malkowski: I won't withdraw it.
The Deputy Speaker: I ask you to withdraw.
Mr Malkowski: Well, I'm unwilling to withdraw the remark.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga South.
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I would ask to have some time put on the clock. When I had three minutes left to speak on behalf of disabled people in this province and had two interruptions from the member for York East, I think it's grossly unfair. May I request some time to go back on the clock?
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, there is time allocation on this debate and I will adhere to it. The member for Mississauga South.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As there is time allocation and agreement to split the time, at least you could deduct the time for this member from the amount that is left to the New Democrats. I can't believe that it is fair, when time allocation occurs, that you would penalize these people. I ask for unanimous consent to add three minutes to Margaret's speech so that we can have a fair discussion in this place.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Hon Ms Churley: Two minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: Two minutes? The member for Mississauga South.
Mrs Marland: The reason I mentioned severely disabled people is because the member for York East mentioned severely disabled people, and the Hansard will show that.
I have correspondence here from the Disabled People for Employment Equity. I have correspondence here from Persons United for Self-Help in Ontario. Everyone who is familiar with this issue is familiar with the organization PUSH.
Those of these organizations on whose behalf I am speaking and on whose behalf I will be voting against this legislation are concerned about the fact that there is nothing in this legislation that addresses the concerns of people with severe disabilities.
There are so many concerns I have about this bill on behalf of people with disabilities that I certainly cannot deal with it in two or three minutes.
The very fact that in their regulations they talk about designating classes within a designated group -- who are we talking about here? How distasteful this language is. We're talking about people with special needs and we're talking about "classes"? I was glad when I left England where they talked about people in classes. How regressive it is to refer to people in terms of classes.
And how awful it is to ask people to fill out a form that says, "I am this, this or this." People do not want to have to fill out those forms to self-identify to their employer who they are.
I can assure you that regardless of what this legislation contains, it is doing nothing in a concrete way to address the concerns of the disabled people in this province.
It does nothing about getting them to work; it does nothing about transportation, all the areas I have stood in this House and pleaded about on behalf of these people. I have to say this bill does not address the concerns of these people as to their disabilities and their getting to and from work.
This House, which last Thursday, in the majority, supported my private member's resolution for people who are developmentally disabled was voted against by --
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Read the resolution, Margaret. That was a political statement, not information that you provided.
Mrs Marland: The parliamentary assistant who is now interjecting voted against that resolution on behalf of people with developmental disabilities, and he's the parliamentary assistant for the minister. The record shows everything.
1720
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): In the two minutes I have, I want to make some comments with respect to this bill. I want to say that as the Chair of the justice committee I had an opportunity to hear many deputants. What we did as a committee, on all sides, was to listen to what the deputants had to say, and we listened very well and very carefully.
As a result of those deputations we had, this government has made many amendments to address the issues that the deputants brought forth to that committee. I have to say that the equity groups made a tremendous contribution towards those changes that we made in this bill in the preamble.
"The people of Ontario recognize that aboriginal people, people with disabilities, members of racial minorities and women experience higher rates of unemployment than other people in Ontario. The people of Ontario also recognize that people in these groups experience more discrimination than other people in finding employment, in retaining employment and in being promoted."
That is the context of where we find ourselves. That's the context where these designated groups find themselves; that's the reality. When opposition members say that what people want is equal treatment and not this bill, they fail to recognize the reality under which most of these people have lived for a long, long time: They haven't had fairness, they haven't had justice and they haven't had equality.
If merit were the real principle that was used, most of these people would have been hired in those positions. Merit has not been used and that's why we have had fundamental injustices for a long, long time.
What this bill does, contrary to what the Tories are saying, is that it achieves equality for all people in this society. That's what this bill does.
What the Liberals comment on, I'm not quite clear. They talk about a bill being vague. I'm not certain what that is. They talk about laws that are not fair for all. They talk about amendments as if the amendments that were made were not good enough to have been made. They have other criticism as well that I heard from Mr Murphy.
The point is, at the end of the day I am not quite sure what they're saying and what position they have, and I'm quite clearly waiting to see what position they have on this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate, the honourable member for St Andrew-St Patrick.
Ms Akande: I rise as one who is extremely proud -- extremely proud -- to identify to employers and to anyone else who cares to listen exactly who I am. However, I do feel it's somewhat unfortunate that in 1993 I have to rely on legislation that allows me to identify who I am in order to be considered for a job; not a job I want for which I'm not qualified, not a job I want for which I don't have experience, but a position for which people are qualified, for which they have the education, for which they have the experience and the ability, but because they are members of a designated group they have been consistently ignored.
Yes, we have come to the point where we have to ask for people to identify themselves, and we do so proudly. We do so proudly because we know how much we deserve this and we know how long we have waited. We know there are many people who have disabilities who have education, who have master's degrees, who have experience but who have repeatedly been denied the opportunity to use those abilities because they have been prevented from having jobs.
As I mentioned before, I am the daughter of a man who graduated from Coddrington College and in fact was the superintendent of schools in Barbados. He was told, "We don't hire black teachers," and still he moved on. I'm here today to say, will you tell his grandchildren that they too will have to wait because they don't hire people who are qualified and who have ability? I would suggest not.
I think it's extremely important that we recognize what this bill is, and I think it's important that I end by telling you what it is. It is not something which gives us an opportunity to have a job that we are not qualified for. It is not something that gives people in designated groups the right to take a position from someone who has better qualifications. It is in fact an opening of the door. It is in fact an opportunity for people in the designated groups to compete with others, people who are well educated, who have a great deal of experience and a great deal of ability, people who have come and contributed to this country or were born in this country, people who have abilities, some of which have never been considered by those in positions where they are able to hire people, people who in fact are citizens of this country, this democratic country that promises us that we shall have equality.
I come here today, at long last, to speak in my voice and in the voice of my father and in the voice of those who come after me to say: "I want to collect on the promise that this country has made to me. I want equity and I want it now."
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate. The honourable minister.
Hon Ms Ziemba: It is with great pleasure that I stand in my place today to wind up the debate on third reading of employment equity. I feel that I must, at this particular point, thank all of my colleagues. As you can see, this bill means an awful lot to them. They've worked very hard, in a cooperative way with the ministry and with myself, to bring about changes to the bill, to make sure that we have a good, effective piece of legislation.
This bill has been built on cooperation. It's been built on a partnership between business and labour and designated group members. It's been built on talking and consulting and listening and making sure that we heard all the debate and making sure that we listened carefully, to have a bill that gives us an effective tool to implement the change that is needed in Ontario.
My colleague the parliamentary assistant Derek Fletcher spoke very eloquently about the people who came into the standing committee to express themselves about the need for employment equity. My other colleagues have expressed themselves very eloquently as well about the need for employment equity.
Employment equity is many different things. Yes, it's about equity and justice and fairness in the workplace, but it's also about the hope for economic prosperity in Ontario. By having a wider pool of talent to pick from and to choose from, employers can start to embark on that recovery we've been waiting for in Ontario. We can start to build upon the talent, the huge, humongous talent that we have in this province of so many different people and individuals.
As I look around the gallery this afternoon and see some of those individuals who have worked for so many years and have come to so many different governments about employment equity, wanting to make sure there was justice and fairness in the workplace, that discrimination would end, I thank them for their contribution and for their persistence and for their solid support for the principles of employment equity. Thank you.
But most of all, I'm very proud of this government because, with the cooperation of the entire caucus, we have been committed to making sure that not only did we look at jobs, at a recovery for the economy, but we understood that this must be done with fairness and equity and justice and that there must be hope for all of our citizens of Ontario. As I would say to all people who are listening today, this will certainly make a difference for all of you. All Ontarians will benefit from employment equity, from having justice and fairness and equity in the workplace. All Ontarians, whether it's the white males in our community, whether it's designated group members, everybody will benefit from employment equity, from fairer hiring practices, from ending discrimination and harassment in the workplace. This will benefit all of our citizens.
As I look to the future of Ontario, I know that we have a great future in this province. We are embarking on a landmark decision this afternoon that will change not only the workplaces of Ontario, but I would say to you we will see the benefits reaped across Canada.
I want to thank all of the members who have participated today and in the past. Thank you very much.
The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted to third reading of Bill 79.
Miss Ziemba has moved third reading of Bill 79. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
1730
EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION
Mr Martin, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act / Projet de loi 125, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'éducation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some opening remarks?
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Yes, I have some opening remarks.
Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): When this legislation was first introduced --
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think that the honourable member can give comments. He did not move the bill. The parliamentary assistant moved it. He must speak.
Mr Farnan: I would ask for agreement of the House.
Mr Elston: The Speaker knows that the bill was moved by the member for Sault Ste Marie. The standing orders require that he make the remarks.
The Acting Speaker: The bill was moved by the member for Sault Ste Marie. Would he have some opening remarks?
Mr Martin: When this legislation was first introduced, we indicated that it was in response to concerns raised by parents and the public. The aim of the legislation is to improve the functioning of our education system. The Education Amendment Act, 1993, proposes four amendments to the Education Act.
The first amendment gives statutory recognition to the Ontario Parent Council. By recognizing the council in legislation, we are confirming the government's commitment to receiving continuing advice from parents about provincial education policy. The education of our children is of course a partnership. It's a partnership involving students, teachers, principals, parents, school administrators, trustees and others. By listening carefully to views of parents and our other stakeholders, I believe we can make the education system more accountable to the people it serves.
The 18-member parent council is an important step in this direction. Chaired by Jacqueline Latter, it will promote local parent involvement in education and advise the minister on programs and policies of the ministry.
The second amendment contained in this legislation allows for a reduction in the number of trustees to be elected to school boards. As you know, many people and some school boards, particularly some of the larger school boards, have been discussing the possibility of reducing the number of trustees on a school board. This, in part, is a response to reducing school board costs and achieving savings for local ratepayers. Current legislation permits a school board to increase or decrease by one or two its number of trustees.
The current procedure to bring about a change in the number of trustees on a board requires a resolution passed by three quarters of the members of that board. This present provision is too restrictive, because some school boards have indicated that they want to decrease the number of trustees by more than one or two.
What we are proposing is that school trustees be permitted, by a majority vote of members elected by an electoral group, to reduce the total number of members to be elected by that group. A minority language section of a board cannot reduce its members to fewer than three trustees.
I want to point out that this amendment respects school board autonomy. It leaves the decision as to whether there should be a reduction, and if so, by how many, to the people most aware of the local situation and community preference: the locally elected trustees. This amendment would let school trustees make decisions about the size of their boards well in advance of the November 1994 municipal school board elections.
The last two amendments proposed in this act deal with French-language education.
The first will continue existing authority to establish French-language school boards by regulation. If not continued, this power expires on December 31 of this year.
The second French-language education amendment deals with establishing French-language sections between elections. If a school board operates French-language schools or classes, French-language sections must be elected. Since school board elections occur only every third year, there can be a long delay until the next regular election. Therefore, it is necessary to have the power to create French-language sections between elections, and this final amendment will do just that.
I mentioned earlier that the aim of these amendments in this act are to improve the functioning of our education system in Ontario. They relate to the concerns being expressed by parents, trustees and the public, and I ask that the members in this House join me in supporting this legislation.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his opening remarks. Questions or comments? Further debate.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): I will speak briefly in the debate because we will be supporting this particular bill. I'd like to just go over some of the matters which the parliamentary assistant raised.
In this particular bill we have the clause which will permit members of a board to decide if they want to have fewer members, and doing that makes sense at this particular point in time. We know there are some boards that would like to make changes. At the same time, we have a royal commission which is conducting hearings and which is looking into the whole question of governance. I think further recommendations may be made about the specific roles of trustees and of school boards, but this at least allows those trustees, who are of course democratically elected, to make some decisions about the numbers that they have on their particular board.
I want to talk about the parent council, which is also included in this, but first I just want to deal with the two clauses regarding the French-language schools.
In the case of each one, we believe that they make sense in the present context, that there is the regulatory authority to establish French-language school boards where required, and also where there's a need for a special election of minority-language sections of boards between regular election years, that can be done. In either case, is that going to mean a great change from what we have? But it is important that where a French-language section is to be created, if that happens in the middle of the term, there's an ability to do that.
1740
Je pense qu'il y a un aspect important qui touche la communauté francophone. C'est donc la création des conseils scolaires. Je sais que le gouvernement est fort au courant du fait que la Cour suprême a dit que nous devons assurer la gérance de leurs écoles par la communauté francophone. Je pense que globalement il y a un accord entre les députés dans la Chambre que nous devons donner force à cette directive de la Cour suprême.
En effet, sous les trois partis, les Conservateurs, les Libéraux et les Néo-Démocrates, on a développé un système, et je pense qu'on peut être fier de ce qu'on a dans le domaine de l'éducation pour la communauté. Mais quand même, il reste certaines choses à faire. Je sais que la communauté francophone attend la création d'autres conseils scolaires de langue française, surtout dans le nord-est.
Deuxièmement, je pense que, en parlant de ces aspects du projet de loi, je dis aussi au gouvernement que ça va être très important, en faisant les changements qu'on va faire avec le rapport Bourns d'Ottawa-Carleton, qu'on revoie la question de la tutelle du conseil public francophone.
On comprend les raisons pour lesquelles le gouvernement a mis en tutelle le conseil. Mais après je pense trois ans, c'est le temps de vraiment voir si on ne peut pas trouver une autre façon d'assurer la direction de leurs écoles par le conseil qui a été élu et, en même temps, assurer que la dette va être réduite et finalement éliminée.
Nous avons parlé avec les dirigeants du conseil public à Ottawa et aussi avec les représentants du ministère, et je pense qu'il est certainement possible de voir une solution. Mais je pense que ça va être important, parce que dans le rapport Bourns on a dit que ce sera peut-être le temps d'enlever le parapluie, si on veut, qui lie le conseil public au conseil séparé. Je pense que ça fait du bon sens et qu'on peut développer des idées et donc éliminer la tutelle aussi.
I think as well, in just closing my comments on the bill, I want to talk a little bit about the Ontario Parent Council. I was delighted to join with the minister and others when the council was announced just a few days ago. I think all of us who had a chance to meet with the people who had been selected for the council were impressed by their breadth of background, by the different parts of the province from which they came. I think we certainly wish them very well in their work.
Having said that, I also make the remarks tonight, as I did when the minister made the announcement in the House, that I think there are a couple of important things for the council to keep in mind. One is the obvious difficulty for 18 people to, in effect, represent all parents in the province. I think they understand that is always difficult to do but that they can play a very useful role in trying to focus on those concerns that emanate from parents.
I would hope that as they set about their task and as they develop their work schedule, there will be a way for the council to meet in different parts of the province so that they can really include parents, whether it's by holding one of their four or five meetings during the year in Thunder Bay or in Windsor or London, Ottawa, but in different places where parents can be involved and see that element of their work.
The second point that I think it's important to underline is that, in my view and in our view, there is an important role for school boards. In looking at the development of the Ontario Parent Council, and perhaps at a local level school councils or other kinds of groups that would bring together parents and representatives of the community, there is still going to continue to be, in my belief, a role for locally elected school boards, because it's not just a question of having Queen's Park, the Ministry of Education and Training and a school all by itself trying to determine and direct all elements of education. We do need that middle level which is the school board.
There's been a lot of talk recently by some that we should be looking to get rid of school boards, and I think that would be a mistake. Certainly the people I know who serve on school boards are very dedicated people. They get involved because they really want to make sure that the education of their children and of our children is the very best it can be. We don't want to lose that local contact and the fact that those people go out every three years to be elected.
I often say to parents, to business people and to others who at times are upset with what they feel are things school boards do that they ought not to do: "Look, then you should run. If you want to see changes, then seek election." It always amazes me that with all the discussion we have about the education system and concerns that people have, none the less when we look at the turnout for school board elections, it's usually in the neighbourhood of 25% or 30%. I think a lot of people in effect abdicate their responsibility by not going out and saying: "If I'm unhappy with something, let's get involved. Let's make some changes."
The Ontario Parent Council, I believe, if it can do its work properly and really reach out and try to represent as best it can the views and the voices of parents, will have and can have a positive impact on where we are going in terms of education policy and development. But I would hope that as they go about their work, they establish good working links with the major trustee associations, with the major teacher federations in the province and with those different groups, such as the Quality Education Network and others that are seeking changes in our educational system. I think that if people feel they are included, that their voices are being heard, it's going to make the work of the parent council more effective and it's also going to help the whole system.
As I said at the outset, we are going to support this education omnibus bill and we want to wish the Ontario Parent Council all the very best as it heads into its first full year of operation.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Questions or comments? Further debate?
Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I wish I could be as gracious as my colleague, but I'm standing here --
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): No one could be as gracious as Charles. Come on.
Mrs Cunningham: Lots of times I am.
Today there are three or four very important issues in this legislation. We received it, first reading was November 25, just a few days ago, and we've had very little time to ask the school boards and the individual groups that are interested in education across the province how they feel about a couple of the issues, of course.
One is with regard to decreasing the number of trustees at the next regular election. We expect there will be a tremendous amount of support for that. The other is with regard to statutory recognition of the Ontario Parent Council. I am just going to spend a couple of minutes here talking about process.
It's always been my understanding that especially this government, which campaigned on the issue of listening to the public and responding to their requests -- I would suggest that in the last few days and weeks in this Legislative Assembly, there's been very little regard for the public with regard to the number of bills that have been tabled and the amount of time we've had to debate them, the number of closure motions we've been facing, unprecedented in the history of this province, the number of hours to take a look at legislation, such as Bill 100 that I was part of. We met I think on three occasions and the fourth time frame was for debate of amendments.
We've had very little time. It's just a rush, rush job, close to Christmas and not the way I believe a government should operate, not unlike the former government. I hate to be critical, because I'm quite, should I say, pleased to work with my fellow critic of the Liberal Party. But I have to say that on the whole, since I've been at Queen's Park for almost six years now, we don't have a committee system that works where people can honestly come before the committee in a timely manner and take time to prepare their briefs. That's one of the reasons that we're not going to be supporting this legislation this evening.
1750
There are very many parts of the legislation that we do support and my colleagues in the ridings across the province I think would concur with me. But each will have their opportunity to vote whichever they feel most comfortable doing, as they individually represent their constituents. But as the critic I will be speaking to the four parts as follows.
The first issue in this Bill 125 that amends the Education Act that I would like to speak to is with regard to section 3. This permits the members of a board to approve a decrease in the number of trustees to be elected by the electorate at the next regular election. Just on that particular subject, I would like to say that there are some school boards which have chosen for their own reasons, and if we believe in local autonomy and governance, I do believe that this is the kind of decision they ought to be able to make locally, so we will be supporting that part of the bill.
Several large public school boards have recommended allowing school boards to reduce the number of trustees: Etobicoke, the Metro French-language, Metro separate and Ottawa have all expressed interest in reducing the number of trustees.
This past August the Ottawa Board of Education trustees voted to reduce their trustees from 18 to 10. They subsequently petitioned the government to introduce an amendment that would allow the reduction. In October the Toronto Board of Education rejected a motion to reduce its trustees by five. So we are looking at local governance in action. Obviously, these school boards are influenced by the public that they represent. The public has had opportunities to speak to the school boards and they've taken a vote accordingly.
I would also like this assembly to know that on October 13 our leader, Mike Harris, asked the Minister of Education to introduce a bill to allow school boards to reduce the number of trustees. I wish on that point that the government would listen to the requests we make that make good sense and act accordingly. In this instance there have been opportunities for the school boards to respond, I think, to this request.
The amendments will permit a reduction in the number of trustees to be elected to school boards. Trustees elected will be permitted by a majority vote of their members to decide to reduce the total number of trustees to be elected. A minority-language section cannot reduce its members to fewer than three trustees. This is what the bill is stating here. The amendments are required well in advance of November 1994, when the municipal school board elections will be held. I think it is of interest to the members of the assembly that in 1992 there were 2,132 trustees in Ontario. We'll probably see a lesser number with this bill, so we do support it.
The second part of the bill that I would like to respond to is with regard to the Ontario Parent Council. This amendment does allow and recognize the Ontario Parent Council in statute and confirms the government's commitment to receive advice from parents on provincial education policy.
When this Ontario Parent Council was launched on September 7 by Mr Cooke, the Minister of Education and Training, he stated that the council had two main roles. With regard to policy, the council is expected to give advice on elementary-secondary policy and program issues to the Minister of Education and Training.
For the first time, at least in the press release, the minister admitted that the parents will have direct access to the minister.
With regard to the second mandate or role, it has to do with Outreach, the council is expected to promote parent involvement in the education system. It will reach out to parents and assist them in identifying education issues and will communicate their concerns to the minister.
Obviously in my portfolio I hear from citizens from all over the province of Ontario, but especially from groups that have traditionally in the past had the responsibility and whose mandate in fact has been to advise governments and of course, in the area of education, the Minister of Education and Training. Many of these groups have argued that this is a simple and superficial courtesy to public opinion that will only raise the cynicism already evident among Ontario taxpayers, because we now have a $600,000 parent council. It will be an advisory group, actually number 44 in the Ministry of Education and Training, and therefore its ability to influence the minister's decision-making, they tell me, is suspect.
I think it's with disappointment that the traditional home and school associations -- and today we met with the Catholic Women's League; we can go on to talk about parent-teacher councils, traditional councils of women across the province of Ontario, many groups that have a mandate to make recommendations on education and reach into their non-partisan grass roots to advise all levels of government -- are feeling that this group is not necessary, that there have been the traditional groups, parent groups, teacher groups, student groups, business groups for the minister to consult with, that this is just lipservice by the government of the province of Ontario and in fact it's quite an expensive way of doing business.
The other criticism we have heard is with regard to the inter-relationship between the parent council and the Royal Commission on Learning. It's unclear. The question would be: Isn't parental input a major part of what the $3-million royal commission is supposed to be doing? If in fact we did need a parent council in statute, would that not have been an appropriate recommendation from the Royal Commission on Learning? In the meantime, could the minister not have used the traditional, grass-root parent councils, student groups, business groups, labour groups that have their own advisory committees on education?
All of the above I deal with on a regular basis in my own city and certainly they advise me, as Ontario groups, as to their concerns and their recommendations with regard to improvements in the quality of education in the province of Ontario.
The selection of representatives for the parent council has, in fact, been denounced. The tight time lines and limited numbers selected from the regional areas seem to make a mockery of the money and the effort expended on the project. I'm going to be very specific here.
The council was announced on September 7 and applications were due on October 7. Only six of the 18 seats on the parent council were filled from applications sent by ordinary Ontarians to independent selection committees -- only six. Three seats were selected from established parent organizations and 10 were hand-selected by the minister. In all, more than 1,100 applications were received for the council's 18 positions.
I think the minister probably did recognize, by the response for applications, that there are literally hundreds of people, perhaps thousands, who are interested in advising this government on education. I think there has always been an important group of individuals who have taken education as a prime interest and been involved in their local schools.
Our solution would have been to make sure that school boards did have parent advisory committees in every single school and that those committees send representatives, or a representative in some kind of a council representing the municipality, to all school board meetings, committee meetings of school boards, and that school boards reach out to get the kind of input that is needed in every local community across this province.
Our emphasis would have been in every local community and in every local school, and I emphasize the importance of parents being involved in their children's education, of them clearly understanding the changes. I think if we did have that kind of grass-roots involvement, this government would never have moved in some of the directions that it's moved in.
1800
Destreaming is a very good example. In fact, a lot of it is not taking place because local school boards and parents and parent councils and students, and especially students who have special needs, recognize that it is not the way to go. There's a lot of research that talks about the best way to meet the needs of all of our students, and we should be paying attention to that.
I will say in closing on that issue that we have no objection to the persons who have been nominated and who are members of that commission, who will receive, I think, $110 per day and be reimbursed for their travel expenses. Since the minister has decided to forge ahead anyway, we hope that the parent council, because we are spending the money on this council and because people have in good faith put their names forward -- we really know just a few of the members, but we do wish them well because this is a decision of the government and we're not going to stand in the way of their progress. We will be helpful whenever we can.
In the meantime my concerns, on behalf of so many of my caucus colleagues and the members and parents across this province and other groups that have been in touch with us, are on the record for the minister to look at with regard to this legislation.
There are two parts of the bill that relate to French-language governance. The existing power to establish French-language school boards by regulation expires on December 31, 1993, and the amendment will continue the government's power to establish French-language school boards by regulation.
This is not a new situation in the province. The power to create French-language school boards by regulation was established by Bill 12, which I spoke to and which received royal assent on December 20, 1990. At that time we voted against the bill, arguing the creation of new French-language boards by regulation would not allow for full consultation with the surrounding community and existing boards prior to implementation.
We take this position and we would continue on with our argument against French-language school boards by regulation. The Prescott-Russell French-language school board was created using this regulatory power in December 1991, and in a briefing on December 3, 1993, the minister's staff indicated that he would not be creating any new French-language school boards before the Royal Commission on Learning reports in December 1994.
We are simply not in agreement with French-language school boards being created by regulation. Where they're necessary we would encourage full public debate. That's a simple position, one that is true of anything else we do in this House. We just think they are much too important to be created by regulation.
On the last part, a very short presentation on our part this afternoon. The second amendment relating to French-language school boards deals with establishing French-language sections between elections, and if a board operates French-language schools or classes, French-language sections must be elected. Since school board elections occur only every third year, there can be a long delay until the next regular election. Therefore, it is necessary to have authority to create French-language sections between elections, according to this government and according to the minister. We should know that Lanark Leeds and Grenville County Roman Catholic Separate School Board currently runs French-language schools, but do not have French-language trustees.
We have very mixed feelings on this particular recommendation, Mr Speaker, but I think I should let you know that any opposition to this is simply that we don't want to make the electoral process more difficulty by having different rules for different school boards. Therefore, we would say that this is not really that necessary. In fact, it's not a difficult thing to do, and if people plan ahead, they could be in a position to have their boards elected at the appropriate time, along with other boards in Ontario. It's really a management issue that we're talking about. We think there should be consistency between all school boards every third year, when other boards are elected.
We've put our concerns on the record. I will just close by saying, here we are in December. Most people are taking the time to celebrate and make preparations for the holiday season. Another important piece of legislation is before us. Three different principles are in the same bill: the size of school boards, the parent council and French-language governance. If you don't like one part of it, you're forced to vote against the bill. I just don't think this is a very appropriate way to do business, but it is consistent with this government. It's something that will change when we become government.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I would have liked to speak a little bit longer, but I understand there's an agreement to limit debate to a restricted time.
I do want to say, however, that I do support this bill. Frankly, sometimes one wonders why it is necessary to have a bill that school boards be allowed to reduce the number of their trustees. You'd think that perhaps a school board would have the authority to do that, because to me, frankly, that's an eminently reasonable proposal. I'm glad that some of the school boards consider it a feasible option and that they would like to do this. I know that in my own area of Ottawa-Carleton, some of the school boards are ready to do that.
I should say that, like our own Education critic, the member for York North, I do support the existence of school boards. Certainly my own experience as a school board trustee on the Carleton separate school board was a very good one. I do think we had an excellent relationship with the parents.
As for this parent advisory council that the minister is setting up for the province, frankly, that existed for a long time at my own school board in the Ottawa-Carleton area. In fact, I served on that. I do think this parent-teacher-administrator relationship was a good one at our school board because there were some formal structures that provided an opportunity for these partners in education to voice their concerns, to speak to each other.
I found that frankly I was looking forward to these meetings, in particular with the parents. There were always opportunities in my days on the school board when we had a time for the ratepayers -- those could be parents or people who didn't have any children in the system -- to speak their minds and to address the board and put forward their concerns. If this bill helps in some small way to achieve this, I think it's a good thing.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Any other questions or comments? If not, the member for London North has two minutes to respond, if she wishes.
Mrs Cunningham: No.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The assistant minister, would you care to finish the debate?
Hon Mr Farnan: I would, first of all, apologize to members of the House for being slightly late in being able to introduce the bill earlier today, particularly to the member for Bruce. I did get a call that my son had to go to hospital. But the member for Bruce will be pleased to know that I have spoken to him, that he is okay and there is no need for concern. To the rest of the members of the House, I appreciate their kindness in this regard.
I want to thank the critics for their comments. As critics, it is a responsibility to be constructive. I heard much in the presentation of the two critics that was positive, that recognized the value of the bill.
1810
Much of this omnibus bill is housekeeping, it's nuts and bolts. But certainly I would like to make comment on the parent council because the critic for the third party did go to some lengths to discuss this issue. We all know that when parents take an interest in the education of their child, then that child's performance at school improves. Logically, it flows from this that when parents become involved in the school or the board or the school system itself, the school system improves.
I commend my minister, David Cooke, for bringing forward this initiative, because in all of the years in which we had previous administrations and for the first couple of years of this administration, there had never been an advisory committee to the minister made up of entirely of parents.
Certainly one could argue that there were indirect means by which parents could make their views heard. But there had never been an advisory committee made up solely of parents that had direct, ongoing, continuous dialogue with the minister. That, of course, is shocking. For 42 years of Conservative rule there was no ongoing dialogue between parents and the ministers of education. It's nice to hear the Conservative critic now saying, "This is a good idea," but it's wrong somehow or other.
During the five years of the previous Liberal administration, again, the opportunity was not taken up.
But I appreciate the fact that the recognition is there that the initiative taken by the Minister of Education in this administration is significant, important and vital.
The member asked, why set up this parent council when we have the royal commission going on? Can't they just have input to that and then indirectly to the minister? The difference of course is that the advisory council, the Ontario Parent Council, is ongoing. It will outlive the royal commission. The royal commission will report in the fall of 1994. After that, it will be up to this government, when we approach our second term, to look at how we implement over the next 10 years perhaps the recommendations of the royal commission. Of course, we will seek the support of the other parties as we address these issues.
But the parent council is clearly something that we do not believe is in a time frame, that it's going to be used for three months or six months. We are developing a covenant with the parents of Ontario, and that covenant is that we are going to work together in partnership.
The critic for the third party is quite correct. Parents have been waiting for this and have responded in an extraordinary manner. I indeed had the opportunity to review many of those applications, the quality of the individuals, their commitment, already demonstrated at the local level and at the board level, the fine group of parents who volunteered and who were selected and who are a true representation of all the regions of the province. I have the opportunity to have the lead on this particular council and I'm looking forward very much to working with this particular council.
With regard to the issue of the reduction of trustees and the board's ability to make such a decision, I think the member for Nepean spoke very well and very clearly: It makes common sense. Really, part of the responsibility of good government is to apply common sense to situations, and if indeed there is legislation that impinges upon the exercise of good common sense, then clearly the responsibility of government is to remove those barriers.
When we looked at a situation where school boards, in response to their taxpayers, in response to their communities, are saying, "We want to and we believe we can become more efficient. We can be more effective by reducing the number of trustees," but find that they are bound in a straitjacket of legislation from the provincial level, it just makes good sense for us as a province, for us as a ministry, to say, "Let's remove those barriers and let's work cooperatively with the school boards." I commend the member for Nepean for what I found was the most constructive remarks with regard to the issue in this particular bill.
As I pointed out at the beginning of my remarks, much of this is housekeeping, much of this is common sense. I do commend the critics from both the opposition parties for recognizing the positive elements in this bill, the constructive elements in this bill, the leadership that has been demonstrated by the Minister of Education in incorporating parents, the leadership that has been demonstrated by the minister also in allowing boards to take ownership in the number of trustees.
For the remainder of the bill, I point out that it simply is an extension of what is already in place for one of the items, and the other is purely a housekeeping matter. I again commend the members for their contribution, and I'm delighted that this piece of legislation is moving forward.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Madam Speaker, the last speaker, the member for Cambridge, indicated this is simply housekeeping. In looking through the bill, I have to ask the question, is this a precursor to the elimination of school boards? I recognize that it requires a resolution of the electoral group of the board --
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The last time you read a bill was in --
Mr Callahan: The Minister of Transportation has interjected. I suggest he probably hasn't even read the bills he's presented to this House.
But I ask that question in all legitimacy because the haste with which this bill is being proffered strikes me as an effort to reduce the size of school boards. I know in Metropolitan Toronto the majority of the school boards are represented by New Democratic members, who might fall in line with your proposals to have the school board in Metropolitan Toronto reduced, if not annihilated, to the extent that you would then have in place parent councils.
Parent councils are fine. They probably would reduce the tax burden, but in the final analysis they would reduce the question of accountability, and accountability is what it's all about. Parent councils are appointed, they're not elected; trustees are in fact elected. So I would inquire of the member who just spoke as to whether or not he can tell us whether his government has a secret agenda, as to whether or not they're going to eliminate the school boards, at least in the city of Toronto, and thereby take away the accountability that is necessary, albeit in the effort to try to reduce costs. But accountability is very important in a democratic society and, thus far, in all the things I've seen of this government, they are truly not democratic.
Mrs Cunningham: I'd like to thank the member for Cambridge for his compliments and, secondly, I would just like to correct him on one point. I don't want to date myself, but in fact I did sit as a parent on many advisory committees, in this Legislative Building actually, on community schools, on the issue of homework, on the issue of sexism in the curriculum, on the issue of school closure. In the 1960s and 1970s and early 1980s, advisory committees to the government sat. Parents were invited, along with school board trustees, and we actually hammered these policies out.
1820
That process has totally disappeared. At least as long as I've been here I have never seen an advisory committee where you, as the member for Cambridge, or I, as the member for London North, would be invited, along with representatives from the community. Never. I don't want to be particularly defensive, but I just want to make sure the member understands that.
The other point that the member made, and I just want him to think about this, because it wasn't my intent to say that the parent committee was struck before the advisory council reported. My intent there was, why don't we wait and see if in fact this expensive advisory council even said there was a need for an Ontario Parent Council? That's all I was saying there. I wasn't meaning to say that the Royal Commission on Learning was going to preclude parent councils or that parent councils were ongoing. Why didn't we just hear from them? Because that's what parents are doing: telling the royal commission how they best can have input. Our position is that at the local board level is extremely important, and another method would have been more appropriate for the minister.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Thank you to the member for Cambridge, who clearly indicated what the bill is about. I think it's very important, because as a representative of my own community, one of the two boards in this province that have been very fiscally responsible and have highlighted a number of concerns recently and in the past about provincial governments downloading to the boards. This is going to give the minister an opportunity to have firsthand knowledge from parents about the decision processing that is taking place.
I remember in the past when the Liberals and the Conservatives were in and they passed it down to the local boards, parents had concerns about it, but then it was always put back, "Well, it was done by the leadership or the government of the day." This is going to allow the parents' advisory council an opportunity to make sure that before it is even considered, the parents, the taxpayers who we all represent, will have that opportunity.
I notice there were other comments made and I'm sure the member, in his two-minute response, will talk about how this is not really a partisan political issue, as I heard the member opposite from the Liberal Party indicate in trying to make it a political thing. This is an opportunity for parents to be involved, for school boards to make decisions. Not only will school boards be reducing school board trustees, but I know in my own community two municipalities are looking at reducing council. The overgovernance is too much. What they want to do is have that opportunity to reduce it. This legislation provides that community input, for the community to make a decision about its interpretation.
To the member for Cambridge, I have to compliment you for giving the critics compliments. I was really shocked. I thought at least they would have some good things to say. But to the member for Cambridge, who always come with a fair-minded viewpoint on issues, I thank him for his compliments in his remarks today.
The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.
Mr Daigeler: I just wanted to say, first of all, thank you to the member for Cambridge for the nice words that he said about my own remarks earlier, which were very brief. Then the member for Chatham-Kent made some observations which I --
Mr Hope: No, no. None of my comments.
Mr Daigeler: Oh, you'll be pleased to hear they're going to be congratulatory on your comments as well, because guess what? The member for Chatham-Kent --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I need to hear.
Mr Daigeler: -- said that the school board in his area handled its finances very well. He was very congratulatory towards the school board, and I can agree with him.
Guess what? My brother-in-law was one of the superintendents of that school board for more than 20 years. He just recently retired, and I must credit my brother-in-law for some of the very good financial management of your school board. I'm very glad that you recognize the contribution that was made, and I just want to reiterate the comments that the member for Chatham-Kent just made about his own school board and about the excellent way in which this school board has handled its affairs. It is true and it's recognized across the province, and I just want to put on the record the contribution of my brother-in-law in this regard.
The Acting Speaker: Now the member for Cambridge, the associate Minister of Education and Training, has two minutes.
Hon Mr Farnan: I do want to emphasize how important it is to leave aside political and partisan issues. I would say to the member, in setting up a royal commission, we give it the opportunity to look at the whole area of governance and then we will see how it reports on that, without interference and without prejudgement. But let's see how they handle this issue and let's see what the results are.
The member for London North asks, "Surely we could wait till the royal commission report." We are not simply going to stand still over a period of two years while the royal commission reports. You have to understand that we have taken significant steps in the areas of testing, in the areas of developing a common curriculum, in the area of benchmarks. All of these issues are important.
Why would we, as a government, I ask you, Madam Speaker, say, "We are not going to talk to the parents of Ontario until the fall of 1994"? The critic for the third party is totally out of touch with reality. The people of Ontario are saying to us very clearly: "We want to be part of the system. We want to be part of the accountability. We want to be part of the measurement." My minister is saying: "Yes, we want you as a partner. Although you have been neglected for the last 45 years, this New Democratic government is saying, 'Parents, you are part of the partnership, you are part of the solution and we welcome you on board.'"
The Acting Speaker: Is there any other member who wishes to participate in this debate?
Mr Martin, on behalf of Mr Cooke, has moved second reading of Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? To which committee shall the bill be referred? Third reading? Okay.
INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act / Projet de loi 31, Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I had an opportunity to provide extensive comments in second reading debate, so I am not going to add any additional comments. I look forward to hearing the other ones. Hopefully, we can have a good, quick debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions or comments?
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I'd like to ask the honourable member, if he made such extensive comments before, why did no one believe him?
The Acting Speaker: Are there any other members who have a question or a comment? The member for Oxford has two minutes, if he wishes, to respond.
1830
Mr Sutherland: My only response is that I'd be happy to send the member for Bruce some good Oxford county cheese to go with some other types of refreshments he may want to enjoy.
The Acting Speaker: We will look to see if any other members would like to debate this bill.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I do like the member for Oxford and, frankly, I think he's on the wrong side of the House. Perhaps he'll still see the light. In his youthful ways three years ago, I think as a student, he joined the NDP never thinking that he would be elected. But since he has now matured, he's three years older, he got married and perhaps has got wiser, he might still realize that really the party he is presently with might not be the right one for the future.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): You've got to think about a future. You have to have a future over there.
Mr Daigeler: Because for sure the next election is going to kick him out if he stays there. I'd say he was a bit flippant because, frankly, this bill isn't quite as flippant a matter as perhaps the comment seemed to suggest. I don't want to say -- because we are just briefly before Christmas, I don't want to harp too much on the comment.
This Bill 31 is a significant bill because it raises taxes. Perhaps that's one of the reasons why the member for Oxford did not want to elaborate too much on what this bill actually contains.
This bill goes back to the May budget of the Ontario Treasurer. Now he's no longer called Treasurer, it's the Minister of Finance. I'm not quite sure why they changed that name. I thought Treasurer was kind of unique for the situation of Ontario.
Be that as it may, this bill implements now what the Treasurer announced in terms of tax increases for all of the Ontario people. It raises the income tax and, just to make sure the people are following us, here's what it says, section 3 of the bill, "The re-enactment of paragraph 2 of subsection 3(1) of the act implements the budget proposal to increase the surcharge for 1993 to 17% of Ontario personal income tax over $5,500 plus 8% of Ontario personal income tax over $8,000 and for 1994 and thereafter, to 20% and 10% respectively for those amounts.
"Section 4. The re-enactment of clause 4(5)(q) of the act implements the budget proposal to increase the rate of Ontario personal income tax to 58% for 1993 and subsequent years."
So even though the parliamentary assistant doesn't want to mention this too loudly and too long, I think I do have an obligation, certainly on this side of the House, to remind the people who are watching that this is a tax bill. It raises taxes.
I'm sure the Conservative Party will want to speak to this matter as well because they have been calling for a long time for a stop to tax increases.
I have to be reasonable. I used to be in the same position the current parliamentary assistant is in when very shortly before Christmas and before the recess of the House, the Ministry of Revenue -- in those days it was called the Ministry of Revenue -- had to come in with certain bills and try and get them through the House because these were finance bills and had to be passed so the Ministry of Revenue could collect the taxes. I always said it wasn't the fault of the Ministry of Revenue; the decision was made by the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance and then it simply became a Revenue bill because it's the Revenue officials who actually collect the money.
Certainly in our days, I think one could make a good argument, and we did make an argument, that because the times were good we also were asking for the people to pay for the services they were asking for. I always defended my government and my decisions in that way and I still do.
In those days between 1987 and 1990 I received a lot of calls and a lot of representations in my office, here at Queen's Park and back home in Nepean. People were coming in almost on a daily basis, calling for an increase in services. I always said: "Okay, fine. If you do want this additional service, are you prepared, then, to pay for it, rather than put the burden on future generations?" Therefore, I said, "Okay, we will then have a tax increase as well." I think in those days people said: "Yes, we can afford it and we can still carry it. Because we do want the service, we accept as well certain tax increases."
However, we all know that over the last three years we have seen a dramatic change in the economic picture of the province. We all know that the bottom, almost literally, has fallen out of the Ontario economy. I do think there are some international factors at work, but not only. There are also some very, very clear decisions that were made by this government and I will not let this government off the hook. There were decisions made, especially in the first two years of this government, that clearly had an impact on the economic viability of this province. I'll just mention a few.
There was clearly Bill 40, the labour legislation. I know, Madam Speaker, you may disagree with me and members opposite will disagree with me, but I am convinced this bill did nothing for, in fact it seriously hurt, the confidence of our business people in this province. This was the start of a business climate that continued, up until today, at least, to deteriorate.
What wonder, then, that with that deterioration of the business climate and the willingness of the business people to invest, to go out there and to make money, all of a sudden the tax revenues for the province dropped like a stone. How can the government be so surprised?
The Minister of Finance keeps saying, "We have that deficit in the province because our revenues are no longer there." It's true; he's right. But what we are saying is, you could have easily foreseen that significant drop in revenues. You knew that drop in revenues was coming. In fact, you not only knew about that drop in revenues, you and your government, your cabinet colleagues, contributed significantly to the drop in revenues. I mention Bill 40.
The other legislation I keep reminding especially the member for Ottawa Centre, the Minister of Housing, about was the provision that basically eliminated all renovations or most of the major renovations in apartments and high-rises and so on, where the landlords no longer had an opportunity to recoup, in a reasonable way, their expenses with regard to capital expenditures. Is that reasonable?
I do agree that we must protect our renters and I'm all in favour of that. I think there has to be a reasonable approach both to the rental situation and also to the profit situation. I'm not afraid to use that word. I think there has to be some incentive for the business people in this province, including the owners of rental buildings, to make a profit and get a reasonable return, first of all, on their investment, and especially on their investment into renovations and keeping up the quality of their buildings. I tell you, it isn't just the big landlords -- by no means -- who decided not to make renovations. It's also the smaller landlords.
1840
People in my own riding came to me who had apartment buildings, six apartments or maybe 12 apartments in them, middle-class people who invested some of their money in rental units in view of retirement, and all of a sudden the government changed the legislation and they were no longer able to recoup, retroactively even, some of the moneys they had put into their buildings.
Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): What about the tenants?
Mr Daigeler: The minister asks, what about the tenants? I quite agree, there has to be protection, but there was a very good system in place.
Hon Ms Churley: It wasn't working, Hans.
Mr Daigeler: The rental review system worked. The minister says it wasn't working. It was working very well.
The Acting Speaker: Could the member relate his comments back to Bill 31, please.
Mr Daigeler: Bill 31 is a tax bill, this bill raises taxes, and I think there's a very obvious connection between what I'm saying and this bill. This bill raises taxes. Why does it raise taxes? Because the government needs more money. Why does it need more money? Because the revenue isn't there, the revenues have been dropping. I'm trying to explain, why has the revenue dropped?
Hon Ms Churley: Because you left us with a big deficit.
Mr Daigeler: The minister's making a point. She's urging me on. I don't think she should have made that point. The minister is saying that we, meaning the Liberal government, shouldn't have left such a deficit for the current government. Minister, that is blatantly incorrect, if I'm allowed to say this in here, and I've spoken about this at some length. I'm very serious about this. To the credit of the Minster of Finance, in the first two years of his office he never said this deficit was the fault of the Liberal government. To his credit, he didn't say that, because he realized that he himself made certain decisions -- and you can't blame them for it -- in 1990 when they took office to pay off certain debts that the province had and also to raise certain provisions, for example, on the social assistance side, and to charge that to the budget. That was part of their responsibility, and the Minister of Finance in those days, two years ago, recognized this.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): You're such a wise sage now. I remember, when Elston was with Management Board, what a mess that was. You know it all now.
Mr Daigeler: The Minister of Transportation says I know it all. I did, and I can give him the Hansard. I spoke about this several times already in this House, explaining to him that the financial situation was a good one that was given to this province, and what led to the very rapid and very significant deterioration of the economic situation in this province was clearly some of the decisions this government has made. I don't blame the minister for all the economic mess. I don't do that.
Hon Ms Churley: Oh, thank you, thank you.
Mr Daigeler: The minister's saying thank you. You're welcome. But you cannot hide from some of the very grave mistakes you made, and you were warned about it. I told you in this House that while other provinces were already reducing their payouts to their civil servants -- I remember way back in 1990 Newfoundland was already putting in place wage and price controls and, if I remember correctly, Manitoba did as well -- the Ontario NDP government at that time was still raising the civil service rates by more than 7% and also increased the transfer payments to the hospitals, schools and so on by more than 6% or 7%.
I remember those days when actually the school boards and the hospitals were surprised that they were getting such a significant transfer rate increase. Of course they liked it, they appreciated it, never thinking that within a year they'd have to pay it all back and now they continue to have to pay it back.
My point is this, because, Madam Speaker, you asked about the relationship of my comments to this bill: The point is that this government has to raise taxes now, at a time when it is so detrimental to the economy to raise taxes, because it made some very grave errors throughout its reign, if I could say that, its term in office up till now. They made some very grave mistakes and now we're all paying for it. Revenues were dropping and continue to drop like a stone.
This bill probably will add to the problem. As my leader has said quite often in this House, this is not the time to raise taxes. It will have the opposite effect of what you're trying to achieve. We understand that you do have to have the revenue, that you can't run the government without the revenues; we understand that. But if you're interested in revenues, the way to raise revenues, get the revenues going up again, is to try to stimulate the economy, to try to make it possible for the business people and for the middle class and for all the people of the province to use their money again and to consume and roll the dollar over, as they say, from that increased business activity. If people have a little bit of money left over, they spend the money; perhaps they build an addition to their house or buy a new car or whatever. If they have a bit of extra money left over, they will put it in the economy, they will go to a store and they will spend it, and that way the economy gets rolling again, and with a rolling economy the government gets its cut as well.
By the way, when I say the government gets its cut, let's not kid ourselves: It doesn't go into my pocket; it doesn't go into your pocket. When we say the government gets its cut, what we mean is that the government is able to pay all the services that we collectively have asked for from the government, that we have requested.
Let's get the economy going again. Let's make the right economic decisions so that the business people will invest again and the ordinary person will start spending a bit of money again and in that way get the economy flowing again, bring in the tax revenue, and then we don't need all these tax increases that we're seeing today.
What my leader has been saying throughout this year, what I have been saying, what I'm saying again tonight, is that this is the wrong time to bring in another tax and to raise taxes again. What this measure will do is further hinder the economic renewal that seems to be under way.
I think there are some hopeful signs on the horizon. The stock market, when you see how well it's doing, should be the precursor of good things ahead, and I certainly hope so. Frankly, probably the government is counting on it. I fully expect this to also increase the relative popularity of the government, because if times are good, I'm sure some of the credit will go to the government. I'm sure that will happen and I'm prepared for that. I know this.
But I'm afraid that with measures such as the one we have in front of us tonight, Bill 31, which raises the income tax rate and provides various other measures to increase the revenue, we are making it more difficult for the economic recovery to take real hold in this province and to move forward again to have a vibrant economy in this province.
1850
I should say -- and I will shortly conclude my comments -- that unfortunately this is not the only fiscal increase we're seeing. Just today, my leader in question period spoke about the increase in insurance rates that we're going to see because of measures by this government -- up to 10% higher premiums.
We told the government that when it brought in its change on a system that was working very well -- the member for Bruce was the minister at the time and he brought in a car insurance change that was working very well. I know there was a lot of objection at the time, but in my office at home, I know the people were satisfied and the insurance industry was telling me, and also the people who were involved in accidents. There were always some minor adjustments to be made, and I understand that. But certainly there was no need to make radical changes to a system that was not broken. What we're seeing now is that they tried to fix it and the result is that there's at least 10% higher premiums.
That's not the only increase, because on top of the premium increase itself there is of course the tax the Minister of Finance is levying on the premiums. So you're going to have higher premiums and then you're going to have a tax on top of those premiums. I'm already paying for those taxes on car insurance premiums, and that again is taking money out of our pockets and we are therefore able to spend less out there shopping and buying and helping the economy grow.
That measure of taxing insurance premiums is one that really is hurting the business community as well. I've received letters from the business community, from TriStan. That's a building contractor in my community, not an overly large one but a significant construction company in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They wrote to me a very, very touching letter, how difficult they find it right now to cope when it is so difficult to find contracts they can bid on and can win; that even if they win some of the contracts, the offer has to be so low because of the fierce competition that they're hardly making any profit. They had to lay off, they wrote to me, more than 50% of their personnel. Why did they send this letter? Of course they have insurance for their personnel, and now they have to pay a tax on top of that insurance premium. They said: "Please, Treasurer, please do not do that. You are really driving that final nail into our coffin."
What are we saying tonight? In addition to all these fiscal measures that have been hurting the business community, Bill 31 is another very negative measure that will affect detrimentally the business climate and the economic climate in this province. I would urge the parliamentary assistant, if he has any clout with this government, to withdraw this bill in the interest of economic growth and in the interest of stimulating economic development in this province. I do think he is interested in economic development and I do think he wants to reduce unemployment. But I'm telling you, while we share the same objective, you're going about it the wrong way. That's the message I want to leave with the parliamentary assistant and with this House. I thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to address this matter.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Further debate?
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The member for Nepean has suggested that this bill be withdrawn. I notice the parliamentary assistant sitting over there and pondering that possibility. If he would agree to that, I'll just sit down and we needn't have any further debate.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Sit down and we'll discuss it later.
Mr David Johnson: I think maybe I'll carry on, if that's the deal.
I can understand where this government is positioned and I can understand some of the difficulties it's facing. If we look at the last fiscal year, with revenues of $42 billion and expenditures of $54 billion, a deficit of $12 billion, it's not a very pretty sight. I guess that's a general descriptor of the state of affairs, the budget, in the province of Ontario.
When they came into power back three years ago, they had promises. They had promises with regard to social programs, promises with regard to all sorts of programs that they felt compelled to keep. Indeed, during the boom years, 1985 to 1990, during the Peterson government years, the spending was very high, and during a period of time when there was the possibility --
Interjection.
Mr David Johnson: I didn't quite catch that.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Out of control.
Mr David Johnson: Out of control, yes. The member for Scarborough Centre is saying it's out of control, and he's right. During the Peterson years, the spending was out of control. There could well have been money set aside, I'm sure the member is saying, during those periods of time if there had been better control on the spending. Instead of having some deficits during those periods of time, we could have had surpluses, we could have had a lower debt at this point in time and perhaps this government, in its situation, would have more flexibility.
Mr Owens: Come on over, Dave.
Mr David Johnson: You may not like the rest of what I have to say.
The member for Riverdale has indicated previously that there was a deficit the government inherited. There wasn't supposed to be one, there was supposed to be a surplus in 1990, but there wasn't, in fact there was a deficit, so there was a problem. But now, having inherited that problem, what do you do about it?
One way is to try to control your costs. That's what the business community would do, and that's what the people of the province of Ontario suggest should happen: Control your costs. Don't necessarily put taxes up but control your costs. Try to deal with the situation you have.
But is that what the government did? No, not early in the term. Again, spending is out of control. The member for Scarborough Centre might well say that during that period of time in 1991, again --
Mr Owens: Job retention.
Mr David Johnson: Oh, now it's job retention. When the Peterson government's in, it's spending out of control. When the NDP government's in, it's job retention. I see I'll have to learn the terminology.
But they tried to spend their way out of a recession, and tried, by spending, spending, spending, somehow to generate more revenue. But it didn't work and we went from having a foot in the quagmire to being right up to about here in the quagmire.
Hon Ms Churley: Reagan tried it the other way and it didn't work.
Mr David Johnson: Reagan is being blamed by the member for Riverdale. Well, I'll tell you that we're getting lots of advice here in the province of Ontario from organizations such as the chamber of commerce that suggest the key here is controlling the spending and not trying to spend your way out of a problem.
So we have a situation: taxes in the province of Ontario. It's interesting, I was looking at a chart. The source is the Fraser Institute. According to the Fraser Institute, in 1983 the total taxes for an average family in the province of Ontario, and by coincidence in Canada -- the two are the same -- were $16,000: $16,000 taxes for an average family in 1983.
What's happened since that time? Well, let's look at this past year, 1992. In Canada the taxes have gone up for that average family to $23,000: from $16,000 to $23,000 for the average. Now, that's quite a boost, and it's no wonder the economy suffers when that happens.
But what's happened in Ontario? In Ontario the average taxes have gone up from $16,000 per family to $28,000 per family, $5,000 more than the increase for the average family in Canada. So our taxes in the province of Ontario have gone up significantly more than the average increase right across this country, and that's why we're facing the problems that we are today.
I look at the revenue for the province --
Interjection.
Mr David Johnson: I can't hear the member. He's going to have to heckle louder so I can hear him.
Mr Owens: I'm asking a question: Why have they gone up?
Mr David Johnson: Well, I'll tell you why they've gone up: Because the government is spending more. I have another chart here somewhere, if I can just find it here now. Here it is. Spending. The member wants to know why taxes have gone up. The government is spending in leaps and bounds. Between 1985 to 1992, a period of just seven years, the spending has gone up by $23 billion, just on the operating budget. That's an increase of 85%.
1900
Mr Owens: Is that the Fraser Institute again?
Mr David Johnson: The member wants to know again, from 1985, $27 billion, to 1992, $50 billion. I'm talking about the operating budget of the province of Ontario, an increase of 85% in seven years, way over the rate of inflation. If we were to compare that with the rate of inflation during that period of time -- because the member might say: "Well, look, sure spending's gone up, because everything costs more. Inflation has gone up and everything costs more so you have to spend more."
Mr Owens: Yes. Free trade costs, high interest rate costs.
Mr David Johnson: And the member carries on about free trade and other factors.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): It's always somebody else's fault.
Mr David Johnson: It's always somebody else, always somebody else to blame. But the fact is an 85% increase in the operating budget of the province of Ontario in seven years, a rate of increase way above and beyond the rate of inflation.
One of the outcomes of that is that of course we have a debt: a debt that's growing in the province of Ontario. The deficit last year was reported at $11.9 billion. That means the spending was $11.9 billion more than the revenue coming in. That's what was reported.
However, there's a little difference of opinion here, because the Provincial Auditor has had a look at this and the Provincial Auditor says it's higher than that; it's worse than that. It's worse than that by $528 million, because there was an expenditure of $528 million for teachers' pensions that was due in that last fiscal year and that payment was not made. The auditor says, "This time we're talking in excess of half a billion dollars, and that's too big to ignore." That $528 million was too big to ignore, and that's why the province of Ontario has a difference of opinion with the auditor, and the auditor did not want to sign the books. I'm not sure if he's signed the books now or not, but in the first instance he refused to sign the books because he felt that was fudging the books. He still feels that's fudging the books, and needless to say, we feel the same way.
So the deficit last year was not $11.9 billion; it was $12.4 billion.
Mr Owens: Even Turnbull can't take it. Look, you lost your audience there.
Mr David Johnson: Don't worry. He's there in spirit.
The Treasurer was asked that very question today, as a matter of fact, by our caucus. The Treasurer was asked this very question today: "Why don't you come clean with the deficit for last year? Why don't you come clean and tell the people of the province of Ontario that the real deficit is $12.5 billion?"
What was the answer? Well, there was no answer. There was no answer whatsoever. There was talk about history. There was talk about the magnitude of what the deficit would be over the next fiscal year if we didn't have the social contract, if we didn't have the expenditure control program, if we didn't have a lot of the other so-called good things this government is doing. But why is the real deficit for 1992 not reported at its legitimate level of $12.5 billion? There is no answer.
Madam Speaker -- sorry, Mr Speaker now; there's been a change. Mr Speaker, in gathering some information, I was taken by an article in the Toronto Star, and perhaps the people listening may find this rather interesting, that taxes, according to the Toronto Star, have been raised by $3 billion a year by the Ontario NDP. It says, "The Ontario NDP has raised taxes by $3 billion a year, or $663 for the average family since" --
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): What does that editorial say?
Mr David Johnson: It's not an editorial actually, to the member for Cochrane North.
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): The member opposite.
Mr David Johnson: The member opposite, right. That takes in quite a number. It's not an editorial -- you're not in your seat, right -- it's an article, and it says $663 for the average family since 1990. If the member is interested in what else it says, it goes on to say, "The increases in income taxes since 1990 here in Ontario have been higher than for any other province except one," that province being Newfoundland. Other than that, we have the highest increase in income taxes right here in the province of Ontario.
Interjection.
Mr David Johnson: Well, the member talks about transfer cuts, and the idea is to blame the federal government. I think what the member's saying is that we didn't get the amount of money from the federal government that we demanded. We got an increase. As a matter of fact, we got a whacking great increase, about 16%, because I've checked the number, and I was astounded, because I've been hearing from the members opposite that the federal government has not been fair with the provincial government and that the transfers from the provincial government have been cut. I was astounded to find out that in actual fact the transfer payments have gone up 16% in the last year, an increase of 16% from the federal government to the province of Ontario. What happened was that it didn't go up beyond 16% to what the government would like, but it was an enormous increase.
Frankly, when you look at the situation we have with the federal government and the federal deficit, somebody has to put their foot down. Somebody has to say it's time to stop spending, we've got to get this deficit under control, and I believe that's what they attempted to do. Perhaps they didn't -- well, for sure they didn't go far enough.
So what have we got here today? We've got Bill 31, the Income Tax Amendment Act, again to put taxes up in the province of Ontario. The personal income tax increase is going to be from 55% last year to 58% this year, except the situation is worse, because they're only going to collect taxes for half a year, so for that half a year the increase has to be doubled, up to 61%, to get the same amount of revenue. So if you're looking at your tax situation for the last half of this year, then you're looking at a 61% tax, six percentage points up, which actually works out to be about an 11% or 12% tax increase during that period of time. That's an enormous increase.
Is that enough, though? Will that raise enough money to pay for all the programs? The answer is no, it won't raise enough money. So we have a tax on a tax, and the tax on a tax is called the surtax, the Ontario personal income tax surtax, and again, the surtax, which is a tax on a tax, is also going to be increased. It is going up from 14% to 17% this year for those who pay income tax in the bracket of $5,500 to $8,000. If you pay over $8,000, the surtax will be increased from 20% to 25%, and if you think that's bad, look forward to next year, because they have already announced more increases for 1994 where the surtax will go up to 20% on the lower bracket and it will go up to 30% -- a 30% tax on a tax -- for those paying income tax of over $8,000.
So that's the government's solution to balancing the budget, but of course it won't balance the budget. If it did, then it might have some merit, but it won't even balance the budget. They're forecasting a deficit of -- what is it officially now? -- $9.5 billion. I see the member nodding his head. Does the member believe it really will be $9.5 billion?
1910
Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly. I believe in Christmas, too.
Mr David Johnson: There was quote there but -- at least Christmas too. I'm not sure your party believes in Christmas yet, but I'm glad the member for Oshawa -- is that right?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes.
Mr David Johnson: I know that's where you were mayor, back a few years ago, and you probably wish you still were mayor.
Hon Mr Pilkey: That's a rhetorical comment on your behalf.
Mr David Johnson: That's rhetorical comment.
What does this do to our tax rate in the province of Ontario? At one time, a few years ago, we enjoyed a competitive advantage in our tax structure vis-à-vis most of the other provinces.' This is essential, because it's important for our business community to promote business growth, to have economic development for job creation, that we have a tax structure that is competitive. What's happened through these series of tax increases, including this one right now?
The net result will be that next year, at 53.2% we will have the highest marginal tax rate in Canada. Ontario will have the highest marginal tax rate in all of Canada. Indeed, the honour, if you can call it an honour, goes beyond that. That marginal tax rate will be the highest in the whole world, except for two countries among the major industrialized nations. Except for Japan and France, that marginal tax rate of 52.4% this year, actually, will be the highest in the industrialized world.
That, I'm sure, is a situation that we cannot be proud of. I'm embarrassed to stand here and to say that's the truth. It certainly is time that we recognized the impact that this is having on our economy. I hope that we have some resolve to deal with that, some resolve to say that this is bogging down our economy, this is being harmful.
It's not just me standing here and saying it and it's not just the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus standing here and saying that; the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade is saying that. The Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade has written to us, expressing concern and saying this will kill jobs. The Conference Board of Ontario and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce have gone on record, not surprisingly, and they've said that the tax increases are unconscionable and they have said that they will seriously damage Ontario's modest economic recovery.
We are dependent on that economic recovery for job creation and to pay for the services that we want to give the people of the province of Ontario. But what's happened to that economic recovery? It was forecast to be 3.4% over the next year. What's happened now? What's the latest forecast? The latest forecast, I believe, now -- and I look at the parliamentary assistant -- is, I think, 2.4% economic growth. It's down one percentage point from the original estimate.
The economy is not picking up at the pace that we had hoped. Why? If you listen to the conference board, if you listen to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, if you listen to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Trade, they'll say that one factor -- there are other factors -- is certainly the level of taxation we have in the province of Ontario and the tax increases that we have in the province of Ontario that are contained here in Bill 31.
Another offshoot of the tax increases is not only a dampening of the economic recovery, a loss of jobs, jobs that we need when we have an unemployment rate in the province of Ontario of somewhere around 11%; when we have, just here in Metropolitan Toronto, some 220,000 people dependent on welfare when we desperately need the economy to move, get people back to work. That's the major effect.
But there's another effect. It's called the underground economy. What's happening is that businesses are saying: "These taxes are nuts. They're not reasonable to pay." They're avoiding paying taxes. They're starting to avoid paying taxes.
It was interesting that the Ontario Home Builders' Association made a deputation to a committee here just two or three weeks ago, or perhaps a month ago. The home builders' association said that the province is losing $1 billion in tax revenue in the home building industry alone because people think that the levels of taxes we have here are just excessive and they are avoiding them.
They feel now it's okay -- I'm not condoning this, mind you -- but they feel now it's okay to avoid taxes because the taxes are unreasonable.
Forty one per cent of the home renovation market is underground; 17% of the new home market has gone underground. That's just in the home building industry.
We know about what's happening with the sin taxes, what's happening to tobacco sales and liquor sales. Tobacco sales across the country: $1.5 billion in lost revenue on tobacco sales because the taxes are enormous. The same with liquor. In the province of Ontario we're losing almost $750 million a year because of illegal tobacco and alcohol sales.
It becomes counterproductive. What's happening is that the government, through this bill, is putting the taxes up and up and up; various taxes are going up. But the more they put them up, actually the less revenue that comes in because people realize that this doesn't make sense any more. Our economy can't work with this burden of taxes. So they avoid the taxes and they don't pay them any more and then we all lose.
I gather my time is somewhat limited here and perhaps I'll wrap up shortly because I think I'm restricted to somewhere around 20 minutes and I believe I've taken a little bit more than that already.
But I find it interesting that this as a general approach by this government to, rather than contain costs, try to get more ways of taxing and more ways of increasing charges, fees and licences. More ways to get money out of people's pockets, that's the approach, rather than trying to look at ways to manage better.
We know that in our health system, in our welfare system, in the workers' compensation system -- which we don't pay for directly out of operating costs but which I suspect some day we will, given the huge unfunded liability in the workers' compensation system.
We know of this fraud that's there but rather than try to manage better, rather than try to control costs, the approach is to put taxes up, to put fees up, to put permits up. There are some small examples that just show the sort of approach: cemetery licences. Formerly you didn't have to pay for a cemetery licence in the province of Ontario, for a new cemetery; now it's $200. Just one little fee. Theatre licences. Apprentice projectionist: three years ago it was $17 for a licence; now it's $25. Athletic registrations: wrestlers. Believe it or not, wrestlers had to pay a registration of $5 in the province of Ontario three years ago. That wasn't a bad deal.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): What do they have to pay now?
Mr David Johnson: The member for Mississauga South says, "What do they have to pay now?" They have to pay $50 now. What kind of increase is that when you work it out on a percentage basis?
Hon Mr Pilkey: You should have to pay 150 bucks to watch that stuff.
Mr David Johnson: The member for Oshawa says you should have to pay $150 to watch. Actually, it's a very popular sport from what I understand.
Interjections.
1920
Mr David Johnson: The member for Mississauga South is wondering about the fee increases for wrestlers. What's happened to the fee increase for what they call seconds, associated with the wrestlers? It's gone from $2 to $50 in just three years.
Thoroughbred racing: The member for casinos sitting across the way will I hope be aware of this, that the horse racing industry in this province is under extreme duress. Here in Ontario the horse racing industry is taxed about as high as anywhere in North America. The government derives a great deal of revenue out of the horse racing industry as compared to any other jurisdiction in North America and yet the licence fees go up and up and up. A jockey -- a jockey had to pay $50 for a licence fee three years ago -- $63 this year. The fee goes up. This is the kind of approach that the government is taking.
So my time has come to an end, but I just hope that the combined voices of the opposition and the business community and the people of the province of Ontario will get through to this government at some point and that -- well, they certainly will in the next election, but hopefully before then, and get the message that there's got to be another way to manage our economy at all levels of government. We can't be putting taxes up more and more. We can't be putting fees, permits, licences. It's not the way to govern. We've come to our limit. We've hit the wall and now's the time to back off from these kinds of increases.
Mr Callahan: This is a bill which is a tax bill of course, and I have to say on behalf of the residents of Brampton South, they're against any further taxes. This government has literally placed the residents of my community, particularly the middle class and the small businesses, in total disarray. They were not able to deal with the taxes that were in place before, but every time they turn around, there are taxes.
They've increased the probate fees, which now make dying an expensive proposition. They've increased the costs of wanting to close a real estate deal. They make it now $50 to register every instrument, to make it $11 for a name. The disbursements alone in a real estate deal can cost you well in the neighbourhood of $200 or $300 and you're expecting young people in this community to buy their first homes. The Minister of Finance has said that he's not going to extend the period of the OHOSP program, which was for first home buyers. All of these things that the NDP government is doing is simply a tax grab.
Photo-radar -- I know I'm off topic -- but photo-radar is nothing more than a tax grab. Every time the people of this province turn around there are taxes being grabbed out of their pocket by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance can't show us one beneficial thing from it because the deficit still continues to be just as high as it was before.
Social contract: I know people in the labour movement who have had to change their entire existence. They've had to take their plans for accommodating themselves in terms of finances for their house and turn it all around simply because of the social contract. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. All you do is grab money and you can't possibly account for it. You always figure that if there are cheques still left in the chequebook, we've got money in the bank. Well, I've got news for you. The people of this province will tell you in 1995 that you people are totally out of order.
Mrs Marland: I want to congratulate the former mayor of East York, the now member for Don Mills, on his excellent commentary on this particular piece of legislation.
Actually it's very difficult for us to get up and talk yet once again on another bill that takes money out of the pockets of the people of this province. You know, the irony is that no matter how much money this government has, it's still going to mismanage it.
One area that I have received a large number of telephone calls and letters with tremendous concern and complaints is the fact that in this economic climate, they are charging this $50 fee for refiling their business information. Their business information. Just so the government can redo their bookkeeping and their records, it costs $50 to businesses at a time when they just don't have any extra cash left over.
I think if we could see a return from this government for the money they already have, without added tax bills, we might have been able to see an extension of the OHOSP program, the Ontario home ownership savings plan. I've received letters from a large number of people on that, not the least of which from Diane Kalenchuk, who is a realtor with the NRS Realty Centre Inc in Mississauga. She's a very hardworking community member in a number of organizations in Mississauga, and on behalf of her clients she's asking for an extension of the OHOSP program. We still have to know from the government whether or not they're giving that serious consideration.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I think it's important to listen to the advice of Mr Johnson, the member for Don Mills. Mr Johnson, as the member for Mississauga South noted, is the former mayor of the city of East York in Metropolitan Toronto, and I think it's important to know that when he's talking about government spending and being frugal with regard to the taxpayers' money, he has demonstrated that in practice. There are not too many politicians who can come to this place and say, "I practised what I'm preaching today."
David Johnson, the member for Don Mills, in his last year as the mayor for East York had a 0% increase in terms of taxes for citizens in his area. I think that's a very, very substantial achievement on his part since the city of East York, as you know, Mr Speaker, is a city which is not expanding at a rapid rate because it is basically a city which is already totally urbanized or nearly totally urbanized. Therefore, in order to produce the revenue, the city of East York didn't have the opportunity to create new development, a new assessment base, in order to provide more dollars. He was able to guide that city through a very prudent fiscal exercise, and I think that when he talks about this provincial government and former provincial governments overspending, he ought to be listened to.
Hon Mr Pilkey: In response to the member for Brampton South, who acknowledged that he had great concerns with respect to many of his constituencies as a result of tax bills that were prompted by this particular government, I wouldn't have thought that should have come as any particular surprise to him as a member of a government that brought fully 33 new taxes to the people of Ontario while they were the government and, as well, left what was supposed to be a balanced operating budget here to the people of Ontario when we were elected, only to find from the audited books that it was somewhere around $3 billion in the hole. So I can appreciate how the member for Brampton South would have an interest in this item, because he would relate very well to it indeed.
With respect, as well, the member for Don Mills indicated that he was quite concerned with respect to any increases in provincial income tax. I can well appreciate that and, more particularly, I can particularly appreciate his comment that he felt somewhat embarrassed because the projected deficit of this government was going to rise from $9.2 billion to $9.5 billion, an increase of $300 million. Of course, if he was going to feel embarrassed about that, am I ever pleased for his sake that he wasn't a member of the federal Conservative Parliament in the House of Commons, where their deficit increased from a projected $32 billion to $46 billion. So one need not be embarrassed in the least with such a small modicum of increase in the projected deficit here in the province of Ontario.
1930
In terms of the municipalities, I must say in all objectivity that of course for the member for Don Mills and myself, the member for Oshawa, in our previous professions as mayors of municipalities, it should be reminded that we did both jointly benefit from provincial transfers --
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. The time has expired.
Hon Mr Pilkey: -- from these respective governments.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Don Mills, you have two minutes.
Mr David Johnson: I thank the member for Brampton South for his comments, particularly about photo-radar being a tax grab. Certainly the member for York Mills has been saying this over and over and over again, and we concur with you. That's exactly what photo-radar is.
The member for Mississauga South has raised the issue of the filing fee, and I thank her. The filing fee doesn't only pertain to what we consider to be typical businesses in the province of Ontario. The filing fee pertains to some hospitals, churches, synagogues, service clubs, credit unions which are caught in the net of this $50 filing fee. But why do we need this filing fee? What service are these businesses getting?
Mr Harnick: It's a tax grab.
Mr David Johnson: A tax grab. The member for Willowdale says it's a tax grab. That's exactly what it is, another tax grab, and I thank the member for Mississauga South for raising that.
The member for Carleton has raised the situation that we faced in the borough of East York, and I thank the member for Carleton for reminding me about that. This year we decided that this was no time for tax increases. As a matter of fact, we went beyond that. Not only did we have a 0% tax increase, but we rolled back our fees to the business community. We said there will be no planning fees, no building fees, no parkland dedication fees: no fees.
Why did we do this? Well, we did it for the opposite reason of what this government is doing. We said we need to be friendly to the business community. We need to promote business. We need to have economic growth. We've got an Aikenhead's hardware store coming in, one of the big ones, 125,000 square feet, as a result of that policy, and it's going to attract more and more business. So it's working. If you put your fees down, it actually works.
Thanks to the member for Oshawa. My suggestion is that the deficit will be at least $12 billion, not $9.5 billion, by the end of this year.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Further debate?
Mr Sterling: This bill goes back to the 1992 budget, and at that point in time I was the finance and economic affairs critic, the economic critic for this party.
Mr Stockwell: And a darn good one, I might add.
Mr Sterling: I brought along my cheering group here with me. I just thought I'd make a few remarks because I had a great deal of interest in the issue at that time, and I remain to have a great deal of interest in the issue.
I can remember sitting with the Liberal finance critic, along with the member for Etobicoke West, who had a great interest in this issue, and we kept reading the financial and the economic outlook in each year of the budget that was put forward by the Treasurer, Mr Laughren. We kept looking at each other and we said to each other, "Do they know something we don't know?" Because when we were going back out into our ridings and talking to people on the street, talking to business people, we couldn't believe the optimism of not only the Treasurer but, quite frankly, a number of economists whom the Treasurer was getting advice from. It just didn't seem to jibe with the kind of information we were pulling off the street.
I think in fairness to the Treasurer, he has to be somewhat optimistic in his forecast. I don't think it's politically palatable or probably acceptable for a Treasurer to be overly pessimistic in his outlook for the economy of the province. But I do believe that over the past three years, neither economists nor the Treasurer have been proven anywhere near accurate in terms of their estimation of how much the economy was going to grow in the next year.
One of the things you did learn when you sat on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs was that all of those who came in front of the committee, usually representing banks, representing large business, had a vested interest in predicting an optimistic future for all of us. It was kind of nice to hear, but reality, in hindsight, proved them somewhat wrong.
I think if you went back 10 years ago and looked at the relative income tax rates across this country, you would find that Ontario, which combines its income tax with our federal government, Canada -- our combined rate gave an advantage to people who worked and lived in our province of about 10% vis-à-vis the province of Quebec. I know that and I understand that, because people used to make the decision as to whether they would live on the west side of the Ottawa River or the east side of the river sometimes on the basis -- it would be part and parcel of their decision -- of how much tax they were going to pay. I understand that, because after you get your paycheque and you take off the tax, that's all you've got left to spend on other things which you want for yourself and your family.
In that 10-year period, we have grown to be very, very close to the Quebec tax rate. Now we cannot offer very, very good people who are coming to the Ottawa Valley area any financial incentive to live in Ontario versus the province of Quebec. I'm talking about personal income tax.
I also want to say that when you look at comparative income tax rates for other provinces in dealing with corporate income tax rates, Ontario's corporate income tax rate is 22% at one rate and goes up to 38%, whereas the province of Quebec is at 17% and goes to 32%. When you look at another kind of income, the rates have the same kind of gap of about five percentage points in one case and about seven or eight percentage points in another case.
Now, while the NDP doesn't believe perhaps that people who invest money invest it in order to gain a return or a profit on the money they've put out, that's in fact what people do invest their money for. I know, Mr Speaker, you have had a former life in the financial world and I know you understand that very much. Therefore, the money for the investment in new businesses and new jobs, getting the good people to live in your jurisdiction, in a lot of ways depends upon the tax structure which your government sets.
That's why in my party, when we talk about taxation rates, we not only say, "What do we need on the revenue side and what are we spending?" You also have to look at the jurisdictions that surround you and the jurisdictions which you are competing against in order to strike your taxation rates. I think one of the reasons we have seen such a growth of the underground economy is the fact that governments of Ontario have continued to act in isolation in setting taxation policy.
Applause.
Mr Sterling: Thank you very much. I thought that was a salient point myself.
The fact of the matter is that one of the most distasteful parts of Bill 31, and I don't think any other speaker has talked about this, is the fact that in 1992, Floyd Laughren, representing the party which was defending the little guy -- I've heard Mr Owens talk about, "This party defends the little guy." What did Floyd Laughren come in and do? He taxed the guy making $10,000 a year. They taxed people who are making $20,000 a year. They took $45 away from these individuals.
1940
If you're going to tax in terms of fairness and what we heard, so much rhetoric, in terms of this government, about fairness to people who are not earning a lot -- often people call them the working poor. I think people should be encouraged to work. I think people should be encouraged to get off social assistance wherever possible.
What does this government do? It not only says the present taxes aren't enough; it hits somebody making $20,000 a year with $45 worth of tax. To somebody who is earning $60,000 a year, who is earning more than $60,000 a year, $45 isn't all that much to ask by the government. But if somebody's earning $20,000 a year, I'll tell you, $45 is a lot of money. It is really taking money off the food table, because that's probably where that money will be found, because people in that position don't have the same kinds of options as somebody who is earning $50,000 or $60,000 a year.
It's also important to point out that back in 1988 and 1987 the federal government, in revamping our taxation structure, decided as many European countries have decided, that in order to keep good people in this country it was going to be necessary to drop personal income tax rates.
Sweden, one of the most socialized countries in the world, and of course in Europe, decided to drop its income tax rates, I believe, from something in excess of 60% down to around the 30% range. They did that because they were losing their good people to other countries.
If we continue to hit income tax --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Where are you going to go? I guess you will stay.
Mr Sterling: You can go to a lot of other provinces which have lower income tax rates. You can go to the province of Alberta. No sales tax as well.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, Mr Klein. Ralph.
Mr Sterling: Ralph and the Alberta government have a lot lower taxes than we have here.
Hon Mr Pouliot: What does Ralph have to say if you make $41,500 and you want to go on welfare? Does he say the same thing as your leader? Your leader said it, press conference and all.
Mr Sterling: The member over here is concerned because his government and the previous government set up a social welfare system which is attracting people who are making substantial income to stop working and going on to social assistance.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I know the way you guys lived when you were here. I know the kind of food you ate.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon, order please.
Mr Sterling: This is upsetting the Minister of Transportation.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Carleton, you have the floor.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should have a quorum here to hear this lousy heckling done by the member for Lake Nipigon.
The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton.
Mr Sterling: I'm sorry if there was an interruption to my remarks. As I was indicating, our taxation structure -- I think the most important part for a future government which would take over the reins, hopefully in 1995, would be for that government to be aware of the surrounding tax structures that it is competing against.
We have seen over the past year or year and a half in particular where perhaps -- and you're talking to a person who has pleaded with governments before to raise things like tobacco taxes -- we have caused a problem by raising tobacco taxes to the level we have. Because of that, we have encouraged the underground economy to flourish in terms of the sale of tobacco. I think that's a good example of one tax which has turned into a very visible underground economy which you can find on just about any backstreet and, unfortunately, in a lot of school yards across the province of Ontario.
What this government has not done is to recognize that it's necessary to have a competitive income tax system as well. We must be aware of what income taxes are being paid in other jurisdictions in order to keep our good people.
When I'm talking about good people, I'm not talking about keeping lawyers and accountants necessarily, because quite frankly lawyers and accountants are people who we can, in a perfect world, perhaps get along without. We need them for certain things, but they're not really the drivers, in my view, of the primary wealth of our province.
I'm concerned, particularly representing a high-tech area around the city of Kanata, that we are able to keep those very skilled engineers and scientists who are providing a tremendous impetus or boost to our telecommunications industry and a number of other high-tech industries which are providing a lot of taxes for our government and a lot of jobs for our people.
One of the problems in terms of this tax increase, as I mentioned before, is that it hits the little guy, the guy earning $20,000. This government's supposed to be concerned about the small guy. We really see them showing their stuff when they hit a little guy up for a tax increase of $45, a guy earning $20,000.
As I was saying before there was a quorum call, back in 1988 and 1987, the former federal government recognized this concern about having competitive income tax rates, so it chopped three or four points off the income tax rate. They said we should shift the method of taxation to another method.
That was supposed to be sort of the quid pro quo for that now infamous tax, the GST, which everybody just loves, as you know. But of course what they did, and which was a bit of a failure on their part, was that they gave the points off the federal income tax in order to drop the overall rate of income tax about a year before they brought in the GST. By the time they brought in the GST, everybody had forgotten what they gave on the income tax. What happened immediately thereafter was that Bob Nixon, the Liberal Treasurer -- for every point the federal income tax was knocked down, guess who picked it up immediately? Bob Nixon.
We had a situation where we had the federal government espousing one kind of taxation policy and the provincial Liberal government of the day espousing another. As soon as the feds would give a little bit of a break, the province picked it up. Quite frankly, they sort of, I guess, helped the hostility towards the replacement tax, the GST, which was the replacement for the manufacturers' sales tax as well as a couple of the points on the income tax, as I understand it.
Anyway, that whole idea of lowering personal income tax has now been lost and governments are continuing to raise the income tax from time to time.
1950
I think the danger point is going to come in terms of all this taxation and the attraction of moving to the south for people who are particularly technically oriented and don't rely on our jurisdiction for work and who can sell their skills in any kind of jurisdiction and are very valuable people. I'm talking about engineers, scientists, mathematicians and computer people. What I'm concerned about is that if the United States goes ahead with a fairly comprehensive medical coverage plan, one of the greatest levers in keeping people here in Canada and in Ontario will have gone. I think that at that time we will suffer a fair amount of bleeding of people who are very skilful and very valuable to our economy.
The other important thing to remember is that as these provincial governments amass more and more debt -- I think when we left government in 1985 the total debt was around $30 billion. I believe after this year it will be something like $75 billion or $80 billion.
I was interested in knowing what the situation was vis-à-vis the state governments in the United States. I asked what the situation was in the United States and I got a printout. I believe there are 22 states that have a balanced budget constitutional requirement, so there are 22 states that have to balance their budget each year. It's interesting to note on the accumulation of all the states of the United States, all 50 of them, that there is a surplus of about $2 billion total. That's on an expenditure of about $301 billion in total.
On the competitive scale, with our province accumulating a debt of $80 billion -- I don't care whose problem it is; I'm just talking about the competitive situation we're going to be in in the next five or 10 years -- it's going to be very difficult for us to compete with these other states in the United States that aren't dragging this kind of debt load that we are presently dragging. It's going to be a very tough time.
It also is going to mean, where are the higher taxes going to come from in the future? If a person is looking to their future, are they going to stay in the province of Ontario or are they going to move to another jurisdiction? People are going to start to look at what the cumulative financial picture is for each of those jurisdictions they live in. Quite frankly, we do not rank very well with any one of the other 50 states. Very few of them have any kind of debt at all.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Because the feds aren't giving us our fair share.
Mr Sterling: I hear from across the way that the feds aren't giving us our fair share. I'm somewhat bemused by the whole NDP idea that we should encourage our federal government to get itself involved in more provincial programs. The Minister of Transportation over here I'm sure would love to receive a cheque from the federal government to build some roads. It would be okay if the federal government were sitting there with a big bank account, but it's not. We know they have a debt of something like $400 billion to $450 billion.
In the last federal election there was a promise that they were going to give $2 billion over the next three years for roads and infrastructure and that kind of thing. I've talked to the Treasurer personally on this basis, and I've got to tell you this, Mr Minister of Transportation, if you don't get $800 million of that $2 billion, you've lost.
If we don't get $800 million-plus, we've lost, because guess where the $800 million is going to come from. It's going to come from our taxpayers, our residents. You have to collect the $2 billion from somebody. You know where it's going to come from? It's going to come from our taxpayers. So if the federal government spends $2 billion, it's going to have to collect something like $850 million from the same taxpayers as this government is raising the income taxes under Bill 31 on.
We're net losers in terms of this program unless we get $800 million to $850 million out of that federal program over the next three years. I hope we get some money for Highway 416. I'll be fighting along with every other member here to get that money, because we've got to get $800 million or $850 million. If you get a penny less, you're going to hear from me, because we're going to be net losers. The Treasurer agrees with me on that, that we will be net losers probably.
Now, you remember, the Minister of Transportation went up to Ottawa under the last government and he said, "You've got to bring forward a program for rebuilding the roads." Then the government came down and said, "Okay, you're going to get 15%." The Treasurer stood in this House and he said, "But 15% in this program is not fair when we're paying 43% of the costs of the program," because that's what we pay for it.
My question is, to the Minister of Transportation and the government, why encourage the federal government to get involved with more programs and more spending programs? Because our poor taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. You can see, if we have 30% to 33% of the population, fat chance that we're going to get 40% to 43% of the money. No way. So every time we ask the federal government to create new programs, we lose.
Now, I heard from one of the members across here as well, "What about how much we're getting from the federal government?" I understand, if you look at the budget from last year, this year, the present, is up 16%. That's what the transfers are up: 16%. They argue that isn't enough. I guess I'd argue it wasn't enough. It's up 16%, and that's coming from a government that has a deficit of $43 billion, $44 billion.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Are you using Mike's calculator?
Mr Sterling: No, that's what's in your report. That's what's in the Treasurer's report. It's up 16%, the transfers.
Mr Perruzza: The batteries ran out on that sucker a long time ago.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): What are the welfare costs up, Norm?
Mr Sterling: The welfare costs are up, but that's our problem. The welfare costs are our problem. We have control over that. If this government would bring in meaningful welfare reform, presumably we could take care of that as well.
There's a dilemma here. When we heard Paul Martin, the new Finance minister for the federal government, talk about this, he's talking about cutting back transfer payments. The federal Conservative Party, which this government criticized so often in the past, never cut back; it always increased. It just didn't increase as much as they would have liked it to have increased.
Mr Owens: What is that?
Mr Sterling: It went up by 6%. It went up by more than inflation every year, and I challenge any member across the way to sit down and debate the actual figures with me. That's true.
The fact of the matter is today we're talking about a problem of tax upon tax upon tax. As we know, the former Liberal government, during the really good times, when revenues were going up without increasing taxes, decided to increase taxes 33 separate times. I think this government is probably approaching that same kind of figure at this time. I know, as of the 1992 budget, the total tax changes and tax increases were up to about 22 times.
I want to say that we will be opposing this tax increase, and we are particularly concerned about the fact that the party of the small guy hit the small guy up with this tax increase.
Hon Mr Pouliot: You couldn't care less about the little guy.
Mr Harnick: Only you care. Only the NDP care. Look at all the support they're getting from the small guy. It's just rolling in.
2000
Mr Sterling: Yes, only the NDP care about the small guy. They promise the small guy all of these things and they never deliver. When they get in power they tax the small guy. When they get in power they give him higher auto insurance premiums when they promised him lower auto insurance premiums. This government hasn't done anything for the little guy but hit him up with everybody else. They haven't helped the small guy who is trying to go out there and earn a living.
They are going to cancel the OHOSP program, which helped the small guy get a down payment for his house. They're going to cancel that as well this year, which only helped small-income earners. That wasn't for people who were earning $30,000 and $40,000; that was for people who were earning $20,000 and $30,000. What are you going to do? Scrap that program. That's a great thing to help the small guy.
I think this tax is a terrible increase in tax. It's going to discourage people from working. It's going to discourage people from staying in our province and donating their resources to our province in terms of their work. Therefore, we will have no hesitation in voting against this on second reading.
Mr Wiseman: I am pleased to respond to the member for Carleton because some of the numbers that he has thrown out here leave a little bit to be desired. It should be pointed out that in the December 13 issue of Maclean's there is a very good chart of the fiscal ability of the Tory party in that when they took power in 1984 there was a $206-billion debt created by their Liberal predecessors. In an era of what you would consider prosperity from 1984, and especially 1987, 1988, 1989 when the economy was booming, they were able to grow that to $511 billion, a total of $305 billion. So it's an interesting lecture.
The other point I'd like to make is that the Canada assistance program called for 50-50 dollars; in other words, the province would be matched 50 cents from the federal government with 50 cents from the provincial. Unilaterally, the federal Tories decided to change that and greatly discriminated against Ontario, which now receives about 28 cents. That 50-50 sharing is gone. It's still being done for other provinces but Ontario is being left out in the cold. There's some indication that perhaps that will also be inflicted on us by their Liberal successors.
But what is interesting is that they allowed to stay in the Bank of Canada John Crow, who raised interest rates unnecessarily, drove businesses out of Canada and put thousands and thousands of people out of work. They also signed a free trade deal and a North American free trade deal that makes it almost impossible for Ontario businesses to compete with right-to-work states and with almost slave-labour wages in Mexico where they only make about a dollar an hour.
They have no point to lecture us.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired. Questions and comments? The member for Mississauga South.
Mrs Marland: I almost wish that the people of this province would decide to have an uprising against this government and their policies for taxation. And that's what this bill is all about. A little earlier this evening --
The Deputy Speaker: Point of order, Minister. The member for Mississauga South, there is a point of order.
Hon Mr Pouliot: If I heard correctly, I'm shaken, Mr Speaker. If I heard correctly, the member for Mississauga was inciting, was inviting people to think of the worst, because she mentioned and I heard very distinctly --
The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. This is not a point of order. Please. I will now recognize the member for Mississauga South.
Mrs Marland: Again we have an example of a double standard. I recall this government inciting the people of this province to have an uprising against the free trade agreement. It's funny, isn't it, how there's different things said on different sides of the House. And certainly against GST they were suggesting that.
But what I wanted to say is, further to the discussion of the Ontario home ownership savings plan, another person who wrote to me on this is Mrs Paddy Cooper, who is the manager of the Royal LePage Real Estate Services in my riding on Lakeshore Road in Mississauga. She is not pleading on her own behalf, she is pleading on behalf of all the young people in this province who are trying to buy their first home. This government doesn't care about that. All this government cares about is building and owning more bricks and mortar in a non-profit housing corporation system that the taxpayers of this province cannot afford.
This is an outrage and I wish the people would take into their own hands.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.
Mr Perruzza: I just want to respond very briefly to a couple of the comments that were made in reference to how the former Conservative federal government has treated the province of Ontario. I only need make my point by referring back to an editorial that was written two days ago in the Toronto Star. You will know, Mr Speaker, in your good judgement that the Star is no friend of ours, certainly not the editors of the Star.
Do you know what was really interesting? In the Toronto Star, picture this editorial in the Star, referring to a study done by some university professors in an analysis of federal government economic policies and the impact of federal Conservative government economic policies, and then to hear lectures from them to us about management and mismanagement.
When you refer to a university professors' study on the impact of federal government economic policies, they're directly attributing to the Conservative federal government for their monetary policies and the Bank of Canada's monetary policies the loss of over 500,000 jobs. The loss of over 500,000 jobs in the middle of this recession is attributed by university professors to the policies of the federal Conservative government: 529,000 jobs directly attributed to the federal Conservative government. Don't you lecture us about mismanagement. Look to yourselves and to your friends.
The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: I think it's most unfair --
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: Can we stop the clock?
The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale, the member for Etobicoke West. Order, please.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: It's your time. The member for Downsview, you just had the floor. The member for Brampton South.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would you prefer to go outside? Order. The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: In this House the New Democratic Party controls the House and delays and cuts down on speeches in a democratic fashion, but I think it's interesting that the member for Downsview would attack these people over here in the Conservative Party. I mean, who picks on two people? That's all they got is two people. Who picks on them?
I'd like to say that the Transportation minister is here, and this is a tax bill just like photo-radar, and Ed Fulton, who was the Minister of Transportation in our good government, would never have thought of bringing in something as draconian or as nasty as the bill that has been brought in by the present Minister of Transportation. It's a total tax grab.
Interjection: Let's bring Ed Fulton back.
Mr Callahan: I think Ed Fulton should be brought back. Ed was a fine gentleman. He was an honest and good minister and he would never pass a piece of legislation like this draconian legislation that just grabs money out of the pockets of people.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton, you have two minutes.
2010
Mr Sterling: I see I did generate a little bit of interest anyway in this topic. I'm not here to defend the federal government, be it the former Liberal government or the former Conservative government. I only wanted to put the facts forward, and the facts are that transfer payments increased, as I said in my speech. I know this government didn't consider that enough. That's too bad.
This government cut transfer payments to the cities and the municipalities across this province unilaterally, without consultation, after their budgets were in place; made a number of cuts in their transfer payments. So they can't talk about the lack of transfer payments, which I say increased last year by a percentage of 16%. Everybody has to hunker down when the times are tough, and the fact of the matter is that this government hasn't been willing to hunker down.
Mr Callahan: They don't know how.
Mr Sterling: You're right. The member from Brampton says they don't know how to do it. We went through an exercise this past summer which was supposed to have saved the taxpayers a great deal of money. I don't believe it, because what they did was to inflate their spending by saying, "We were going to spend $17 billion, and now we've knocked that down to $9 billion or $10 billion or $11 billion." Nobody believes it was $17 billion to begin with. These people are such bad managers in terms of the fiscal responsibilities of this province that it will be very, very difficult for the next government to pick up the pieces and put it back together again.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the honourable member for his response. Further debate?
Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite indicated that he only wanted to talk to facts. I agree with him, and I'd like to recount just a few of them. The fact of the matter is that the government, through this bill and through its taxation policies, only wants its fair share. It doesn't seek any more, nor does it seek any less.
The member opposite, I believe, had joined the government in the last couple of weeks in supporting our moves in terms of the situation where our Ontario construction workers were disadvantaged vis-à-vis the province of Quebec and we had to take action to make it fair.
As the member for Durham West indicated in his remarks, the province of Ontario was not receiving its fair share of the Canada assistance program. Again, we only wanted our fair share.
The facts of the matter are that the former federal government is paying somewhere around 33 cents out of every revenue dollar to the tax deficit and to debt repayment, while we here in Ontario are only paying 13 cents on our revenue dollar to debt repayment. If we had not brought the deficit under control, as our federal counterparts had not, we would have risen within the next two years to 26 cents on the dollar, and that would have very dramatically curtailed our ability to continue to provide health care, education, transportation and myriad services that Ontario people continue to expect to receive.
I simply want to indicate that those are the facts, and we bear up under any comparison.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Callahan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I think it's absolutely outrageous that this government has brought in time allocation or closure more times than any other government in history, and now we see --
The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order; I'm sorry. Would the member please take his seat. The honourable minister of the crown, the member for Oshawa, has the floor. I would like to remind him to stay on topic, please.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I certainly concur with you that I did, and I do not have further comments with respect to the item.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mrs Marland: We have just witnessed something rather unique in this House. We are in a time-allocated debate, which means the government controls how long the opposition can spend debating a bill. What we have just witnessed is the Minister of Municipal Affairs handing a note to the former mayor of Oshawa, the member for Oshawa, a colleague in the cabinet handing him a note and telling him to stop speaking. So the poor member, who was just getting wound up, has now been totally muzzled by his own government. I think this is very interesting. Isn't it really something that they're not satisfied to muzzle us on this side, but they're now muzzling their own members -- not even a backbencher, but muzzling a member of cabinet.
To finish what I was saying earlier about where the people of this province are, I really wish there would be a very loud, proactive message from the people of this province that they have absolutely had it with taxes.
Mr Harnick: That's coming in the next election.
Mrs Marland: It's too bad they're going to have to wait until the next election to say: "Enough is enough. We are against the wall. Our pockets are empty. There is no more money to fund this government's expenditures."
In the meantime, I would ask once more that this government consider the future of young people, their access to home ownership. The Ontario home ownership savings plan has to be continued. It will create jobs in construction of those new homes and it gives hope and opportunity to young people who really want to start investing in their own future.
Mr Perruzza: I'd like to pick up on some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Oshawa. I believe there's an agreement in this House on the amount of time that is going to be spent debating. We're not in a time allocation, as some of the people here would have us believe, that somehow democracy and the democratic right to speak is being thwarted.
The Conservative member, as well as the Liberal members, know that the House leaders get together -- that's their job -- and discuss and work out agreements on how long we're going to debate bills. Your Conservative House leader participates in that process. Your Conservative leader has input into that process, and I know for a fact that we on this side, who control the majority, as is our democratically elected right, do not thwart that process nor impose our will on the Conservative House leader, the Conservative Party, the Liberal House leader, the Liberal Party. That's negotiated. We negotiate that and we decide we're going to spend X amount of time debating this bill and X amount of time debating that bill, and that's what we do.
But my point is this, having said that --
The Acting Speaker: Remember, we're dealing with the participation by the member for Oshawa.
Mr Perruzza: Absolutely. Just to pick up on the comments of the member for Oshawa, we're often given lectures by both the Conservative and Liberal members of this House on management and mismanagement of government funds. I read in the newspaper that the federal deficit target was missed by the federal Conservative Party by close to $14 billion. That is a staggering amount. Their calculator batteries ran out a long time ago.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I think something very important has happened in this Legislature tonight. I tried to raise it on a point of privilege, the fact that the member for Oshawa, a former minister of the crown, a former mayor of Oshawa, who is trying to represent his people, receives a note from the Minister of Municipal Affairs objecting to the fact that he has a right to speak in this House.
Hon Mr Pilkey: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I'm not a former minister of the crown. I am a minister of the crown.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's not a point of privilege. That's a point of information which is known to us all.
2020
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, that's even worse. The fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would have the audacity to try to interrupt the minister of the crown, his own colleague, while he is trying to debate democratically in this House gives me shivers and should give shivers to every citizen in this province, the fact that a minister of the crown can tell a colleague in cabinet: "You shut up. You've talked too long. I want to speak." I think that is the proof of the pudding.
The people of this province should recognize that's almost totally out of character of anything that's happened in this Legislature, the fact that a minister of the crown can tell another minister of the crown, "You've got to be quiet." It's bad enough when they tell the minority in this House, which everybody in a democratic society believes should be heard, that it only has so much time to say this or that about public business, but when one minister of the crown, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, passes a note up to another minister of the executive body and says, "You've got to shut up" and gives you the hook, I find that totally objectionable.
That has to say eons to the people of this province. You cannot trust the present government, and it's time we cleared the air and had an election.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. I want to remind members: I know it's well on in the evening, but please let's keep it on a high plane. The member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Stockwell: If there's one member across that floor I have a good deal of respect for, it's the member for Oshawa. He's junior Minister of Municipal Affairs, I believe. Oh, Transportation. I forget actually. I'm sorry.
When he was the Solicitor General, he had some very tough things to take care of for that government. I remember very clearly in this House him trying to defend the decision on Sunday shopping. I know he had a difficult situation, because from one caucus to the next the position was very fluid and very -- well, different, to be kind to the government. He was faced with the situation of having to stand up and defend the decisions of that government. I also know, from reading the Oshawa newspapers in the federal election just past, that he was a very candid and upfront member of that government who spoke very candidly about the fact that as a party they might have to readdress some of the issues they were dealing with.
When I saw him rise to speak, I was very interested in hearing what he had to say. I know you've not risen too many times in this House over the past year or year and a half, and I thought it would be of some interest to hear his comments with respect to Bill 31, considering he's been very candid in the past with respect to government policy and positions that are put forward.
I am sincerely disappointed to see that a member of the crown, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, would have the authority to cut him off. But what I've learned today is that there's a pecking order in that cabinet. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs cut down my friend from Oshawa, I saw this afternoon where the Minister of Municipal Affairs fits in. It's directly behind the Minister of Labour, because I saw him nail him a little earlier this afternoon.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes questions or comments.
Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On three occasions during the last half-hour or so during questions and comments, there have been members on both sides of the House raising a point of privilege or a point of order. It seemed passing strange to me that when members of the opposition were interrupted by a member from the government benches, that interjection was allowed, but when the other happened it wasn't allowed. You weren't in the chair for all of that, Mr Speaker, but I just wanted to maintain a balance in the House regarding the rules.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Carleton brings forth a problem that's not easily solved by the Speaker. It's not easy to try to accommodate everyone. However, the Speaker does his or her best. To the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Oshawa, two minutes in response.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, I won't require it. Contrary to the comments from the members opposite, which are totally inaccurate, I had totally concluded my remarks. My speaking notes are here to verify that, and I was in no way influenced by my very good colleague and one of the best ministers of Municipal Affairs to ever grace this province, Mr Ed Philip.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Further debate? The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I was not going to speak on this bill, but I feel it's necessary. I can't believe the member for Oshawa making that statement he made. We're talking about a tax bill here. We're talking about a bill that affects people in this province, people who are losing their homes, are losing their jobs, are losing their unemployment insurance because of the former Conservative government's attitudes towards UIC, have no opportunity to get to welfare because of the attitudes of this government.
I find it absolutely outrageous that from a democratic standpoint the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the minister responsible for looking after the affairs of my riding of Brampton South, would have the audacity to tell a fellow minister of the crown that in fact he can't speak.
Now you want me to come back to the tax bill.
The Acting Speaker: It would be very nice if you did, yes.
Mr Callahan: Well, I'm going to wrap this around the tax bill. The taxpayers of this province, who are about to be taxed by this bill, are paying for 130 members of this Legislature. They're not paying for four members, plus the Premier, plus the unelected spin doctors down the hall; they're paying for the people in this House to represent their views in this House and to be certain that in hard times, when they're losing their homes, their jobs and God knows what else, that they know that the ministers are here looking after their interest.
One can understand that taxation is necessary for parliamentary democracies, but when taxation is brought in in the vein in which it's been brought in, we've seen an increase from 53% to 58%. The former Conservative government -- you can't say a lot about them; they're now just a pair in Ottawa; they ask for a table for two -- in fact gave us a tax break. That's the only legacy that the former Prime Minister gave us.
What happened? The Minister of Finance took it back and he takes it back by this bill. People out there who perhaps were making decisions on the basis of how they'd look after their budget and their household are now left with a bill that is going to be brought in that is going to actually claw back the money that the federal government, albeit a federal government that had a very large deficit, and we now find the deficit as the new government takes place is far greater than anybody anticipated, it's been clawed back. We've seen clawbacks of seniors by this government. We've seen clawbacks of just about every imaginable type of tax you can think of.
I have to say, this bill is one more tax bill that the members of this House should be defending and should be voting against because in fact we can't handle it any more. There are people out there hurting. There are people who cannot afford to have their budget thrown out every time the Minister of Finance decides that he wants to increase the taxes.
It's one thing for the people of this province to see a tax grab and see something happen on the other side with the deficit going down. We saw it with the former federal Conservative government. They told us the GST would be the be-all and end-all and these dollars that were being taken, this 15%, when you added the provincial and the federal GST to it, would be allocated towards the cost of bringing down the federal deficit.
Canadians rose to the occasion, as they always do. They rose to the occasion and they said, "Fine. We'll pay 15% more" --
The Acting Speaker: Order. On a point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.
Mr Stockwell: I know we don't have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if indeed a quorum is present?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
2030
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Brampton South may resume his participation in the debate.
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I have no problem with the member for Etobicoke West interrupting and making certain that the government, who is required to keep the quorum in this House, has at least 20 members here. I thank you for that, member, because I think this is very important.
Unlike the people in the real world, who have to go out and work in the rain, have to sweat, have to work hard to make their money we, as members of the Legislature, 130 of us in this august body, have indoor temperature; we're looked after; we get a space here to park our car; we get money for all sorts of things. I think it's very important that under the bill, the tax bill that we're speaking about, even though it's 8:30 at night, approaching Christmas and everyone wants to get out of here, you have a direct responsibility to ensure that this bill -- that this bill is earning you the salary that the taxpayers of this province have given you as a sacred trust.
For some reason, when you talk about tax bills in this place, the government sits over there and thinks: "Well, we've got a majority. Who cares? Taxpayers are jerks." Taxpayers don't deserve any benefit, don't deserve to be treated with the respect that every one of them will go out and crawl on their knees for at election time so they can get themselves re-elected to this august body. This important place we're spending about $20 million or $30 million on refurbishing, this monumental thing where only members are allowed on the floor of the Legislature, this big thing to be a member of the Legislature or a cabinet minister, tax bills are unimportant. They don't mean anything. Poor sops out there, they don't know any better. They don't know any better. You can put your hand in their pocket constantly and they'll never know.
I'd be willing to bet that if we took a question around this House to find out how many members of this House even know what this bill talks about, I'll bet you you wouldn't find five of them who would understand what they're doing to the taxpayers of this province.
That, to me, is frightening. That tells me that I think I live in a democracy. I think that the money that I earn in a hard fashion, that my children earn, is being spent and paid in tax dollars to a legislative body that lives in this gigantic palladium that's paid for by the taxpayers. It's lit by the taxpayers. It's paid for by the taxpayers. And the government can't even keep a quorum. They can't keep the 20 members over there excited about what the bill's all about. The member for Etobicoke West has to raise the issue, to call them in from wherever they were.
I will tell you, the question of public business on a tax bill is absolutely paramount. That's exactly why you're here. That's why you're privileged. That's why you're a special person in your riding: to look after the financial interests of the senior citizens.
The Minister of Finance can grab money and say it's being used for health, and yet the Minister of Health is cutting back money from our programs. She's cutting back money. She won't provide money for schizophrenics in terms of the formulary, in terms of providing money for it, and yet the members of this Legislature don't find it important enough to be here to discuss a tax bill. Well, I say, too bad. Too bad for the taxpayer. Too bad for the people who vote for you people, for whom you have a sacred trust.
I've just been reminded that perhaps I shouldn't say any more. I'll tell you something, I remember something when we were in government and the New Democratic Party was the opposition, and when people would come over and say, "Cut off the debate," we used to say, "If you do that any more, we will debate further." I will remind the Minister of Health that that's precisely what she did and many of her members when they were in opposition, and I don't intend to sit down, thank you.
So you don't have to come over and talk to one of my members and tell them, "Cut off debate." I'm not going to because I think it's very important that the services in this community, the services that are being provided to the taxpayers of this province, are being limited in all sorts of capacities. We're seeing tax grabs in photo-radar. We're seeing tax grabs in terms of the registration fees. We're seeing tax grabs in terms of the Minister of Finance not extending the OHOSP program for new home buyers. We're seeing tax grabs in terms of the 58% from the 53%.
How can we possibly say that this is not an important bill? This is a bill that should be limited in terms of debate. It shouldn't be limited. It's an absolute obligation on the part of every member of this Legislature to ensure that the taxpayers who pay for our luxurious surroundings, who pay for our so-called esteemed and honourable mention at dinners that we get invited to, that their money is being well spent. I suggest to you that it's not being, because what's happening here is the monumental sort of Christmas grab. Instead of Scrooge, it's spend. Instead of Scrooge, it's take money from the taxpayers. I object to that.
I was elected to represent the people of my community: seniors, poor people, people on family benefits, people on welfare who cannot afford to have the benefits that all of us have in this luxurious chamber, and yet we're not prepared to spend the time to debate a bill and vote on a bill that is essential to the people of this province. I find that really passing strange.
I find it strange that I can't perform the function I do, that I have the Minister of Municipal Affairs telling the minister of -- I'm sorry, I can't remember what his ministry is; perhaps he's not in the inner ministry -- that he can't speak in this place. Well, I say baloney.
I was elected by the people of Brampton South. Those are the people I'm accountable to. Those are the people where I see powers of sale of their houses taking place, families being displaced, mothers and fathers, breakup of marriages because they can't afford to pay for the things because they're grabbing the money, and they take the bloody money and they do nothing with it.
You know, we talk about the deficit being $17 billion. The Treasurer or the Minister of Finance, whatever you want to call him, wanted to get it down below $17 billion. So he cut out under a social contract which, for some reason, the people of this province seem to think is a great thing.
Well, I want to tell them that they're missing the point, because every essential service in this province, police, fire, ambulance, all of the essential services under the bill that was passed in this House, and probably many of you don't even know that, you cannot pay them off. You in fact have to give them 36 days off and that will happen in 1996, and the NDP government in existence now doesn't give one hot banana about it because you won't be here. You're going to give it to the next government to deal with that problem.
How do you supply 36 days of essential services to ambulance drivers, to police officers, to firemen and so on? In essence, what you're going to have to say to them is, "Surprise. We can't do it," or in fact what's happening is, the Minister of Finance is fooling the people of this province by saying, "We've saved $3 billion from the deficit that we had." But what he's doing is the same smoke and mirrors. As the press says, he's cooking the books. The same smoke and mirrors: He's saying, "We'll delay that until 1996; not our problem; we'll be out doing whatever we did before we were lucky enough to get into this joint," and they don't care about it.
2040
I see the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations here and she has got a casino bill and a casino in Windsor, one of many, anticipating that will be the saviour of the NDP government. It's going to get us all sorts of money and that will cover all these problems that we now have. There will be no problems whatsoever.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: Did I hear you?
Mr Stockwell: No, no.
Mr Callahan: Well, that's going to be the panacea.
The Acting Speaker: To the member, we are on Bill 31.
Mr Callahan: I appreciate that, Mr Speaker. In fact, it is all taxation, because the casino bill is the thing that Bob Rae railed against. "Casinos, gambling, my God, it's taxing the poor." Bob Rae has suddenly changed his mind. Taxing the poor isn't all that bad. You take it out of their pocket and you've got all these things you can pay for.
Well, I'll tell you something. The people in my community would not be too upset if they could see this money going into some place other than the bottomless pit, because all of the indications that we have had from all sources tell us that money is either being carted away in a Brinks truck to some Swiss bank, because it's not showing up in terms of the deficit -- it's kind of like the GST with the Tories. They said, "This money will be applied towards our deficit," but nobody saw it being applied towards it. The deficit is as big, in fact, when the present government got in there, it found it was $7 billion more than it anticipated. What the hell do governments do with this money? Have they got four or five bank accounts or what? You know, maybe it's time --
Mr Turnbull: Kind of like the deficit the NDP inherited from you.
Mr Callahan: No, no. I'm sorry. Maybe it's time --
Mr Turnbull: Is that like the deficit they inherited from you? You were going to have balanced budget in 1990.
Mr Callahan: Maybe it's time that we held governments accountable. Maybe it's time that we told governments, "If you want to tax us, if you want to take away money from us" -- and forget about destroying the economy and the business community. The business community now is disappearing because they've got so many forms and circulars they've got to fill out for this government that mean nothing. Charitable groups were finally exempt, I think, after we all told them it was silly. They have to pay $50 when they don't even change the directors in their company. What a joke. What an absolute joke.
You know, if this were done outside of this chamber it would be called theft, and if you used a little bit of force it would be called robbery. But, you know, when you do it in here and you do it at about a quarter to 9 at night it's: "Well, shut up. Don't talk about it." It's a very secret society we've got here, a secret group.
I'll tell you something. I think the taxpayers of this province are listening. I think they're looking at what's happening here. I'm not sure that they quite understand why they hate politicians but I'll tel you something. They should damned well hate politicians. They should perhaps eliminate this place because it's meaningless. All they ever get from us is tax bills. They have four or five people who are the power brokers in this joint and the six or seven spin doctors who never even got elected to this place, telling this place what's good for the people of this province. I find that offensive, absolutely offensive.
We saw a bill tonight and it relates to this, a bill that I suggested to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and also others is a precursor to the elimination of school boards. Maybe some would say that's great. You know: Get rid of these extra forms of government.
But they don't do it that way. They do it sneaky. You've got so many bills on here -- omnibus. You know what "omnibus" is? It's called potpourri. You take everything and dump it into a canister and you throw it out to the Legislature. Maybe we're in favour of part of it and maybe we're against the others, and the opposition's job is not an easy one. Our job is to make certain that those people over there who are in fact taking money from the taxpayers of this province and can't show anything on a balance sheet to demonstrate where the heck the money went to, we hold them accountable.
That's why I was elected and I'm sure that's why the members in this House who care about this job were elected. The government seems to think, "Well, hey guys, we've got a majority and we've made a deal with the House leader that this is what should take place this night." I say to hell with that because you're the government, you get paid extra bucks, every one of you, out of the taxpayers' purse and I don't see any production from it. I don't see any of the benefits going to my community; I don't see any single parents who are able to have more money for their kids; I don't see any more money for schools. In fact, they're taking it away from our schools. I saw in the press today that $30 million are being taken away from schools.
You people are absolutely bonkers. You're taking it away from vulnerable people, you're taking it away from a whole host of people and it's all sort of like it's a piggy bank. You know, "I put money in there and the deficit should be reduced here," and unfortunately the money that goes into the piggy bank doesn't result in decreasing the deficit over here. It does absolutely nothing for the benefit of the society of this province.
I feel sorry for the people who were sucked into the social contract in this society. They got sucked into a deal that requires them to take off 10 or more days a year. They got sucked into it because they said that's going to help the deficit of the province of Ontario.
Well, I have to say to myself, my God, we're approaching Christmas and the end of the year. I guess our fiscal year is April. I'm going to tell you that when they find you guys were not telling the truth -- that's collectively, Mr Speaker -- that in fact the deficit has not been reduced because of their reductions in their salaries and their rearranging of their budgets and perhaps the loss of their homes, perhaps the loss of a lot of benefits to their children, that you have not in fact decreased that deficit, they are going to be mighty angry, let me tell you.
I don't know whether you've got some sort of a hidden bank account where you're going to try to produce some sort of a goody to keep these people happy so they don't get angry, but I hope you do because I don't want to be around this place when the March 31 deadline comes down and there is no change. In fact, I would suggest there's an upward trend in the deficit in this province. The businesses are just disappearing. People are losing their jobs. I don't want to be here because I can tell you right now that if you think the people are unhappy now, you just wait for that.
Somebody once said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time." I think that's true and that's what the government over here is trying to do. They call themselves the New Democratic Party. I think the representation of what has gone on in this place in the three years that they've been in office has demonstrated to me in spades that they should take the word "democrat" out. Just the way they treat the opposition in terms of what they call time allocation, which is really closure -- it's telling you to shut up -- is kind of like a minuscule of what happened with the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he told the member for Oshawa to take the hook; he couldn't speak for his residents. That goes on on a grandiose basis in this place.
I don't know how many members they've got over there but they certainly have more than ourselves and the Conservatives. They're being paid by the taxpayers. People who can't afford to go to the movies or bowling or bingo or whatever are paying these people, as their members, to defend their interests. What do they do under this bill? As I said before, they have clawed back the only reductions that the Mulroney government gave us. They've clawed them back.
I remember when the federal government of the day, the Mulroney government tried to claw back seniors' benefits. The seniors mounted a campaign that was heard around the world. They told that government of the day, "You can't do this," and it didn't do it.
I'm going to leave a message, and I am going to end and people will say, "Amen." I'm going to leave a message with this government. I'm putting out a message tonight to the people of this province: I'm fed up. I'm fed up with the representation I'm getting. I want an election. I'm fed up with somebody having their hand in my pocket. I'm fed up with the members of the government who are not serving the purposes for which they were elected. I'm fed up with the entire routine.
Let them mobilize the same way that the seniors in this province did. Let them get up and say: "I'm tired of not being able to give my kid this toy for Christmas. I'm tired of not being able to go bowling or go to a movie or do the normal things that I'm sure every member of this Legislature is able to do. I'm tired of it. I'm fed up. I've had enough and it's time for an election." Thank you.
2050
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments on the member for Brampton South's participation in the debate? Further debate on third reading of Bill 31? Seeing none, the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, has closing remarks.
Mr Sutherland: I want to thank all those speakers who made comments and actually spoke to the bill and the content of the bill. I think that was a very constructive process. With regard to the rest of the comments, I too will take time to reflect on how I participate in activities in this House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved third reading of Bill 31. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No? All those in favour will please say "aye."
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Speaker, we have a division.
The Acting Speaker: We have a document here that reads as follows, "By prior agreement of this House, there will be a division on this bill and it will be deferred until Monday, December 13, immediately preceding orders of the day.
RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION
Resumption of the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for York Mills was in full flight when we last adjourned. He still has 18 minutes and 39 seconds.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I was indeed, Mr Speaker.
The residents of York Mills are, to say the least, perturbed about this bill. We have predominantly areas of single-family houses. They object to the idea that the provincial government is going to come in and is going to undermine the zoning which was put in place by the local municipal council to protect those areas. There are indeed some odd apartments which the residents have turned a blind eye to in the sense that they recognize that there might be somebody who has some difficult financial, times and they are turning their back on the fact that there is the odd illegal apartment.
What this bill does is to inscribe in law the fact that every neighbourhood can be turned into an area of multiple-family dwellings, at the stroke of the government's pen, in conflict with what the local municipality wants. When I last rose, I spoke about the fact that the present system that the government is bringing in does not allow for any change in assessment. Therefore, the property taxes will not be in any way affected, which means that you can have a doubling of the population in a given area without any attendant increases in property taxes. So you will now have to service extra police, extra ambulance, fire service, sewage and education, all massive costs, the major costs that any municipality incurs, without any increase in taxes.
How the government considers that it is reasonable for municipalities to bear this when it has enacted zoning in full knowledge of the circumstances, and not just the circumstances relating to costs in a municipality but more than that, the wishes of the people who live n that municipality, is completely beyond me.
This is a government which is philosophically opposed to municipalities having any rights to be able to determine their own faith. They don't trust the people locally. The minister, when I spoke about it last, defended her bill by saying that the reason local municipalities weren't passing bylaws to allow basement apartments was because of the fact that vocal minorities in municipalities would speak up and say, "We don't want single-family houses to be turned into multiple-family units." And indeed townhouses can be turned into two-unit houses.
Buildings which were clearly not designed or engineered to maintain two families are now going to be pressed into service in this way. The government suggests that somehow this is part of its job creation program. What an absolutely pathetic effort at job creation. How are you going to create any significant number of jobs with this kind of bill? Well, I guess you could argue that there may have to be some renovations to bring the existing illegal basement apartments, which will now become legal, into compliance with the law.
I would suggest that where there any significant amounts of work to be done in a basement apartment, which would create jobs, then it's highly likely that the owner of the building will not be able to afford it. Typically, when somebody rents a basement apartment, they don't pay a lot of money. That is the reason they live in a basement apartment. It isn't exactly the choice lifestyle of most people. They would sooner live in something above grade.
But instead, no, the government says, "We're going to make you bring this into compliance with the law." What happens if the landlord cannot afford to bring it into compliance with the law? What happens if the rent for an apartment is $250 or $300 a month or even $400, and the cost to bring this apartment into compliance is $10,000? Not a very good proposition to the owner, but I suspect we have a situation here where the government is going to force the owner to bring it into compliance, because there's no way of getting people out of these basement apartments because they are now making them legal.
What happens about the family who has a basement apartment and wants to get control over the building to occupy it themselves? Under this law, there will be no right to get the tenant out and you'll be stuck with them.
Let's just turn to the question of the other section of the bill which deals with long-term care homes, the retirement homes, to be distinctly delineated from nursing homes. I have a letter here which deals with the question of the inclusion of retirement homes in this bill, which will apply rent controls to the tenants of these units. I'd just like to read some extracts from this letter:
"The Ontario Long-Term Residential Care Association plays a major role in this province's long-term care system. Over 30,000 seniors, disabled and post-psychiatric residents, with an average age of 83, live as independently as possible in these facilities. Twenty per cent are on general welfare assistance. Unfortunately, the Minister of Housing took the Lightman commission's recommendations literally and applied them to this sector, when in fact the majority of Professor Lightman's concerns lay with unregulated boarding homes."
I emphasize the word "unregulated."
"Retirement homes have been advocating for years the need for province-wide standards and a formal system of disputes resolution to address concerns such as inadequate care, resident safety, limited contract disclosure and emergency relocation. It had recommended that these problems be dealt with by enacting legislation that incorporated mandatory standards to be enforced by the municipalities. These standards would set out the terms for obtaining a licence to build and operate a retirement home and should apply to all residential care settings across both public and private facilities."
The emphasis is on "public." This bill only applies to the private facilities.
"But this government would not listen to this reasonable request, and instead has decided to apply both the Rent Control Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act to retirement homes, thus tying it up in bureaucratic, expensive red tape which will cause severe problems for residents and their families.
2100
"Application of these two acts will create the following problems:
"The Landlord and Tenant Act will make it impossible for retirement homes to deal with emergency situations quickly, particularly when a resident becomes a danger to others.
"Appeals can take up to a year. There is little or no case law in this area.
"Retirement homes may, say in the case of an Alzheimer's patient or one with dementia, have to apply to the public trustee to have the resident declared incompetent.
"Family members who currently now contract with retirements will no longer technically have status under the Landlord and Tenant Act. During this time, the resident could be causing serious harm to staff, other residents or to him or herself.
"This is a very serious problem which the Minister of Housing refuses to address. What is required is a fast-track approach which takes into account emergency situations.
"This legislation also fails to take into account special circumstances for short-term stay residents. In some areas of the province, hospitals contract with retirement homes to allow cancer patients to live there during chemotherapy or radiation therapy treatment stays.
"Many families put their loved ones into a retirement home for a short time so they can go on vacation or have a rest from care of that individual. This legislation would prevent that from happening.
"Other areas of concern:
"Retirement homes," and I think this is a very salient point, "are very concerned that they will be unable to deal with these residents who refuse to pay the care services other than going to Small Claims Court on a monthly basis. The minister must consider allowing retirement homes to have mandatory contracts with the residents that ensure residents pay for both" -- emphasis on both -- "so that only when the resident serves notice to vacate under the Landlord and Tenant Act can he or she stop paying for care services."
This is a very important point. Under this legislation, if a resident lives in a retirement home, whatever method is used by this government -- which hasn't been spelled out in the bill -- as to how it will determine which component belongs to the rent and which component belongs to the care portion of the bill, the owner of the home will have no right to evict the tenant if they are still paying the rent, notwithstanding the fact that they could have completely abrogated their responsibility for paying for the care portion. This will undoubtedly drive some retirement homes into bankruptcy.
The other rather interesting aspect that this bill brings to bear is that residents stand to lose from a tax standpoint. First they will lose their GST-exempt status, because GST will now be applied to most non-shelter services. Residents also stand to lose some or all of the benefits from medical tax receipts.
That's a rather interesting situation. If you have a loved one in a retirement home and you're paying the money at the moment to maintain them in a retirement home, it is tax-free. But now this socialist government is taking a measure which is going to ensure that for residents in these homes, even if there is no increase in the rates, the person paying the bill will have to pay more money because there will be GST added to this.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like to congratulate you on your new-found position and as well call quorum, just to get you on the record, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): Is there a quorum present?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills may continue.
Mr Turnbull: To continue with this letter from the association of operators of these homes:
"Residents will no longer enjoy safety and protection from higher-care-level residents who become aggressive or incontinent. Resident councils' input will become diminished. Owners and operators are concerned that a resident will now be able to sublet their space to anyone."
What an absolutely disgraceful situation, that this law can undermine the ability of the operator of the retirement home's power of deciding as to who will be in the retirement home, a decision which presumably will be made in the best interests of the other residents to ensure that the other residents are not inconvenienced.
Finally, "There will be the inevitable impact on necessary capital expenditures," and this most important, because I know you know a lot about the question of capital expenditures with respect to rental apartments. "Renovations are often made to retirement homes for safety and retrofit reasons. Under rent control, there are severe restrictions to recovering necessary capital expenditures. How does this government think the operators are going to be able to maintain the buildings?"
Instead of doing what -- to be charitable -- this government believes it's doing, it's going in the opposite direction. They are putting impediments in the way of the operators of retirement homes from running good, safe, efficient operations which help the residents. They have got mixed up; they haven't read the Lightman report correctly. The fact is that Lightman was talking predominantly about the problems that existed in unregulated boarding houses. These are not boarding houses; these are a very different type of facility.
Finally, of course, there is this question of how the government thinks the allocation is going to be made between the rent component and the care component in a retirement home. Are they going to bring out some regulations with some absolutely wild calculations which they're going to apply to all retirement homes and simply say, "You will have to live with that"? I would suspect that if a retirement home is a newer building, then the portion which is applicable to the actual rent for the physical building would be a larger percentage than if the building were older and were somewhat amortized. There's no information whatsoever in the bill as to how that will be handled, so there's a very serious problem.
In summation, our problems with respect to retirement homes are that the government hasn't thought this through, and it is going to undermine the ability to the operators to be able to deliver services to the people in the retirement homes and will undoubtedly cause some bankruptcies. With respect to basement apartments or units put into back gardens, the local municipality will lose all of the rights to apply zoning which is reasonable to control the neighbourhood in such a way that it is in the best interests of the neighbours and expresses the desires of the people who live in a particular area.
There is the association known as the Toronto Area Property Standards Officers and also the Ontario Association of Property Standards Officers, which is headed up by Mr Joe Perrone, who is the bylaw enforcement officer for North York. He has expressed his concerns. These associations expressed concerns with Bill 90 and you will recall that essentially this is the child of Bill 90. He has expressed to us that while they haven't formally had it before their associations, he would see no reason that the views they have expressed in the past with respect to Bill 90 would not be the same for this particular legislation.
2110
Municipalities don't want it. People who live in single-family neighbourhoods don't want this legislation. Why is the government pushing it down our throats? It is going to undermine neighbourhoods. It's just one further step down this process of the socialist republic that this government wants to inflict on us. We don't like it and the residents are saying, "Don't do it."
We insist that this go to committee hearings during the intersession so that the good people of York Mills and other ridings across the province can come out and express their disdain for what this government is doing.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments on the member's debate?
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I can see the House brighten up as I stand up.
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: You'll be very happy to hear that I'm going to be very charitable to the government. I'm going to be very brief. That should get a round of applause. Certainly, it will get a round of applause at the Callahan household because if my wife is watching there, she's probably going click.
I want to tell you that the purpose of your bill is laudable and that's the --
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: You want to see the other shoe drop? The purpose of your bill is laudable. I'm sorry, the clock has got me on questions and comments; I'm actually in debate.
The Acting Speaker: I did ask for any comments or questions on the member for York Mills's debate. If there are no questions or comments on the member for York Mills, further debate?
Mr Callahan: I won't reiterate it. The people up there in television land can run that backwards and run it again.
As I said, I think what the government is doing here is laudable in this respect: To follow up on my speech before and for those of you who have known me for nine years, I can be political, I can be partisan, but I do believe that we serve the people of this province, and that's why I say that what the government is trying to do is laudable. What you're trying to do is the same thing that the former Liberal government tried to do with the granny flats and so on. It was to create housing for those people who, for whatever reason, are not able to financially afford housing.
I think everyone of us, and perhaps more significantly the people in Toronto, have gone into accommodations where people were just -- they were drastic. More often than not, the people in the Metropolitan area were living in accommodations that were not worthwhile for anyone, particularly seniors, but I have to say to you, in the brief period of time I have and I intend to speak very shortly on this, that there is the concern I have about your efforts in attempting to approach what is an understandably sensitive area. You're doing it the wrong way, I have to say with all due respect. What you're doing is you're taking away from municipalities --
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: We seem to have a less colourful Speaker there. She's dressed entirely in one colour and the other gal, the other lady was dressed in very delightful colours, Margaret, and she got a rose to boot.
I have to say that we have people in this chamber who have sat on municipal councils, have had the opportunity to plan, under the Planning Act and the Municipal Act, their communities in a way that made sense.
I think that as municipal representatives in the past, and perhaps in the present, councils have been a bit too easy in terms of allowing densities to increase, have allowed developers to come forward before the councils and before they've even sold or even built anything they've taken the property from single-family and then they sell it to somebody; then the next person comes back -- and you haven't got anything on the ground -- with a duplex, nothing on the ground; triplex, nothing on the ground and just paper being sold again; quadruplex, nothing on the ground, nothing to help out the taxpayers' burden in the municipality.
Then the next thing you know, the paper is sold a fourth time and what you've got is, "We'd like to put up a higher density, perhaps eight or 10 units." So the council says okay. They grant it. It's still paper.
The next person who appears before you, it's still paper. "We want to have 20 units." Council says, "Okay, fine." Depending on the sophistication of the council, they want this development. They want this base. They want this housing for their people. The next thing you know, before you get finished you've got a subdivision of the highest density possible, the highest density within the framework of the official plan -- not the minimum density but the highest density -- being developed.
You've got these people who have sold the paper four, five, six, seven times and have increased the value of the land on which the homes are going to be built. Really, I think those people who were in municipal politics will know that the real cost of the house to the citizen of Ontario or Canada is the land. If you allow this land to trade hands six and eight times by way of paper, and not one nickel to the municipality -- we all deserve to have the prices we require for homes today. I think we've really reached the stage where we can no longer say yes to that. We have to say no to that. We have to say no because your children and mine will never be able to afford a house.
When I go back to what I said, I think the bill you're bringing in is an effort to try to house people at the lowest possible cost. Unfortunately, what you're doing in the meantime is you're taking the people in my community who bought a house -- maybe they were lucky enough to get into a house at $48,000, which today is worth $200,000 or $300,000, simply because of all this paper trading that took place, not because of anything that made it more valuable. It just was the paper trading, or the hanging on to the land, or the lengthy delays of council in rezoning the land, or providing the approvals for the development. These people were paying interest. They're businessmen and women.
What we've done is we've been the masters of our own misfortune, and necessarily we've been the masters of our children's misfortunes, because I can't see how my kids will ever buy a house. That's why I got so incensed in the last debate, which you were not here for, Madam Speaker, about taking away the program that's coming to an end on December 31. I think that's very shortsighted.
I know the Minister of Finance, who is, I think, a good person, even though I harangue him from time to time --
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): He's a great person.
Mr Callahan: All right, I'll say he's a great person, too. I harangue him from time to time, but he should extend that program because the people we're looking to house are not just the poor, are not just the seniors; in the main, they're young people. They're young people who are going to get married and have children and be the taxpayers of this province, who need to have the ability to buy a house.
When I look at the prices of homes, you have something up there, "Extra special, $199,000." I think to myself, "My God, I can go down to the United States" -- I'm not espousing going to the US, but you can go down to Florida, you can buy a condominium for about US$96,000, and it's got two bedrooms with individual baths, a living room, dining room, screened-in porch. Why can't we build housing like that?
2120
On the other side of the coin, to get back to the bill itself and where I object to it, is the fact -- I have to say this on behalf of my municipality and myself. There are people in my age group -- don't worry about my age group. We got in at a very low price, $45,000 or $46,000 for a house that's now worth $200,000. The people I care about and concern myself about are the people who are middle-income, below middle-income, the seniors. If they want to buy a house, they haven't got $200,000 or $250,000. The people who have bought into a home, albeit it might be at $48,000, bought the most significant investment that they will ever make in their lifetime.
I used to always to get a kick out of people when I was practising law who would come into my office and I'd say to them, "Own your own home?" and they'd say no. I'd say, "Well what do you mean by that?" because I knew they did. "Well, I have a mortgage on it." I'd say: "Well, welcome to the club. We all have mortgages." Some of us had mortgages in times when they were really bad.
We have an opportunity to strike while the iron is hot. Interest rates are low. We could accommodate people through assisting them through the program that's going to end on December 31, by providing them an opportunity to get a first home. But more importantly, this bill takes someone who has bought a home in a single-family area -- that sounds highfalutin and maybe it sounds like these people are trying to be special, but they're not. They're people who have invested their savings in buying into a single-family community.
What you're doing by this bill -- I'm not sure; I guess it's the Minister of Housing. Who's the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Housing? Is that person here?
Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Gary Wilson.
Mr Callahan: Is he here?
Mr David Winninger (London South): No.
Mr Callahan: He's not here. Is the minister here? In any event, I'm not trying to be unfair. All I'm saying is that what you're doing is taking the planning abilities away from the municipalities. My municipality has a two-pronged attack to that. My municipality says: "We don't want you to do that. We don't want you to allow retroactively. That's what this bill does. Unless you go the final page, you don't understand that's what's happening.
The final page, subsection 48(1), says: "Sections 4 to 26, 48 and 49 shall be deemed to have come into force on November 23, 1993."
Subsection (2) says: "Sections 1 to 3 and 27 to 35 come into force on the day this act receives royal assent."
Because subsection 48(1) says that sections 48 and 49 shall be deemed to have come into force on November 23, 1993, this bill is actually retroactive. What it means is that a young couple bled, went out and worked to buy a house in a subdivision which they thought was a single-family dwelling. They made the biggest investment of their lives. They probably will be lucky if they pay it off before they die, or certainly before they're 65. Suddenly, what they've found is that the neighbour next door can put in a basement apartment, as long as it meets the qualifications of this act, and suddenly what you've done is you've intensified the density of that community and you have expropriated from those people the value that they put, the blood, sweat and tears they put into buying that home. That is unfair.
If you examine English history, and that's where our Expropriations Act comes from, there is a principle of law -- I don't think the English had to bring it about, but what it says is that you don't take away value from someone without paying them for it. That's in fact what you're doing.
You might say that we're trying to increase the amount of housing for people and we're trying to cut out the landlords where there are illegal basement apartments where they can harass the single parent down there and give them a bad time because they can't call the police because they're illegally there, or not put them and children in a place where a fire might take place. Municipalities face the same conundrum. They want to find a way where they can make sure these people are safe, but you don't do that, I suggest, by taking other people's rights away to do it. What you do is have the guts to say, "All right, we are going to give the power to the municipalities to in fact investigate those areas, to allow people to do whistleblowing, even if they're illegally in the basement apartment, and they can change the whole situation." But you don't do that by taking away other people's rights, and that's what's happening.
I have to say on behalf of my municipality that I strongly object to this bill. Unfortunately, it's one of these bills that's an omnibus bill, which seems to be the name of this -- I'm going to get partisan. The name of this government is "omnibus." You throw in the pot-pourri and you give us a few things we might be prepared to vote for and you throw in these other things, which is very difficult to even logically agree with. I'm not going to speak on the matters of the retirement homes. I have problems with that too, but I don't have time to do that; there are other members who want to speak.
Finally, I want to say, on behalf of my municipality, you are in fact again indirectly taxing young people, old people, middle-class people, perhaps poor people. You're taking away from them something they bought and you're giving them nothing in return. If you wanted to expropriate that house, like you've expropriated the property in Windsor for the casino, you would have to pass legislation, as you did with the casino in Windsor, to in fact -- I don't want to say the word "steal," but darn close -- prevent people from getting the proper value for their property. That's what you're doing en masse, whole scale, against the people of these communities of this province.
Finally, what you're doing is depriving the elected representatives of the municipalities, who have the right and have the ability and probably far better experience than we do down here in Toronto, to plan their communities. You're in fact saying to them: "Forget it. We're going to plan for you retroactively." I don't care what you do prospectively. If you want to put basement apartments in my community, then tell us, allow us to plan for it, allow people to move in knowing that's what they're buying into; I think that's fair. But what you're doing here is unfair.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Questions and/or comments? Further debate?
Mr Stockwell: I'll be brief. I just want to put on the record a couple of concerns I have about this debate. They concern the basement apartment issue. I listened to the member for Brampton South. He was itemizing some of the issues that I think needed to be addressed.
I do so because I'm a firm believer in a couple of things at a local level. I'm an absolute firm believer in the official plan, I'm absolutely a firm believer in zoning and I'm absolutely a firm believer in the planning process. I will say from my experience at a metropolitan level of government that we have, having limited travel, in Metropolitan Toronto one of the finest-planned cities I've been to. I would say all parties deserve credit for that.
I recall very well back in the 1970s when David Crombie was elected. David Crombie was elected on this 45-foot bylaw restriction. I'm sure many of you don't recall that but there was a bit of a purge of councils at that time restricting densities to height limitations. Some would be surprised that I think John Sewell had a lot of good ideas when it came to local planning. I didn't agree with everything John Sewell stood for but I think he had some good ideas and I think the planning process that was instituted in a non-partisan way by the Conservative provincial government was a healthy and vibrant planning procedure.
Further to that, the OMB was initially established, I think with respect to taxes and the ability of municipalities to defer or debenture tax moneys, and it expanded to include the planning process. Not being able to speak for other communities -- I can speak with some degree of certainty and background about the planning process that's been put in place by the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto.
2130
I think anyone who would travel the streets of these fair cities and borough that we have in this community would agree that it's been well-planned from a transportation, development, housing, commercial, industrial point of view. We've maintained a city core in this city that is the envy, I think, of practically any American city I've been to. We have one of the finest transportation systems in the world, many times winning awards on a worldwide basis. I think if you go to Etobicoke or Scarborough, to North York, East York, York and the city of Toronto, what you have is communities and neighbourhoods that have been built, developed, planned and zoned to the finest level of public input possible.
You ask: Why do I mention this? I mention this because we now are addressing a piece of legislation that in one fell swoop does things that local municipal councils are incapable themselves of doing. It's allowing a type of intensification to take place in our neighbourhoods and communities that I think would not be acceptable or adopted by duly elected officials at the municipal level. Why I feel so strongly about this is because this particular legislation flies in the face of any sane, rational and reasonable approach to planning.
I think you'll find a majority of planners who have been educated in the province who would tell you that widespread decision-making across all sections of this province dictated by a provincial government is not the way to plan communities in this province. It's not the way to develop intensification in housing in this province. As dearly held some of the principles of this place are, there's nothing that I think most municipal councillors would say they hold more important or close to their heart than the right to plan the communities they represent.
I understand the reasons for introducing this and the reasons for wanting to legitimize some basement apartments that are fundamentally illegal but practically there. Basement apartments are there and they will stay there because of the way the law sits today. A basement apartment will not be abolished as we know it. I think the number of basement apartments that have at least developed over the years in Metropolitan Toronto don't have a huge -- it does have some impact, but does not have a huge impact on the way of life in Metropolitan Toronto.
But let me say this: There are people out there who would think about putting a basement apartment in but don't because they know it is against the bylaws and is restricted by local councils. Those people don't do that. For some reasons why they don't, we are lucky; I will tell you, there are reasons why we are lucky they don't.
The reasons are: planning doesn't just include intensification; planning doesn't just mean zoning and coverage and how many times coverage certain things are. Planning's got a lot to do with services; I ask the members opposite to remember that when they vote on this bill. Services include all services municipal governments offer.
I said before, and I'll say again, the services they offer are the day-to-day services people count on, the important things they count on to just live their life. When we talk about legislation, it does impact them in certain ways, in certain degrees, but municipal council decision-making impacts their everyday life. It impacts the roads they drive on, the transportation projects that've been built, the buses, the subways, the garbage that's collected from their curb, the schools that educate their children, the libraries they borrow books from, the parks they play in or simply sit in.
Everything about everyone's daily life is affected by a municipal council and the decision-making at that municipal council. Conversely, those decisions are affected very, very much by planning decisions made by those elected officials. I don't think there's anything more important that local councils make decisions about than how their city or municipality or village or town will look today as to how it will look in 20 years, because those are the kinds of planning decisions that get made.
If you think about some of the big planning issues in the last few years in Metropolitan Toronto -- you think of Harbourfront and you think of the changes that maybe should have been made there; you think of the SkyDome; you think of the downtown development in the city of Toronto and the expansion of the road networks down there and the impact those decisions had on all walks of life, from driving in to work or getting on the subway. Those decisions, I will submit to you, Madam Speaker, through you to the government, are best left to the people who are elected to make those decisions. You know why? Not one policy is good for all of Ontario. Not one policy can be implemented, from a planning point of view, for all the cities and towns in this great province. What's good in Wawa may not necessarily fly in Etobicoke. What's good in Kingston or Windsor may not be the best thing, from a planning point of view, for Scarborough or East York.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): That's what we said about the Sunday shopping.
Mr Stockwell: Some would say that's what you said about Sunday shopping, but I'm speaking from a planning point of view on decision-making and planning issues. Why I think it's important to leave those decisions to local councils is because local councils understand their neighbourhoods and the issues and the concerns that their people have, what their neighbourhoods can take and what kind of intensification is acceptable and will not impact on their communities.
Basement apartments in Parkdale is going to be a tough thing to sell. Maybe there is a need for basement apartments in Scarborough or some in Etobicoke, but in some areas it's just not going to work; it isn't. I think of Parkdale or some of the streets in Lakeshore and Etobicoke or some of the streets in the city of Toronto that are narrow, the services are absolutely loaded up to the teeth, the libraries are postage stamps, the schools are jammed, the roads are choked.
Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Because you put --
Mr Stockwell: Because why?
Hon Mrs Grier: Nothing.
Mr Stockwell: These are communities that are choked to the point that the city of Toronto doesn't clear the snow from some streets in the city of Toronto; they can't get a snowplow down the streets because the streets are so choked with parked cars. They just hope, believe it or not -- the city of Toronto -- the snow melts so they can get emergency vehicles down there when the time comes.
So I say to you that there isn't a carte blanche piece of legislation for basement apartments that will work in all parts of this province. That is why we have elected municipal councils. That is why these people make these decisions on planning. That is why a basement apartment in Parkdale won't work as well as a basement apartment in Scarborough or Etobicoke or, I don't know, Kingston or London. I only say this because I know, from history, that the arguments I put forth today are the same ones that were embraced by this party at the municipal level. The same arguments I put forward today are the same ones that were embraced by those I shared many long debates with on council: the autonomy of a local council, duly elected, to plan its cities as it sees fit, by those people who live in those cities, work in those cities and have recreation in those cities.
I will say briefly, as I did, if there's one thing I want to say and get clear as I'm elected in this Legislature, and the same thing I said when I was not elected in this Legislature, we have a job to do here and I think we should do it. We should leave the responsibilities of federal politics to the federal government, and we should leave those responsibilities we've delegated to the municipal governments to them, because I'll tell you something: As sure as we're standing here today there are going to be 800-odd public hearings to amend official plans right across this province. In some neighbourhoods they will be accepted, but in lots of neighbourhoods they won't. I say, those people who oppose them will have a good reason to do so and they will cite some logical and sound planning reasons to do it, and they will have professionals out who will also argue very persuasively that this is the wrong kind of plan for this kind of neighbourhood.
2140
As I argued before this life here, the province should stay out of planning and local municipal autonomy. I make the same statement today. Please don't involve yourself in the issues of local council, because we have a lot of people who are elected to do just that. If you allow them to plan the communities we live in, I think they will be every bit as good as the ones we have lived in for the last number of years. If we get involved we'll lose sight of neighbourhood involvement, community involvement and people making decisions about the neighbourhoods they live in, and that's what has made our cities strong.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The member for York Mills.
Mr Turnbull: My colleague the member for Etobicoke West brings a depth of experience of municipal politics which is much broader than that of most people in this House. He has been in local municipal politics and he's been in Metro politics for many, many years. It's quite amazing how young he was when he was elected. He has been around these problems and, interestingly, also around many of the NDP proponents of planning for many, many years. He has been in contact with the Sewells and the Martins of this world, the Laytons, and indeed they have been emphasizing -- and there are very, very few areas where I will agree with these NDP councillors, but I do believe that it is important -- the need for local planning.
This bill undermines local planning, and my colleague has spoken to the very serious problem of providing services which will be overloaded, and yet no attendant increase in taxes will be achieved through putting these basement apartments in. It's the wrong bill. It will not achieve the creation of jobs that have been suggested by the Minister of Housing, and more than anything else this bill is just a product of ideology. It isn't a product of good sense. It flies in the face of what all of the municipalities are telling us and the member for Etobicoke West has articulated very well. I wish I could speak as well as he does on an issue -- any issue if it comes to that, but particularly on this issue. I think the members of the government would be well advised to consider what he has said.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Etobicoke West can reply.
Mr Stockwell: I certainly thank the member for York Mills; I appreciate his comments.
I just want to make a quick point from one of the arguments the member brought up. If we take an average subdivision, in an average subdivision let's assume there are 2,000 homes, and of those 2,000 homes now automatically 2,000 may have basement apartments. So really what you've just discovered here is that that's an application for 2,000 units in one area.
If you were elected to local council and an application came in for 2,000 units, you would be into a prolonged period of public comment, public debate, public hearings, probably amendments for official plans, zoning negotiations, probably a visit to the OMB and so on and so on, a two- or three-year period. That's just one neighbourhood. For all the homes in this province we could be potentially -- and I don't know how many homes there are, single-family row housing and semi-detached. We're approving literally hundreds of thousands of apartments with not a public hearing, with not an OMB hearing, with not a negotiation for zoning or development. Just grasp that. That's what we're approving today.
In any major metropolitan area a project for 20 units goes through a process that is so long and so arduous it would be beyond belief in some instances. Literally, with the passage of this legislation, we're approving hundreds of thousands of units with not a study, not a planning document, not a zoning document, not an official plan document, not a trip to the OMB, not any of that, and you couldn't do that for 15 units in any city in this province.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, by prior agreement of this House, there will be a division on this bill, Bill 120. It will be deferred until Monday, December 13, immediately preceding orders of the day.
House in committee of the whole.
TEACHERS' PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS
Consideration of 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 First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Shall sections 1 through 10 carry? Carried. Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (DIMENSIONS ET POIDS)
Consideration of Bill 74, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.
The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and if there are amendments, to what sections?
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I intend to move not one but two amendments to the bill. They're housekeeping amendments. They make the bill workable and give it life at the appropriate time during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, these being subsection 2(1) of the bill, a proposed definition of "box length" in section 108 of the act, subsection 3(2) of the bill, and proposed subsections 109(10), (10.1) and (10.2).
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I understand that the Chair and I think the government as well as the third party have received the amendments that I wish to move, in subsection 3(2.1) and subsection 109(17), subsection 3(4). I will read them into the record at the appropriate time, but just briefly, they deal with allowing longer motor coaches. I will be speaking to that a little bit to explain to the public who may be watching still at this late hour what this is all about.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I too have two amendments. The first amendment, in light of the wording of the Liberal amendment, is actually an amendment to the amendment. I will be speaking to that a little later.
The First Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We'll go through the bill.
Shall section 1 carry? On section 1, are there any questions or comments?
2150
Mr Daigeler: Just a brief comment. I do want to say that I appreciate the opportunity and I'm sure the trucking association and the people who work in the trucking industry are still following this matter, because they have been working on putting this bill before the House very diligently for a very long time, and I'm sure they're pleased to see the progress now that we are, even though we're coming very close to the adjournment hopefully of the House before the Christmas session, dealing with this matter, because I think, as we've said already on second reading, this is a matter that is of great importance.
As is mentioned in section 1, we're dealing here with allowing longer trucks. Sometimes they have been referred to as monster trucks, but I think those really are the wrong words to use. We are really talking about putting Ontario on a level playing field with most other jurisdictions in North America, and that's why I certainly will be supporting the section that's before us and the other sections as well.
The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments on section 1?
Mr Turnbull: As you will appreciate, since I've been Transportation critic I have been asking the minister to enact this legislation, which is urgently needed and one could say is overdue. We have had a competitive disadvantage in Ontario in that Ontario was, with the exception of the Maritime provinces, the only place in either the US or Canada that did not allow a standardized length of truck. We had Quebec on the one side and all of western Canada and the whole of the US interstate which allowed for these larger trucks. They're not monster trucks, as my colleague from the Liberal Party has stated; they're just a standardized truck which makes for rationalized manufacturing and allows the trucking industry of Ontario, which has been suffering for some length of time, to be able to start thinking of replacing its aging equipment so that we will become more competitive. So we are very welcoming of section 1.
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other speakers who wish to address section 1? Seeing none, shall section 1 carry? Agreed.
Section 2: I believe the minister has amendments.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I move that the definition of "box length" in section 108 of the act, as set out in subsection 2(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"'box length,' in a combination of vehicles having more than one trailer, means the external measurement from the front of the foremost trailer to the rear of the rearmost trailer, including load, but excluding any portion of auxiliary equipment or machinery that extends beyond the front of the foremost trailer and that is not designed or used for the transportation of goods. ('longuer de la caisse')"
The First Deputy Chair: Does the minister wish to address his amendment?
Hon Mr Pouliot: It's something that I can recite by heart, but for the benefit of the record, this motion is directed towards giving the intended effect to the legislation and to overcome a recent court decision that would require internal measurement of trailers. Really, the only practical way of measuring a loaded trailer is externally.
Mr Turnbull: This amendment is urgently needed due to a very strange and quite bizarre ruling by a judge in London who ruled that somehow the truck should be measured from the inside. I'm not sure what the judge had for lunch that day, but it was certainly a pretty strange ruling. This is an urgently needed amendment.
Mr Daigeler: Just briefly, while I have no problems with the amendment and I do accept the explanation by the minister, I think it would have been nice to at least have sent this and alerted me to this amendment being made. Anyway, since it is there, I take the minister at his word. I don't even have the amendment in front of me, but I do take him at his word since we are in a good Christmas spirit.
The First Deputy Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
Are there any amendments to section 3? I believe the minister has one.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I move that subsections 109(10), (10.1), (10.2) and (10.3) of the act, as set out in subsection 3(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Maximum length of semitrailer
"(10) Subject to section 110, no semitrailer shall have a length with an external measurement, excluding any portion of auxiliary equipment or machinery that extends beyond the front or rear of the semitrailer and that is not designed or used for the transportation of goods, that exceeds 14.65 metres while on a highway.
"Exception
"(10.1) Subsection (10) does not apply to a semitrailer designed to carry vehicles.
"Same
(10.2) Despite subsection (10), a semitrailer used in a combination of vehicles whose configuration, weight and dimensions are as prescribed by regulation may have a length with an external measurement, excluding any portion of auxiliary equipment or machinery that extends beyond the front of the semitrailer and that is not designed or used for the transportation of goods, that does not exceed 16.2 metres while on a highway."
For some, it is an intricate matter. People at MTO have searched long and hard to make the matters sound indeed. This is keeping the safety. It gives life to the bill. My colleagues at caucus, on many, many occasions, have had the opportunity to review it. I thank the good people at MTO who have made a career of making our roads among the safest in North America. I thank them for being diligent, because it's a meticulous part of the situation, and our counsel as well for having a great deal of what I find is excitement but what other people see as a housekeeping matter. I thank you for the opportunity.
The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments to this amendment? Shall this amendment carry?
Mr Daigeler: Are we not reading all the amendments first or is it one at a time?
The First Deputy Chair: We'll do each amendment separately, vote on each one.
Shall this amendment carry? Carried.
I believe Mr Daigeler has an amendment to section 3.
2200
Mr Daigeler: I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) Section 109 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(11.1) Despite subsection (11), a bus that meets the requirements prescribed by regulation may exceed the length of 12.5 metres."
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Daigeler has moved that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(2.1) Section 109 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(11.1) Despite subsection (11), a bus that meets the requirements prescribed by regulation may exceed the length of 12.5 metres."
Would the member wish to address his amendment?
Mr Daigeler: Yes, I would, and a little bit longer than to the other amendments, because I think this is a relatively substantive amendment and I would like to explain why I am moving this matter and why I think that, if it is approved, it is a significant addition to this bill. As the motion says, it allows longer motor coaches, not dramatically longer coaches, but again, like with the trucks, it puts us on a level playing field with the other jurisdictions in Canada and with the US.
I will not take that long, but I would just like to read into the record a letter that was sent to the Minister of Transportation last April which I think spells out quite clearly why the motor coach industry is so interested in this particular amendment and this particular matter and why the motor coach industry and all the people associated with it certainly would like to see this change.
This letter is from the then president of Motels Ontario; it isn't even from the motor coach association but from Motels Ontario. Bruce Gravel writes:
"There is something that your ministry can do that is quick, easy, and would serve to dramatically boost tourism into Ontario. Immediately legalize 45-foot motor coaches, so that they can operate on Ontario highways." Ontario's beleaguered tourism industry needs this addition. Our competition has already legalized the coaches, namely, the United States (as of December 1992) and our border provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. Tourism in Ontario, already on its knees because of this ongoing recession, will be further harmed unless Ontario legalizes 45-foot motor coaches without delay.
"Here is the problem: Carriers in the United States, Quebec and other Canadian provinces have already purchased 45-foot motor coaches (over 190 such vehicles since December, 1992). These carriers have planned tours to Toronto and other Ontario destinations. Now, however, they find they cannot bring in their coaches to this province. This is hurting Ontario tourism. For example, one US operator sold 52 tickets for a long weekend package to Toronto from Pennsylvania to see Phantom of the Opera, eat at local restaurants and stay at a Toronto motel. He priced this package on the basis of using the 52-seat, 45-foot motor coach. This carrier now must cancel some of these tickets, or use two vehicles -- either option is uneconomical and a great deterrent to tourism."
This is just a brief quote from this letter which I think explains quite well, concretely, why the tourism industry and not just the motor coach industry is very interested in this particular provision and why it certainly, on behalf of tourism is supporting the request from the motor coach association. They of course have written letters as well to the government and have been in touch with the critics of the opposition to try and convince the government that the time for this particular measure has come.
I should say that the ministry has in fact looked into this matter. This is not something that I'm moving forward just on the spur of the moment, but I'm pleased to see that the ministry has looked into it and has made some consultations. In fact, in the original omnibus bill that the government was planning to introduce, they informed us that they were going to bring forward these longer buses as well. In preparation for this the ministry officials, which I appreciated, gave me a briefing and they advised us of some of the groups that they had consulted and whether anybody had any major objections out there to this particular provision.
Frankly, I think it was good and certainly helped my decision when I saw who the people were who were consulted. For example, there were providers of service such as GO Transit, Via Rail Canada, Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. There were labour organizations, which of course I can understand: the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Transport and General Workers, CAW Canada, the Teamsters joint council. The minister saw all the stakeholders -- it looks like it; I am not sure. Again, I'm taking the minister at his word when he says all the stakeholders.
At least there's a good smattering of what would seem to be the major stakeholders in this area. There are interest groups here obviously -- Ontario Motor Coach Association, Canadian Urban Transit Association, Canadian Bus Association, Canadian Automobile Association -- and quite a few others: Ontario Road Builders Association, Green Transportation Campaign and so on, Better Roads Coalition, Hamilton Automobile Club; I think that was good. Transport 2000 as well.
I had an opportunity, and probably later on tonight again, to refer to Transport 2000. They were consulted about this matter and I understand -- by the way, there was also the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto. It appears, again at least from what I was provided with by the ministry, that the responses have been for the most part positive. "Responses received by ministry staff indicate that there's broad concurrence with the proposed length extension."
For example, the Hamilton Automobile Club wrote, on behalf of CAA Ontario and the Hamilton Automobile Club, "We have no objection to your proposal to increase the length of intercity motor coaches from 41 to 45 feet."
Also Transport 2000, as I indicated a few nights ago with regard to the longer trucking bill, which has been critical to some extent about Bill 74, said, "We agree that longer coaches would permit increased accessibility for the elderly and disabled and are therefore a good idea." They are mentioning here a point that I haven't raised yet, that in fact these longer buses will make it possible for the disabled to have better access to the buses, because apparently it will be easier to provide the appropriate means to build the buses so that they are more fully accessible for disabled people. That's why Transport 2000 said it is supporting this particular project.
The United Transportation Union wrote, "Our members do not have a problem with increased size for intercity buses."
It is because of these reasons and because of the consultation that has taken place and because of the clear indication by the representatives of the tourist industry and by the representatives of the motor coach association of ontario that I'm pleased to move this amendment. I encourage the House to support it.
Mr Turnbull: I would like to move a friendly amendment to Mr Daigeler's amendment. It reads as follows, that the words "other than an articulated bus" should be inserted after the words "a bus" in the first line.
2210
The purpose of this tracks correspondence that I've had with the Ontario Motor Coach Association; it has in fact suggested that wording, which follows the actual wording of the bill that we are amending. I would suggest, for the government's protection, that if this wording is not included, it could perhaps change the nature of the bill.
I have had some discussion with the minister earlier tonight. I believe he feels that it is not necessary, after having discussed it with staff. However, I would just point out that that wording is in the actual bill, so that's why I moved this friendly amendment.
The Ontario Motor Coach Association has also suggested that in addition to this amendment to the amendment, the following should be inserted into the regulations:
"For the purpose of subsection 109(11.1) of this act, a bus other than an articulated bus, the length of which exceeds 12.5 metres, may be operated on the highway if:
"(a) it is a public vehicle licensed to operate commercially in intercity passenger service under the Public Vehicle Act and equipped with air-ride or torsion bar suspension, reclining seats, baggage capacity separated from the passenger cabin, motive power that is mounted to the rear of the front axle and is commonly known as an intercity motor coach; and
"(b) the overall length including the bumpers does not exceed 14 metres; and
"(c) the effective rear overhang does not exceed four metres; and
"(d) there is a minimum of three axles; and
"(e) any dual axle has a spacing between 1.2 metres and 1.95 metres; and
"(f) any two-axle group has a spacing between 1.2 metres and 1.85 metres; and
"(g) the load carried by any dual-axle or two-axle group is distributed between axles in a ratio corresponding to the number of tires on each axle."
Technically, we cannot insert this in the bill; this is at the government's discretion. But I have read in this suggestion for the regulations at the request of the motor coach association. I believe it is probably in the best interests of everybody concerned if that were incorporated in the regulations, so that is my suggestion with respect to the amendment to the amendment.
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments to Mr Turnbull's amendment to the amendment? Seeing none, shall the amendment to the amendment carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Are there any further comments to Mr Daigeler's amendment?
Hon Mr Pouliot: Simply that Mr Daigeler's amendment -- I'm convinced he would acquiesce that, with the highest of respect, in this context it's the Daigeler-Turnbull amendment. What Mr Turnbull has said by way of amendment to the amendment is that he wished to strengthen the regulations, and that's all he has said. That point is welcome, but we voiced that in the negative because we don't wish to have it reflected in the bill. But loud and clear he has spoken to us, and we are listening. We are saying no to the amendment to the amendment only for that reason, but the amendment itself is an amendment with a degree of cooperation between the two opposition parties and the government.
The First Deputy Chair: Would Mr Turnbull wish to comment?
Mr Turnbull: No, I quite understand the minister's comments. I just reserve the position that I would like to speak on section 3 of the act in the generality after we have voted on Mr Daigeler's amendment.
The First Deputy Chair: Shall Mr Daigeler's amendment carry? It's carried.
Are there any further questions or comments to section 3?
Mr Turnbull: With respect to section 3, the other evening in second reading debate of this bill, I brought to the minister's attention once again this concern about overhang with respect to transporters which transport automobiles. Auto Haulaway has a concern that in Ontario, regulations do not allow the loading of 10 cars; that would require an interpretation of the bill which would allow for a three-foot overhang of the load in the front and a four-foot overhang in the rear. It has been proven that there is no safety-related concern with respect to that kind of configuration, and in fact the safety record of such auto transporters is significantly better than most modes of transportation.
In the debate the other night the minister indicated in response to a question I put to him that he believed indeed such a ruling could be by way of regulation, that the bill does nothing to preclude the ministry from allowing this three-foot front overhang and four-foot rear overhang, which would bring us into the level playing field we keep on talking about with the US.
So I'm not bringing forward an amendment at this time, because the minister suggested it was possible to bring those changes forward by regulation, but suggested at that time that he wanted to consult broadly with the group he had arrived at a consensus with, with respect to this bill. I do encourage the minister to start those consultations as soon as possible. There is a letter from Auto Haulaway that I would like to read into the record.
"Dear Mr Turnbull:
"Thank you for the opportunity to meet this morning and discuss Auto Haulaway's concern with Bill 74, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, containing the long truck amendments.
"As we discussed, although the wording of the legislation is broad enough to include auto carriers, Auto Haulaway has been denied the opportunity to have overhang on our carriers. Section 3 of the proposed legislation contains new wording which amends subsection 109(7) of the current Highway Traffic Act. The amended wording is broad enough to include auto carriers, yet we have not been permitted to obtain interim permits that are available to freight transporters.
"Auto Haulaway believes that the broad structure of the wording under section 3 of Bill 74 pertaining to subsection 109(7.1) of the Highway Traffic Act allows the Minister of Transportation discretion to prescribe by regulation the equipment to which the 25-metre length applies. I have attached for you a draft regulation which Auto Haulaway offers as a possibility to accompany subsection 109(7.1)."
I would just like to read in that proposed regulation that perhaps the minister would like to include:
"Notwithstanding other provisions of this legislation, the provisions under subsection (7.1) permitting a total vehicle length of 25 metres will apply to auto carriers operating in Ontario.
"Auto carriers are vehicles which have an overall vehicle length of 82 feet," which is 25 metres, "comprised of a vehicle length of 75 feet six inches and an overhang of no more than six feet six inches, are designed exclusively for the transportation of motor vehicles and contain a total of five axles, including one single axle at the front end."
2220
Once again, this is just to clarify what I suggest would be the appropriate regulations the minister should publish. I do urge him as expeditiously as possible to go into consultation with the group with which you had the consultations leading to this bill so that Ontario can enjoy a level playing field with the US states with which we trade in automobiles.
The First Deputy Chair: Thank you for your suggestions. Further questions or comments or amendments to section 3?
Mr Daigeler: I have a further amendment. I move that section 3 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:
"(4) Section 109 of the act is amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(17) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing requirements for the purpose of subsection (11.1), including prescribing maximum length, bus type and use, load distribution, configurations and requirements for components, equipment and safety features."
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Daigeler has moved that section 3 of the bill be amended by -- dispense? Agreed? Dispensed.
Mr Daigeler, would you wish to address your amendment?
Mr Daigeler: As often happens with various amendments, if you put forward one amendment, usually you have to put forward another one, and this one is of that same nature. This simply permits the Lieutenant Governor to make regulations that will put in place the amendment that was passed earlier.
The First Deputy Chair: Any further comments on this amendment?
Mr Turnbull: As this wording identically follows the wording of a Conservative amendment, I shall be supporting this.
The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, shall Mr Daigeler's amendment carry? Carried.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall sections 4 through 7 carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)
Consideration of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Projet de loi 122, Loi modifiant le Code de la route.
The Acting Chair (Mrs Margaret Marland): We are dealing with Bill 122. Are there any amendments to Bill 122? If so, to which sections?
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): We have no amendments.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I do have some amendments. I'm not sure whether they're going to be as well supported as, say, in the previous bill. I certainly hope so. I have an amendment to section 3 of the bill, subsection 33(2) of the act, and I will move that at the appropriate time. I have amendments to section 5 of the bill, subsection 48.1(14) of the act; section 5 of the bill, section 48.2 of the act; section 7 of the bill, clause 57.1(1)(a) of the act; section 7 of the bill, clause 57.1(1)(c) of the act; and finally, section 7 of the bill, clause 57.1(1)(o) of the act. I present the table with the appropriate amendments in writing.
The Acting Chair: Are there any questions or comments to section 1 or 2?
Mr Daigeler: Seeing that the minister is ceding the place, I just want to briefly say again I think, for the public, we should let the public know what this is all about. I do think this is a very important initiative, perhaps even more important than the one we were just talking about, if one can use this kind of language in this context.
We are talking about the graduated licensing system. We did have an opportunity to speak earlier on second reading why I will be supporting this particular bill, why my party will be supporting this bill and why also, frankly, there were some reservations and hesitations, I think as is reasonable and understandable, coming especially from the rural members, about this initiative.
As I said on second reading and as I said in the hearings we had, this is an initiative that has been in the making for some time. Usually with experience one becomes wiser, but in this case the experience hasn't only made us wiser, unfortunately the experience, the time that it has taken to come to this point, also has led to many more accidents and many more even fatal accidents of our young people and among our young people and about older new drivers as well. That is frankly a learning, an acquired wisdom that I think we probably all regret, because we would have hoped that it would not have taken the continued accident rate to convince us to move forward and to convince the government to move with this forward.
But be that as it may, what this is about is trying to help, in a non-paternalistic way, hopefully, the newer drivers, be they younger or be they older, to gain that experience that will make them drivers who can cope with the often unexpected situations that occur on the road.
Since we have on numerous occasions been told by those in the know, by especially the Traffic Injury Research Foundation in Ottawa, which has been doing extensive studies on these questions, and of course by the insurance industry, by the coroners, by nurses, by police people and many others who appeared before the committee -- they all have told us that experience is needed and that certainly they supported this project of graduated licensing.
In view of all these strong arguments that were made that we have to help and give our new drivers a certain length of more experience before they can fully drive on their own in the modern, usually hectic, traffic, the idea of graduated licences has come about. I think it is coming about in a way that places restrictions, but limited and reasonable restrictions, on the new drivers.
If the minister accepts some of my amendments, I think the restrictions will be even more reasonable and will perhaps be even more easily accepted in the rural community. But we'll see what the minister says when we get to those sections.
2230
The Acting Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This is good legislation. It's legislation which was overdue and we should get on with it. The reason that the Conservative Party is not bringing forward any amendments to this bill is because, I think more than anything else, the Ministry of Transportation has responded, first of all, to suggestions which we have made in terms of improving the bill, and there have been some changes. But further than that, we've been persuaded that any further changes to the bill might make it more difficult to get accepted by the public at large.
In terms of any further restrictions on alcohol in the blood level of the accompanying driver, we have been persuaded that the government has in its possession a legal opinion suggesting that a charter challenge would ensue if the blood alcohol level were to be changed from the presently contemplated 0.05 to 0% blood alcohol.
It would seem unfortunate that we cannot change this, because it certainly is in the best interests of new drivers to be accompanied by somebody whose reflexes are indeed the sharpest they can possibly be. But the fact is that we allow people to drive cars with up to 0.05 blood alcohol with impunity and that is the law of the land.
The police can find you drunk in charge if you have 0.07. But if you have 0.05, they can suspend your licence for a 24-hour period without any point loss. So it would seem unfortunate if we were to undermine this legislation and at the same time lay it open to a charter challenge, which the taxpayers would have to pay for, which we must all be most cognizant of. For this reason, the Conservative Party will not be bringing any amendments forward.
We believe that our concerns have been addressed prior to the introduction of this bill because of the particular way in which the government went about having consultation prior to the actual bill coming forward. It's one of the few times that I've truly enjoyed the experience of being on a committee and working in fact with the government to produce good legislation.
The Acting Chair: Are there any further questions or comments?
Hon Mr Pouliot: This is the process of deliberation. This is the process of consultation. This is a time when several options were examined. Recommendations were unanimous from each and every member of the committee.
We say, with respect, we will be supporting the position in this endeavour, in this law, of Mr Turnbull, who proposes on behalf of his party that no amendments be added. We will take, with respect, as food for thought the recommendation voiced on behalf of the Liberal Party from Mr Daigeler. However, we strongly believe that what has been proposed here is balanced. We've seen the beginning, the middle and the end of due process. It is the kind of endeavour that is an invitation in any event to more and more suggestions, all good ones.
We feel that the bill is effectual. You can work with this bill. It has struck a balance. It has found its equilibrium. Therefore, with the highest of respect, we hear loud and clear what has been said; we respect the positions which parallel that of Mr Turnbull on behalf of the Conservatives. We shall not be supporting any amendments.
The Acting Chair: Any further questions or comments on section 1 or 2?
Shall sections 1 and 2 carry? Carried.
Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 3?
Mr Daigeler: I have an amendment to section 3 of the bill, subsection 33(2) of the act. I move that subsection 33(2) of the act, as set out in section 3 of the bill, be amended by striking out "as defined under section 57.1" in the first and second lines and substituting "as defined in section 48.2."
The Acting Chair: Mr Daigeler has moved that subsection 33(2) of the act -- dispense? Dispensed. Any comments on Mr Daigeler's amendment?
Mr Daigeler: I'm glad, Madam Chairman, that you only dispensed with the reading and didn't dismiss the amendment. I still have some hope on the part of the minister. I would just simply at this point, to shorten the time a little bit, explain why I am moving some amendments and what these amendments contain.
This particular amendment we have in front of us I'm sure to the public does not mean very much and may not mean very much to the rest of the members of the House, because the real meat of the amendments only comes later on. So that you know why this amendment, I will explain the two key points that we are trying to convey to the government and to the House.
The first point is that in the present bill and in the present regulations, the accompanying driver in level 1 has to have a driving experience of at least four years. This whole matter is a little bit complicated, so bear with me. There is a level 1 driving experience and there is a level 2 driving experience. In level 2, which normally happens after one year or possibly after eight months if you've taken driving lessons -- the minister is looking at me to make sure that I'm saying it properly and I hope I do.
In level 2, you basically have no longer any restrictions, except zero alcohol for the driver. In other words, in level 2, in the second year of your driving experience, you don't have to have an accompanying driver with you any more. Frankly, quite a few people were under the impression that, even in level 2, you had all these restrictions and you had the requirement of an accompanying driver as well. This is not the case.
But in level 1, which is essentially the first year of your driving experience, you have to have an accompanying driver. You yourself as a driver, if you are the driver, have to have zero blood alcohol, but the accompanying driver has to have 0.05 alcohol. So he can have a little bit of alcohol, not too much, but under the current regulations, everybody else, what the standard is.
In addition, that accompanying driver has to have at least four years' driving experience. What is that four years? That often was raised as a question at the committee hearings. The four years start as soon as you enter the system. So if you start the system when you're age 16, let's say, you have to be basically at least 20 years of age in order to qualify as an accompanying driver. You have to have four years of driving experience.
2240
Hon Mr Pouliot: The new driver could be 30.
Mr Daigeler: Just to make it easy for the public, because I think it's probably most often the case that we're talking about a younger driver, somebody new, let's say you start out at 16; the first time you can be an accompanying driver would be at age 20.
Frankly, this provision is creating some difficulty for rural members. I've re-read the Hansard of the second reading debate and it's creating problems not just to some rural members from the Liberal caucus, but also from the Conservative caucus. I read the remarks from the member from Grey who spoke quite frankly and openly about his concerns as well about these restrictions in his riding and how that will affect the rural community.
There were several others, mostly from, as I say, rural parts of Ontario, but also from northern Ontario. Frankly, my own area where I come from, even though it's suburban, nevertheless is almost rural in the sense that once it's late in the evening, there's very little public transportation as well. It's quite a way --
Interjection.
Mr Daigeler: The minister asks where that is. It's in Barr Haven, in southern Nepean. It takes quite a while to get, for example, to school for my children. They're on the bus at least 45 minutes to an hour to get to their high school.
In any case, the amendment I'm putting forward reduces that limitation or that requirement of four years to essentially two years, or as we are saying later on in the amendment, simply anybody who is fully qualified and fully licensed as a driver can qualify as an accompanying driver. That means if you're 18 and you've gone through level 1 and level 2, you've passed the various tests, then you can also be an accompanying driver.
We think that maintains that requirement of experience and of learning and of perhaps maturity as well, and we think it would not significantly alter the very basic purpose that the minister has with his legislation, and we therefore feel that's a reasonable amendment.
I should say that I think I took part in most of the hearings and that question of the accompanying driver, the length of experience, I must say didn't really come up as a concern. There was a concern about the zero alcohol and the 0.5 alcohol, but on the length of experience, the question was more: How long is that four years? When does it start? But on the four years itself, people hadn't thought what might be available as well.
However, in thinking about it, that's why we have first, second and third readings. When we looked at this matter again, when we heard from our rural colleagues, we thought that reducing the requirement from four years of experience for the accompanying driver to two years was reasonable.
Related to this requirement is also that second amendment we are making, and they really hang together, that the accompanying driver -- here we are stiffer than the government -- too should have zero alcohol just in the same way as the driver himself or herself. We're seeing this now especially because we are reducing the requirement of experience from four years to two years. For that reason in particular, I think it makes sense to have both the driver and the accompanying driver with a zero blood alcohol requirement.
My colleague Steve Offer, the member for Mississauga North, has been very strong and at the committee level already spoke forcefully very often about the requirement. In fact, he even introduced a bill in this House to require that the accompanying driver have a zero blood alcohol level as well.
These are the two amendments we're making. These amendments require more than two amendments in order to put it into legal language, but this is the substance of what I'm proposing and what the Liberal Party is proposing tonight. I encourage the minister to think about what I've just said in my explanation, and perhaps he will see his way to support these amendments, especially in view of the fact that he too has rural members in his caucus, and I'm sure they have voiced similar concerns as my colleagues and my caucus and the colleagues in Mr Turnbull's caucus who are from northern Ontario and in rural Ontario.
Mr Turnbull: As I said before in my opening comments, I'm extremely sympathetic to the thrust of Mr Daigeler's amendments. However, we feel that in light of the legal opinion that the ministry has in its hands as to the likely charter challenge if one were to reduce the blood alcohol level requirement of an accompanying driver, it would seem to be courting disaster in something where we have good legislation. We allow drivers at the moment to drive with this level of blood alcohol and it would seem inappropriate to encourage a charter challenge on what is otherwise a pretty good bill.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I'd like to bring to the attention of and get some information from the minister. I'm referring to the Insurance Act. Subsection 234(2), which is the statutory conditions section of the existing act, reads in part as follows:
"5(1) The insured shall not drive or operate or permit any other person to drive or operate the automobile unless the insured or other person is authorized by law to drive or operate it."
Minister, your act doesn't tell us what the requirements are of a graduated licence driver, but I understand from certain information I've got that a person will not be able to drive after midnight, will not be able to drive on the 400 series of highways.
Let me give you this hypothetical situation. A person is out driving who is a graduated driver, and they get a flat tire. It's now 10 minutes after the bewitching hour, midnight. They drive the car. They are therefore no longer licensed. Under that statutory condition, the insurance company would be allowed to say, "You are not covered if you had an accident." I'm sure they couldn't deny liability for the third-party coverage, but they could certainly deny liability to the parents, who are probably the owners of that car, on their collision damage.
What I want to know, Minister -- I think I'm right, and if I'm not, I'd like your officials to tell me I'm not right -- is if I am right, are you going to build into this bill or have you got -- well, I don't want assurances from the insurance companies; I want it built into this bill that the insurance companies cannot deny liability under the collision portion of their policy based on a breach of statutory condition 5(1).
2250
If that's not the case, Minister, then it should be in there. I won't vote for this bill if it's not, because as I say, in the majority of cases you're going to have young people who are going to be responsible people who want to get home under the terms of their licence, who for want of an event that they can't control -- I know your answer may be that they've got the secondary driver next to them. That also concerns me, Minister, because if the secondary driver next to them -- and here's my second hypothetical situation.
My children are not children any more; they're adults. But if I were a young parent with people who might fit into this category and they're out at a party where they have to have this secondary driver to legitimize their licence to drive on the -- whatever the conditions are, and we don't know what they are because they're under regulation. I don't want my kid to have to go around that party and find somebody who is sober, who has a licence, who can become the secondary driver.
In essence, the reality of the day is that young people, when they go out to a party, they're going to have difficulty. Hopefully, they will be smart enough to call up mom or dad and say, "Come get me."
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, that's not the example you wish to give.
Mr Callahan: Let's be realistic. This is a bill that is going to fit all people and all circumstances, and we're not going to say that they're all not going to experience this particular situation.
I understand the purpose of your bill. I think it's laudatory that we want to ensure the safety on our highways. I also have to tell you, Minister, that some of the specifics we looked at in the Star recently said that on the 400 series of highways there were 28 accidents in a year. On the secondary highways, where you want them to drive, there were probably about 10% to 15% to 100% more accidents.
Let's be realistic. If we're trying to save lives and ensure the safety of people, let's ensure we do that and do it appropriately.
At the same time, let's make sure that we're not giving the insurance companies -- I have to say, with all due respect -- another opportunity to opt out of covering the damage that may be denied the parents, most specifically, under 5(1) of the statutory conditions of the Insurance Act.
The Acting Chair: Further questions or comments?
Mr Callahan: I'd like an answer to that.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Well, wait till question period.
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry? The minister has three people there who, surely to God, can give me an answer to that. I think the people deserve it.
Hon Mr Pouliot: You've mentioned, quoting verbatim what you've said, that you had a hypothetical situation. I'm not going to bore you. You deserve better than a hypothetical answer.
You've mentioned also that you might or might not be supporting the bill as presented. I look forward to your contribution. I respect you in your opinion votewise, for your party is on record that it will support what is being presented and so is the Conservative Party.
It's an interesting point or point in law. We want to make sure, examining your comments verbatim, that we respond correctly, line by line, to alleviate your fear and to help you better appreciate and understand what is in front of us. In the fullness of time, or I should say in relatively short order, you will be given an answer to each and every question you have raised.
I thank you for your contribution.
Mr Callahan: Is that an undertaking from the minister that if I'm correct, this will become part of this bill? Because if it doesn't, then I suggest, Minister, that to pass a bill without that is a great injustice to the parents of this province in terms of -- and the whole episode has become just a charade.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Any suggestion that saving lives has become a charade is not the least bit impressive. We are much more concerned with putting into practice what has been arrived at unanimously, actually after years of searching and debate, than to question a line that doesn't even exist, to try to prove to the audience in Ontario that in terms of legalese we can go one step better.
What you see here, my friend, is what you get. It has the unanimity of people of all three political parties, of the consultants, of the police, of the faculty of law at the University of Toronto and elsewhere, of everyone concerned.
The Acting Chair: Further questions or comments on the amendment.
Mr Turnbull: The point that is made by the member for Brampton South is a very important issue. I don't want to belabour this, but it is somewhat of a concern when you look at the situation that he's depicted where somebody for some reason is delayed and cannot get home before the witching hour under those circumstances. I think I know what the answer is to this, and just as I stood up I suddenly realized that the fact that they would have an accompanying driver with them who could drive the vehicle home would, I suspect, solve the problem for the member. But we certainly wouldn't want to get into a situation that insurance for any reason were denied in the case of an accident where the mishap had occurred earlier.
The Acting Chair: Further questions or comments on the amendment.
Shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 3 carry? Carried.
Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 4? Shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 5?
Mr Daigeler: I have an amendment to section 5 of the bill. I move that subsection 48.1(14) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Definitions
"(14) In this section and section 48.2,
"'novice driver' has the meaning prescribed by the regulations made under section 57.1; ('conducteur débutant')
"'provincially approved screening device' means a device of a kind that is designed to ascertain the presence of alcohol in the blood of a person and that is prescribed by the regulations made under section 57.1. ('appareil de détection approuvé par la province')"
The Acting Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? All in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Further amendments, Mr Daigeler.
2300
Mr Daigeler: I have a further amendment to section 5 of the bill. I move that section 48.2 of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Screening device test, accompanying driver
"48.2(1) Where a police officer has brought a novice driver to a stop under the authority of this act, and the police officer reasonably suspects that the accompanying driver has alcohol in his or her body, the police officer may, for the purposes of determining whether the novice driver is in compliance with the regulations respecting novice drivers, demand that the accompanying driver provide forthwith a sample of breath into a provincially approved screening device.
"Direction to novice driver
"(2) Where, upon demand of a police officer made under subsection (1), an accompanying driver fails or refuses to provide a sample of breath or provides a sample of breath which, on analysis by a provincially approved screening device, registers 'Presence of Alcohol,' the police officer may direct the novice driver not to drive a motor vehicle on a highway except in compliance with the regulations respecting novice drivers.
"Second analysis
"(3) Where an analysis of the breath of an accompanying driver is made under subsection (2) and registers 'presence of alcohol,' the accompanying driver may require an analysis to be performed in the manner provided by subsection 48(3), in which case the result obtained on the second analysis governs and any direction given by the police officer under subsection (2) continues or terminates accordingly.
"Calibration of screening device
"(4) For the purposes of this section, the provincially approved screening device shall be calibrated to register 'presence of alcohol' if the concentration of alcohol in the blood of the person whose breath is being analysed is as prescribed by the regulations, and despite anything in this section, the reading on a provincially approved screening device for 'presence of alcohol' may be another term or symbol that conveys the same meaning.
"Same
"(5) It shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that any provincially approved screening device used for the purposes of subsection (2) has been calibrated as required by the regulations.
"Intent of direction
"(6) The direction under this section to a novice driver not to drive a motor vehicle on a highway is intended to ensure that novice drivers acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions and to safeguard the licensee and the public and does not constitute an alternative to any proceeding or penalty arising from the same circumstances or around the same time.
"Removal of vehicle
"(7) If the motor vehicle of a person who is directed not to drive under this section is at a location from which, in the opinion of a police officer, it should be removed and there is no person available who may lawfully remove the vehicle, the officer may remove and store the vehicle or cause it to be removed and stored, in which case, the officer shall notify the person of the location of the storage.
"Cost of removal
"(8) Where a police officer obtains assistance for the removal and storage of a motor vehicle under this section, the costs incurred in moving and storing the vehicle are a lien on the vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act by the person who moved or stored the vehicle at the request of the officer.
"Offence
"(9) Every person commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made to him or her by a police officer under this section.
"Definition
"(10) In this section, 'accompanying driver' means a person with full driving privileges in Ontario who occupies the seat in a motor vehicle beside the driver."
The Acting Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the amendment?
All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 6?
Shall section 6 carry? Carried.
Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 7?
Mr Daigeler: I have an amendment to section 7 of the bill. I move that clause 57.1(1)(a) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) defining novice driver."
The Acting Chair: Are there any comments or questions on the amendment?
All those in favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Are there questions, comments or amendments?
Mr Daigeler: I have a further amendment to section 7 of the bill. I move that clause 57.1(1)(c) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out.
The Acting Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? Does the amendment carry? In favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Mr Daigeler: I have a further amendment to section 7. I move that clause 57(1.1)(o) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(o) prescribing provincially approved screening devices and their calibration for the purposes of sections 48.1 and 48.2."
The Acting Chair: Are there any questions or comments on the amendment? Shall the amendment carry? In favour? Opposed? The amendment is lost.
Shall section 7 of the bill carry? Carried.
Mr Callahan: I have an amendment to section 7 --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Section 7 has been carried.
Mr Callahan: No, it hasn't. I rose before it was carried, Minister.
The Acting Chair: Actually, Mr Callahan, section 7 was just voted on and carried.
Mr Callahan: All right. I assumed that I had risen before it was carried. I wanted to make an amendment to it.
The Acting Chair: Section 7, Mr Callahan, has been voted on and carried.
We are now at sections 8 to 10. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to sections 8 through 10?
Shall sections 8 through 10 carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House?
Mr Callahan: Madam Chair, I've raised the issue of the question of a breach of the licensing provisions under this act and how I would go about ensuring that non-compliance -- and there are many ways you can non-comply with this bill -- would result in the person being non-licensed and therefore in breach of the statutory conditions in the Insurance Act, and therefore no damage would be paid by an insurance company.
I would like to know how I go about bringing that in if the minister is reluctant to do so, and if he's reluctant to do so, I suggest he's playing right into the hands of the insurance companies and giving them a ploy for whatever reason. I don't know whether you can give me advice, Madam Chair, in that regard, but I think that the taxpayers of this province are entitled to it, to know what has to be done in that regard.
The Acting Chair: Since the bill has been carried, I do wish to ask the minister if you do wish to make any further comments or responses to Mr Callahan.
Hon Mr Pouliot: Generally speaking, not particularly with respect to Mr Callahan, but also, Mr Callahan, in terms of general tone.
It's cause for celebration for the 6.5 million motorists of Ontario. It makes the system safer and yet accessible. It respects fully the right to have access to the privilege, which is one of sharing in driving the roads of Ontario. We welcome each year 250,000 new motorists joining the family, like I've already stated, of 6.5 million motorists.
2310
This is long overdue. It will save lives. It will allow people to put more time behind the wheel before they "graduate." Finally, it will put money into people's pockets by way of premiums. It makes the system safer and we're proud of it. We thank members of the opposition, members of the committee, members of all walks of life, all associations that have spoken on behalf of people who have long awaited this day of celebration.
Mr Callahan: Madam Chair, on a point of order.
The Acting Chair: I'm sorry, Mr Callahan, you're out of order. The bill has been voted on and has been carried.
Mr Callahan: How can you tell me I'm out of order? I'm rising on a point of order.
The Acting Chair: On a point of order.
Mr Callahan: You asked the minister to respond to a quite legitimate complaint of the opposition, and he stands up with rhetoric saying it's going to save the taxpayers of this province money. That's baloney. If you don't address that issue, you're going to find --
The Acting Chair: Mr Callahan, you do not have a point of order.
Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Madam Chair, I move that committee rise and report.
The Acting Chair: The Attorney General has moved that the committee rise and report. All in favour? Carried.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): The committee of the whole House begs to report two bills without amendment and one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.
Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
TOBACCO CONTROL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DE L'USAGE DU TABAC
Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mrs Grier, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 119, An Act to prevent the Provision of Tobacco to Young Persons and to regulate its Sale and Use by Others / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à empêcher la fourniture de tabac aux jeunes et à en réglementer la vente et l'usage par les autres.
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): The government is proud today to bring the Tobacco Control Act forward for second reading. We believe this is one of the most important pieces of legislation for the health of Ontarians that we have introduced to date.
We couldn't have done it without the support and the encouragement of a huge number of people and associations. I'd especially like to thank the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation, the Lung Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario College of Pharmacists, plus the hundreds of people interested in health in Ontario.
The illnesses and costs to society, families and individuals that smoking creates must be one of the gravest concerns today. We know that tobacco-related diseases and illnesses are responsible for more than 13,000 preventable premature deaths each year in Ontario. One in five deaths among adults in Ontario is attributed to tobacco use. Thirteen thousand is about the size of the population of Stouffville in my riding. That's devastating.
Smoking is a killer, and there is substantial evidence that there is a clear and present danger to anyone inhaling secondhand smoke. We can be thankful that smoking is no longer glamorous. Steady public campaigns have convinced people of the dangers, and a growing number have quit. But we still have a lot of work to do in prevention.
That's why our legislation is a strong step along the path to the elimination of smoking-caused diseases altogether from our society. As a responsible government, we must act now. This legislation embodies our commitment to health promotion and disease prevention. Its major aim is to prevent young people from taking up this addiction. It is very hard to quit smoking. It's much easier if they never start.
With this legislation, we will make it illegal to give or sell cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19; we will ban the sale of tobacco from pharmacies and other health facilities; we will prohibit the sale of tobacco products from vending machines to complement the upcoming federal legislation; we will require health warnings and other health information as part of tobacco packaging; we will require retailers of tobacco to post health warnings and age limits on their premises; we will monitor the sale of tobacco through mandatory reports from distributors and wholesalers; we will prohibit smoking in designated places; we will provide an effective enforcement mechanism that includes fines and bans on the sale of tobacco following violation.
Over the past two years smoking among young people has actually increased. Is there any clearer indication that we do not have a moment to spare? Look at what our young smokers have to look forward to:
Tobacco causes 80% of all lung cancers and is also responsible for many other cancers including mouth, throat, oesophagus and bladder cancer; tobacco causes 82% of chronic lung diseases such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis; tobacco is responsible for one third of all the premature deaths from heart disease.
We do not want our young people to become part of these statistics, and they do not want to become part of these statistics. I want to quote from one of them. Today in the Toronto Star, grade 10 student Ilana David wrote that smokers line the entrance of the school, creating an uncomfortable environment for non-smokers, and:
"As an enthusiastic anti-smoker, I await the day when I can walk in and out of my school without inhaling enough smoke to blacken the lungs of three people.
"Smoking may be so common among teenagers because tobacco is a legal drug. Many of my friends smoke just because the cigarettes are there."
She goes on to say that our bill will have a strong effect. I quote Ilana again: "This is something to be proud of. We are improving, preserving and saving the health of both non-smokers and those brave enough to get with the times and break the habit."
Ilana David does not want her friends to become statistics, among those sickened or killed by smoking. It's good to hear such sentiments on smoking from a young woman. Since 1970, the number of women with lung cancer has tripled. Lung cancer is now the second-leading cause of cancer deaths among women.
Thanks to the choice of such people as Ilana, we can see that the percentage of people using tobacco has drastically declined from about 41% of all adult Ontarians in 1966 to about 28% in 1990. But sales of manufactured cigarettes per capita in Ontario still rank higher than in countries like Italy, France, Britain, Denmark and Sweden. And figures from the Addiction Research Foundation show that between 1991 and 1993 smoking increased significantly in students in grade 7, from 6.1% to 9.4%, a 50% increase -- grade 7 students. Let's be clear: These are 12-year-old children. Well before they grow up and enter their productive lives, they are taking up this deadly addiction.
We've come a long way in the past 30 years, but we need to go much further. We must go there now. This government is acting now and its purposes are clear: to keep children and teenagers from smoking and to encourage smokers to quit; to reduce secondhand or environmental smoke by banning smoking in a number of public places; to make people aware of the health dangers of smoking; and to provide effective enforcement with strict penalties.
Our legislation and its purposes complement the federal government's legislation, the Tobacco Sales to Young Persons Act, which is expected to be in force in July 1994, and I hope the Liberals keep to that commitment.
2320
The federal legislation increases the legal age to purchase tobacco from 16 to 18, bans the sale of cigarettes from vending machines except in licensed premises and increases the warnings on packages. Our legislation bans not only the sale of cigarettes to those under 19 but also bans giving cigarettes to these young people.
Let me point out that this is not a new step. The Minors' Protection Act already states, "No person shall either directly or indirectly sell or give or furnish to a child under eighteen years of age cigarettes, cigars or tobacco in any form."
Now let me say a few words about how we are complementing this legislation with other work. We're going further than just bans and restrictions and penalties. We are harnessing the power of education. Part of our tobacco strategy is a province-wide public education campaign being launched this month.
During this fiscal year we will spend $3.15 million in a campaign to reach pre-teens, teens and their parents with these important key messages and materials. This program will complement the efforts of health professionals and voluntary agencies as they work to prevent smoking, support smoking cessation and reduce secondhand smoke.
Other elements of the tobacco strategy include community prevention and cessation programs, all supported through resource centres, educational resource materials and training and consultation.
The Program Training and Consultation Centre, launched in October, will receive $300,000 annually to train staff of local boards of health and other community agencies and provide advice and consultative services to help them implement tobacco prevention programs. This centre is operated jointly by the Ottawa-Carleton health department and the University of Waterloo.
Another $400,000 is going to the Ontario tobacco research unit, which is run jointly by the University of Toronto Centre for Health Promotion, the Addiction Research Foundation and other Ontario universities. The unit's tasks are research and evaluation and assistance with model programs and pilot projects. It will provide a provincial focus on tobacco-related research and foster national and international collaboration and exchange of ideas.
These efforts and our legislation will lead us to our aims for the rest of this century. By 1995 we expect to make all schools, workplaces and public places smoke-free and eliminate tobacco sales to minors. By the year 2000, we want to cut tobacco sales in half, reduce the percentage of teenagers who smoke to 10%, reduce the percentage of adults who smoke to 15% and to eliminate smoking by pregnant women.
We have widespread support for this legislation. It follows an extensive period of consultation. Earlier this year the ministry received 240 written submissions and heard 34 presentations. These confirmed that we were on the right track by targeting the young people of Ontario.
In response to the bill, there have been two contentious issues that have stood out: the sale of tobacco in pharmacies and the issue of banning of vending machines.
Members should know that the Ontario College of Pharmacists, the professional regulatory body, came and asked the government to ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies, and I am pleased that the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association is on record as opposing the sale of tobacco in pharmacies.
As we know, many Ontario pharmacists oppose the sale of tobacco in drugstores and many refuse to sell it. Let me quote from a doctor of pharmacology, N.C. Truong, who wrote in the Financial Post today:
"Selling of tobacco products that are proven to kill people when used as directed is not providing pharmaceutical care and is quite incompatible with the pharmacists' training.
"The idea of losing business to other retailers is very hypocritical for pharmacists, who are given the privilege to be the sole custodians of medication: Privilege also means responsibility towards their patients."
I think those are pretty strong words and of course I'm quoting from today's press clippings.
Hundreds of pharmacies have already chosen to eliminate tobacco sales from their stores and have successfully made necessary business adjustments. Pharmacies are not just another retailer. Pharmacists, like doctors and nurses, are health care professionals and are part of the health care system.
Internationally, we see this recognized. The World Health Organization reports that Canada and the United States are two of only a very few countries in which cigarettes are sold in pharmacies.
In Britain, the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society decided in 1987 that pharmacist members should not sell tobacco or tobacco products. To do otherwise is considered to be professional misconduct. The code of ethics of the council states that a pharmacist's prime concern shall be for the welfare of both patients and the public.
As for vending machines, the coming federal legislation bans machines in all but licensed premises. We go farther, banning them everywhere. We know that unsupervised machines are an important source of tobacco for some young children. Stricter control of tobacco sales to minors through retail stores will make vending machines more attractive to children. Vending machines are not able to determine the age of the person feeding the money in, feeding the coins in to purchase cigarettes.
But, as a matter of fact, there are very few adults who purchase their cigarettes primarily from vending machines. We are targeting a tobacco outlet that is already in the decline. That's what's being targeted. Vending machine cigarette sales have decreased dramatically in the past five years. The number of machines in operation has dropped by half. We want to make sure that young people don't turn to those that are left.
I also want to point out that we won't be alone in such a prohibition. Nova Scotia plans to ban these machines. Many places in the United States, including New York City, Minneapolis and the state of Utah, have banned tobacco vending machines in public places.
We have heard the argument that our legislation will simply put the distribution of tobacco into the hands of smugglers. We are pleased that the Minister of Finance has announced new, stricter penalties under the Tobacco Tax Act that will curb the sale of contraband. Amendments to the act will give the law enforcement officers additional powers needed to deal with this serious problem.
In conclusion, I want to quote from Dr Richard Schabas, Ontario's chief medical officer of health. He said:
"Tobacco-related diseases are this province's number one public health problem. The cost in human lives, quality of life and health care dollars is colossal. The circumstances call for nothing less than a thorough and relentless action by all Ontarians."
Again a very good quote and I don't mind if any of my colleagues want to use that quote, because it comes from the chief medical officer of health.
We as a government are leading the way. We will be relentless. I am sure Ontarians will be very glad to see this bill passed into law and I know we will all, including our children, breathe easier.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): I thank the member for Durham North. Are there any questions or comments?
Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): I'm going to take this opportunity because I'm not sure I'm going to have time to take part in a full debate, so I'd like to just put on the record how pleased I am that this legislation is able to come forward to second reading.
As Chair of one of the committees that had a number of presentations to it by a number of the organizations, I don't think anybody who sits through those types of committees and hears about the pain and suffering can think anything but how good this type of legislation is.
2330
You know, the World Health Organization says that this year one industry's products will be responsible for about three million deaths worldwide and within three decades, one industry's products will cause 10 million preventable deaths each year. One industry's products will cause 500 million deaths worldwide from among those of us presently alive by the year 2050. That is one half a billion premature deaths. Two hundred million of these deaths will come from today's children and adolescents, and after all of the economic effects of this product are considered, including taxation, this industry is a net drain on the Canadian economy of billions of dollars annually.
The drug problems we are working on kill more Canadians than illicit drugs, homicides, suicides, accidents, alcohol, all traffic fatalities, including alcohol-related traffic deaths, and AIDS, all of those combined, and by a wide margin. Time and time again we've seen the newspaper articles.
I'd like to draw attention to one that was in the Globe and Mail on March 10 of this year. It was from someone who watched her father die slowly and who felt it was very responsible that the pharmacists be responsible in this.
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for allowing me this little bit of time to get on the record.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I want to comment about the fact that I had a meeting about this particular piece of legislation in my constituents' office with a group of pharmacists. There appears to be some opposition to the legislation from the pharmacies at least that I spoke to. I don't know if it's all of them, but clearly the four or five that I spoke to, with the thought that by banning the sale of cigarettes and tobacco at pharmacies, this will somehow curtail smoking.
Their position was that it's a rather silly argument because they'd simply walk next door to the smoke shop and in fact buy the cigarettes there. The other argument they made was, and I'm not certain for all pharmacies, but particularly the ones that I spoke to, that a significant portion of the moneys they make from cigarettes goes to paying their rent and their part-time staff and a good percentage of the nut to operate.
They suggested to me that they don't think, they know, if you do ban cigarette sales or tobacco sales at pharmacies, they don't expect to sell any more deodorant or shaving cream or any of the other particulars that they sell, aspirins and so on, that they will then have to directly put this on to their dispensing fees, so you'll see a marked increase in the dispensing fees at pharmacies because you've taken such a huge amount of money away from them through the sale of cigarettes.
Now look, that may not be a good argument to oppose it, if you were banning the sale of tobacco, period, case closed. But really, you're not banning it. You're simply moving where people were in fact buy tobacco. It's not going to be any more difficult to buy it. It's not any more really restrictive. You're just saying one segment of the retail population can't sell it, and really that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, particularly if you're seeing an increase in dispensing fees for the drugs that are bought over the counter by pharmacists. I see the member shaking her head, but that's seems like a pretty tough argument to debate it against.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I just wanted to get up and say that I come from one of the tobacco-growing areas; however, I do support this piece of legislation. I think there is overwhelming health evidence to suggest the need and of course, whatever we can do to stop young people from smoking is very beneficial.
I do want to say, though, while we're discussing this issue, that at all times all of us must keep in mind those people who rely on producing tobacco in the tobacco-growing areas, the many farmers and the many people who work on those jobs. We must continue as a government to support their efforts to ensure that they continue to have a very strong and viable economy in their area, because in that particular part of the province where tobacco is primarily grown, they have as much right as any other area to have a healthy and vital economy.
I certainly hope -- I know the Minister of Agriculture and Food was here -- that he'll continue to advocate to ensure that we can do whatever we can to help that area as the amount of tobacco grown may decline over the next few years. But I do want to say that I think the health evidence is very strong that we do need to be taking action. Whatever we can do to stop young people from starting smoking is a good idea.
While we are taking strong enforcement measures through the Ministry of Finance to stop the smuggling, we do know that we won't be able to deal with it all, and of course some of those, how shall I put it, people who are into illegal activities with regard to cigarettes do have access to parking lots beside high schools and all of us are going to have to figure out how we deal with that issue as well.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It is interesting to note that we have this difficulty as legislators in trying to find a balance between those people who have conducted a legal enterprise in this province, the growing of tobacco, for many, many years -- in fact if I can hearken back to some of the reading that I have done, it wasn't that long ago that people around Delhi and Tillsonburg were having problems in the 1930s with the very light soils down there blowing away from them. They discovered that tobacco would grow down there and a very difficult area for conducting economies was resurrected by the tobacco plant.
We found a very interesting substitute for some of the other traditional crops, and now I think I agree with the member from Oxford that we're going to have to assist those people in finding ways to deal with what has become, I think, a very popular crusade, and that is one where we eliminate tobacco as a drug of choice, particularly among young people.
I agree that it is a very difficult problem to deal with. I commend to the government every effort to assist people who have been growing tobacco legally, but I have to agree with the member from Oxford, and others obviously, that we to take steps to deal with a problem which is causing difficulties with the health of our young people, with the health of all of the people who are heavy smokers in this province of ours.
I agree with the efforts to pass the tobacco act. I agree with the act itself. There are some issues in the legislation which may be necessary to deal with. For instance, why are we discriminating against just one group of sellers? Why don't we indicate, for instance, that all people who market health products would have to refrain from selling tobacco products? That is a good question to be asked, and from my point of view, there are interesting days ahead as we test the limits of our stamina to deal with this very important health issue.
Mr O'Connor: I want to thank those who have taken the time to not only listen but to comment. To the member for Perth, I want to thank her for her work. I mentioned during my statement here that there had been consultation and she was on the receiving end for an awful lot of that, so I want to thank her for her work there.
For the member from Etobicoke, the quote I read from the paper today, from the Financial Post, "Selling tobacco products that are proven to kill people when used as directed is not providing pharmaceutical care and is quite incompatible with the pharmacists' training," I think that says something. We've got to take into mind that these people are health care professionals; they're regulated health care professionals.
To the member for Oxford, he certainly raised some very good points, and to the former Minister of Health, the member for Bruce, I appreciate his comments and look forward to any amendments that he might present that might make this even a little bit tougher.
I guess I want to be clear. What we're talking about here is the 12-year-olds, the kids in grade 7 that the statistics point to, the increase of 50% of the kids in grade 7 taking up the use of tobacco. Those are the ones we're talking about. We're talking about these young people who, before they enter the productive part of their lives, are taking up a terrible, deadly addiction. This is something that I don't think any of us can take lightly.
There is going to be a good discussion, no doubt, not only from all the pharmacists who oppose the sale of tobacco, but we're going to hear from those who want to sell it. I think we're going to hear a lot of people come on side to talk about it because the College of Pharmacists asked us to do this. They came to us with a very good recommendation. We've taken that recommendation and put into the legislation.
2340
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to begin by first of all thanking the parliamentary assistant for making a very important and eloquent case on behalf of the bill. I want to thank the minister for coming forward with this bill. It has been a somewhat lengthy and protracted birth, beginning I guess back in 1991 at the time the Finance minister made reference to the need for this kind of legislation when he introduced his budget.
I think I'll begin as well by acknowledging the presence of Gar Mahood in the gallery here and the important role he has played together with the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. Mr Mahood has been categorized often as an advocate on behalf of non-smokers, but I think more fairly he could quite probably be categorized as a health advocate.
I have a developed a particular personal interest in this matter as a result of doing fairly extensive research on the issue, which led ultimately to the introduction of my own private member's bill. There are two fundamental problems in eliminating tobacco. One was made reference to earlier, and that is the fact that there is an entire industry that has developed around the growing of tobacco, the production and sale, and that we have a legal product. That's the number one problem. The second is that it is an addictive substance, and it's difficult to rid ourselves of it.
My bill responded to the overwhelming support that I found existed for the proposition that our children should not smoke. I found that when I spoke with smokers and non-smokers, tobacco farmers, manufacturers, retailers, pharmacists, parents, whomever, they all agreed that our children should not smoke. My bill for that reason focused on responding positively to that proposition. Where we get into trouble and where controversy creeps into this -- I'm not suggesting that we ought to be avoiding controversy because we should be afraid of it, but where concerns arise is when we stray from that proposition.
I want to speak to the issue of pharmacists because obviously they have expressed some concerns in connection with this matter. First of all, it's important to recognize and everybody agrees that banning sales from pharmacies will not in fact reduce smoking. The reason this proposition is put forward by the government is because it is seen as a contradiction for a pharmacist to be selling products which are designed to promote health at the same time as selling cigarettes or tobacco products of whatever nature.
They can support and understand that there are 2,200 pharmacies in the province, about 1,500 of which sell tobacco products, but there are also 120,000 other retailers in this province which sell cigarettes, cigars and whatever else in the line of tobacco products, so this is not going to put any kind of a dent in the tobacco retail market.
When I drafted my bill, the research I put into it led me to discover that by and large pharmacists tended to provide better supervision with respect to young people purchasing cigarettes than did the fellow working at Mac's milk. I also discovered that children by and large don't buy their cigarettes from pharmacies. I think I could make the argument to the effect that tobacco products in general are a drug, and if I were to restrict the sale of drugs to one particular retailer in this province, I'd restrict it to druggists, to pharmacies.
I think the other difficulty we're going to encounter here is the aspect of this bill which makes it discriminatory. That is, it's one thing for us to say we're going to restrict the sale of a product, for instance, liquor, to LCBO stores and will restrict the sale of beer to what we now call the Beer Store. I think that is seen as acceptable legally. I think where we're going to have a problem is to begin to say, "Everybody out there can sell tobacco products except you guys." I think that is going to present us with a significant problem. I think it will be seen as discriminatory.
If you remember that this is not going to put a dent in tobacco sales, is not going to prevent people from beginning to smoke, then the question you have to ask yourself is: Why are we getting into this kind of situation? Why are we muddying the waters, so to speak?
The argument is made that a drugstore or a pharmacy is a place where people sell health-related products. That may have been the case at one time, but I can tell you, I think of the drugstore as a place where I can get the razor blades, get the shampoo; they've got some of the best prices on Coke or Pepsi at my drugstore; we used to get diapers there for the kids; you get chips, cosmetics -- and from time to time, if one of the kids picked up a bug, then we'd fill a prescription at the pharmacy. I'm not sure that it is fair any longer today to categorize pharmacists as merely being purveyors of health products.
I think that what we're going to witness at the end of the day here is that pharmacists will use some of the same creative ingenuity that retailers did when they first encountered the original Sunday shopping legislation. We're going to have them opening separate stores in order to get around this law. We're also, I think, in a very perverse kind of way going to benefit the larger chains. I think they will survive the loss in sales, but the smaller pharmacies, from the information I've gathered to date, may not survive.
It's important to recognize that pharmacies are a business. What we've been doing as a government, both our government and this government, through the reduction in the money that pharmacists can earn through their prescription fees, is that we've been implicitly telling them, "Look, folks, you're going to have to earn more money at the front end of the store now, because we're nibbling away bit by bit into the back end." Now what we're doing is telling them that we're going to cut into the front end.
The other thing that's important to understand is that cigarette sales within the pharmacy are not only beneficial in an economic sense to the pharmacist because he's making that particular sale, but it leads to spinoff sales. From what I've been able to gather, people come in and don't just buy their cigarettes but also buy other products at the same time.
Again it's important to recognize -- and this is freely admitted by all, and I've had extensive conversation with Mr Mahood in this regard -- that removing tobacco sales from pharmacies will not reduce the amount of smoking that takes place in this province.
We're looking at raising the Sunday shopping spectre, with all the creative ingenuity that went into that, and we're also, I think, looking at a potential constitutional quagmire.
So again I ask the question: Why would we muddy the waters?
This is essentially a very good bill in so far as it goes to make it tougher for kids to start smoking. In any event, I look forward to this bill going into committee and to the impact studies, hopefully, that will be put forward by the pharmacists that will show the real impact in terms of sales and the jobs that may be at risk here.
I think the parliamentary assistant made reference to the vending machines. He brought up a good point, that is, that in other jurisdictions where they've tackled the problem of children beginning to smoke, they have found that if you don't squeeze off supply at the vending machines, then you're really not going to tackle it in any serious kind of manner.
2350
In New York City and New York state they have put in place legislation similar to that put forward by our federal government, which basically provides that if you want to sell tobacco products through a vending machine, it has to be under supervision. In New York state, for instance, the machine can't be any closer than 25 feet to the entrance of a tavern or a bar.
One of the problems we get into when we tell people that they can no longer sell tobacco products through a vending machine, from what I've learned, is that there are concerns associated with that by the barkeepers. They're very reluctant to keep loose cigarettes around the place because, as you well know, they've become a hot commodity these days and there's concern about the possibility of theft.
There's also the concern that's been raised relating to people who go into bars to drink who suddenly determine that they need their smokes. They've had a few drinks, they normally go to the vending machine, but that's no longer there. You've got to wonder, what is this person going to do to get those cigarettes? Well, we hope to God they're not going to get in the car and drive to Mac's milk or someplace like this to pick up a pack, but there may be some people who don't obey the law and get into trouble as a result of that powerful urge to have a cigarette.
The other concern that was brought to me was that some of these vending machines are in places which serve as a convenience to older people who don't like to get out in the winter or who don't drive but who are within the grip of a cigarette addiction and need those cigarettes, and now what we're telling them is that they will no longer have access to them. Remember, they got hooked at a time when not only was it socially acceptable but in fact was considered fashionable, and there was no evidence put forward in that day which would lead us to believe that smoking caused cancer.
There are some 3,500 vending machines in the province. It will be interesting to learn through our committee what impact the ban, in so far as cigarette sales are concerned, will have on manufacturers, on distributors, on the people who service those machines and the people who stock them. I look forward to hearing from people in that regard.
The argument is put forward by young people that "This ain't gonna stop them." As far as they're concerned, if they want to get cigarettes they can get them somewhere. I think that argument is to be expected. I don't think it's one that, by any means, should be allowed to carry the day. It's been proven over the years, whether it's our seatbelt laws or drinking and driving laws or increasing the drinking age, for instance, as we did in the past in this province, that by and large they have a positive impact and most people will go along with them. There will always be a certain element, whether it's youth or any other segment of the population, no matter how you try to categorize them, who will choose to disobey or disregard a particular law, but I think most young people will come along.
I think it is important to recognize why it is that we want to bump the age from 18, as it is, to 19. One of the things you learn is that kids have a certain sense of invulnerability. They feel that if they start to smoke -- in fact, there are some studies that came out of the States that show that if you ask kids who are smoking in high school whether they'll be smoking in the future, 75% said, "No, we will not be smoking in the future," But when they did a follow-up study seven years later, a great majority of those kids were still smoking and having difficulty stopping. They have a certain sense of invulnerability, a sense that they're in control and that when the time comes they can stop smoking, but that does not prove to be the case.
The other thing that's important to realize with respect to this age distinction, moving from 18 to 19, is that young people are generally very susceptible to the influence of their peers. If it's seen to be as the thing to do, then they tend to pick up smoking for that reason, notwithstanding that they've had quite a bit of information today that tells them it's a bad thing to do. We've found that if you move the age group to 19, by that stage they are generally out of a high school setting, away from that influential group on a daily basis and more likely to make the right kind of decision.
The smuggling issue is one that's been put forward, and that's the one that cannot be disregarded. I look forward to hearing presenters in committee commenting on whether they feel this will help combat smuggling. We do know that about one out of three cigarettes sold in this province -- that may be a bit high but that's the figure I've heard bandied about lately -- are illegal cigarettes. We do know that about 50,000 illegal cartons of cigarettes a day pass through the Cornwall area. In fact, I have some specific knowledge in that regard because I've had the opportunity as the native affairs critic for my party to visit with the Mohawks at Akwesasne to gain an inside look at some of the problems this presents for the leadership there.
The bill itself, oddly enough, doesn't specify how many cigarettes will have to be found within a package in order to be legal in this province. My bill addressed that; it restricted the packages to no smaller than 20. It's been found that young kids tend to make their purchases according to how much money they've got in their pockets and they generally don't have very much, so if you make the packages more expensive it makes it tougher for them to get into it.
The other thing I've found in the legislation that's of concern is that there's a provision in here which provides that if the inspectors who are created and given authority in this bill -- it's subsection 13(14). It says, "No person shall...refuse to answer questions on matters relevant to the inspection," and that is a very serious incursion on what has been a historical right in this country, that is, the right against self-incrimination. That means essentially that if you are breaking the law, there is no obligation on your part to help the crown or to help the police prove their case; you have the right basically to keep your mouth shut. As you know, it's called the right to remain silent, and the obligation is on the crown or on the police or on the government or on the person in authority to prove that you have in some way breached the law.
I hope somebody will come forward in committee and describe that further, because it strikes me as being rather draconian and something which, in combination with the concerns I've raised relating to pharmacies and to vending machines, gives an essentially good bill a bad name.
Madam Speaker, I see it's approaching the witching hour, and I wonder if it may not be appropriate for me to move adjournment of the debate at this point in time.
The Acting Speaker: The member has moved adjournment of the debate? All in favour? Carried.
Attorney General, you have the business for next week.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Yes, Madam Speaker. Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.
On Monday, December 13, we will deal with third reading of Bill 47, photo-radar; committee of the whole consideration of Bill 117, the public service omnibus; third reading of Bill 100, the Regulated Health Professions Act amendments; third reading of Bill 121, teachers' pensions; third reading of Bill 51, Simcoe county; third reading of Bill 74, longer trucks; third reading of Bill 122, graduated licensing; and second reading of Bill 77, the Ottawa-Carleton bill.
On Tuesday, December 14, we will deal with the Progressive Conservative non-confidence motion for two hours; followed by third reading of Bill 26, the Environmental Bill of Rights; third reading of Bill 117, the public service omnibus; concurrence in supply; first, second and third readings of the supply bill; extra time for budget debate; second reading of the tobacco act, Bill 119; third reading of Bill 125, the education omnibus; second and third readings of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Representation Act, a private member's bill standing in the name of Mr Beer; and second and third readings of any remaining private bills.
Any further business will be announced.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs Margaret Marland): It being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock on Monday, December 13.
The House adjourned at 2400.