Journal des débats 1995-déc-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): Yesterday I introduced to this House a private member's bill entitled the Automobile Insurance Act, 1995. This bill seeks to provide more equitable treatment by insurers of certain applicants for automobile insurance. This bill stipulates that if for any reason it appears that an applicant for insurance may only obtain it through the Facility Association, established under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, the applicant may ask the Ontario Insurance Commission to review the matter.

As it stands today, an experienced driver who fails to show proof of insurance for 12 out of the previous 24 months can be hit with an astronomical rate increase. This means that if someone has left the country for 12 months, has decided not to drive for a year, or simply can't afford insurance premiums, they will be lumped into the Facility Association, and in real terms insurance rates can double and in some instances can triple, making auto insurance financially inaccessible for a lot of people who can least afford it.

This bill sets out to identify unfairness within the Facility Association process and in turn rectify the problem with a formalized legislative amendment. Hopefully, this bill will be of assistance to the numerous people I have spoken with and the countless others who have been affected by this inequity.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES OFFICE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I rise to make a statement on behalf of the member for Nickel Belt and his constituents in the small community of Gogama.

The people of Gogama are worried about the future of their community. Rumours are circulating that the Ministry of Natural Resources is considering closing or severely reducing the Gogama area MNR office.

People in the community are so concerned that more than a hundred, a substantial number in a community of just 300 families, have taken the time to write to the minister to make sure he understands how important the Gogama area office is to the community.

The local MNR office employs 31 permanent and 25 seasonal people, which represents approximately 35% of the total employment within a 75-kilometre radius of Gogama. Closing this office would take almost 1.5 million payroll dollars out of the local economy.

The Gogama area office looks after the natural resources in an area of 7,200 square kilometres; the next-closest office, in Timmins, is an hour and a half away. The local economy is almost exclusively dependent on forestry and tourism. If you take away the people who are on the ground, the people who know the area's resources best, the people who can work with the forest companies and the tourist operators, you are threatening the long-term sustainability of Gogama's economy.

I am conveying these letters to the minister today, and I ask him to respond to the people of Gogama and assure them that their office will not be closed or reduced.

ELSIE KNOTT

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise to pay tribute to a very special person in my riding who recently passed away. Elsie Knott, of the Curve Lake First Nations reserve, Canada's first elected female aboriginal chief, was laid to rest on December 6, 1995, at the age of 73.

Elsie was described as a community leader, a friend and a mother when more than 200 people packed the Curve Lake Community Church to say goodbye, the very same church which Elsie was instrumental in building.

She was the founding member of the Union of Ontario Indians, and was first elected as Curve Lake's chief in 1953 and served through to 1960, and again from 1970 to 1976.

Elsie lived every day for her family and her community. She organized everything from boy scouts and girl guides to baseball tournaments and church services for seniors. She was a Sunday school teacher and later became church superintendent, all functions that have united and strengthened the entire community. She owned and operated the Tee Pee Trading Post and, until a year ago, was Curve Lake's postmistress.

Elsie will be missed by the entire Canadian native community, but more importantly, she will be missed by her family and friends in her local community, a community which has truly benefitted from her hard work and love of life.

Today, I am honoured to pay tribute to Elsie Knott of Curve Lake, a truly remarkable individual.

HIGHWAY 403

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I rise on behalf of a number of parents and students of Ancaster high school, in the town of Ancaster in the region of Hamilton-Wentworth, in regard to the completion of Highway 403 from Ancaster to Brantford.

The funding and the commitment had been given by the previous government for this highway and work had commenced on it; bridges and overpasses had been built. It is essential to the economic development of the area between Ancaster and Brantford. It is also essential to the safety of students who currently travel Highway 2 every single day back and forth from school.

We have a very busy highway where buses literally have to stop three, four and five times on that stretch to let off students. There was a serious accident a couple of months ago. Luckily, the bus had only two students in it; they were sitting at the front when a truck rear-ended the bus. It could have been an absolute tragedy had there been more students on the bus on that particular day.

The students have organized a drive, and parents and residents of the area are concerned as a result of this government's delaying tactics on this highway. A project that was to be completed within two years, that had been announced by the previous government, has now been estimated to be at least five years away from completion.

On behalf of those residents, I urge the Minister of Transportation and this government to get on with it, live up to its commitment for the Highway 403 extension from Ancaster to Brantford and take into consideration the safety factors before it's too late and a tragedy occurs.

1340

MATHESON AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I rise today to raise the concerns of the people of Matheson. Matheson, as you may know, is the home of the Ag and Food office for the northeast region around the area of Matheson. Unfortunately, it is one of the offices that has been scheduled to close down its facilities.

I'm here to say that office serves many farms in the area of Matheson and the farmers in the area require that office to make sure they're able to do the work they need to do to make their farms prosperous. The agricultural industry is one of the key sectors of the Matheson area, and by closing down that office we might be putting in jeopardy the farming sector.

I want to say to the minister, because I've had this discussion with him already, that the people of Matheson want to be consulted on this proposed closure. I say directly to the minister that the people of Matheson are responsible individuals who are prepared to sit down with the minister and me to enter into discussions about how we can possibly avert the closing of that office.

I spoke as recently as last night with the minister, and I'm glad to say he's agreed to meet with me to discuss the co-location as one option for possibly not having to close it down -- no promises made, but at least he's willing to listen and discuss it -- or to take a look at a possible restructuring of the Ag and Food offices in the area so we make sure the farmers in the area will not go unheard and will not lose those services.

I say to the minister, help us help you keep your election commitment of not cutting the budget of services for the agricultural industry. I look forward to working with you on this project.

SPECIAL CARE NURSERY

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to inform the House of a story of compassion, caring, dedication and skill that everyone in this great province can feel proud of as we enter the season of joy and giving. Let me say how proud I am to say that this story is one that comes out of Scarborough, whose residents and professionals are among the most caring in Ontario.

On November 26, nine-year-old Andrew Blaney discovered baby Anne, just two hours old, abandoned in a cardboard box and left in the freezing snow. Her body temperature had dropped so low that she was near death. Miraculously, however, baby Anne will be fine with the help of a great deal of skill and caring.

Baby Anne was brought to Scarborough General Hospital's special-care nursery area, which immediately took baby Anne in and nursed her back to life with a great deal of tender, loving care.

The special-care nursery area cares for about 10 infants, on average, with special needs, some from the time they are born until a couple of months of age. The nursery will soon celebrate 40 years of dedication to young infants in Scarborough. Had there been no special-care nursery in Scarborough, this child may have perished. As it was, baby Anne not only survived but flourished and I happy to report that a home and foster parent have been found for her just in time for Christmas.

I'd like to ask that every member of this Legislature join me in sending our sincere thanks and congratulations on a job very well done to Jane Kenny and Bev St Marten, the managers of nursing practice, and their 11 full-time staff and 10 part-time staff at Scarborough General Hospital's special-care nursery.

HARRY P. CAVERS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Monday, December 11, the family, friends and colleagues of Harry P. Cavers paid tribute to him at his funeral service in St Catharines.

Harry was an individual who was known for his service and fairness throughout his lifetime as a judge, member of Parliament and private citizen.

When our country was at war and Harry was practising law in St Catharines, he enlisted in the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, returning to his practice at the conclusion of hostilities.

As a member of the firm of Cavers, Chown and Cairns, he was a highly regarded member of the legal profession. He continued to be held in high respect as a county court judge for 15 years and, subsequently, as a supernumerary judge until 1984.

Harry Cavers's desire to serve prompted him to seek public office in 1949 when he was elected as the member of Parliament for Lincoln, serving until 1957. His personal popularity and reputation were major factors in his election as the first Liberal in Lincoln in five decades.

Harry was a member of several organizations, including the Lincoln County Law Society, the Masonic Lodge, the Royal Canadian Legion and the St Catharines Kiwanis Club, of which he was a president and lifetime member.

I am honoured, on behalf of the people of St Catharines, to pay tribute to Harry P. Cavers in this assembly, and to extend to his daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren the sympathy of all who knew him.

We will all remember Harry Cavers as a man of intelligence, moderation, dedication and compassion, and one who placed his community and his fellow citizens ahead of himself.

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I was visited in my office today by a couple of students from Humber College raising concerns on behalf of their fellow students. Chris Popp and Kim Showers, who are in the gallery here, both second-year students in the social work program at that college, are concerned about the impact rising tuition fees will have on them and their fellow students.

They speak, I know, on behalf of the students in my community at Sault College and Algoma University and those who will come, as they look at the tremendous debt they will incur simply to get an education in this province, due to the insensitive decisions being made by this government across the way as it raises the cost of everything in this province and makes nothing achievable for those who are not rich and well-off.

The other concern they raised that's even more disconcerting is the anxiety they feel as they look towards the future. They're in social work, and they were looking forward to jobs in the public sector where they could actually use the skills they've learned and help some people. But now they see those jobs disappearing, and they're concerned that there's nothing to take their place. They hear the government talking about 725,000 new jobs being created, but there's nothing out there to show where that's going to come from or whether those jobs are going to be part-time, minimum wage and no benefits.

They tell me that all the students they interact with have the same concerns. They want this government to take --

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member's time has expired.

THECLA JORDAN

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On Monday, the citizens of Lanark-Renfrew lost a good friend and community worker.

Thecla Jordan, wife of Leo Jordan, deputy whip to the government, was born and raised in Smiths Falls, the third of four daughters born to Thomas and Annie Kelley.

Originally an elementary school teacher, Thecla worked at the Smiths Falls Public Library for many years.

For Thecla, family always came first and was her main focus. She had the privilege of seeing all her five children graduate from university and get married.

Thecla Jordan served her community, her church and, most importantly, her family with great energy and distinction.

Those closest to the family knew her best as Leo's right hand, his strength and greatest supporter. When he was hospitalized during the recent election, she was tireless in campaigning for him. The victory of election night was equally attributed to both Leo and Thecla.

The citizens of Lanark-Renfrew were used to seeing their MPP and his wife always together, an unbeatable team.

We are all saddened by the loss of this wonderful human being. I extend to Leo and their children and grandchildren our deepest sympathy at this difficult time. Her spirit will live forever through her five children and nine grandchildren, who were her greatest joy.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): Mr Speaker, if you would permit, I would simply like to say on behalf of our party, and I'm sure members of the Liberal Party would like to say as well, that our hearts go out to Leo on this occasion. We were all deeply saddened to hear the news of Thecla's passing on Monday. I'm sure the House would want all of us to be included in the very fitting, eloquent words of the member for York Mills, who just spoke, if we could just add our very deep feelings. I know we'll all be taking time to pay tribute in our own way, but I'm sure we'd want on this occasion to join in sending our very best to Leo Jordan.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On behalf of the Liberal Party, I would like to extend similar sympathy to Leo and to the family. This is always a difficult time. Public life is difficult for all of us, and people who have a supportive spouse and family are very much favoured.

I remember hearing of Leo's personal health problems, and I know his family and his wife were very supportive of him at that time and that meant so very much to him.

When we are in this assembly and consumed very much in the events of the day and the happenings of the assembly, we often place those foremost in our minds. When someone loses someone very close, as Leo has, I think it makes all of us pause to determine what is most important in our lives. I'm sure to Leo and the family and to all of us who are friends of Leo and the family, the events of this week were very much more important, although much sadder, than the events that take place in this House and in the surrounding area in terms of politics. It is something that transcends politics, and our sympathy and best wishes go to Leo and the family.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I thank all honourable members for their kind words. I, on behalf of all members of this House, send our sympathy to Leo and his family.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

LEGAL AID

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I'm pleased to tell members of the House today that the government has accepted the Law Society of Upper Canada's proposals to downsize the Ontario legal aid plan to bring it within budget.

My ministry has received Mr Stanley Beck's review of the financial and policy implications of the law society's cost-cutting proposals to the Ontario legal aid plan. Mr Beck, who is in the members' gallery today, is a former dean of the Osgoode Hall Law School and former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission who was asked by the government to study the delivery of legal aid this past September.

Mr Beck concluded that the measures to be implemented by the law society, subject to careful monitoring procedures, would enable the legal aid plan to operate within its previously agreed-to budget. This means that the law society will now be in a position to pay outstanding legal aid accounts to service providers within the time frames originally agreed to by the law society and the previous government in a memorandum of understanding.

The law society is now taking the steps required to bring the legal aid plan within its means. These reforms represent a significant fiscal and administrative restructuring of the delivery of legal aid in Ontario. The measures are designed to bring the plan's expenditures within the funding agreement reached between the law society and the previous government and guaranteed by this government.

The law society's downsizing plan, including those changes approved in August and October, contains among other measures the following: criminal and family law service will be reduced by setting priorities; there will be a $25 application fee for clients; the fees paid to lawyers will be reduced by an average of 22%, for a total reduction of $75 million over the life of the funding agreement; the number of certificates issued will be reduced by approximately one third, from 155,000 in 1995-96 to an annual maximum of 100,000; an independent monitor will be appointed by the ministry to track the cost control program, ensuring a much greater degree of accountability to the taxpayers of Ontario. The law society has agreed to make further reductions should the monitor indicate overspending of the plan.

The law society estimates, as well as Mr Beck, who concurs, that these measures will reduce the cost of legal aid by over $275 million in the next three years. Had the government not taken steps to ensure that the legal aid plan operated within budget, the plan would have been facing arrears in the amount of $275 million by 1998-99. This would be unacceptable to the taxpayers of Ontario, who fund legal aid.

Taxpayers will now have a legal aid plan that is on target to meet its budget and that will have proper monthly monitoring procedures.

The days of the province issuing a blank cheque for legal aid are over. These measures should end the uncertainty facing legal aid clients and service providers and bring some stability back to the system.

Officials of the Ministry of the Attorney General will be meeting with the law society to discuss the implementation of these measures.

Finally, I wish to again thank Mr Stanley Beck for his professional assistance throughout this matter.

SALE OF LAND

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): We have promised to sell marketable provincial assets such as surplus real estate holdings and use the proceeds for deficit reduction. This government has pledged to eliminate the deficit because in recent years it has accumulated at a rate in excess of $1 million an hour every year and has added an enormous debt that is being passed on to future generations to bear.

The province has several large-scale land assemblies serving no immediate or longer-term purpose to the government. These can be sold to contribute to deficit reduction. In addition, this will permit the properties to be beneficially developed under the guidance of the appropriate municipalities.

In preparation for this action, I am announcing, in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that the housing priority policy will be cancelled. It is this government's view that this policy is needlessly restrictive and largely excluded the most successful and efficient developers of housing, the private sector. The policy has resulted in a prime government resource, its real estate, being underutilized and the taxpayer not achieving full benefit.

This government is getting out of the business of land banking and land development. This will free up provincial properties such as Cornell in east Markham. Through a request for proposals, the province is pursuing the immediate marketing of this land, which we believe will lead to timely development under the guidance of the town of Markham in accordance with the process set out by the town.

This could involve the sale of the entire land holding, a phased sale, or a partnership between the province and the private sector. We're prepared to entertain a variety of submissions in order to secure the best business deal for the people of Ontario.

Development of the Seaton land, northeast of Pickering, will move forward with the preparation of a secondary plan. The province can potentially realize greater revenue if Seaton is sold with a secondary plan in place.

In the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve, provincially owned agricultural land rented to farmers and other residents will be sold by first offering these tenants the opportunity to buy.

The disposal of surplus government land will be done in phases, taking local market conditions into consideration. Municipalities will have more say in deciding what kind of development makes sense in their communities, and the private sector will be able to do what it does best: develop the land and create job opportunities.

The province is getting out of the businesses that are best done by municipalities and the private sector, while keeping our promise to sell surplus government assets to help pay down the deficit.

LEGAL AID

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm responding to the statement by the Attorney General on legal aid. I want to start by saying that his statement today says nothing about the Victims' Bill of Rights; in fact, it doesn't mention victims of crime at all.

I would point out to him that victims of crime are victimized twice, when the perpetrators of those crimes are not brought to trial speedily and --

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We're going to debate that this afternoon, I think, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: The Attorney General points out that we are debating that today and that's why I'm mentioning this. He has sat on the sidelines for months while the state of the legal aid system has been brought to the brink of collapse.

We know that there have been judges in Sault Ste Marie who halted the trial of four men charged with cocaine trafficking until the Attorney General would provide assurances that their legal aid bills would be paid. Another judge took the extraordinary step of ordering the Attorney General to appear in court and state whether his ministry would pay the legal aid bill of the lawyer involved in a murder trial. We know as well that a judge in Ottawa actually ruled that criminal charges against an armed robbery suspect would be stayed until the Attorney General guaranteed that legal aid fees would be paid.

I say to him, this afternoon we're discussing the Victims' Bill of Rights, and to stand in the House today with this legal aid announcement victimizes those victims twice, because, sir, you are issuing fewer legal aid certificates and you are saying to those people who need access to legal aid service that they will receive no justice.

Willowdale Community Legal Services is one of the most significant and important community services that was established in Oriole riding. I know how important that is to the people of our community, and I would say to him that legal aid should not be underestimated as a service in this province. It provides access to justice. It also makes sure that those people who have perpetrated crimes are brought to trial in a timely way.

I ask the Attorney General if he will today table the report of Stanley Beck so that we can all have a review of that, and I see him nodding his head --

Hon Mr Harnick: It's being released, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: -- and I thank him very much for that assurance. I will expect to see it promptly.

I would also suggest that things have gotten so bad that the law society was prepared to take the government to court if funding assurances had not been received. Today, sir, is a Band-Aid. Today does not solve the long-term problems of legal aid. It does not assure access to the justice system. It also does not assure victims of those crimes that the perpetrators of those crimes will not be let off because of the Askov decision, which requires justice in a timely way, and it does not assure victims of crime that they have any rights in this province to see that justice is done.

1400

SALE OF LAND

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I am pleased to respond to the Management Board minister, first by saying that if there's something that is very dear to the hearts of Scarborough, it is the Rouge park and members of all parties have fought for years and years to make certain that park be preserved. One of the first acts that we see of the new government is to sell off the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve. I would just say to the members that the flags are going up, that the warning signs are going up, that the Rouge community, and I'm very supportive of the Rouge community, will begin to see what this government's all about.

Secondly, I appreciate the minister saying that it is their intention to sell off the surplus lands. I would just say that you are unravelling finally a decision made by Premier Harris and the Minister of Finance many years ago, and Premier Davis, to buy these lands, to bank these lands. I gather that he's now had a change of mind and wants to now get rid of them.

It's probably an interesting business decision because certainly you are going to put them on the market probably at the lowest point the market for land has been at in years and years, but so be it. But it's not unlike the decision that you made to buy Suncor when you were in government. You bought high and the next governments had to sell low. So I appreciate the decision you're making.

I would just say this, that the Rouge community is now beginning to see the threat and this is the first step. Secondly, I guess the Premier has had a change of heart. At one time, he liked to buy the land and now he likes to sell the land.

LEGAL AID

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I'm responding to the statement by the Attorney General today concerning the legal aid plan. I'm sure that all citizens in Ontario are pleased to see the end of the controversy that has led to uncertainty around the status of the legal aid plan and certainly around the fate of access to justice through the legal aid plan.

I think it is important for us all to recognize that what the minister has announced today certainly indicates substantial change from the kind of legal aid service that Ontarians have enjoyed in the past and that this has been done largely to keep costs under control that had escalated by close to 50% over the last five to six years.

It is an extremely delicate issue to try and control costs and still maintain access to legal services. The work of the ministry, Professor Beck and the law society to try and accomplish a compromise that will do that has been a very, very hard task indeed and one which only narrowly passed the law society over the last few months.

It is going to be important for the Attorney General to be aware that there are many lawyers practising in the province and many advocacy groups in the province who have great apprehension about the effect of this plan on access to legal services. In addition to the close monitoring of the fiscal issues around legal aid, which I really congratulate the minister on achieving because that needed to be done -- it's a manual system that's operated. It hasn't been in control and it is very necessary to have fiscal monitoring.

I hope the minister will also be monitoring issues around access to justice, issues around the court process, issues around the fairness of those court processes, the concerns of judges and lawyers around access to justice as time goes on and that, as we look at that, we can see whether there really is an erosion of access in this province and that we will all work together to achieve a change in that if that should eventuate.

SALE OF LAND

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Here we go again. This afternoon, the Chair of Management Board has given us a clear indication of where this government is going, another sign of what their plan is, however simple and shallow it be. If it's public, if it has some common interest, if it somehow is communally going to be helpful to people, particularly those who are most at risk in this province, sell it, give it away, give it to your friends and colleagues. Give it to the private sector, let them deal with it. Let them build the housing. Let them reap the rewards and let whatever comes of that trickle down to the rest of us.

In July, you took money out of the pockets of the poor. Two weeks ago today, you took away valuable services that everybody in this province depends on, particularly the poor and the middle class. In the new year, you'll be laying off thousands of workers who deliver programs. All of those decisions have had both direct and indirect consequences; just as today, no mention of them, no rolling that out, no talk of them, no figures.

Now, today, you're selling the land we all own collectively, right out from under our feet, without a second thought or a note about the consequence to people or communities. You've also cancelled the housing priority policy. You know the private sector has no interest in low-cost housing; they never have. There's no money in it. They won't do it; they won't build the housing that's needed out there for people who in this very difficult winter that we're facing are going to be cold and unhoused.

In all of this you've thrown the rights and the birthrights of all of us out the window, all the very valuable initiatives built up over the years that contribute to the quality of life, in fact contribute to the economy of this province in so many significant ways, all the things that we depend on for our day-to-day living. It's now on the auction block; it's now out there for the private sector to come in and take it over: "Just come and get it. Take it. No problem." No consequential information there, nothing, no care.

You've pulled the rug out on the poor, you've pulled the rug out on the middle class and today you pulled the rug out on all those people out there who are dependent on public housing, on this government to make sure that they have a roof over their head so that they can be guaranteed some of the basics of life -- food and clothing and shelter and the ability to access land that doesn't belong to somebody else for all those things that we use that land for. It's a disgrace.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I would like to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today Mr Yusuf Shah, consul-general of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Please join me in welcoming our guest.

I'd like to inform the members we also have another special guest in the Speaker's gallery today: Mr Clem Campbell, MLA for the electoral district of Bundaberg in Queensland, Australia. Please join me in welcoming our other guest.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a response from the honourable Gregory Evans, Integrity Commissioner, to the request by the member for Riverdale on whether the member for London North had contravened the Members' Integrity Act or Ontario parliamentary convention.

MEMBER FOR OTTAWA EAST

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is also my pleasure today to inform the House of the 11th anniversary of distinguished service in this House of the member for Ottawa East, Ben Grandmaître. As a minister and as a member, 11 years.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, will you please explain why your bully-bill legislation, this Bill 26, contains provisions to make municipal councillors personally financially liable if their decisions don't fit with your takeover directions? Why do you feel that municipal councillors should be sued for representing their ratepayers?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): First of all, let's talk about the bill a little bit and why we wanted to get there. I can tell you, I have no intention of debating this bill clause by clause during question period. The bill has had second reading; it's going to committee. It will have clause-by-clause debate and we'll do it at that point in time.

Let's talk about why we're here. Let's talk about why we have to have this bill. Let's talk about the mess that we're into and why we need to help the municipalities to get us out of it. But I don't intend to debate clause by clause.

Mrs McLeod: It seems that members of the Tory caucus have been sharing a communications consultant, and it's a lucky thing that we are going to get this bill into clause-by-clause debate. But the minister is nevertheless responsible for explaining, not only to us but to the public, exactly what the provisions are of this legislation, whether he wants to debate it or not.

Minister, I want you to talk about the fact that Bill 26 clearly allows you to impose punitive and bullying controls on municipal councillors if they disagree with your restructuring plans. I direct your attention to subsection 25.2(13), which clearly makes councillors personally financially liable if they act in opposition to one of your forced amalgamations. It is as clear as it can be in this legislation. "Members who vote in favour of the act which contravenes the regulation are personally liable for the amount of the adverse financial effect...."

I ask how you can talk about increasing municipal flexibility when you bring forward measures that allow you to take total control of municipal decisions and threaten municipal councillors with personal bankruptcy if they dare to stand in your way.

Hon Mr Leach: As I said before, I have no intention of debating this bill clause by clause; I'm not going to do it. Do you want to talk about the bill? Do you want to talk about why we're here? Do you want to talk about the mess we're in? We'll do that. Let's debate that. Let's debate why we got here in the first place.

Mrs McLeod: Perhaps I could ask my supplementary before the minister has a chance to read the briefing note which was appropriately sent in to him at this rather critical moment in time. Yesterday this minister was surprisingly willing to try and answer questions. Yesterday he said that the provisions in Bill 26 were designed to give municipalities the reforms they have been demanding for many years.

Minister, I doubt if you can name one municipal councillor who actually asked you to hold him or her responsible and financially liable and to be sued for opposing an annexation or an amalgamation that is directed by you out of your ivory tower at Queen's Park. How is this anything more than an attempt to bully and coerce local municipal councils, through personal financial intimidation, to make them do what you want? How is this anything else than a blatant attempt to stifle any local community opposition to your decisions?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm just going to repeat it again: What it's designed to do is to ensure that a municipality that becomes part of a restructuring doesn't waste or squander the resources of the municipality. They would have to be responsible for that. I think that's a reasonable thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question.

Mrs McLeod: I think this minister is a walking advertisement for why we had to fight to make sure that this legislation did not become law next week.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Yesterday, when you were prepared to answer questions, you said that you would resign if anyone could prove that your bully bill, Bill 26, allows municipalities to levy income taxes or gasoline taxes or retail sales taxes, so today I want to bring you that proof.

I have in my hand a book called The Constitutional Law of Canada. I think any lawyer would tell you that this text is the definitive work on constitutional law in Canada. In a section called "The Meaning of Direct Taxation" it states very clearly what a direct tax is: "A tax on net income is direct. Indeed, an income tax is the most typical form of direct taxation." Having been provided with the proof, will you now do the honourable thing and resign?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I had a meeting this morning with four lawyers on taxation, and I should average the four answers, but I can tell you that this legislation allows fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. It does not apply to sales tax, gas tax, income tax -- none of those taxes. It just does not apply. The legal branch in the ministry is very clear and very straightforward when it says it doesn't apply. You're wrong. I don't know where you're getting the advice, but it's wrong.

Mrs McLeod: Cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Health and now the Minister of Municipal Affairs, have proven themselves very adept at getting ministry legal advice that backs up the bad legislation they are presenting.

Minister, it appears that you're not prepared to accept what most lawyers would consider to be the definitive legal source in Canada as proof that your legislation will indeed at least allow municipalities to raise these kinds of taxes, so I will offer the minister proof from another text. Some of us might think it is a little less definitive, but given the minister's orientation, I'm sure he will accept this as the final word. It happens to be a document called Deficits and Taxes. It is a document that was published by the Progressive Conservative caucus at Queen's Park in the summer of 1992.

I assume that you will accept this as the definitive, final word, since you reject the constitutional law of Canada. This text defines direct tax as follows:

"A tax that is paid directly by the person or firm on which it is levied and which, generally speaking, is hard to shift to another person. Examples include personal and corporate income tax, capital gains tax, property tax and the retail sales tax."

Minister, in the face of this proof, will you do the honourable thing and resign, as you said you would?

Hon Mr Leach: I wish the honourable member across would read the entire bill. It says this legislation allows fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. That's what it says. Read it. It does not say, and it does not apply to, sales tax, gas tax, property tax or any of them. You are wrong.

Mrs McLeod: There are two things that have become abundantly clear over the course of the last two days. The first is that you are indeed wrong. On this particular issue the law is clear; your law, your proposed law, is clear. It allows for direct taxes. We do not need to talk about your intent or any clarification through future regulations. Your proposed law is clear; it is bad legislation and it will allow municipalities to levy head taxes and even go so far as to allow them to levy municipal taxes.

The second thing that has become abundantly clear is that you are a senior minister who is completely unfamiliar with a massive piece of legislation which will have wide-ranging effects on every city and town in this province, on every citizen. You have senior responsibilities for this legislation and you don't even appear to have read it or to understand it or even have the slightest grip of what its impact will be.

I will give you another opportunity, Minister: Do you have the guts to do the honourable thing and acknowledge that you are wrong, that this is bad legislation, withdraw it and offer your resignation to the Premier?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm going to repeat it one more time: Read the legislation. You are wrong. I'd ask you to resign if you were wrong, but you're on your way out anyway. This legislation is very, very specific. It speaks. The legislation allows fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. Read it.

1420

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): New question, third party.

Mr Bob Rae (York South): I'm sure we could all spend a great deal of time comparing legal opinions, but I'd like to ask the minister if he would have a look at another section of the act, which we didn't have a chance to look at yesterday, the section which permits the municipality to impose licences. In fact, it broadens the licensing power of the municipality.

On page 151 it says:

"(2) Without limiting...the power to license...and govern a business...includes,

"(f) the power to impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence, including conditions,

"(i) requiring the payment of licence fees, which may be in the nature of a tax for the privilege conferred by the licence or for the purpose of raising revenue."

In other words, a municipality can require that businesses hold licences with the municipality and it can then charge a tax on those businesses, which tax may take an additional form.

I wonder if the minister would not at least be prepared to admit in the House that the wording of that section clearly points to a broader power on the part of the municipality to levy a tax on business which could include business income.

Hon Mr Leach: What this section does, and again I shouldn't debate this because I'm not going to do it, but what it does --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Leach: -- legislation that's existing. It puts a limit on the licence fees that can be charged for certain businesses in a municipality. For example, for a bakery licence you can charge $1. That doesn't cover the cost of postage. This gives the municipalities the opportunity to license businesses and recover their costs.

Mr Rae: I'm sure we can debate legal opinions, but an opinion that has been reviewed that I obtained this morning from Professor Vern Krishna, who's the author of The Fundamentals of Canadian Income Tax and professor at the University of Ottawa law school, says as follows:

"In our view, the language of the bill may well be sufficiently specific and broadly drafted as to permit a municipality or local board to impose a fee or charge in the nature of an income tax or at very least to impose a fee or charge which varies depending upon a person's income."

Given those opinions, and opinions which I suspect will grow as more and more people have a chance to look at this bill, would the minister not at least admit that the wording of the act is sufficiently broad in its reference to direct taxes imposed by the municipality that if it is the intention of the government not to allow such attacks and if it is the intention of the government not to permit such attacks, which is what I understand the minister had to say yesterday in the scrum and the Premier had to say in a scrum this morning, I wonder why the minister wouldn't indicate today in the House that he is prepared to amend this legislation so that if there is any ambiguity or any misunderstanding, or any such possibility, he's prepared to change the law to make sure it doesn't do that.

Hon Mr Leach: I think that's why bills go to committee and I think that's why bills get clause-by-clause hearing. You take it to committee, you take it clause by clause so that you can look at that. You don't do it during question period.

By the way, this legislation was drafted by our lawyers. Our lawyers say that income tax is not an issue. It can't apply to this.

Mr Rae: Again, let's look at the wording of where we're at. The Constitution Act says that the province has the power to levy direct taxes for the purpose of provincial revenue. It uses that phrase. The phrase that's used here is a direct parallel to that phrase that's contained in the Constitution Act. It says here, "fees and charges that are in the nature of a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue."

If a municipality decided that it needed to raise additional revenue, let's just say to build subway lines, and it wasn't able to generate those funds from a provincial government because it refused to generate them, is the minister saying that it is not within the power of the municipality under this law to use its taxing power to generate the revenues, say, from the sale of gasoline at the pump within a municipality, in order to generate revenues for the subway? Are you saying that's not going to be possible and you're prepared to directly stop them from doing that?

Hon Mr Leach: The legislation, and again I guess it applies to both parties because they obviously didn't read the first sections, very clearly states that fees and charges can be applied to a service provided or done on behalf of a municipality. It does not apply to the circumstance the member indicated.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Rae: Well, no, it does. A subway is a service that's organized by a municipality and it's a service that is not being funded properly by the provincial government because of decisions that a provincial government has made, and a municipality under these powers might quite rightly say, "If we're going to build these subways, we're going to need to find a way to generate the revenues to do so, and therefore we're going to impose a tax within the municipality." What better way to impose a tax than for the municipality to tax gasoline or tax other forms of transportation or tax sales in some other form? Are you saying that it's your intention to stop them from doing that?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, because the act doesn't allow it. The act doesn't allow that kind of charge. Read it. It doesn't allow sales taxes, gas taxes or any of that type of tax, just by definition. I think you better go back to your lawyers and get them to look it over again. It's very clear to us.

Mr Rae: All I can say is, let's just say you're wrong and your lawyers aren't right, somebody else's lawyers are right, and the Attorney General in this instance is wrong, though I know he's been right in every other instance. Let's just say in this instance his advice is wrong. What I'm asking the minister today is to say: "We will not permit a municipality to raise those revenues. We will not permit a sales tax. We will not permit an income tax. We will not permit a gasoline tax. We will not permit a direct tax."

If you're not interested in permitting a direct tax, a poll tax or a head tax, why not say so and take the words "a direct tax for the purpose of raising revenue" out of the bill? It's not very difficult. Why not just do that?

Hon Mr Leach: That's precisely why the legislation was worded in this manner, to give municipalities the wherewithal to search for new sources of revenue. The manner in which the member opposite wants to do it is why we have an act now that's 900 pages thick. Let's give them the wherewithal to do the job. This legislation says: "Be imaginative. Search for new ways of revenues." This allows them to do it.

Mr Rae: Let me try again. I've read it several times, and I'm now putting it to you, Minister: Is it your intention, yes or no, to allow municipalities to raise new taxes in the form of direct taxes for the purposes of raising revenue? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Leach: This legislation allows for fees and charges to be applied to services provided by the municipality. That's exactly what it says. That's all they can charge for. That's why I keep suggesting that you read the bill. All of the issues that you're describing are not allowed under this legislation.

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing as well. It's kind of curious that you'd be talking about municipalities wasting and squandering their resources when you've been talking in this House about giving them more autonomy.

My question deals more with the question of the powers that you give yourself in this act, Minister. I wonder if you could explain to the House what powers you've given yourself, by way of regulations, to deal with those municipalities that are either voluntarily or involuntarily restructured. Could you explain to the House what those powers are?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): What we're doing is giving the municipalities the power to restructure. What we first want the municipalities to do is work together. If we find several municipalities want to restructure and one is having some problems with that, on the request of a municipality we would appoint a commission to assist them in that restructuring. The powers that I have are limited.

Mr Gerretsen: Oh, the powers that you have are limited? That just leads me right into my supplementary. I wonder if you could turn to pages 136 and 137, section 25.3, which deals with the commission that you could establish under the regulation. Let me just read this to you, sir.

Under subsection (7), and I'll make it as plain and simple as possible, it says: "The minister...may make regulations...that a municipality in a locality for which a commission has been established...shall obtain the approval of a person or body specified in the regulation" -- and that's where you come in -- "before exercising any of its powers under any act." Not this act but any act that a municipality operates under.

Why would you give a person that you appoint as a commissioner power to do in effect whatever a municipality can do, and why would the municipality have to get the consent of that person or commission before they can do anything whatsoever? Can you explain that?

Hon Mr Leach: The power that would be given to a commission, if a commission had to be appointed, if the municipalities couldn't work the restructuring out themselves -- and I'm sure many will, if not most -- is the same type of power that applies to the OMB at the present time. As a matter of fact, there wouldn't be any reason why the commission couldn't be appointed members of the OMB.

1430

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): To the Minister of Natural Resources: We have learned, Minister, that through the secret negotiations with the largest forest companies to give them control over all the crown forest management units, this will be the largest-ever giveaway of control over Ontario's crown forests in the history of the province; 2,337,000 hectares in the northwest. Why are you conducting these negotiations behind closed doors? Why haven't you made a public statement in the Legislature about these negotiations happening?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for the question. As he is well aware, we in the government are trying to reduce our costs. Every program that we deliver is being examined to see if we can deliver it better, more effectively and more efficiently at reduced prices.

I'm not aware of any formal negotiation process. There was a provision under the bill that the former government passed. I believe he's aware of it; it's called Bill 171, about sustainable forest licences. That's an ongoing routine procedure. I meet quite frequently with representatives of the forestry industry from individual companies. If there's going to be a change in the relationship in the forest industry with regard to crown land, we'll certainly make an announcement in the House at the appropriate time if that should occur, but I'm not aware of any ongoing negotiations at this time.

Mr Len Wood: I understand, Minister, that in the northwest near Sault Ste Marie you're negotiating with Provincial Paper, Yaeger, E.B. Eddy in the northeast near Red Lake, you're at Dryden and Fort Frances and you're negotiating with two large pulp and paper companies, Avenor and Stone Consolidated.

What the people of this province have been questioning is, why are you not consulting? When negotiations are taking place secretly behind closed doors, why are you not consulting with the independent organizations like the small loggers, small forest companies, the tourist associations, community forest products, first nations and environmental organizations? They should be advised and be able to take part in or at least observe the negotiations that are going on; there should not be secret negotiations being conducted behind closed doors which we have been told are happening.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As the member, a former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, knows, this is an ongoing process that started back in 1980 with forest management agreements. Under Bill 171 they're called sustainable forest licences, and he's referring to the transfer of forest management areas towards SFLs. That's a routine process under Bill 171 and that law applies to that process. That's quite legal.

There are provisions in that act that are being followed right now as we speak and that'll go on. It went on before my time and it'll go on into the future.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, constituents in my riding of Durham East have generally expressed to me their support for the elimination of the fifth year of high school and meaningful reform of the Ontario secondary school system. However, parents of those students entering grade 9 next year and in 1997 are concerned about the problems that will be faced when two graduating classes attempt to enter university in the year 2001.

What steps will the minister be taking to ensure that sufficient space and access to university education are available to these students?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Durham East for the excellent question. I know this is a subject that's on the minds of a lot of people across the province of Ontario and I'm sure the constituents in Durham East share those concerns.

As a matter of fact, both before I announced the restructuring of our secondary school system in Ontario a few weeks ago, before that announcement and immediately afterwards, I have talked to a variety of students who are in grades 7 and 8 and a variety of parents of students in grades 7 and 8 who are very concerned about the so-called double cohort of students who will be arriving in colleges and universities when we revise the secondary school program.

Part of the reason we announced the change to secondary school education a few weeks ago was to give these parents and students plenty of notice of our intention of changing the structure so that they could take some actions to mitigate the problems of a double cohort.

As the member may know, currently students can complete, under the current rules, their studies in high school under four years, and I'm sure many of those in grade 8 now will be encouraged to do so.

We are examining the option of full disclosure of marks for every course taken by high school students to help encourage them to move through the system as rapidly as is possible.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Wrap up your answer.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Yes, Mr Speaker. I'd also like to say that we have the colleges and universities on our advisory board who are helping us with this change in secondary school requirements, and I'm sure that they're aware of these problems.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the minister for a very thorough response to my question. Are there any historical precedents for the double cohort that we could learn from to address this problem in the future?

Hon Mr Snobelen: Surprisingly, there are a couple of examples of times when the university and college system in the province of Ontario has adopted a double cohort. For instance, after World War II the returning veterans from that war caused enrolment in universities to double and then double again. There was a similar significant increase in enrolment in universities in 1962 when the first of the baby-boomers hit the universities.

We have several examples of the universities of Ontario having a proven record of expanding their capacity to meet the needs of the young people of Ontario.

MUNICIPAL TAXATION

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. On Monday you were asked very directly in the House, "Does this bill permit a head tax?" My colleague from Kingston and The Islands asked you that question. You were very clear. You said, "Yes, it does permit a head tax."

The leader of the third party, Mr Rae, the very next day asked you the same question, "Does this bill, Bill 26, permit a head tax?" And you said, "Well, yes, as I said yesterday, it does."

Can you confirm to the House today what you said on Monday and what you said on Tuesday, and that is that this bill, Bill 26, does permit municipalities to introduce a head tax?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I wish the member had read the balance of Hansard. I said, and I'll repeat it again today, if a municipality wanted to stretch the legislation out of shape and take a very irresponsible action, they could do that, but I can assure you that if any municipality did that, we have the wherewithal to make sure that it doesn't get implemented.

Mr Phillips: Does this make any sense to any of you? I interpret you said, "Yes, the bill does permit a head tax, but we certainly wouldn't want anybody to introduce a head tax but we're giving them permission to do it."

I just want to confirm. I think what you said, although it's very difficult I think for the public to get any understanding of what you think, but here's what I believe you just said, "Yes, the bill does unequivocally give municipalities the legal right to introduce a head tax."

Will you simply confirm that for the House today, rather than waffling all over the place? Clearly this bill gives the right for municipalities to introduce a head tax. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Leach: What this legislation does is give the municipalities the ability to go out and look for new sources of revenue. We worded the legislation very specifically so that we don't put handcuffs on the municipalities as they do now. Right now the municipality cannot do anything. It can't charge more than $1 for a bakery licence; it can't charge more than $20 for a restaurant licence; it can't do any of it.

We specifically broadened the bill to give them the opportunity to look at it. By broadening the bill, as I said, if they twisted it totally out of shape -- and I know that they won't -- they could theoretically have a head tax, but I know they won't.

1440

CONSULTATION WITH FIRE DEPARTMENTS

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services. One of the many aspects of Bill 26, the omnibus bill, is proposed changes to the Fire Departments Act. In a video prepared for a firefighter conference in April 1995, just before the provincial election, Mike Harris, the Premier, had this to say about the Fire Departments Act: "We have serious concerns about some of the changes that are being contemplated with respect to the Fire Departments Act. No changes will be made under a Harris government until such time as your members have been thoroughly consulted, and we will insist that all changes be fully costed, both from the point of view of workers as well as management." The government also answered a questionnaire that was sent to all parties in the same way.

Mr Minister, the amendments in Bill 26 would require arbitrators to consider the employer's ability to pay, the possibility of reduced services and the economic environment when deciding on wages, a definite change to the Fire Departments Act. I understand you're meeting today with firefighters or have met today with firefighters, and it might be interesting to hear what you had to say, but my question is, would you explain whether you consulted prior to the introduction of this bill with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters or the fire chiefs before you introduced the omnibus bill?

Hon Bob Runciman (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I want to indicate that in six months in office, we've done significantly more consultation with the fire services than your government did in four and a half years in office. We've also made a clear commitment with respect to changes to the fire services act. As you know, the fire marshal conducted a review of fire services. That's gone out to all of the stakeholders. We're asking for responses by the end of this year.

We've made a commitment to have a standing committee of this Legislature, if we get the support of the two parties across the floor, to have the fire service recommendations reviewed by a committee of this Legislature, with the intent and the hope to have changes submitted in the form of legislation to the House in the fall of 1996.

In terms of changes, all I want to say is that this government came into office with a clear impression based on the statements made by the Treasurer of the former government of the kind of deficit we would be facing. We found out when we came into office that it was significantly higher than what your Treasurer was saying months before the election. We were faced with a financial crisis that you left on our doorstep.

Mrs Boyd: I'm delighted that the answer of the minister clearly corroborates what the professional firefighters have to say in their letter which they sent to the minister on December 6, in which he says: "There was absolutely no consultation with the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters. Indeed, our federation was never notified that the act was going to be altered as part of the government's recent economic statement."

The minister has made a claim that he has made a commitment to consult with firefighters in the province around the fire marshal's report. He indicates that he's going to go ahead with that kind of consultation. What he doesn't tell us is that it is ironic, says the president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Fire Fighters, that the fire marshal, in his report, this report on which there's supposed to be so much consultation, advises that recommendation 14, items for consideration by arbitrators, not be instituted. Yet to date this is the very recommendation, the only recommendation, that the provincial government has chosen to implement.

So it's another example of how this government promised to consult before it got into office and simply railroads things through once it's in.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Put your question, please.

Mrs Boyd: Can the Solicitor General explain why the government didn't consult with the stakeholders involved or the opposition when it clearly committed to doing so during the election, and where is the costing that it committed to do from the perspective of both the employer and the employee?

Hon Mr Runciman: We've talked in general terms with respect to the issue of interest arbitration, and certainly I'm very much aware of the concerns of both the policing community and the fire community with respect to interest arbitration. So there was no misunderstanding. I knew where the firefighters' association stood in respect to this issue --

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): By mental telepathy. You never talked to them about it.

Hon Mr Runciman: We did discuss this issue in general terms. I'm aware of their concerns. I want to say that the changes that have been brought in with respect to this does not require an arbitrator to have a decision reflect A, B, C and D; he will only be required to consider certain issues.

Again, I want to say that our government was faced with very difficult financial circumstances. You don't want to hear this, but you ran up $10-billion deficits year over year over year. You don't want to hear that. You don't want to listen to that. You left us a financial mess. We have to deal with it, and we have to have the tools available to deal with it.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): My question is directed to the Minister of Labour.

Interjection.

Mr Shea: It's a pretty heavy-duty one, member.

Minister, yesterday you made a statement in the House about the Provincial Auditor's report on the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. Now, this report raises a number of serious concerns about the conduct of those at an agency, an agency reportedly out of control. You spoke about lavish meal claims, untendered contracts, inordinate amounts of severance agreements and leased vehicles and many other troubling irregularities. In light of the auditor's damning report, can you tell us what steps, if any, have been taken to address these concerns?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): Since August 24 of this year, we have taken action to deal with the problems at the agency, and as you have indicated, the auditor has certainly demonstrated that there was good reason to disband the agency, as we did.

We have dismissed the assistant vice-chairs of both labour and management. We have dismissed the chief operating officer. There were severance agreements that had been initiated with the two vice-chairs, the assistants; those have been terminated. Also, the employment contract with the chief operating officer has been terminated.

We have also given instruction that the excess TV cable outlets that were not being used be disconnected. There were three reception areas. We have given instruction that there only be one area of reception. We have indicated there be no more expensive lunches and dinners. We have terminated the leases on the five cars which were never authorized.

The interim director, Mr Gladstone, is continuing to follow through to take the appropriate action because, as you know, this was employers' money, and it has been totally and unfortunately very mismanaged.

Mr Shea: In light of that response, the auditor's damning report of the shameful operation also suggested there were tendering problems and overspending that was something in the order of $4.1 million in surplus payment to organizations doing business with the agency. Minister, what, if anything, are you doing to ensure recovery of those funds?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, it certainly was an overspending that was very, very serious, and so what we have done is we have begun to identify the amount of money that was overbilled to the agency. As was indicated, it is in the millions of dollars. What we intend to do is we intend to use holdbacks as a lever to settle those outstanding amounts. We are quite optimistic that we can recover some of that money. We will be using every means possible in order that the employers can be assured that the money that can be recovered will be.

1450

WASTE TRANSFER APPLICATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is to the Premier. For some time now, Metro Toronto has wanted to open a waste transfer station. In order to do that, they needed a certificate of approval from the Minister of Environment and Energy.

On October 25, the ministry rejected Metro's application for the certificate of approval. On November 7, your office contacted the approvals branch, and this sparked an internal memo, which reads in part:

"Urgent. Urgent.

"The Premier's office wants to know: What did Metro need to submit that they didn't submit? Had we given them any prior indications that their application might be turned down? What requirements would Metro now have to fulfil in order to get a certificate of approval?"

It turns out that the company which will haul the waste from the waste transfer station -- if it opens -- is Jarsno Equipment Inc. Jarsno would lose money if the waste transfer station didn't open and it would make money if it did open. Of greater interest here is that the president of Jarsno is Valerie Snobelen, the wife of the Minister of Education and Training.

Premier, do you believe that in all the circumstances, it was prudent for your office to get involved in this matter? Do you approve of the actions taken by your staff?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I don't know anything about the application, but the minister may. I'll refer the question to her.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Environment and Energy): It is not uncommon for a request to be made from one office to another, either the Premier's to mine or mine to other ministers' offices.

With regard to this particular circumstance, any application that comes before the Ministry of Environment and Energy with regard to a request for permission or a certificate of approval of operation is dealt with as any other matter would be dealt with, regardless of who's involved.

Mr McGuinty: I'm surprised to learn that the Premier is not prepared to assume responsibility for his own office. I want to focus a moment just on the appearances.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy receives about 8,000 applications each year for certificates of approval. For some reason, Premier, your office involved itself in this one. On the face of it, it was a purely routine application.

A closer examination reveals two facts: A company stands to gain if a certificate is issued, and that company has as its president Valerie Snobelen, who's married to a senior cabinet minister in your cabinet. Finally, the records show that before you involved yourself in this matter, the Ministry of Environment had rejected the application. After your involvement, the application was granted.

Mr Speaker, through you, through the minister and back to the Premier: Premier, don't you agree that given these facts, they at a minimum give rise to an appearance of impropriety and that because of this, your office should never have gotten involved in this matter?

Hon Mrs Elliott: Again, with regard to any request for information, whether it comes from the Premier's office or any other minister's office, they are dealt with in the same way. I'm not aware of this particular circumstance. I can request that information and will certainly share that information with the member. Every application is dealt with in the same way they all are dealt with; there are very prescribed rules and this one will be no exception to that.

SNOW REMOVAL

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I listened to CBC Radio this morning, and I want to share with you some comments I heard.

Some municipalities might have to raise their municipal taxes to cope with the snow removal budget, winter maintenance. Let me give you a couple of examples. Owen Sound right now is $200,000 over budget and winter is just beginning. Orillia last year at this time had spent $38,000; this year they've spent $150,000. Let's get things straight. You're about to cut their maintenance program by up to 50%, and your Premier and this government have said they are opposed to municipalities raising taxes. What gives here?

Under Bill 26, and it's not that far-fetched, will the government compel the municipalities to have a user fee, that if there's a snowfall you will have a snow tax? Come to your senses, Minister. It will snow for as long as the sun shines and the river flows. Will you not come to your senses and give people the same money that we gave them when we were the government and that the Liberals did too?

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The question has been asked.

Mr Pouliot: This is force majeure. They need the public dollars for that essential service, to save lives, to keep people going from their home to hospitals, from their home to their work. Will you make a commitment? You have that power, Minister. It's up to you. Yes or no, will you do that?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I apologize to the House. I didn't quite understand all the questions Mr Pouliot asked. If he would actually clarify the question for me, I would appreciate it. I didn't quite understand what you are asking this minister.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Maybe to clarify and to be a little bit more specific, I have a supplementary for the same minister.

I have a letter here from Antoinette Blunt, executive director of the Victorian Order of Nurses, Algoma branch. The letter is dated December 11, and it says:

"VON nurses in the Algoma branch have been unable to visit over 100 patients in their homes over the past three days due to the weather and the fact that many of the roads have not been properly cleared of the snow....

"Many VON patients [are] diabetics who need insulin and terminally ill patients who may be on pain pumps....

"People such as those in the cases noted above cannot be left stranded in their homes because care providers cannot reach them due to the fact that roads are not properly cleared of snow. I urge you to request that the city of Sault Ste Marie and the province of Ontario rethink the cutbacks to snow removal in northern Ontario. This issue must be dealt with now."

The Speaker: Put your question.

Mr Martin: The VON operates on both municipal and provincial roads. This situation has happened before your municipal road budget cuts of almost 50% kick in. Mr Minister, will you rescind your decision?

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to inform the honourable member that, number one, there were no reductions to municipalities this year.

But I would like to address the problem he seems to be encountering. We've had a tremendous amount of snowfall, and as a matter of fact I really believe that the Ministry of Transportation deserves a tremendous amount of credit for the jobs that actually were done.

I would like to add that we have been saying all along that this government is prepared to make sure that the standards of winter maintenance are not lowered in any way. If it's going to snow, I can assure the honourable member and all Ontarians that we will remove the snow.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, as you know, in our recent economic statement of last month, the government made junior kindergarten a local option for school boards. I have met with both students and teachers and our school board in Brantford and they still have some questions with respect to our position on JK. I ask if you could clarify our position with respect to junior kindergarten, in particular the changes we made and the effect they have on the basic per-pupil grant for those in JK.

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for Brantford for the question because it gives me another chance to elaborate on our program of junior kindergarten across the province.

As the member knows, we have been listening to and consulting parents and students and boards of education across the province, including the Brant County Board of Education, and the member has represented their views to me over the past few months.

Simply put, we are keeping our commitments in the area of junior kindergarten. We promised the people of Ontario that we would review junior kindergarten, do a complete program review, and that while we did that review we'd make it a local option for boards. We are doing that.

We are also funding junior kindergarten. Now, there was some misinformation about our intention to fund junior kindergarten. Some of the questions here in this chamber a few months ago would indicate that we are abandoning junior kindergarten. In fact, we're going to make it a true local option. We are going to apply the same basic per-pupil grant to junior kindergarten as all the other programs for all the other children in the school. That is making it a true local option.

1500

Mr Ron Johnson: I want to thank the minister for his answer. It's certainly encouraging to see that our commitment in terms of the per-pupil grant is still intact.

I think we need to be very, very clear about this. The financial constraints that were foisted upon local school boards as a result of the New Democrats imposing mandatory JK have directly hindered the ability of school boards, including the Brant County Board of Education, to provide high-quality education for the people in my community, and I think it's refreshing for our school board in Brant county to know it now has the local option with respect to junior kindergarten.

Given the change in the funding formula, what alternative programs is your ministry encouraging for those boards who still wish to offer junior kindergarten?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I appreciate the member's comments. Certainly this government is very concerned with offering the boards help and assistance, listening to their needs, working on options that are applicable from different boards in different parts of this province.

In terms of the alternatives available on junior kindergarten, I believe a variety of boards are exploring a variety of different methods of offering junior kindergarten, including some boards that offer alternative full-day junior kindergarten because that meets the needs of the parents in their community best.

We look forward to consulting with the boards, with the directors of education and with parents and students across the province to create a better program of education for the young people in Ontario.

HIGHWAY 17

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question follows up on the question from the members for Lake Nipigon and Sault Ste Marie, and it's to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, on November 22, the Solicitor General in this House said he would sit down with you to discuss the extreme and dangerous road conditions of Highway 17, particularly between Kenora and Vermilion Bay. I would like to know today how those discussions have developed and what you can tell us about the improvement of those conditions of Highway 17 between Vermilion Bay and Kenora.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I would like to share with the honourable member that the Solicitor General and I certainly did discuss that, and there is conversation going with the OPP officers as well as MTO officials in regard to Highway 17. I have not quite made it up there, but I am going to drive Highway 17 for myself.

One thing I want to say to the honourable member is that we have been in government for approximately six months. His government knew back then when they were in power that Highway 17 was a problem. I'm going to say this to you, that we are going to take a look at exactly what can be done. Highway 17, I'm told, has certain areas that could be looked at for redesigning. I want to say to the member that we will take a look at how we can prioritize and improve Highway 17.

Mr Miclash: Minister, let me tell you that we are not looking for a four-lane highway across northwestern Ontario. All I'm discussing with you are two proposals, two phases that have already been put on your desk, phase 1 and phase 2, to redevelop the highway between Vermilion Bay and Kenora. All it needs is your go-ahead.

This arrived on my desk the other day: "I drove the Ontario death strip and survived: Vermilion Bay-Kenora."

I want you to tell me that you have in mind the best interests of the OPP serving that stretch of the highway and those residents who have to drive that stretch of the highway every day. I want you to commit to phase 1 and phase 2 of the redevelopment of that highway here today.

Hon Mr Palladini: I understand that you care about Highway 17. I want you to know that we care as well. We care for the safety of all Ontarians who are going to use that highway.

Like I said, we have been in government for six months. Between the Liberal and the NDP governments, they have put us into a $100-billion debt. We must prioritize, and we will get to Highway 17.

CHILD CARE

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you would be aware that the federal government today made a major announcement on a national child care program which offers moneys to the provincial government to expand affordable, quality child care. Can the minister confirm that Ontario's position is that they will not participate in that program? Is that the position you've already taken?

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): Absolutely not. All along, we have been corresponding with Mr Axworthy, and the last point of contact we had -- our officials have been meeting as well, but the difficulty right now in dealing with Mr Axworthy is trying to determine exactly what he means. It's quite similar to the way we normally deal with Liberals around here. At least with the third party, we know where you guys stand. With Mr Axworthy, I don't know where he is from day to day.

I have some support from the third party here. They're all going like this.

In any event, we are prepared to discuss the issue with Mr Axworthy. In fact, we are in the process of doing that right now.

Mr Cooke: If he wants to talk about members of the Legislature who waffle and can't seem to answer a question, he might want to talk to the member who's just a couple of seats down from him, the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I'd like to ask for a more definitive answer from the Minister of Community and Social Services. Is it the minister's position, the government's position, that you support an expansion of quality, regulated child care in this province and that it is your intention to work towards an agreement with the federal government that will involve provincial dollars and federal dollars to join in on the national child care program?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: As the honourable member is quite aware, we are undergoing a review of the child care area. Once again, I'll mention my parliamentary assistant, Janet Ecker, who's actually chairing this review.

In terms of the actual question and some of the national views that people may have, the honourable member will be quite interested to know that at the interprovincial ministers' meeting for community and social services there still hasn't been a consensus in this area from that group itself. What we are trying to do right now is meet with Mr Axworthy and discuss what's best for Ontario, in the light of our review of child care. Quite frankly, we are trying to provide better choice for parents and we want to level the playing field. We're clear about that.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, I rise today regarding your pending Mining Act reforms proposed under your now infamous Bill 26. You may know about the well-publicized mining rogue who continues to thumb his nose at the US Environmental Protection Agency from his new home in Singapore. His name is Robert Friedland.

Mr Friedland, in a recent Globe and Mail article, was described as a former co-chair of Galactic Resources, which has since cost the taxpayers of Colorado approximately $150 million in cleanup costs because his company walked away from an environmental disaster. It has come to my attention that Mr Friedland now has a controlling interest in an approximately 55,000-acre claim now being worked in northern Ontario.

What assurances can you give the taxpayers of this province that they will not be stuck with a huge multimillion-dollar cleanup cost associated with an unscrupulous investor who cannot be trusted to regulate himself as your proposed reforms state?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to assure the House and all the people of Ontario that the assurances will be better as a result of these amendments to the act than they were before. I can't comment on the specific individual case, but I can assure the House, and the member in particular, that the environmental standards are retained with the amendments to the act.

What we're doing is we're going to enforce the standards with an audit of the ones we think pose a substantial risk. For the rest, they will be self-assured with the pollute-or-pay principle. But the standards, let me reassure the House, are intact and this government is committed to the environmental integrity of our environment.

1510

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern region of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I've affixed my name to this petition as well.

CHILD CARE

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a petition in support of family resource programs.

"We, the undersigned, are firmly opposed to the erosion of the child care system. We are most particularly concerned about the unregulated child care sector, which represents the choice of most Ontario families, many living in rural areas. We urge this government to make its budget reduction in areas where children and families will not once again be the targets of cuts. Family resource programs support the informal sector of child care, which includes parents caring for their own children and care provided by grandparents, home child care providers and nannies."

There are hundreds and hundreds of people from the town of Hearst who have signed this petition, and I affix my name to the petition.

TAX REDUCTION

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

"We, the undersigned, request that the Legislature of Ontario not approve any tax cuts until the causes of poverty and unemployment in Ontario are dealt with effectively and until the province's debt and deficit are paid down."

CHILD CARE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition from the Orleans Cooperative Nursery School.

"Whereas all of society has a responsibility for the wellbeing of all children;

"Whereas high-quality child care should be accessible and affordable to all children of Ontario when the family needs it or chooses to use it;

"Whereas a comprehensive child care system is a key component of the province's social and economic development;

"Whereas deep cuts to social programs will have a severe impact on all Ontarians, particularly women, children and poor families;

"Therefore, I join the people of Ontario in petitioning the provincial government. I am opposed to the following reductions as they would have a serious and unfavourable impact on the quality and availability of the care and education of the young children of Ontario:

"Any intention to reduce the direct operating and wage enhancement grants.

"Past and further reduction and elimination of provincial funding for subsidized child care spaces in the province.

"The cancellation of the conversion program assisting for-profit centres to become non-profit centres.

"Any further review of legislation for child care with the intent of reducing standards and quality care.

"Continued reduction in funding to those organizations such as child integration services, child care information services, resource centres that provide support."

TAX REDUCTION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I have a petition signed by members of the Bathurst United Church, which reads:

I affix my signature to that.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee has recommended that North York Branson Hospital merge with York-Finch hospital;

"Whereas this recommendation will remove emergency and inpatient services currently provided by North York Branson Hospital, which will seriously jeopardize medical care and the quality of health for the growing population which the hospital serves, many being elderly people who in numerous cases require treatment for life-threatening medical conditions;

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to reject the recommendation contained within the final report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council hospital restructuring committee as it pertains to North York Branson Hospital, so that it retains, at minimum, emergency and inpatient services."

I've affixed my signature.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Further petitions?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I have a petition here concerning some of the cuts to education.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin: I wish to express my complete disapproval --

The Speaker: Order. It's not allowed in the House. Further petitions?

Interjections.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I know that the members are very interested in these petitions and I would think that we could have some order here to listen to them.

"Whereas the government is going to open a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations and hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are existing facilities right now that could be expanded to access and treat the criminally insane; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not education providers, not child care providers, not even the local member of provincial Parliament;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the PC government of Ontario and the Minister of Health" -- who's sitting right over there -- "to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded hospital until a public consultation process is completed."

I've signed my name to this document.

UNIVERSITY FINANCING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I want to express, on behalf of about 1,000 people from the York University community, complete disapproval with the government's planned funding cuts to higher education.

"Universities are already seriously underfunded. Further cuts will hurt the quality of teaching and research, limit accessibility, increase fees and student debt, and put many jobs in jeopardy throughout the university system.

"I urge you to stop all cuts to higher education funding. Ontario's future depends on the quality and accessibility of its education system."

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Thanks for the banner.

Mr Martin: Yes, and the banner from students who are concerned about their increase in tuition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I have a petition here for the Legislature of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to continue the funding for junior kindergarten programs for all school boards. We sincerely believe that these programs are essential to the positive development of children and cannot condone the elimination of them should funding be denied."

I have here the signatures from many people within my riding, Holland Landing and many other communities as well.

CLOSURE OF ONTARIO WELCOME HOUSE

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): This is to the Legislature and particularly the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

"We, the undersigned, protest the closure of Ontario Welcome House. The loss of these vital services will make it extremely difficult for us, new Canadians in Hamilton-Wentworth and southwestern region, to participate fully in this community and reduce our chance of getting decent jobs. We're particularly concerned that these cuts to the services come at a time when other community services are also being cut."

It is with pleasure that I add my signature to the petition.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): On behalf of these residents:

"We are requesting that the Harris government not proceed with the proposed cuts to child care system. These cuts will hurt children, parents, child care staff and local communities. Without standards, children will get lower quality care. Without provincial funding for child care, regulated, non-profit child care services will collapse. Parents who want regulated care won't be able to access it. Parents on social assistance will be forced to enrol in workfare/learnfare programs or lose all their benefits. They will be left with no alternatives but to place their children in unsafe care. Communities also lose when jobs are lost, and community investment disappears."

There are some thousands of signatures affixed, and I add mine.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): In addition to the 2,000 signatures I've already presented, I have another 200 to add from the Hamilton and Niagara community.

"Whereas the funding for social services in the centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara has been cut by 100%; and

"Whereas the French Language Services Act ensures the deliver of French-language social and health services to francophones in designated cities such as Hamilton, Welland and Port Colborne; and

"Whereas the needs and feasibility studies carried out after the implementation of the French Language Services Act recommended the establishment of community health centres in the regions of Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara to ensure delivery of French-language services; and

"Whereas the health centres are the only organizations ensuring the delivery of social services in French, since there are no designated bilingual positions in the other organizations of these designated cities;

1520

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

"We demand that the Legislative Assembly immediately stop its attack on French-language services in Ontario. The centres de santé communautaire of Hamilton and Niagara are the only agencies offering French-language social services because there are no bilingual designated positions in the other agencies in our communities;

"We expect the Legislative Assembly to demonstrate clearly that Franco-Ontarians are an integral part of the province of Ontario, to immediately review the cuts which have affected those health centres and to re-establish the funding of social services and ensure the future of social services and health services in French in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara community centres."

I affix my signature.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition carrying a large number of names from the communities of Dubreuilville and Wawa. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services; and

"Whereas such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers."

I've affixed my signature to this, and for the information of the assembly, I also have letters from the municipality, the ambulance service and the medical centre that support this petition.

COMMENTS OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): "Whereas six women present at a meeting held by the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham, at her constituency office on October 25, 1995, agree that they heard the minister state, `Within the context of this government, you need to understand that groups or agencies that are seen not to be working with this government, providing an oppositional voice...will be audited and their funding eliminated'; and

"Whereas the minister responsible for women's issues denies having made this statement;

"We, the undersigned, request that the government establish a legislative committee to determine whether the minister responsible for women's issues abused her authority as a minister of the crown by making threatening and intimidating remarks at the meeting described above."

I sign my name to this petition.

BETHLEHEM PLACE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to members of the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas Bethlehem Place in St Catharines has provided a vital and useful service to the people of the Niagara region; and

"Whereas Bethlehem Place has provided second-stage housing counselling services in an effective and efficient manner and turned around the lives of many who have been dependent on social service payments; and

"Whereas Bethlehem Place, which was established with widespread community and church support, enjoys continued support from the people of St Catharines and the Niagara region;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the government of Ontario reinstate the funding for counselling services at Bethlehem Place in St Catharines."

I affix my signature to this petition as I agree with its contents.

COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas Mike Harris said on May 30, 1995, `If I don't live up to anything that I have promised to do and committed to do, I will resign'; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised on May 3, 1995, `No cuts to health care spending,' but in his November 29 economic statement we see $1.3 billion or 18% in cuts to hospital spending over the next three years and a further $225 million in cuts from the health care budget; and

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in the Common Sense Revolution that, `Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut,' but in his November 29 economic statement Mike Harris is cutting the Ontario drug benefit plan and making seniors and the vulnerable pay for their drugs; and

"Whereas Mike Harris has clearly broken his promise to seniors and the disabled;

"We, the undersigned, demand that Mike Harris keep his word and resign immediately."

That is signed by over 40 members in my riding and I have affixed my signature to it. I agree with the petitioners.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I have a petition from the Amalgamated Transit Union in Thunder Bay, the men and women who drive our public transit.

"We, the undersigned from Local 1374, Amalgamated Transit Union, are gravely concerned that the Ministry of Transportation is intent on reducing northern winter road maintenance services and feel that such downgrading places the lives of northern residents at undue and unnecessary risk;

"We therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these reductions in service and to guarantee that winter roads across the northern regions of the province receive the necessary maintenance to ensure the safe passage of drivers and passengers."

I sign my name.

CHILD CARE

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Community and Social Services is apparently intent on replacing child care subsidies with a voucher system; and

"Whereas the voucher system will discriminate against families presently utilizing subsidies in child care centres across the province;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to disallow these cuts to this critical economic investment in our communities across the province and to guarantee the current child care subsidy system remains funded and supported."

This is signed by hundreds of individuals, and I affix my signature to it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Martin from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's third report.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 15, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 15, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): As previously agreed to last night, this will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1527 to 1532.

The Speaker: Would the members take their seats, please.

All those in favour of this motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted	Harnick, Charles	Ross, Lillian
Baird, John R.	Harris, Michael D.	Runciman, Bob
Barrett, Toby	Hastings, John	Sampson, Rob
Bassett, Isabel	Hodgson, Chris	Saunderson, William
Beaubien, Marcel	Jackson, Cameron	Shea, Derwyn
Brown, Jim	Johns, Helen	Sheehan, Frank
Carr, Gary	Johnson, David	Skarica, Toni
Carroll, Jack	Johnson, Ron	Smith, Bruce
Chudleigh, Ted	Kells, Morley	Snobelen, John
Clement, Tony	Klees, Frank	Spina, Joseph
DeFaria, Carl	Leach, Al	Sterling, Norman W.
Doyle, Ed	Leadston, Gary L.	Stewart, R. Gary
Ecker, Janet	Martiniuk, Gerry	Tsubouchi, David H.
Elliott, Brenda	Munro, Julia	Turnbull, David
Fisher, Barbara	Murdoch, Bill	Vankoughnet, Bill
Flaherty, Jim	Mushinski, Marilyn	Villeneuve, Noble
Fox, Gary	Newman, Dan	Wettlaufer, Wayne
Froese, Tom	O'Toole, John	Wilson, Jim
Galt, Doug	Ouellette, Jerry J.	Witmer, Elizabeth
Gilchrist, Steve	Palladini, Al	Wood, Bob
Grimmett, Bill	Parker, John L.	Young, Terence H.
Guzzo, Garry J.	Preston, Peter
Hardeman, Ernie	Rollins, E.J. Douglas

The Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic	Gerretsen, John	McLeod, Lyn
Bartolucci, Rick	Grandmaître, Bernard	Miclash, Frank
Boyd, Marion	Gravelle, Michael	Patten, Richard
Bradley, James J.	Hampton, Howard	Phillips, Gerry
Brown, Michael A.	Hoy, Pat	Pouliot, Gilles
Caplan, Elinor	Kormos, Peter	Pupatello, Sandra
Christopherson, David	Kwinter, Monte	Rae, Bob
Cleary, John C.	Lalonde, Jean-Marc	Ruprecht, Tony
Colle, Mike	Lankin, Frances	Sergio, Mario
Cooke, David S.	Marchese, Rosario	Silipo, Tony
Crozier, Bruce	Martel, Shelley
Duncan, Dwight	Martin, Tony

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

JOB QUOTAS REPEAL ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 ABROGEANT LE CONTINGENTEMENT EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 8, An Act to repeal job quotas and to restore merit-based employment practices in Ontario / Projet de loi 8, Loi abrogeant le contingentement en matière d'emploi et rétablissant en Ontario les pratiques d'emploi fondées sur le mérite.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): There'll be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Would members agree to the same vote on this particular bill?

The Speaker: It's agreed? Same vote.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 67; the nays are 34.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, in the absence of the House leader, before I call the first order, and I beg your indulgence, I would indicate to the House the business for the rest of today as we intend to call it:

Second reading of Bill 5, the Shortline Railways Act; then second reading Bill 6, the Corporations Information Amendment Act; then second reading of Bill 23, the Victims' Bill of Rights. Then we would go into committee of the whole on those respective bills in that order, and then we would call those bills for third reading in that order. If there's any time left today, we would then call second reading of the planning act, Bill 20.

SHORTLINE RAILWAYS ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LES CHEMINS DE FER D'INTÉRÊT LOCAL

Mr Palladini moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 5, An Act respecting Shortline Railways / Projet de loi 5, Loi concernant les chemins de fer d'intérêt local.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): The goal of this bill is to increase investment by making it easier to create shortline railways in Ontario.

Shortline rail delivers what the private sector needs. It provides quality transportation service, it brings prosperity, and it leads to the creation of jobs. The Harris government is committed to promoting investment and returning Ontario to its former position as a place of growth and opportunity.

For too long, Ontario government policies have prevented the creation of new short lines. In today's competitive climate, that simply doesn't make sense. Our government has shown that it's serious about making Ontario a great place to invest once again, and Bill 5 is one of the ways we will do it.

I want to give you some of the background that will explain the need for this bill. First of all, Ontario has not updated its rail laws since 1950. Of course, much has changed since then. Today, large rail companies are abandoning lines or sections of lines that they can no longer run at a profit, and the federal government is rewriting the rules that major rail companies have to follow if they want to abandon any part of their current service.

1540

Recently I made a presentation to the federal standing committee on transport, which is looking into these changes and I told them that the Harris government wants to make sure that Ontario still has the level of rail service it needs.

One reason that Ottawa is reviewing rail policy is because the national rail network in Canada is too large for its current workload. This is especially true in eastern Canada. In this part of the country, with about 40% of major companies, the network handles about 90% of the traffic.

This reality has led to the creation of several short lines in Canada over the past five years, but the shift to short lines has also meant changes at the community level. A community or a rail user facing the possibility of abandonment has two choices: accept the bad news as inevitable or see it as a challenge. I am happy to report that our legislation will allow more of them to choose the second option. That's because a short line offers many things that larger services do not: flexibility, lower operating costs and service that's better tailored to the needs of small users.

They are important for many other reasons. For example, shortline operators will often buy the products and services they need close to home, creating an extra boost for the local economy.

Let me give you an example. In 1992, the Goderich-Exeter railway in southwestern Ontario began operating with eight employees. Today it has 12. The company has supported and continues to support the economy of Goderich by opening up protected markets for a wide range of local products.

The president of Railtex, which owns the Goderich-Exeter line, has written me a letter. The letter says his company is prepared to expand its investment in Ontario. He's looked at the changes we want to make and he likes what he sees.

What he sees is an environment that encourages investment, improves efficiency and reduces red tape. The goal is lower costs. That will show potential shortline investors like Railtex why they do well in Ontario. It also invites local investors to consider looking at short lines. Companies like Railtex told us that Bill 40 was a major hurdle in the creation of short lines. So was the red tape and bureaucracy they faced in setting up these new businesses. That's why we have taken steps to reduce the barriers to business and economic growth.

We know that shortline rail service means jobs. In Canada and the United States, short lines have created or preserved thousands of jobs in the past decade. We also know that Ontario has the potential for as many as 10 of these lines. That is a significant number. Every time an operation starts, every time a job is protected, that adds to our province's bottom line.

The opposition will say there are no guarantees that short lines will lead to job creation. To them I say, the only guarantee we have is that without this legislation the services and the jobs that go with them will almost certainly disappear.

This bill gives us tools to forge agreements with the federal government so that Ottawa's rules and regulations on rail safety can also apply in Ontario. This does several things: It ensures that Ontario conforms to national rail safety standards -- our province in fact is leading the movement towards national harmonization of railway safety regulations -- it cuts down on costly duplication of expertise at the provincial level, and best of all, the cost associated with rail safety will be carried by the railways, not Ontario taxpayers.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): In speaking to the shortline railway bill, I'd like to mention that our party certainly agrees that anything we can do that encourages the private industry to involve itself in shortline railway is applauded. Specific to the bill as it's outlined, we do have a couple of concerns. I'd like to identify those.

In the railways act as it's written, clause 5(2)(a), the requirements for companies entering into the industry, it's quoted as requiring "adequate liability insurance." What the act doesn't specify is what that definition is of adequate liability insurance. We should be getting some kind of notation of that. As you may know, in the railway industry there are few insurance companies who are available to offer insurance to these companies. Depending on what that definition of "adequate" is going to be, what likely will happen is that these private firms will have their insurance rates go through the roof and ultimately could not afford the insurance that would be offered.

Understanding too that the Ontario government is currently in negotiation with the federal government regarding regulations as they would apply to shortline railway -- and we understand that those are in draft form now -- the Ontario provincial government is apparently agreeing to adopt them, whatever that form may eventually be. We should know now then that there are some elements in that federal draft regulation that include information that's quoted as "type and volume of traffic carrying dangerous commodities," and that may be one of the definitions that would require adequate liability insurance.

Again, we need further clarification and definition of what would constitute a dangerous commodity. That kind of small statement that's in the act, again, is going to cause probably undue hardship on smaller firms which would have to acquire whatever that adequate level of insurance is. That indeed is the concern out there in the industry.

Additional concerns that we should raise -- and I think the government members too would want to acknowledge that we do want to level the playing field for the transportation industry, one of those being railway. What we've missed are some important points that would allow far more equity in the transportation industry. If we had to compare, for example, shortline railway versus the trucking industry, what the public may not know is that shortline railroads pay municipal taxes, property taxes, along all of the railway property. Trucking firms, for example, don't pay additional taxes to be on the road. All of Ontario taxpayers pay for that.

As another comparison, shortline railway firms pay for the railway upkeep; in fact, they are charged with the duty of paying for the rail, paying for the upkeep of it, as opposed to trucking firms, which of course don't pay property tax on roads.

Certainly we are looking at those kinds of equities that perhaps the minister could in the future address that would make it even more fair for shortline railway to enter into a level playing field in the transportation industry.

We should note that all along, up until recently, with the introduction of toll roads, for example, every new addition of a highway always was a further impediment to the shortline railway industry. In fact, the discussions that are going on now in the trucking industry that may eventually allow for double-barrelled trucks, longer loads, in Ontario, too causes more competition for the railway, causes additional fraction on the roads. You'll see the barrelling or bowling on highways because the trucks are much heavier than they ever were. What that does is put additional moneys from Ontario taxpayers, much of which of course is paid by shortline railway too, and of course we're not allowing for any further kinds of concessions for the railway industry.

Overall we're in support of the motion. I think that in keeping with more of the dogma of government we want to encourage fair competition in the transportation industry. The minister would be wise to continue to look at making the transportation industry more equitable, even for the shortline railway.

1550

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): I listened carefully to the words preceding second reading of Bill 5, An Act respecting Shortline Railways. I couldn't help but remind myself of what used to be the national dream, what was an instrument to not only unite the country if you go back some years; in fact, if you go back to the very first days of Confederation, ones Pierre Berton has written so much about, and so rightly so. Over the years I too have watched with some chagrin the national dream becoming a national nightmare.

The minister opposite will have us believe that salvation, free enterprise, has come to the rescue. Being a person of vision, he no doubt got his inspiration from perhaps the November 1995 edition of the Reader's Digest. I've heard it said that the Premier is quite comfortable with reading, consulting, adhering to the Reader's Digest. It's of little surprise. The articles are short. They're to the point. There is nothing complex about the publication. It is published throughout the world in a multitude of languages. I have the English edition and I'm sure the Premier will agree with me that no others need apply here.

This edition talks about a new way to run a railway. It's available at the library, and you will find it, Mr Speaker, to the right. You will find the Reader's Digest to the right of the shelf. It hasn't fallen off the shelf, but it's very much to the right of the shelf: page 37, November 1995. I know what's in it. It talks about rail tax. It talks about a big, bold move to the right. I recognize the Reader's Digest when I go to this very bill. Let me share the compendium with you, and then we can blend the intent and the spirit. Simply put, we know what's being done here, and I quote:

"The purpose of the bill is to provide for the regulation and licensing of shortline railways. The minister may appoint a registrar to issue licences for shortline railways.

"The minister may enter into agreements with the federal government to provide for the regulation and inspection of shortline railways by the federal government in the same manner as it regulates railways under federal jurisdiction."

You have to search pretty deep. You have to be familiar with the jargon, with the language that is spoken around here, because if you were to go across the street and talk to a passenger, someone who's about to board a CN or CP, they'd say: "What the heck," if I may be so bold, Mr Speaker, "are you talking about? What's the real story of this bill?" Let's go back together; we'll do it together.

I know, Mr Speaker, that you very much have at heart the welfare of the consumer, the protection of jobs for those women and for those men who have worked for the railways, who in essence have built the country. You are an educated man and I've been watching you very closely, Mr Speaker, and I know that you too, when you listen to the Minister of Transportation get up and expedite a garage sale, including the garage -- why not?

The minister is salivating. He can't wait for CN and CP to end up in the hands of the "free enterprisers," come hell or high water. If some workers who are making a fair living providing that essential service are out of a job, so be it. If their successor rights have ceased to exist by way of the devious Bill 7, which removes their opportunity to keep working and to pay taxes and to be like the others, well, be it again. The government of the day, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, with its 82 members, couldn't care less.

People are anxious out there. People have told our caucus, they've come to us with fear and have said, "If for no other reason, oppose the bill, because my co-workers and myself with this," with Bill 5, with all its virtue -- and it has a lot of attributes. One could speak at length about the bill being a facilitator, the bill trying to address public necessity and convenience. But those people don't wish to be left twisting in the wind, like the member for Welland-Thorold so rightly reminds us on a regular basis. They don't want to be put on the human junk pile. They want to work. Heaven knows, heaven will attest that they've worked so hard. When this bill comes to pass, it is tout fini. They'll have to find a job elsewhere. Hopefully their skills will be marketable, or maybe they can sell those skills --

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): To a shoreline railway.

Mr Pouliot: To a shoreline railway indeed, not the highest but the lowest bidder.

They will, after toiling, after spending so many hours at their designated workplace, open the pay envelope to find that there's only a few meagre dollars. They will humble their way home and put that pay envelope on the table and hope that it does suffice until the same exercise goes on and on with no chance to look ahead with a degree of confidence.

What has happened to our railroad? What brings us to today, December 13, 1995, shoreline railways and Bill 5?

The minister is right. Truck traffic has more than doubled in the past short while, seven or eight years. People have become expectant of door-to-door delivery. It's the way to do business. People know that you have just-in-time delivery at the factory. That's also the way to do business. Consequently, both railroads, CN and CP, have fallen out of favour. It's no longer the best bang for the buck, and they're left with that infrastructure.

We have literally two lines, CN and CP, that go from coast to coast, a sign of yesteryear. We must learn to do things better -- balance, equilibrium -- and the arguments demand that we look for the positive in what is being done here today, that we look long and hard, that we search, scrutinize, analyse every line of the bill and say, does the bill become a facilitator given the situation that we're in? Yes, it does. You will not have to plead public necessity and convenience. You could never get to this.

Right now if one of the two, CN or CP -- more often than not CN and CP -- applies for abandonment to the National Transportation Agency, the feds in Ottawa, and asks that a line from point A going to point B, being uneconomical, be removed, if you are an opponent, a presenter, and wish to have the line remain in operation, remain open, you have to prove that fiscally it can be done. You don't have a chance to plead about public necessity and convenience; you don't quite get there, so you have a very difficult and a very cumbersome situation.

1600

Buyers, people, say, "We'll pick it up from you; we'll take it off your hands"; then it gets complex. You know how this House runs. You have to make an application to the Ontario Municipal Board. They profess little expertise. It's not their role in life. Quite often you're put on the back burner and it takes you 12 months, a year, a year and a half; it can take two years. Many of us have dealt with the OMA, and that comes as a result of sponsorship from a private entrepreneur.

The bill slashes through that. It makes it more expedient. It makes the proposed shoreline available to municipalities and it does give an opportunity to the private sector to do things as opposed to abandonment: Somebody will pick it up. We have to say that when it comes to the facilitator the bill does the right thing, and we support the government.

Unfortunately I cannot forget, and I'm torn. I wish that I could say: "Good work, Minister. You recognized the order of the day." I really wish, but there's a side of me on behalf of our party that says Bill 7 did not permit Jane and Harry, those railroad workers, to have the opportunity to become employed. That weighs inconstant, sir, with the highest of respect, and respect to you too, Mr Speaker, and respect to all the good deeds out there; it does not balance quite fully. So I have to oppose the bill, having recognized that it has a lot of good things in it.

I will make sure, because we will be watching very closely, that the registrar is not a friend of a friend, and I lower my voice; you know what I'm saying, but you can't say it here. You cannot impute motive, but sometimes when you know people, if whoever gets that responsibility has some family connections -- I'm not talking about cousins there, I'm not talking about a nephew or a niece; I'm talking about the family of Conservatives. Today is a day to be bold, to call it like it is. If they're Tory hacks we will scream and say, "Get her, get them out of there; they don't belong. There's a conflict." So when it says "registrar" we will be watching very, very carefully who gets that job and those jobs.

We will also be watching very carefully when it comes to safety, that the standards we have become accustomed to, as we change from the fed to the province, that new adventure, that new endeavour, are maintained. We know only too often, and people mean well, but if you have a very highly competitive -- and the nature of transportation is competitive by nature at times. I saw that with trucking. People wanted to compete so badly that they forgot about safety. Safety was compromised. The tires got a little more bald; the brakes were running on their reputation. You know, the bill of sale was okay, but once you got into the real world it scared the living daylights out of people and accidents kept multiplying, and so on.

We put a stop to that. When I was minister, that was the highest of priorities. It seemed that as soon as I left, the wheels literally started to fall off ministry -- I'm sorry -- off the trucks. But I know that the minister is watching them very, very carefully. He knows a lot about vehicles; he knows a lot about competition.

In his other life the minister does very well indeed. I read about it in the paper and I believe he does very well in his other life. He sells cars.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Used cars.

Mr Pouliot: And used cars too.

Mr Young: And trucks.

Mr Pouliot: And trucks. He knows about the product. Maybe we wouldn't be in this dilemma -- I'm going to quote and I never thought I would see the opportunity. "Railway property taxes in Ontario: They're inequitable. They damage Ontario's competitiveness," and it says, "It's time for change." I don't want to take this out of context so soon after the last election. I agree with them; it's time for change indeed.

"Higher taxes add to Canadian rail costs." We wouldn't be in this dilemma if the Minister of Finance, with his friend the Premier of this province -- those two people together have a lot of clout. Between them and the Premier's office they have a stranglehold on all remaining 80 members of the Conservative Party. If they would have given CP, and soon CN as they become more privatized, a break, we wouldn't have to go to short rail lines nearly to the same extent.

I know Mr Saunderson is watching me very carefully. It doesn't make me one bit nervous because I know he knows that I'm telling the truth, that I speak with sincerity. This is a lobby; it's a positive lobby on behalf of, in this case, Canadian Pacific Railway. I said to them in Schreiber last weekend, after I got there, and it wasn't easy -- I can assure you the roads were, well, you can imagine where I live -- not in the best of conditions, and with my modest vehicle I made it there. Thank God that my computer, at the right time, showed "traction active," otherwise I could have hit the ditch, and the system was allowed to slow down to adjust to the road conditions.

In conclusion, there isn't very much in the bill. The bill was kept simple. In principle, et seulement en principe, in principle only I support the bill. It is well drafted. It reflects the way business should be and will be conducted in 1995. It goes beyond salvaging. It makes a salvage situation workable.

Unfortunately I cannot ask my colleagues to join in the philosophy. It would be unfair, for I have to go back to the human dimension, to Bill 7 when they tore away, when they went and reached for the heart of the workers to make sure they had no play at the marketplace, that they had no chance to survive Bill 5. They made darned sure under Bill 7 that their rights and their opportunities to keep doing what they've done so well, their fathers before them -- it goes back to Confederation, but their ability, Madam, their ability, gentlemen, to do so has been taken away from them.

I know that my seatmate, the member for London, is quite familiar with short-rail lines. She prefers to drive herself but from time to time she sees the need to experience the conditions aboard. Hopefully the conditions will improve. You would wish me to talk at length about the comfort, about what has happened to the passenger service in your special area of the province of Ontario. I will not, for your time and the time of the members opposite is quite valuable.

I want to thank the minister, and I echo his sentiment of the good staff at Transportation who have represented the interests of Ontarians through their lobbying and their opposition to the closure, to the abandonment of lines in the past, and now have embraced, because that's what their mandate is, the new philosophy to the right.

My distinguished colleagues, members of the party, next time you table a bill, give us a little more meat. There's not much in this and I've already taken a lot of your time.

1610

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): The member for Lake Nipigon mentioned the municipalities, and I have a concern in that regard as well: that the registrar of the shortline railroads has to be satisfied that there is adequate liability insurance coverage for the operation of a shortline railway. I've met with the municipalities on other issues in my area, but they did bring up the fact that their current ability to purchase adequate amounts of liability insurance other than for railroads is becoming more and more difficult.

There was a crisis in the liability insurance area four or five years ago where large settlements were given out, in the opinion of some people, and it caused municipalities a lot of grief. It cost them a lot of money to insure themselves under those circumstances, prior to shortline railways being offered up to them. I have a concern that they may not be able to acquire insurance coverage which would perhaps be dependent on a number of factors, including the route that the shortline would operate in, whether it's urban or rural; the type of freight that might be carried -- hazardous, non-hazardous, or passengers; the frequency of trips.

I hope the government will understand that in the downloading that's going to occur to municipalities, we don't exclude the cash-strapped municipalities from their ability to purchase a shortline railroad and that they are able to purchase adequate amounts of liability insurance, and that there may be a role for the government to help them and assist them in keeping shortline railroads operating throughout the province, in particular in the rural areas.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): In general, this is a positive bill and our party is supporting it. I think the writing is on the wall that there is a dramatic shift taking place in the rail industry across Canada. As you saw what happened with the public offerings on CN a couple of months ago, there was such a demand for the shares I think it even caused a great deal of surprise not only in the rail circles but also in the financial circles. It was a very, very popular issue. I think even investors realize that there is a potential for economic benefit and gain for those who invest in the rail industry.

I notice the minister in his comments referred to one of the rationales for doing this: to create economic investment opportunities in the climate, and also to create jobs. I certainly think that this will help. I'm not sure how many jobs he mentioned in Goderich; I think he mentioned something like 12, but it just brought to mind that it's too bad the same interest wasn't applied to the investment in a subway I had in my riding of Oakwood that would have created over 12,000 jobs, not only directly in subway construction but also in spinoffs, because what usually happens is that when you have a viable railway or a subway, there's a spinoff effect in terms of providing more jobs as a result of people who ship freight or commuters who use heavy rail.

Heavy rail is a good investment if you look at its benign impact on the environment, because it does not cause the emissions that truck traffic causes, it doesn't cause the damage that does to a resource like our roads. So anything we can do as members of this Legislature, that they can do as a government, in terms of encouraging investment in rail, will have a return, not only a direct return in jobs or in terms of providing cheaper delivery of services and goods for companies across Ontario, but also be very, very compatible with the environment. As you know, rail is also very compatible with land use patterns, and that is something that can't be underestimated.

I would also look in terms of where this is going in the future. I would think that perhaps this is one small step where the minister can perhaps look at ways of investing in other rail infrastructure that is seen throughout Ontario. If you look in the greater Toronto area and southern Ontario, you'll see there are rail lines that are underutilized right across this great province, and if those rail lines could be used, not only for freight utilization but also commuter utilization, there could be great potential to move people and move goods more efficiently in this infrastructure that we've already invested in.

Just take a look at Union Station, for instance. It has the potential to do a great deal in terms of reducing the congestion in the GTA, bringing people to work and to do business in the GTA, yet Union Station sits there really underutilized. I was sad to see that one of the things this government did was take investment out of upgrading the rail capacity at Union Station. That is something that goes contrary to what I think the future holds in terms of investing in the rail network.

As I said, I challenge the minister to go beyond this bill, which in its limited way is a positive step. We have to have more strategic investment in our rail infrastructure so that we can make the Ontario economy much more competitive, because at this point in time we are really going into uncharted waters. The challenge is to find ways of making these abandoned rail lines, or ones that are about to be abandoned, part of the economic infrastructure of Ontario of the future, not to look to rail as something from the past. I think that rail will more than likely be looked upon as an integral part of the 21st century.

This is something that can't be done in a piecemeal fashion, because it does take a great deal of strategic investment. It's almost tragic in some ways to look at our rail infrastructure. You'll see that we're still using 19th century infrastructure and technology. Very few countries in Europe -- I think Albania is the only country that still uses diesel rail. Most of them are electrified; modern European rail is basically electrified. Here we are in Canada, where we have abundant cheap electricity, still using very antiquated technology. So this is another challenge in terms of trying to make our rail infrastructure competitive and, again, very compatible with the environmental interest.

I do think that there are some good aspects of this bill, because they do free up underutilized small rail lines that will provide a local need. I know the one in your area, Mr Speaker, that runs under the tunnel in Windsor is an example of a small rail line that does offer a specific service to a specific industry. Hopefully, this bill will at least enable other investments across Ontario, enable not only people working on the rails, although they're limited in number, but the industries associated with the ability to deliver those goods across Ontario.

I do commend the minister, really, for bringing this forward. I think it's a good first step, but I would challenge him to not forget that investment in rail has to be accelerated in order for us to be competitive, and it just can't be done in this one bill. I would like to see further bills come forward where we see an investment in our rail infrastructure throughout Ontario and not to forget that heavy rail and subways and movement of people is something that he should revisit because I know the people, certainly in central Metro, would like to see that Eglinton subway built for jobs, for investment and all the spinoffs that would incur.

Again, I support it and I just hope he goes further.

1620

Hon Mr Palladini: I would like to thank my colleagues for their support. Certainly I share with them their concerns. As for the short railway lines, I see them as a tremendous opportunity for this province. Obviously, I would like to reassure you that from a safety standard we are going to be latching on to the federal standard, which I believe is one of the most stringent in the world.

As for the opportunities that do exist as an investment, the Liberal member for Oakwood, I certainly would like to say to you I appreciate your support. I do see opportunities that are going to be available to further expand. This government is committed to a balanced transportation system and there has to be a way that we can utilize short railway lines, possibly in transportation, from a people standpoint.

I want to thank my colleagues.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bruce Crozier): Mr Palladini has moved second reading of Bill 5. Shall the bill carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Opposed?

The ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill go to third reading?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: Committee of the whole House.

CORPORATIONS INFORMATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RENSEIGNEMENTS EXIGÉS DES PERSONNES MORALES

Mr Sterling moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 6, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act \ Projet de loi 6, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les renseignements exigés des personnes morales.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Mike Colle): The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I know that, in your other function as my critic in the official opposition, you'll be interested in this bill in particular. I'm glad that you're in the Chair, because this will no doubt prevent you from criticizing my speech. Perhaps it won't. Maybe somebody will take your place, if you would like. But I know, actually, that your party and yourself are supporting this bill for there have been previous indications of this.

As you know, I introduced this bill on October 3 of this year. This legislation fulfils an election commitment to reduce the regulatory burden on small business, streamline government operations and eliminate the annual filing fee imposed on Ontario corporations.

Prior to the last provincial election, our party surveyed approximately 20,000 Ontario businesses, seeking their input on changes to improve the business climate in this province. The results of the survey assisted in the development of our task force report called Creating Jobs Through Small Business. I would like to acknowledge and thank the Canadian Federation of Independent Business for its input into this report.

The report stated, "The regulatory process and associated compliance costs, such as government-mandated paperwork, is of immediate concern to Ontario business." We acted on that valuable input and, as one of our first orders of business, we took immediate steps to eliminate the $50 corporate annual filing fee and reduce the regulatory burden on Ontario businesses. We did this to relieve what we consider to be an onerous and unnecessary tax burden.

We also looked at ways to streamline and simplify the reporting processes that Ontario business must deal with annually. Under the old system, each corporation each year would file with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations a form which would outline the name of the company, the address of the company and the directors of the company, and file with that a $50 fee. What we have done under our proposal is, as I mentioned before, do away with the $50 fee. But, more importantly perhaps to small business, we have eliminated the need for a large number of these businesses to file any form with my ministry.

Beginning on January 1, 1997, corporations will file their basic corporate information with the Ministry of Finance along with their corporate tax filing, thus eliminating the need for two separate forms going to two separate ministries for the large majority of corporations in the province. The corporate public information will then be transmitted to the companies branch in my ministry, which will ensure that the public record is kept up to date.

What this means is that we've made it easier for businesses to deal with government. They will file with just one ministry, not two, which also reduces a very great deal their administrative costs. It also means we will cut back on government paperwork so that the business community can devote its resources to stimulating the economy and creating jobs.

About two thirds of active corporations in Ontario will give us their information with their corporate tax return. In fact, only non-profit corporations and corporations which are not making a change and want to use a new electronic system to file the update of their information will continue to file their returns with my ministry, but now without a fee. Every other corporation will be filing its return with the Ministry of Finance.

I would like to tell the House that I will be making amendments to the original bill. When I set down this bill -- and we have been moving very fast on this effort -- we put together a working group of people from both the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. This group has been working together to streamline the process. As a result, I will be putting forward some amendments this afternoon in order to show the results of their work over the last month and a half.

We believe that maintaining our corporate public record is very important for the business community and for the people of Ontario. Public disclosure of this information is necessary to ensure a fair and open marketplace in our province. Our records indicate that more than 300,000 searches are made annually. Our experiences show that only through regulatory mandatory filings will we maintain and support a reliable and accurate public record.

My honourable colleagues, we are committed to reducing red tape, streamlining our operations and procedures, and eliminating government overlap.

This is only a small step in our attempt to help small business. We have a task force which is being headed up by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, Mr Joseph Spina, the member for Brampton North. He is working very hard on other efforts to eliminate red tape, and I see him in the Legislature here today supporting this bill.

It is essential that we continue to improve our overall relations with the business community. Together, we will advance business improvement initiatives that will ensure more efficient government service delivery to businesses in Ontario.

I would also like to add that the government will be forgoing some revenue with regard to this particular matter, but I think it should be remembered by all members that the cost of recording and doing this business in government is recouped through another avenue, that is, we take that information and we sell it to other people. In fact we sell it 300,000 times a year; therefore, this is a net revenue gain for the government of Ontario, even though we are not charging business to put that information into the computers and into the system.

I want to say that we've got great support from the business community, of course. This was a red flag to them in terms of government interference and government red tape, which they saw as unnecessary, and we have addressed it.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I rise today to say that I will be voting in favour of this bill. I think that those of us who had to go through the process, pay the fees, are aware that it really is a nuisance.

But I see the Minister of Labour here, and I would be remiss if I didn't talk about what the government has done in Bill 15 to employers. The minister has added sections to Bill 15 which, in our view, will create a paper burden on employers that will make this corporate filing fee look like nothing at all. We think they've done this in error and we urge them --

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we're discussing Bill 6, not Bill 15.

The Acting Speaker: He's in order. Overruled.

Mr Duncan: The government talks a good game. Bill 6, they talk a good game. Bill 15, they create more red tape. While this minister attempts to clear the path, the other minister throws scrub brush on the path, and ultimately they're not doing anything to aid the business community.

I applaud the minister tonight for his legislation and I ask him to speak to his colleague --

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Quorum, please.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Proceed.

Mr Duncan: To conclude, I would urge the minister to speak to his colleague the Minister of Labour and ask that they reconsider Bill 15 in light of Bill 6 and their clear desire to relieve employers of paper burden in this province.

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments? Third party? I recognize the member for Brampton North.

Mr Spina: I rise in support of the bill and I thank the minister for acknowledging --

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): What about rotation?

Mr Spina: He called it.

Mr Duncan: You missed it.

Mr Pouliot: The Speaker's right.

Mr Kormos: Let the Speaker reflect on it for another minute and 39 seconds.

Mr Spina: Do I have the floor, Mr Speaker? Thank you.

I want to vote in favour of this motion and I thank the minister for acknowledging the work that we are doing to help reduce the barriers to small business. This is a very important factor in the business community, and we know that the opposition is pretty well entirely in favour of this particular motion. We look forward with great anticipation to seeing it being passed.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Would the minister like to respond?

Hon Mr Sterling: I'd just like to thank those members who are supporting this bill and also have seen the light, that we need to cut down the regulatory burden and the red tape.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I must say, after the last hour in the House, I have a great deal more respect for the Speaker's chair.

It's a pleasure for me to make a few comments with regard to this bill. I might say at the outset that I too will be supporting it. It's a particular pleasure to be here today and speak on it and be present for the vote, I'm sure, because little more than a week ago I was distressed by the fact that there was the introduction of a very important and wide-sweeping bill, but I didn't have the opportunity to be present at first reading. But bygones are bygones, and it's great to see that we're moving on to the business of the House.

When it comes to red tape, it's interesting, in passing, to note that we have a bill that has some eight sections. It's only two pages, and yet, as the minister has advised us, we are going to have amendments to that bill. I think there are in the neighbourhood of six amendments.

When I think back to Bill 7 and when I think to what we have to look forward to in Bill 26, the amendments that are going to be proposed to that -- I think there were 63 government amendments to Bill 7; I hear there are going to be 100 or so amendments to Bill 26. Here there are six amendments to a two-page bill by the government. I wonder who really is drafting the bills. One of the ministers referred earlier today to the lawyers that the government has, and I really would like them to question the salaries those lawyers are being paid, because if the government ever has to arrange a two-car funeral, they might have trouble getting them in order.

In any event, we all support small business, and certainly we all support the reduction of red tape. The only comment I would have at this time of year, as we approach the Christmas season, is that small business, not only because of red tape -- and getting rid of the $50 filing fee is certainly something, as I said, we support -- not only red tape but the general economy, I think, is bothering small business at this present time.

There's a suggestion that we may be moving out of this recession that we've been in for the better part of this year, and I hope we are, but we're told that retail sales are sluggish at best. The more we can do to support small business, to make it easier for small business, the better.

I was in what would be considered a small business for 22 years. I was the financial officer in a small or medium-sized lumber business in my home town and a part owner of that business. I realize that there is certain paperwork involved with a business when it comes to reporting to government, and anything that can be done to reduce that is certainly helpful and welcome.

I would just encourage the government to keep on in the minister's Consumer and Commercial Relations ministry -- it's a highly regulatory ministry -- I would encourage him to do whatever he can to help small business. An example of that might be, albeit one is government and one is private, the opening of the liquor and beer retail stores prior to Christmas. That's one of those moves.

I hope that, before the minister goes ahead too quickly with privatization, the mistake isn't made that's been made so far, and that is, by rushing ahead we don't always cover all the bases. I hope the minister will take under advisement that there are ways that, for example, the LCBO can improve its service to the communities it's in. There are ways that they can perhaps become better merchandisers and make more profit for the province.

After all, the LCBO generates just in profit alone over $600 million. I would not want to see any move made that would jeopardize that revenue to the province. I would not want to see any move made that would increase prices to the citizens of Ontario. I would not want to see any move made that reduced the choice that we have.

I applaud this move. I only ask that the minister and those in the ministry move with caution and with an open mind when it comes to all areas of small business. Certainly the fewer regulations we have the better, through you to the minister.

I suggested when I first came to Queen's Park from my municipal background that what we could have is a different kind of three Rs when it comes to legislation, that is, we review it, we reduce it and, in some cases, we rescind it.

I appreciate the minister's move in this respect and I will be supporting this bill.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Thank you, Speaker, and welcome to the Speaker's chair. I'm happy to be able to talk to you about this, and I know that you, with your background and experience, are going to share some of the great concerns that I have about what in fact we're dealing with here, because on its surface it seems a relatively innocuous piece of legislation.

What was remarkable is that the minister, in presenting it at first reading and in speaking to it today, as did some of his colleagues and to my great surprise some of the Liberals, spoke of this as being part of that genre of economic enhancement, of job creation. In fact nothing could be further from the truth, Speaker. You know that. I know you're nodding in acknowledgement. You can't participate because you can't be partisan, but you're nodding and I know you understand.

I don't want to embarrass you by indicating your support for that proposition, but I think it's important that people listening to the debate understand that there are clear-thinking minds here in this assembly who can see under this veneer, this facade of apparent streamlining.

I suppose in the total scheme of things there's nothing wrong with eliminating one of the filing destinations, to wit, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and resorting only to the ministry of financial institutions as the recipient of the filing documentation. But you really have to question, don't you, Speaker, (1) whether this has anything to do with job creation or economic development or economic enhancement, and (2) what's this all about anyway? Eliminating the $50 filing fee.

You know I come from Welland-Thorold and you know what kind of communities those are. Those are communities of hardworking people. They're communities of small business people, and I suppose the third question that has to be addressed here is, does this government really understand what small business is about in the province of Ontario?

Is small business the Frank Stronach Magna corporation with hundreds and thousands of non-unionized, underpaid, abused workers whose efforts to unionize are frustrated in the most brutal and barbaric way, all the more so now with the repeal of Bill 40 by this government?

That's not small business, not where I come from. That's corporate business, and they undoubtedly, whatever modest relief this relief to the tune of 50 bucks per filing fee will enjoy, this legislation -- not so much this particular legislation because in the total scheme of things 50 bucks per year to file your annual return is not going to create even one job in a corporate enterprise, not one.

It's going to cost this government and this province millions of dollars in revenues when a corporate registry system still has to be maintained. So what we get to is the fact that taxpayers, plain working folk, if they're fortunate enough to be working in this economy which is being driven -- and I disagree with my friend about recovery from a recession, because my friend made reference to that. In fact, if you read the financial sections you'll read that over the last two quarters in this province there's been no economic growth and what you understand, if you know anything about what a recession is, is that two successive quarters of zero economic growth are the indicia of an oncoming depression or recession.

It's not just folks here in Welland-Thorold or here in the province of Ontario. There are folks here from BC today, Jim and Betty Semple. They're from Sooke, BC. When they asked me what was on the order paper today, I told them Bill 6, among other things, and I told Jim and Betty Semple that this government was going to try to pass for second reading and then through for third reading this Bill 6, a bill that was part of their economic recovery package, and they said: "Are these guys nuts? Do they have the slightest comprehension about what real economic recovery means? Do they have any understanding that eliminating a $50 filing fee is, in and of itself, (1) not going to generate an economic recovery, and (2) going to place a burden on the taxpayer?" And just look who else it's going to place a burden on.

This is Bill 6. There are only five bills that preceded this in terms of legislation being presented to this assembly by this government. But six bills. We're starting to do the payola, the grease, the payoffs to the corporate world. Who's been beaten up on? Who's had the daylights kicked out of them? Welfare folks have. Poor people have, people on social assistance. They never got a break. Nobody told them, "We're going to relieve you of some of the things you have to pay for." Nobody told them, "We're giving you a break in terms of the fees you have to pay to function on a daily basis, whether it's ordering your birth certificate, or whether it's ordering a copy of your marriage certificate, or whether it's registering your motor vehicle, or whether it's doing any of those daily things."

Because, you see, everybody understands that those registry systems cost money and in the case of the registry system for the corporate world it costs a great deal of money. You know that, Speaker. I know you do, because you're an experienced person and you understand the contradiction here. You understand the transparency of this particular piece of legislation.

Where I come from in Welland-Thorold -- and let me tell you something: I understand small business. I grew up in a small-business culture. I was a small business person myself. My parents were small business people and from the age of 10 or 11 I worked in that family business. My grandparents were small business people, driven to small business by the last recession, by the last depression, like so many other people from Welland -- recalling those dirty, miserable days with that heavy-handed jackboot government of Hepburn, who was equalled only by Mike Harris and the Tories in terms of their oppressive, totalitarian regime and their attack on working people and the poor.

You see, a whole lot of folks in my community became small business people. What happened? Let me tell you what happened. Let me take you back to the Hepburn era and you're going to see some distinct similarities. I was born down in Crowland, down the south end of Welland, and back when Mitch Hepburn was the Premier of this province -- Mike Harris didn't invent workfare; Mike Harris didn't invent it at all. It was a tool that Mitch Hepburn used back in the Dirty Thirties down in Crowland, when he forced people on relief to dig sewers by hand for mere pennies an hour.

When those people, many of them eastern Europeans and other immigrants to this country, people like my grandparents, dared fight back, when they dared say, "No, we have a right to organize and negotiate and fight for work conditions and decent wages," why, what did Mitch Hepburn do? He brought in the Ontario Provincial Police, and those people in the Crowland sewer strike were forced to work at gunpoint.

1650

Now you're starting to recognize some of the similarities, huh, Speaker, between the Hepburn government of the 1930s --

The Acting Speaker: Member for Welland-Thorold, it's Bill 6 we're discussing.

Mr Kormos: I'm talking about who small business people are, Speaker. When those people organized, dared to speak up against a right-wing government that didn't give a tinker's dam about the poor or about their children or about women or about the sick, why, by God, Mitch Hepburn brought in the OPP with guns; in the same way, I suppose, as the OPP had been brought into Queen's Park to surround Queen's Park, again, to put those same sort of people, working people --

Mr Duncan: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I just want to point out that David Croll, a former member for Windsor-Walkerville, a great Liberal, resigned that cabinet over those tactics, and I'm proud to represent the same riding that he did.

The Acting Speaker: Let's try to keep our comments to Bill 6 and directly related to Bill 6.

Mr Kormos: You bet your boots I will, Speaker.

The member is quite right. Senator Croll, a progressive Liberal the likes of whom won't be found in this Liberal caucus, a progressive Liberal, broke with Mitch Hepburn. The real contradiction is that Mitch Hepburn, one of the most reactionary governments short of this one that this province has ever seen, produced one of the most progressive Labour ministers, with the seed, the genesis, of progressive labour legislation, the very same sort of progressive labour legislation that was fought for by people like my grandparents and other folks' grandparents in Crowland, in the Crowland sewer strike, which has been seized, taken away from them, by virtue of Bill 7 and the repeal of Bill 40 that's contained in Bill 7.

Really what we're talking about, the struggle that we're talking about -- and don't think that Bill 6 wasn't on the minds of the workers who were demonstrating, picketing, fighting back against this government in London on Monday, December 11. Don't think that Bill 6 wasn't on their minds then, because they were incredibly conscious of the fact that this government is greasing, paying off, piecing off its corporate buddies, its corporate masters, at the expense of working people and the poor and single mothers and their children and the sick.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Fifty bucks.

Mr Kormos: Fifty bucks? The fact is it will amount to literally millions of dollars before all is said and done.

The minister talks about the generation of revenues. Somehow he suggested the generation of revenues will offset the incredible cost to the taxpayer that this kickback is going to entail. The fact is, that generation of revenues by the sale of information could be augmenting the reasonable fee charged to corporations for their annual filings.

I have no opposition and none of the people in this caucus have any opposition to streamlining the process. Indeed, I'm looking forward to Frank Sheehan, a fellow member from Lincoln, leading his committee, taking a look at what in fact can be done by this government to assist small business, because one of the things that's important is that we understand who small business is.

Once again, let's talk about this bill in the context of Welland-Thorold and, I'm confident, in the context of what is most of real, small-town Ontario. One of the problems with coming here to Toronto is that you start to think that Ontario begins and ends at the intersection of Yonge and Bloor. Well, let me tell you, that has no relevance to what is the bulk of real Ontario. The bulk of real Ontario is small communities, communities like Welland and Thorold, communities of hardworking people, communities of decent neighbourhoods, communities of churches, communities of people who are struggling now like they haven't been struggling since their grandparents struggled in the Dirty Thirties. That's what the real Ontario is.

I wanted to get to why I talked about the Crowland sewer strike and the oppression that the second most reactionary government in Ontario imposed on those people, those brave, courageous people. A whole lot of those people were forced, because of what flowed subsequently from that, to go into free enterprise because there was blackballing taking place in the industrial workplace. They became identified as progressives. Why, some of them were even called CCFers. They became identified as progressives and were blackballed by the corporate world that wanted no part of progressive people, especially progressive people who could organize, especially progressive people who were courageous, especially progressive people who would struggle.

So these people were forced to enter into free enterprise, and they did. Some of those businesses, indeed most of them, are still alive and well and functioning and struggling with a difficult economy --

Mr Gerretsen: And paying their 50 bucks.

Mr Kormos: The fact is most of them aren't incorporated. Elio Defelice up in Thorold, Elio's boot shop on Main Street in Thorold, one of the biggest selections of cowboy boots in the province of Ontario, and again an entrepreneur, Elio Defelice who with his sons runs an outstanding business, fair, decent stock and inventory, prices that are competitive with anything you're going to find in the big city, Elio Defelice isn't the Elio's Shoe Store Inc; it's Elio's shoe store. It's a family business. They aren't incorporated. You see, the corporate world is not the small business world of small-town Ontario.

Sue Berg and her book exchange down on King Street. Let me tell you about Sue Berg, a woman who is a small business person, a true small business person who has run and supported herself and raised her children by amassing one of the best collections of second-hand hardcover and paperback books around, right down in the south end of King Street and old Crowland, just south of the tracks. Susan Berg isn't incorporated. Susan Berg is a small business person. You see, relieving the corporate world of 50 bucks a year filing fees is not going to help Sue Berg at the book exchange down at the south end of King Street one bit.

It's not going to help Brent Warner, who's been screwed royally by the last government and now by this government as a result of the incipient corruption in the Ontario Lottery Corp. Brent Warner, who has been arbitrarily denied -- he's a small business person. He's a person who's been squeezed out of the workplace because of the deindustrialization of southern Ontario because of free trade and because of the recession. So he went into business. He opened up a couple of corner milk stores. No, it's not Becker's, it's not Avondale, it's not any of those kinds of operations. It's a family-run business. It's Brent Warner and his partner and his family, if and when they can help out. That's small business in Ontario.

Relieving the corporate world of $50 annual filing fees is not going to help Brent Warner and his two small variety stores, working from seven in the morning until 11 and 12 at night. Relieving the corporate world of the $50 filing fee is not going to help Brent Warner. Straightening out the Ontario Lottery Corp and giving him and other small businesses like that fair access to Lotto Ontario machines is. That's what's going to help Brent Warner.

You see, the fact is that Avondale and the other corporate corner stores have an entrée into the Ontario Lottery Corp. They've got a speedy access. The little entrepreneurs are getting screwed while the Avondales and the Beckers and the other corporate chain stores, paying their crummy wages and providing crummy work conditions for the vast majority of their staff, have almost automatic access to Ontario Lottery Corp vending equipment.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member opposite has been spending a great deal of the time of this House speaking to everything except the bill before it. I really would ask you to deal with that matter.

The Acting Speaker: If the member for Welland-Thorold could stick to the corporate filing fee.

Mr Kormos: I'm going to stick to small business because the preface, the introduction, the commentary on this bill was about how it's going to help small business, and I say, bullfeathers. I say scatological bullfeathers. I say this bill is transparent about whose interest it really serves and about the fact that it doesn't assist small business one iota.

1700

Because again, my concern, and I mentioned this earlier when I began, is that this government doesn't really understand small business. Well, they understand the Frank Stronachs -- you know, Frank Stronach had a take-home last year of $47 million. In the province of Ontario, when people are living on the street this Christmas, when more and more families, mothers with their children, are going to be living in cardboard boxes in the alleyways off Yonge Street, Frank Stronach pocketed $47 million in take-home last year.

The banks of this country --

Mr Klees: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Mr Stronach happens to be a constituent of a mine and I don't see what this issue has to do with the bill before this House. The fact of the matter is that Mr Stronach has done more for business and job creation in this province than this member would ever recognize. Would you please have him stick to the issue before the House.

Mr Kormos: Don't talk to me about -- that son of a bitch fought his workers who attempted to legally organize --

The Acting Speaker: Mr --

Mr Kormos: I withdraw "son of a bitch," Speaker.

He fought --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member for Welland-Thorold withdraw that unparliamentary characterization?

Mr Kormos: Withdrawn, Speaker.

But that rich, rich, ultrawealthy corporate owner fought his workers, the women and men working in his workplaces, tooth and nail using every device available, every bit of unfairness, every bit of his wealth, to avoid them engaging in their right to organize and collectively bargain and negotiate on some parity with an incredibly powerful company that persists in exploiting workers, exposing them to unsafe work conditions, and denies them the decency of collective bargaining.

Don't tell me about Frank Stronach. His name may well be on your list of election contributions. I suspect that if it wasn't before, it will be now, and you deserve that much, but don't praise Frank Stronach in here. Ask Frank Stronach how much of that $47 million was put back into Ontario or how much of it was spent on Mercedes-Benzes. You've never seen a Mercedes-Benz built in the province of Ontario by Ontario or Canadian workers.

Look, the banks of this country in the last year, and the greatest majority of these profits drawn from people in the province of Ontario, made in excess of $5 billion; not million, billion. That's $5 billion in profits from the pockets of the little people like the small business people down in Welland and Thorold, and they're still downsizing, and they're increasing their service fees. Think about it. Think about what's going on.

You want to help small business, huh? You wrestle the banks back down to earth and make them and make our federal counterparts force them to become more responsive to the needs of small business people, those small family-run businesses. No, not the corporations that are going to be relieved of their $50 filing fee, but real small businesses, the family-run operations, the mom-and-pop operations, the type of business that I grew up in, the type of business my parents grew up in while their parents were operating them, and the type of business that -- granted it wasn't a corner store -- I understand when I employed three, four, five people at a time as a small-town lawyer down at the south end of King Street, where Mark Evans is still carrying on the practice at Kormos and Evans, a brilliant young criminal lawyer. He too, Mark Evans, one of the brightest around, down at the south end of King Street, not in a fancy part of town; in a simple part of town where good, hardworking people have lived for generations, in fact the part of town where our grandparents fought the Crowland sewer strike.

That's where Mark Evans is practising criminal law. That's where he is, and he isn't going to enjoy any relief as the result of the revocation of a $50 corporate filing fee. He's a small businessperson. Don't you get it? He works 12, 14, 16 hours a day, creates three and four jobs at a time. See, that's real small business. His partner is in there from time to time; his spouse is in there from time to time working for free, helping out late at night: filing, things like that. That's small business.

Mr Pouliot: It's not the board of trade, you see. It's not the Boulevard Club.

Mr Kormos: You're right. He doesn't belong to the London Hunt Club. You know, it's remarkable that at a time when this government is giving small business breaks, it's putting the brakes -- indeed the boots -- to the most vulnerable and the weakest people in our community, in our province.

This morning in the committee that oversees appointments to boards, agencies and commissions, the Tory majority on that committee approved the appointment of one Evelyn Dodds to, of all things, the Social Assistance Review Board: not to the pension committee, not to the insurance commission, but to a panel that one would hope would have some sensitivity and some compassion and some concern and some cognizance of what it means to be on welfare and to be denied welfare or mother's allowance or social assistance. A woman who is outspokenly anti-francophone, anti-single mother, anti-subsidized housing, anti-union; who's a vile, mean, mean-spirited and uncharitable woman; who has referred to women in subsidized housing, if they dare to share it with a male companion, as living in bordellos. What? A woman who actively in her community -- Evelyn Dodds -- was among the nine against three who voted for an English-only community in Thunder Bay, who said there's no room for francophones in her vision of Ontario. A woman, Evelyn Dodds, who insisted that child welfare benefits are but motivation for women to bear more children.

What a cruel, unthinking, uncaring thing to do, for this government to permit the appointment of a woman who didn't even undergo the initial interview, who was plucked out of the list of applicants, wasn't required to go through the normal course of events, who was hand- picked -- oh, not by the public, because she's lost the last two successive provincial elections that she's campaigned in. Clearly, the people in her community have no particular interest in seeing her here in an elected position. But handpicked.

So you see why I raise that, Speaker, because we're discussing Bill 6. We're discussing this payola, this piece-off, this break for the corporate world at the expense of the little people. Where do you think the lost revenues are going to come from? Well, they're coming from that 21%-plus cut to the benefits payable to single mothers and to the poorest. Where do you think those lost revenues of millions of dollars are coming from by virtue of this break for the corporate world? They're coming from the user fees that our grandparents and our parents are going to have to pay for prescription drugs. They're coming at the expense of junior kindergarten for our youngest people, and we know that an investment in junior kindergarten has a payoff that's 10-fold at the end of the day.

So you see, as this government caters to, accommodates, suckles up to, crawls into bed with, crawls out of the back pocket of the corporate world, the real small business people in this province continue to suffer, my friends. If you don't think so, go talk to them. And if you think for a minute that your Bill 6 is going to resolve the pain and concerns and anxieties of small business people, think again, friends.

You know, small business people, why, this government wants to sell off all of the assets that the people of Ontario have worked so hard for and invested so long in. We heard about it today. We hear an ongoing commitment to peddling off the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. My God, that's an enterprise that made $630 million profit last year. It employs 5,000 people at decent wages. It ensures that liquor is distributed in a responsible way and that minors and young people aren't given access to it. It's the largest single purchaser of spirits in the world, giving it an incredible advantage in purchasing spirits and in the prices that can be passed on.

They want to give it away to their corporate buddies. They want to give it away to what they would have us believe are small business people, but really will end up being the Seagrams of the world or the California wineries, the Gallo Brothers of the world, so that Canadian spirits, and more importantly Canadian wines, especially those fine wines from Niagara region, will no longer receive the prominence that they get on LCBO shelves, and so that consumers can pay more, just like they do in Alberta now, after Ralph Klein kleined the Alberta equivalent to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, where there are lower stocks, where there's less selection, higher prices, and where teenage abuse of alcohol has risen 15% since the so-called privatization of Ralph Klein's Alberta liquor control board stores.

1710

You know, this is sad. This is really shameful. It's really pathetic that the government -- I suppose what makes it all the more shameful is that you're right: 50 bucks, that's the kick-back, a mere 50 bucks. But trust me, Speaker -- and you know I'm right; trust me -- that's just the beginning. There's more to come from this government to the corporate world. This cheque hasn't been written fully yet.

This government is going to pick pockets. It's going to take the hardworking people and the poor and the unemployed and the seniors of this province, grab them by the ankles and shake every last nickel and dime out of them so that the corporate world can enjoy the sort of benefits that are entailed in Bill 6. It's going to continue to abuse our weakest and our poorest and our working people so that the corporate world can continue to enjoy benefits.

It's going to leave the banks, the sacred banks, free to engage in their pillage and rape of small businesses, because who are the victims of banks? It's the small business people. It's the real small business people; not the corporate world, but the real small business people. Those are the victims of the banks and their unconscionable policies and the lack of any effective regulation of them and their excessive profits.

If this government wants to enhance the role of small business, then take on the banks and tell them, "You will not be permitted to pocket in excess of $5 billion in profits when everybody else is being told to tighten their belts." Take on the Frank Stronachs. Let him take a hit with his $47-million income last year. Let Frank Stronach pay off some of the deficit. Let him pay off some of the deficit.

Don't tell the people in Welland-Thorold that they're going to bear the brunt of Mulroney Tory policies at Ottawa with his free trade deal and Jean Chrétien's subsequent NAFTA deal. Don't tell my people in Welland-Thorold that they've got to take the hit for the folly of Brian Mulroney, the Tory, and Jean Chrétien, the would-be Liberal. Don't tell my folks that, Speaker. Don't tell my folks from Welland and Thorold that by relieving the corporate world of those $50 filing fees, my small businesses are going to become any more prosperous. They're not.

The economic statement of a couple of weeks ago was devoid of any job creation policies. Not one. This gang was like Chairman Mao's Red Guard, all waving their little red books in the air and chanting the mantra, the incantation, as zealous as any could be and as misguided as Chairman Mao's Red Guard could ever be, somehow thinking that if we're allowed to touch the hem of Mike Harris, there'd be jobs somehow mystically created. That's not how jobs get created, Speaker. You know that.

The problem with the Liberals, though, is that the Liberals campaigned on what the policies are that the Tories are implementing now. The Liberals, in a remarkable bid of schizophrenia, find themselves at something of loose ends. One day the Liberals are opposed to the Tories; the next day they embrace them. The next day they're opposed to the Tories, and then the next day they embrace them again. In some jurisdictions that type of infrequent and promiscuous contact is illegal.

The Liberals speaking here today tell us that they endorse this policy. Indeed, they've returned to the Lyn McLeod fold of Tory clones, of pseudo-Tories.

Mr Pouliot: Maybe they don't. Flip a coin.

Mr Kormos: Flip a coin or flip-flop, thank you very much.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If he is going to start quoting our policy, at least he should do it correctly and from the right source.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of order.

Mr Kormos: Needless to say, we're not supporting this bill -- no qualms with the streamlining, and that's admirable; no qualms with the fact that there are some minutiae in there that deserve to be tested, and again hoping that this government is ready to revisit it, should some wrinkles appear. But I tell you, to have the taxpayer and the poor and the weak and the vulnerable pay the "chantage" that was accommodated, that was engaged in during the course of the last election -- you know, the little mutual, "We'll get you elected if, okay?" -- to tell my people in Welland-Thorold that they're to pay for that out of their pockets is wrong, absolutely wrong and will never be tolerated.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): A very brief two-minute comment on the speech by the member for Welland-Thorold, who I thought canvassed a number of issues that were very important to people in this province. One which I hear him mention that I think is worthy of comment is the level of profits which banks in this country have now reached, at a time when many people in the small business sector are very concerned that they don't have even yet, even with the efforts that banks are making these days, the opportunity to obtain financing from the sources of banks around the country.

Secondly, at the very time that the banks are making unprecedented profits, they're in the process of trying to get rid of people within their organization.

When a company is in a position where it is losing money and where it has become uncompetitive, though one may not like the actions of the company, one at least understands the company undertaking a downsizing and a rationalization. What we are seeing, however, is the banks going through the process of now trying to put machines in to replace people and to encourage people to use these machines as opposed to having contact with human beings.

As a result a lot of people are losing their jobs, and that's on another day and at another time, something this assembly and other assemblies are going to have to address. Where are the jobs going to be? We're really going to have to look at whether the trend we're moving in, the direction we're moving in in our society, is appropriate and whether we're going to have any jobs, particularly for those people who don't have the highest of skills and education.

That was not addressed in this bill today.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): It's quite puzzling to us, and always has been, why the normal cost of business, the $50 registration fee, is so offensive to the government party. People have many costs of doing business when they own a small business. I wonder if they resent the cost of belonging to chambers of commerce; I wonder if they resent the cost of advertising; I wonder if they resent all the other costs of doing business, and that's all this corporation registration is.

It is making sure that there is an accountability, that the government has a record of who is on record as being the proprietor and the shareholders and the members of a corporation. It is an important information-gathering tool for the government and it ought not to be so offensive that there is a fee.

As I trust we move on to talk about the victim's rights bill, I'd ask people to ponder the fact that the forgone revenue from the $50 registration fee is a little over $13 million, I believe, and if the Minister of Community and Social Services were listening, he would know that the dollars taken out of second-stage housing, a very important service for victims of family violence, is much less than the revenue that this government is prepared to forgo. They're prepared to forgo services to victims of crime because of their promise to business in the last election. I think we need to keep that in mind as we go forward and talk about Bill 23.

1720

Mr Gerretsen: The only thing I wish to add at this time is that I think the bill doesn't go far enough, quite frankly. I don't understand why they should even be required to file on a yearly basis. There's already a requirement to file whenever there's a change in directors and corporate ownership of a corporation, and why it would be necessary to file on an annual basis is absolutely beyond me. We're talking about over -- what? -- 100,000 corporations that we have in the province of Ontario.

It's not the $50 that's at stake here. Surely the Tories aren't trying to do their friends in the business community a favour of $50. That's absurd.

Mrs Boyd: That's how they sold it.

Mr Gerretsen: They may have sold it that way, but I really don't think that people are that gullible. It's not the $50; it's the fact that obviously there's a bureaucracy involved in going through these filings on an annual basis which doesn't make any sense. As I indicated before, there are already new filings required whenever the directors of a corporation change. Why don't we just leave it at that and forgo the additional expense that is involved on the government's behalf, not on the individual's behalf but on the government's behalf, of reviewing these more than 100,000 returns that they get on an annual basis?

I say to the government, you didn't go far enough. Get rid of the filing requirement completely and leave it in place for those occasions when the directors of a corporation change.

The Acting Speaker: Any further questions or comments? Further debate.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I wish to add my voice and my support to the bill as it is presented. As my colleague the last speaker, Mr Gerretsen, the member for Kingston and The Islands has said, if there is one area that merits some criticism it is that it does not go far enough.

First of all, I would like to assure the honourable minister Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, that while the member for Essex South was chairing the session for a while he made a comment that he wouldn't be able to criticize or attack the bill because he was indeed chairing at that particular moment. I want to assure the minister that we are not here solely to criticize every piece of legislation that is brought forth into this House, but also to recognize the merits; when a piece of legislation is brought forth in the House, to support the good points, to support the merits of whatever piece of legislation is brought forth in the House.

If there is one area that needs some concrete, and I think due, criticism, it is that there isn't too much, I have to say, from the government side, that has been proposed to support, to create work, to create incentives for the small business community. Instead, in criticizing if I may the government side, we have seen that there is absolutely nothing, for example, in the CSR with respect to assisting in any particular way the small business community in Ontario. There is nothing, for example, in the speech from the throne in assisting the small business community from Ontario. There is absolutely nothing in the package which we saw the other day, in the financial statement, which should be the main document which should be changing the fortunes of Ontario.

Really, what has the government done to assist, to improve, to create some incentives to support and ameliorate the small business community in Ontario? I have to say that in this respect I cannot laud the government, because it has been very inactive, very inept in supporting the small business community in Ontario. At that, they have indeed eliminated whatever small incentives we had before for the small business community in Ontario. Of course, the $50 filing fee is of some help; it's not a big thing.

When we consider that staff in a small company employs between four and eight weeks a year to deal with paperwork, there is a big strain in its operation. And yes, the other regulations, the paperwork, duplication all add to the burden of the small business community. But the important thing that it's missing -- it's not that this will go some way to eliminating paperwork, and I don't think $50 is going to either maintain someone in business or put him out of business -- I think is facilitating, improving the atmosphere, if you will, in the small business community. As I said before, up to now we have not seen this coming from the business area.

This is not to maintain the discussion solely around Bill 6. I think every other bill touches in some way the small business community. Let me just mention one without being attacked for not keeping my remarks on Bill 6 directly.

For example, we have seen last week, with the Bill 26 proposal, that colleges and secondary schools are being chopped by some $400 million. As I said previously in this House, I have one particular college in my area where they have adult education, which is partly funded by provincial government support. What happens now is that one particular college has about 800 adult students. The results of that particular college are staggering, when one third of those adult students, if you will, go back and either find permanent jobs or they go into business for themselves: Not only are they not a burden on society but they also hire other people and improve the situation. Those are the types of programs that need support, which would help to establish and maintain the small business community.

In answer to the minister's comments and his concerns, I have to tell the minister and the other side that we are here not solely to look at and watch what the government is proposing and doing, but I think we are here as critics, as watchdogs, of what the government does not do or what it proposes and is not adequate to improve the situation, in this case in the small business community.

There are more than some 20,000 non-profit corporations which do not already file a tax return, so what is the purpose of continuing to have these companies file a return on an annual basis? As well, there are some 20,000 non-profit corporations out there.

Our role is indeed to point out to the government side when some of the things that it proposes don't go far enough. It hurts our business community and it hurts our people. When the business community is not working, it means the effects of that trickle down and everyone is affected.

In supporting the bill as it is proposed, I would seriously urge the government to look at other regulations, eliminate other regulations. After all, I think this was one of the aims of the bill when it was proposed, to go even further. They did say that we have got to go a lot further with respect to eliminating unnecessary duplication, regulation and so forth. This is an area I think they should be concentrating on to eliminate some of that.

But I think there'll be help that we'd like to see in support of the small community, and they recognize, we recognize, that it is the small operator, the small business in Ontario that is the real engine that supports our communities, our families, and the many other businesses in the various communities. I recognize that. I think every member recognizes that. I think in every community in Ontario where members are coming from, they don't have the large corporations, and I'm sure that the small business people with three and five and 10 employees are vital to those communities as well.

In terminating my presentation, I would again reiterate my support for the bill as it is presented and I would urge the minister and the government side to continue to look at improving and bringing forth incentives to support the business community, the small business in our community in general.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I would simply like to echo one of the principal comments made by the member for Yorkview regarding the corporate filing fee, but I think he's getting a little offtrack in reiterating that this government ought to get back into the business of providing business subsidies for small business.

We're out of that business, and I think what small business is looking for is a climate in which they can thrive, in which if they want some marketing consulting or they want some advice from the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, they can get it quickly. I know previous governments and administrations have tried that approach, but it doesn't seem to ever register inside the bureaucracy for a whole set of different dynamics.

I think the day of the business subsidy is dead, because even in this House members realize that they can no longer subsidize their own meals in the legislative dining room. Even the honourable member for Oriole has echoed that viewpoint.

The philosophy, utilization and effectiveness of business subsidies is at an end because they have proven at any level of government to be pretty ineffective tools in helping small business. Get out of the way of the entrepreneur and let him or her get on with the job.

The Atlantic provinces economic opportunity agency is an excellent example of a boondoggle run by two previous federal administrations, and it has not produced results. What it has done, it has rung up a hell of a lot of money in the cash register of waste and unaccountability in terms of where the funds went. When you have business subsidies and you have a bureaucracy running them, they're usually pretty loose with the accountability in terms of value and where the actual dollars go.

Finally, I think the corporate filing fee, creating an effective climate for business to operate in this province, is the direction in which to go, and we are headed in that direction.

Mr Gerretsen: I would just like to comment on my friend the member for Yorkview's excellent speech, but also on the comments from the member opposite. I agree that right now we're in a climate where business subsidies are certainly something that are frowned upon by the general public, and rightfully they should be, especially since we're in a time when the most vulnerable in our society seem to be taking the largest hit with respect to any cutbacks by government.

But I would suggest to the member that there are times when governments of all stripes -- be they New Democratic, be they Conservative, be they Liberal, be they federal, be they provincial -- have found it necessary, in order to ensure that a business is going to be maintained in a particular set of circumstances and is going to provide jobs in a particular area, to in effect give subsidies to businesses, both large and small.

There are all sorts of examples that we've had over the last number of years. It may very well be that in some cases it didn't work out in the long run, but I do believe that a government has a responsibility to look at not only the dollars that may be invested that way, but also the other returns that they may get out of it, the main return being continued employment and hopefully continued productivity for the firms involved.

The problem with what he's suggesting is that yes, in this climate we're in right now, certainly business subsidies shouldn't be -- it should be made abundantly clear to businesses that government should not be into that business, especially when we're running the kind of deficits that we have run in this province over the last five years. But will they be required in the future? I would suggest that only the future will determine that and I don't think we ought to be as categorical as the member suggested.

Mr Sergio: Just briefly to touch further on that, I want to address some of my remarks again. What I was intending to say is that I think it is the aura, if you will, that we create in our business community and it is the confidence that is missing in many areas with respect to creating business or supporting business.

As you know and as I think every member of this House knows, the market is not so hot out there and I'm not so sure that we're pulling out of a recession, if you will. I think if there is any indication, we are going the other way; I think we are going towards a recession. So it is not a question of putting money into business to put people in business, but I think they need a lot of moral support. I think they need to have confidence in this government and what the government is doing, and I think it reflects not only on the individuals but also on the business community.

If they see that good approaches are coming out of the government side, the business community is inspired with confidence, as also are others, and they keep moving on. That was my intent with respect to assisting business people: to make sure that we do provide those incentives, if you will, to create a mood of confidence, a mood of trust that the government is moving in the direction that it's not penalizing the small investors or small business people and so they don't keep their money in the bank or move elsewhere.

The big corporations are restructuring and, believe you me, the money that they save by restructuring they are not reinvesting here in Ontario. Whatever we can do to assist the small operator, either with small incentives or to build confidence, I think goes a long way.

Hon Mr Sterling: I'd just like to thank those people who were involved in the debate. I want to answer some of their questions, or perhaps it didn't appear in the form of a question, but they begged the question.

One of the questions that the member for Kingston talked about in terms of going further -- and that was my immediate reaction: Why not go further? Why not do away with the annual filing process? Actually, that was done back in 1978 and there was only a requirement put on corporations to file with the ministry any changes that took place.

What happened, just by chance really, is that in 1992 they switched from a paper record to a computer record and they found at that point in time, as they were switching from one form to the other and then started to check back into the records, that about 85% to 90% of the records were incorrect. We basically had a system which was in all intents and purposes useless, because the information was not up to date.

There was a decision by the government at that time to implement this annual filing and, together with it, a $50 fee. What I objected to was, number one, the imposition of a fee, but the imposition of a fee which was not in any way justified by the amount of cost that it incurred with the government to put the process in place and to take in the information, to send out the information, to put it on the computer and to put it into the system.

I think that basically my philosophy is that this kind of fee should not be used as a tax, which is sort of suggested by the member for London Centre, that this is an opportunity for the government to use a fee in terms of filing some information with the government as a form of taxation. That is not our intention. Our intention is, if we want to tax corporations, we will tax corporations in terms of the normal taxation process. Generally speaking, fees, in my view as a minister, should be in relation to the amount of work/cost to the government to implement and to work that process.

1740

What I was saying in my opening remarks was that we sell 300,000 pieces of information to the public a year. So even though we're not charging the filers who provide us with the information to put into the system, overall we still cover off the cost of putting that information in because we get paid for the information coming out. There's no loss to the taxpayer in terms of the actual process and the fee put forward.

I want to talk also about the fact that the member for Welland-Thorold talked about corporations as somehow being large organizations. I want to tell him that this legislation does away with the $25 annual filing fee for 25,000 to 30,000 non-profit corporations across this province. I wonder if he supports that. Does he support doing away with the corporate annual filing fee for all of those farms across the province of Ontario that are incorporated?

There are many small businesses that are incorporated, because people know, in a family business, if you have more than one sibling that you want to share the business with, often the best method of doing it is to incorporate your business so that you can divide the shares of that corporation in varying proportions between the children of the originator of the business.

Many, many corporations -- in fact I would say without hesitation probably 300,000 of the 350,000 corporations -- probably have less than one or two shareholders, probably have an asset base of less than $100,000 and are what we would term family businesses. This whole notion by the third party that corporations connote huge corporate entities is entirely false in terms of the bottom line of it all, and I thought it was important to put those issues on the table.

The other fact I would also bring to members' attention is that the experience of the ministry is that 30% to 50% of the information becomes inaccurate in a one-year period. So I guess the maximum you could go would be two years in order to keep the information up to date.

We will be the only province without a corporate tax filing fee. They vary from $10 to $70 across Canada. But I believe that because of the excessive fee charged originally by the former government, we hit a flashpoint with business, and no government could have justified that $50 fee.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sterling has moved second reading of Bill 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Shall the bill go for third reading? Committee of the whole House.

Hon Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like to ask unanimous consent to revert to motions in order to deal with private members' bills tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I move that Mr Agostino replaces Ms Castrilli in the order of precedence for private members' public business and that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to Mr Agostino's ballot item.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed? Agreed.

Report continues in volume B.

13 décembre 1995