Journal des débats 1997-oct-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should request the Ministry of Transportation to amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act, to include mandatory safety checks on used leased vehicles.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Martiniuk: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bring an important issue to the House today. This resolution, dubbed "the lemon leasing resolution," speaks to a very serious and potentially dangerous problem on Ontario roads. We are asking that the Ministry of Transportation amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act to include used vehicles that are leased. This is an important consumer protection issue and also an important safety issue. Ontario families deserve to be protected.

In September 1996, a local constituent, an elderly woman, a senior citizen in my community of Cambridge, walked into my office. This lady, with limited English skills, explained that she had leased a used car for herself and her family. She did not understand how the car she had leased could have so many problems, many of them safety related. After investigating her complaint it became very obvious that this woman and her problems had fallen through the cracks of a system designed for consumers buying a used car, not leasing a used car. With this resolution, members of this House can help make consumers aware of this growing problem.

Safety checks are required on all vehicles sold in Ontario. However, a safety check is not required if a vehicle is leased. A leased vehicle does not change ownership and therefore a safety check is not required.

Many Ontarians may ask how this obvious loophole came to exist in a province that prides itself on consumer protection and public safety. The Minister of Transportation has an efficient ministry and his staff work very hard to ensure our transportation system is one of the safest in North America. But the market has developed faster than expected. Leasing has become very popular very fast.

Regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act, the current regulation covering safety checks, was developed by combining a series of regulations in the 1970s to protect consumers when buying a used vehicle. It does not recognize a used car lease. Regulation 628 has done its job in the past; however, it has not kept pace with the growing practice of leasing a used vehicle.

Industry experts say the problem has the potential to grow very rapidly. Nearly 1.3 million vehicles are transferred in Ontario each year; those are used vehicles. There may be as many as a quarter of a million potentially unsafe leased used vehicles on Ontario roads at any given time.

Maybe some people watching, and perhaps some members of the House, are not familiar with what a safety check does cover. It covers the following: body and chassis, seatbelts, mirrors, glass and windshields, speedometers, lamps and reflectors, the fuel system, the exhaust system, the brakes, the horn, the accelerator linkage, steering, suspension, wheels and safety. You can see this all-inclusive list relates directly to the safety of that vehicle on the road.

The practice of leasing has increased significantly in Ontario. Approximately 149,000 new vehicles are leased yearly. The average lease is 30 months. Many people in Ontario are choosing the leasing option. Vehicles are being re-leased for the second or third time, and this will increase more and more as more vehicles are turned in on their original lease program.

The car dealers operating in our province pride themselves on quality. Most dealers go the extra mile to ensure they sell first-class vehicles to Ontario consumers. Stakeholders in the industry want to see a change in the present regulations. The Ontario Automobile Dealer Association and the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario both express support for this resolution.

Across Canada, many jurisdictions are faced with this growing problem in their outdated safety-check regulations. Ontario can be proactive in protecting consumers and meeting this growing market trend head on.

The provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have already addressed this problem through the registration process. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia require yearly safety checks in any event. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario have not yet addressed the problem.

I am not saying we should create a new system that is a burden on the industry or creates needless red tape or expense for consumers. The Ministry of Transportation consults with stakeholders regularly. A fair, balanced amendment to regulation 628 must be developed.

This resolution makes sense. The market has evolved faster than the law. We must address this growing problem and market trend. I hope all members of the House will support this important resolution to protect all citizens of Ontario.

1010

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm pleased to join the debate on the resolution presented by the member, Mr Martiniuk. At first glance you would think this was something that was already done, was something already existing in our laws, with respect to the leasing of cars. I have to say at the outset that even I thought that every car, new or old, resale cars, whatever, came with the necessary approvals and all kinds of checkups, to make sure that the car is roadworthy and safe to be on the road, regardless of whether it's a new car or a resale. I'm pleased the member has introduced this resolution this morning which will immensely improve the leasing of used cars and leased cars when they hit the road.

I think it has merit for many reasons, not only from the consumer's point of view. Of course today leasing is becoming more and more popular. Normally when people have to lease a car, have need of renting or leasing a car, they usually do that practically on the spur of the moment because of a number of personal requirements, let alone if they're going on holiday. It could be because of accidents, stuff like that, so really they are not familiar with the regulations entailed when leasing a particular car. I think it's important that this is in the record, that this is done properly and that motorists are protected.

Nowadays, I don't have to tell you that cars are being used more and more by youngsters, by women, by all kinds of people for work, for pleasure. The automobile is being used more and more. The fact is there shouldn't be any difference between a used vehicle and a new vehicle. It also shouldn't be any different if there is no change in ownership, as the member just alluded to. I believe that a car, once it's put on the road, must be in excellent working condition. A safety check does mean that yes, there is enough oil, yes, there is enough brake fluid, yes, the wheels have the right pressure, stuff like that. I think every mechanical part must be functioning and offer peace of mind to the person who is leasing the automobile.

It would be terrible if a family, let's say, let alone for work or whatever, was on a trip, especially travelling on holiday, and they got stuck perhaps on a very lonely stretch of road or highway at a particular time of the day or night and the car was failing because of mechanical problems. I don't think the public should be subject to situations like this. If the proposed resolution deals with the leasing of a so-called lemon, I think it's quite proper. I don't think anyone, either reselling a car or a leasing company, should get away with that. I believe it's incumbent upon us, upon the government, to make sure that cars put on the road by leasing companies are done in such a way that protection is offered to the consumer and the public in general.

When it comes to the matter of ownership -- and this is a good point that the member has in his resolution -- it's not a question that because it's a leasing company and there is no change in ownership that a safety check is not required. I think this is perhaps a loophole. It's a fault of the existing legislation. I note that the Minister of Transportation has shown many, many times in the House his personal interest in making roads safer and he has taken to heart the safety of all passengers and motorists at large. I'm sure he would very willingly and expeditiously comply with such a request. I would also like to add that perhaps situations like this do exist within the Highway Traffic Act and the minister would do very well to see that every possible regulation is revisited and makes it so that indeed every car is safe on our roads.

I believe it's not enough to say, "Listen, Ontario has one of the cleanest and safest records when it comes to transportation, cars, pollution and stuff like that." Yes, there is a big problem as well, and if I have time I want to touch on that, because there is nothing more aggravating than sitting behind a truck or a car spewing the worst kind of pollution that we can see and nothing is being done about it. This is one area I would invite the Minister of Transportation to seriously look at, the pollution not only in older cars but sometimes even new cars because of poor maintenance and stuff like that.

I think it should be incumbent upon the minister to really take a serious look at this resolution for a moment as the first thing that he has to look at. I would look at it that this would be approved in the House today and move it on. Indeed, it's not that we are moving away from summer, which is a period that leasing cars becomes more perhaps the thing than any other particular period during the year, but I think it is an aspect of the regulation that is important throughout the year, especially during the winter months. If it's in the summertime, perhaps you may want to walk a mile or so to reach some help, a telephone or a gas station, but in wintertime it may be very dicey if you were stuck because of a mechanical problem that someone would encounter in a leased car. It would be very irresponsible if we were not to take these particular precautions.

It is indeed a good idea and I don't think this would find any opposition from any segment of the population with respect to this maybe sounding like an additional expense on anyone, any company that may be in the leasing business. I think this should be well accepted as a measure of providing good service to the public, of providing protection to the public. I don't think this should come as a surprise, if you will, or as a burden of additional expenses to a leasing company. I'm sure they are all serious in running a good business and everyone would take into consideration the delivering of safety to their cars.

As I was saying before, I'm surprised that this does not affect the car itself, that with respect to the ownership, if you are a leasing company, because the car does not change ownership, that car is not subject to safety checks on a regular basis. This is a major fault of our laws as they exist. As a matter of fact, this should be more so than any other vehicle because of the frequent change in driver, if you will, the change in operator of that particular vehicle.

Why is that? Because when you have a number of different operators, the car tends to be driven in different ways. That car will be driven in different places, in different road conditions. The car will be utilized for different uses and managed differently by each driver. I don't have tell you that we have very conscious drivers, we have very attentive drivers and we have some reckless drivers as well, and sometimes when they drive on bumps, curbs, they don't try to take care of the car because it is a leased car, so I think it is incumbent upon on us and upon the companies to make sure that every car that is exposed to a road and given to anyone, young women or any other persons, to be driven especially with children in them, is safe, that those cars are worthy to be on the road.

1020

I think the member has given an amount of some 120,000 or something like that leased a year, which is a large number of cars being leased on a yearly basis. As he said, the trend is increasing. I think it is something we have to look at. It's something that should have been addressed a long time ago. I would say that most of the populace is not aware of this very large loophole within the regulation, the Highway Traffic Act, and I am sure the minister would be very happy to take this into consideration and make sure every leasing company and even car dealers, because car dealers are in the leasing business as well -- some garages, for example, may have a leasing licence as well.

The fact that we require anyone leasing used cars, as I said before, it shouldn't make any difference if it's new or a used car -- a lot of those places already have at their disposal every facility to make sure a car that is put on the road is safe. What better safety check can be given than passing on to the person leasing the car, the lessee, a copy of a certificate to show that the car has a safety certificate, that it has been certified as worthy of being on the road?

I think the public must be educated to that as well. I would say the general public is not aware that this is not part of our present legislation, part of our present regulations. The public would be well served. I think the leasing companies, be they garages, banks, or just leasing companies, should provide a copy of the safety certificate when they lease a particular car. The public would come to know that; the public would come to appreciate that.

For my part, I am pleased to support the member as he has introduced this legislation. I hope it will receive the necessary approval so we can get on with the business at hand and provide safe cars for the general public.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Let me say at the outset that I am generally in favour of what the member is trying to do here. I think there are some problems in the application, but that's something that could be looked at if this bill passes second reading today and goes to committee. Generally, I am in favour of the direction of the bill.

What really amazes here is the role the Tory members play in this House when it comes to private members' hour. I recognize private members' hour is here for us as members to come in and present bills, but there seems to be a difference in the approach of the government, the Tories, when they are together as a caucus from when Tories are alone, operating individually in the House, such as in private members' hour. We know that the government, the Tory caucus, prides itself greatly in reducing regulation and getting rid of all kinds of impediments, as they see it, to business. They believe smaller government is better, having fewer laws is better, having no regulation is best, "Let the marketplace do its own thing; the private sector knows how to do it best; let the marketplace dictate; government has got no role there; keep them out of the face of business."

But every Thursday morning we see Tory members coming to this Assembly with yet more regulation, so I've got to ask myself, are Tories saying one thing when they're in caucus and saying quite another thing when they operate individually as members? I'm not going to be that cynical, but the point I want to make is simply that when government members operate on their own, individually, they start to recognize that government has a role and government can play a positive role in our lives and government at times, yes, must write laws and at times must even regulate if there are situations where the public is at risk.

It's heartening to see that some of the individual government backbenchers, the majority of them, come into this House at private members' hour and pass private members' resolutions, but I wish they would go back to their caucus meetings on Tuesday mornings and say: "Mike, we believe government has a role. We're here as legislators and we want to make sure we are here primarily to do our business, which is serving on behalf of the people of Ontario, and in cases where there are injustices or in cases where there are problems, yes, the government has a role to pass laws." Imagine a society with no laws and no regulations. You'd be able to run down the highway at any speed. You'd be able to purchase equipment without any kind of safety regulations or concerns. I just make that point.

I wonder if members of the House are familiar with a program called Star Trek, Deep Space 9. They have this spatial phenomenon inside it. It's called a warm hole. A warm hole is a phenomenon which, when you put an object in it, comes out at the other end quite far away from where it's at. I would suggest that in private members' hour there is something called a warm hole when it comes to the individual Tory members, because they are certainly far away from the positions they take when they are together as a caucus, as they demonstrate here in the mornings.

I would just say to the member across the way, I think your resolution, or your private member's bill, actually, makes some sense. I can tell you that under the Bob Rae government, Mr Pouliot, the member for Nipigon and at the time the Minister of Transportation, had done similar things when it came to used vehicles. We recognized at the time that there was a real problem in the marketplace when it came to what they called curbsiders selling vehicles off curbsides that, not all of the time but in a lot of cases, were selling unfit vehicles, and unsuspecting buyers trying to get a good deal -- which is what were are all trying to do in this life when we go out and buy something, get the best possible price -- were getting it in the ear -- maybe a good price, but certainly in a lot of cases they were not getting a good product.

I take it what the government member is trying to do at this point is to expand on the work Mr Pouliot had done and say, "We need to take a look at leasing arrangements." In those cases, as he rightfully pointed out, there are some cases where you may have people operating in a shadier way than they need to be and are leasing vehicles to people that have a lot more mechanical problems than the buyers or lessees are willing to pay for.

The other thing is, I hope the Tory member had a chance to talk to some of his Tory colleagues in his caucus. I remember when we moved forward on the curbsider legislation there were grave concerns on the part of a number of Tory caucus members in the then third party; and individually it was the Speaker himself, Mr Chris Stockwell from Etobicoke, who came into this House and was really upset with what the government was doing. You know that in his former life, before he ever became our Speaker, he leased and sold vehicles here in the city of Toronto; I think his business was actually in Etobicoke.

Mr Al Palladini, the Minister of Transportation, is in the automobile business, and a whole bunch of other people in the Tory caucus. I hope the member across the way had a chat with them. I'll be really interested to see how many of those Tory caucus members who own vehicle leasing companies and car lots are going to be here voting in favour of this private member's legislation. I would hope he has talked to them and I hope they concur. I'm very much looking forward to seeing them in this House so they can pronounce their position on what is I think a very progressive private member's bill.

1030

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak briefly in support of this resolution by the member for Cambridge. It is in my view an appropriate type of private member's resolution since it seeks to fill an gap we have in our legislative and regulatory framework with respect to safety checks on motor vehicles in the province.

I think almost everyone in the province would agree, and I'm sure my friends opposite would agree, that it's important from a consumer safety point of view, from the point of view of all users of the road, all of us and our children, that vehicles be safety checked. We have this gap that exists in the legislative and regulatory framework where leased vehicles that do not require change of ownership, as leased vehicles do not, are not required, as used vehicles, to have a safety check. This resolution proposed by the member for Cambridge addresses that gap in that structure, which is appropriate, and I think most people who have reviewed this issue would also come to that same conclusion.

The resolution provides for mandatory safety checks on used leased vehicles. I know from my discussion with automobile dealers in my own community of Whitby that there's an increasing number of vehicles that are sold as leased vehicles. It seems to be a popular option that people are pursuing increasingly. The resolution's all the more relevant because it is a situation that's increasing around the province.

I also had an opportunity to discuss the resolution with an important good corporate citizen in Durham region, which is General Motors of course. They told me that this is the type of regulation they would support. They told me further that they already have this in practice at GM Leasing, although it's not a legal requirement now. As good corporate citizens, they're already practising this safety check procedure.

I congratulate the member for Cambridge for bringing it forward. All of us want to make sure we're safe on our highways in the province, having our own vehicles checked and having other vehicles checked as well, so that we can be sure as we drive along the highways that the vehicles coming toward us are in good condition and have been checked, whether they've been purchased outright or leased. I congratulate the member and I support the resolution.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to rise in my place and engage in this debate. I would invite the member for Durham East to come over and join me as I engage in this debate. I need all the help I can get. I must say that I rise to support this intrusion in the marketplace by the Tory backbencher. I can tell you I'm getting phone calls from all across Ontario as Tory backbenchers come in here and keep urging their government for yet more intrusion in the marketplace.

We had the member for Quinte in not too long ago on gasoline prices, saying the marketplace was not appropriately handling the problem. That's what the member for Quinte said.

Now we get the member for Cambridge saying that the marketplace is not doing a good job on safety checks for leased vehicles.

I happen to agree with him, but I'm not a Reform-a-Tory. I have every right to think there should be more regulation when it comes to health and safety; in particular, for safety checks for leased cars. It is strange to see these Tories coming in here week after week after week with regulation after regulation after regulation. You're going to sink in a sea of regulations by the time you're through. I thought this was the government that was trying to deregulate. Is there no end to it?

I know the member for Durham East wouldn't do something like this. He wouldn't come in here and urge yet more regulations on the long-suffering taxpayers of this province, because these regulations do cost money. But then I stop and I think, now wait a minute, the backbenchers are coming in and saying -- I'll be very specific; I don't want to misquote the member for Cambridge -- "That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should request the Ministry of Transportation to amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act."

For those people in our vast viewing public who might not be aware of the difference between regulation and laws, laws of course can be changed only through this Legislature where we have a packed legislative agenda; regulations, however, simply go to a committee of government, not of the Legislature. They don't require the blessing of the Legislature as a whole. If the backroom folks in the Tory party get together in the caucus -- I'm sure they have a regulations committee of their caucus and of their cabinet -- and they bring forth regulatory changes and they pass them through cabinet, they're given approval and that's it, end of debate.

I say to myself, why would the member for Cambridge feel he has to bring it here to the Legislative Assembly as a whole to get a regulatory change? I don't mind that he does it, but it is shamelessly exploiting the Tory party's vulnerability. Why anybody would exploit their own vulnerability, I don't know. But that's what he's doing when he says: "We want more regulations. This government is in favour of more regulations."

I think it's time you started getting a little more consistency in your message because I'm worried that the public out there is going to be confused as to who's governing: New Democrats or Tories in the province of Ontario? Do you think there's any chance?

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I don't think there's any chance; I don't think so. That's a big stretch.

Mr Laughren: You don't think there's any chance of confusion? I don't know. If day after day after day they come in here with all these regulatory changes, people are going to say, "This can't be a Tory government." I'm worried about your Reform supporters out there all across the province. You have a lot of Reform; you've elected Reform people to your caucus. What are they saying to you at your caucus meetings, more regulations? I doubt it somehow that your Reform members are encouraging you to bring forward these requests for more regulations. Somehow I just don't believe it.

But having said all that, I don't think this request for a regulatory change should take a full hour. I support it fully because, as the member for Cambridge says, there's a dramatically increased number of vehicles being leased out there in the province. It really is a phenomenon that's taken hold. It makes eminent good sense to me that there should be safety checks required on leased vehicles just as there are for vehicles that are sold. I have no hesitation in supporting the member for Cambridge and urging him and his colleagues to selectively bring forward requests for yet more regulations in Ontario.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today to contribute to the discussion in support of the member for Cambridge's resolution. The resolution we're discussing this morning I believe has unanimous consent of the House and everyone is going to support this because it's about safety.

The resolution is that it be resolved, "That in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should request the Ministry of Transportation to amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act, to include mandatory safety check on used leased vehicles." The difference here being: used leased vehicles.

Members of the House should know that in the research Mr Martiniuk has done, he's found that many other provinces have addressed this problem, with the exception of BC, Alberta and Quebec. Ontario is examining the options and choices that have been made in other jurisdictions within Canada.

Also the whole issue here is protecting the consumer. The current regulations were developed after many years of consultation to address the transfer of ownership process for -- at that time, in the 1970s -- what were prior-owned vehicles, used vehicles. But today the situation is changing.

In Ontario, 35% of all new sales are leased vehicles. Of the approximately 450,000 vehicles sold per year, 35% of those are leased and, of that, there's a good portion, perhaps 150,000, that are actually leased used vehicles. When the plate transfer takes place, there's no requirement in the regulations now to have a safety check. All other transactions do require a safety check. What the member's trying to do is address a long-standing deficiency in the transfer process.

In my own consultations on whether or not I should be supporting this resolution, I spoke to the dealers in my area. Of course, in Durham East, the member for Oshawa, Mr Ouellette, and myself, represent a lot of people who work in the auto industry. There's no question of that; that's our job.

I spoke to Tom Cowan from one dealership and Bill Nurse from another dealership and they were generally supportive. They would like to see a little more clarity on when the specifications within the regulations would require that there be a safety check.

I talked to Doug Bramley, the manager of used vehicles at Roy Nichols, and he told me, for example, that a vehicle with under 30,000 kilometres quite often is in just fine shape. He said, "Perhaps we could set a limit, that 15,000 kilometres would not require a mandatory safety check, but over that, it would." He said, "Eventually the customer has to pay for the safety check."

I think, to be reasonable and prudent in this decision, we want to deal with safety and we want to deal with customer satisfaction. The member's resolution goes a long way towards providing the consumer with the protection that's needed in a purchasing consumer environment that is changing.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be supporting the resolution.

1040

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm certainly glad to join in today's resolution in private members' hour and to deal with the resolution by the member for Cambridge. I think the member for Cambridge has acted in a very responsible and responsive way in how he approached this whole issue of leasing or dealing with vehicles in fleets and in car rental companies. I know the member for Cambridge is very, very concerned about the potential of unsafe vehicles on Ontario's highway system that have not been properly checked. I think he has gone to great detail and effort to present a resolution that deals with a very vital issue of consumer protection for the motoring public in Ontario.

I would like to commend the member for the hard work that he has put into this because it clearly demonstrates, for one member and the government as a whole, as a reality, that here is a specific member who looked at a situation, listened, consulted, and acted promptly.

I am very glad to announce that the Ministry of Transportation for the province of Ontario will, on or about December 31, 1997, the end of this year, proceed with changes to regulation 628, vehicle permits, that are made under the Highway Traffic Act so that all leased vehicles with more than 20,000 kilometres or more than 15 months of age will be required to undergo a safety check. The amendment will apply to the original lessee and to all subsequent lessees. Approval and implementation, as I said, will proceed on or about the end of this year.

Ontario will join with the other provinces, some of which still haven't undertaken this initiative, to ensure that we have a motoring situation, safe roads, with vehicles that were previously not checked because of the growing leasing industry in this province and throughout Canada, and also because regulation 628, as it's written, did not catch up to what is happening in the marketplace.

I think this particular initiative by the member for Cambridge, in combination with what will be happening at the end of this year by the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario, will fit nicely into ensuring that we have a more effective, safe motoring public and highway system in Ontario. I'm glad to join with all those members in supporting this particular resolution. I commend the member for Cambridge for the initiative that he has taken in this area.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I am proud to stand this morning in support of this resolution that would recommend the amending of regulation 628 to require mandatory safety checks on used leased vehicles. My distinguished colleague from Cambridge has brought forward a resolution that I think makes a great deal of sense. The number of leased used vehicles is growing in Ontario and could represent a tremendous safety problem to our motoring public. In fact, there could be as many as a quarter of a million unsafe vehicles on the road at any given time.

There is really no reason why this regulation cannot be changed, seeing that there is support from the Ontario Automobile Dealer Association and the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario. The rules vary widely across this country in respect to safety inspections, which should indicate that we should have some national standards.

The honourable member for Cambridge has a long history of finding solutions to problems such as this. He has put forward a resolution that is for the sole protection of motorists and pedestrians throughout all of Ontario. I urge all members present to support this resolution to make our roads and highways an even safer place to drive.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I simply want to briefly indicate my support for this resolution. There are times in this House when we have a consensus that builds on a particular subject, and this consensus is quite obvious on this particular resolution which is going to, I believe, enhance safety in our province, particularly on our highways. I'm very supportive of this resolution, as I'm sure will be my colleagues.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to respond to some of the comments that were made earlier by the member for Nickel Belt, criticizing some of our backbenchers about bringing in regulations and standing for getting rid of regulations.

I can assure him that we do stand for getting rid of useless and stupid regulations that are in place, some of those regulations that may have been a good idea in their time but that over the years have become outdated. Certainly those are the kind of regulations that this government wants to get rid of. I can also assure him that any in the Reform Party have very similar ideas about regulations that we have in place.

This one sounds like it would be a very good regulation. Leasing of cars is something that wasn't going on a few decades ago and has been occurring frequently in the last few years.

I would like to bring to the attention of the member across some of the ones that we are dealing with in environment as a good example of regulations that we are trying to get rid of. I give him an example like the regulation that their government worked with on pesticide containers. Pesticide containers under regulation are supposed to be buried; their government said they should be recycled. This is just an example of some of the regulations that are outdated and we're trying to change.

The objective of the regulations he was bringing forward had to do with ones that are obsolete and outdated and are a barrier to business, a barrier to industry, but this kind of regulation certainly isn't a barrier to industry. It's a regulation that's going to make driving on the highways safer, whether it's a car that you're leasing or whether it's one you're meeting on the highway that may have brakes that may fail or whatever problem might exist with that particular vehicle.

It's important for the member for Nickel Belt to be clear and to understand where this government is coming from, the regulations that we want to get rid of: those that are outdated, those that are obsolete, those that are useless, those that are cumbersome to business and to industry and to job creation in this province. It is indeed very important that we get rid of those regulations. I think basically, deep down inside, he agrees with those changes to the regulations.

Anyway, I can certainly support the member's private member's bill that is being brought forward this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? If not, Mr Martiniuk.

Mr Martiniuk: I would like to thank all the members who have spoken in support of this bill. There is a problem with this regulation, and it's a problem that we can fix by passing this resolution. There are individuals who will be protected, both as consumers and as users of our roads, upon the amendment of this regulation.

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

1050

PROVINCIAL DEBT

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, with five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the year 2025.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Arnott: "We in Wellington understand the economic value of hard work and the social value of personal responsibility. From this understanding stems a serious concern when our government refuses to live within its means, when our government grows until it begins to inhibit overall economic growth, when even excessive taxation does not prevent the expansion of our government debt."

Those words ring as clear and as true today as when I first delivered them in my maiden speech in this chamber seven years ago. My intention then was to speak in support of a better future for our young people, the need to tackle our deficit and debt problems so that our children are not forced to pay for our years of overspending.

That is why I am proposing today that once the budget is balanced, the provincial government commit itself to a debt-retirement plan. This resolution again reads:

"That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, with five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the year 2025."

Let's examine the province's finances for a moment. The deficit or shortfall when this government took office in 1995 was $11.3 billion. Through disciplined and decisive action, the government estimates that the provincial budget will be balanced by the year 2000-01. Once the budget is balanced, even though the government has made substantial and impressive progress in reducing the deficit, the accumulated debt will have risen to almost $120 billion, according to the government's own projections.

The province is currently spending $9 billion a year just to pay the interest costs on our outstanding debt, and $9 billion is more than we spend on our schools in a year.

We didn't get into this debt problem overnight and we won't solve it overnight. All three parties during their terms in government over the years have contributed to this problem, although some more significantly than others. Ontario has run a deficit every year since 1970, with one exception. There was actually a modest surplus in the year 1989-90. However, between 1985 and 1995 the growth in our debt skyrocketed, tripling in a period of 10 years.

I know that some people over the years have advocated in favour of deficit financing year after year, believing that this was the direction to go in order to provide the new services they believed the public were demanding. "Don't worry," they said, "it's only a debt we owe ourselves." However, this kind of thinking ignored the serious long-term consequences to our economy and the debt. Increasingly, as our deficits and debt grew, the province was forced to borrow from overseas lenders. These actions helped to drive up interest rates and had a negative impact on our economy. Jobs were disappearing and consumers were paying higher interest costs on their mortgages and on their personal borrowing.

My generation grew up in an era when deficits were not questioned. They were the norm and there were few people who questioned the conventional wisdom that contributed to government overspending and borrowing. Now people my age are having their own children. My wife and I have two little boys. As parents, we want the best for them, and like other parents, we worry about their future. We want to leave our children with a province that is as vital as it is today. Ideally, we as parents hope for better conditions for our children, better than we have enjoyed, more opportunities for jobs and personal fulfilment.

Protecting the integrity of our natural environment so that future generations have clean water, clean air and a safe environment requires commitment, political will and action. This same logic should be applied to our finances. I believe that the adoption of a formalized plan by the government to pay down the debt would create an expectation by the public and pressure on all future governments to manage the province's finances responsibly. To bestow upon today's children, when they become adults, an unsustainable debt and a serious decline in their standard of living is unacceptable and unconscionable. It is generational selfishness.

One of my constituents is in the public gallery today. His name is Michael McLellan. Michael, stand up. Michael is 13 years old. In the year 2025 Michael will be around 40 years old and he'll probably be entering into his best earning years. If the political will exists to do everything within reason to retire the debt by the year 2025, I believe Michael's taxes will be affordable and his generation will benefit from economic opportunities that are superior to today's conditions. That is my hope and my vision for Michael and others of his generation, including my own two sons.

This proposal on debt retirement is nothing novel and nothing new. The Alberta Legislature passed the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act in 1995, which included a 25-year schedule for debt retirement. Manitoba also passed debt-retirement legislation last year. Recently media reports have suggested that Alberta is well ahead of schedule and is on track to having its debt eliminated by the year 2000. Imagine, debt-free in the new millennium.

The political will that exists in Alberta and Manitoba is not unique. I know there is broad public support in Ontario today for taking the bull by the horns and tackling our financial problems. A full two thirds, or 66%, of the people in Wellington who voted in the 1995 provincial election voted Conservative. I sincerely believe that the strength of that mandate was due to people's concerns about the state --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It was just the local candidate.

Mr Arnott: No, not at all -- of the province's finances. They wanted and still want a government that controls runaway spending and borrowing. When I went knocking on people's doors during the campaign, time and time again I was met with expressions of shock and disbelief when I talked about the size of our debt and the fact that it had tripled over a matter of 10 years.

Children understand and support action on the debt as well. When I can find the time, I often visit schools in Wellington to speak to students about public affairs and answer their questions. When I explain the provincial debt situation to students, their reaction is palpable. Their eyes widen and their jaws drop. They can't believe their parents' generation would hide their heads in the sand and allow the debt to grow as it has.

The great CCF, and later NDP, leader Tommy Douglas was a statesman in Canadian history who cared passionately for people. He was the father of medicare and he fought to establish social programs that we enjoy today. Yet he objected to the state incurring public debt. He felt it was a mistake when government racked up excessive debt and ended up paying high interest costs to bankers with the people's money. Tommy Douglas was right.

I want to point out several organizations that have expressed to me their support for a debt-retirement plan in Ontario. Brian Kelcey of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation writes:

"Mr Arnott deserves credit partly because his private member's resolution isn't revolutionary. Rather, it advances a tested concept. His anti-debt resolution is useful at a time when many pro-spending lobbyists are talking as though deficits were Canada's only fiscal problem."

Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business writes:

"You will recall my writing to you in July 1997 to convey results of CFIB's Ontario Mandate Ballot #185. The results showed that 84% of our Ontario members favour the federal government continuing spending restraint to pay down the accumulated debt, once its annual budget deficit is eliminated. We would anticipate our members holding to the same principle in connection with the provincial fiscal situation. CFIB reiterates our pre-budget recommendation that the Ontario government follow the example of other jurisdictions and set out a tough but attainable plan for paying off the net debt."

Colin Brown of Ontarians for Responsible Government writes:

"I'd like to wholeheartedly endorse your private member's resolution which proposes that the provincial government adopt a debt-retirement plan. Taxpayers need some assurance that the monstrous provincial debt problem will be addressed in a serious and timely way."

Peter Woolford of the Retail Council of Canada writes:

"The retail council strongly shares your concern about the size of the current Ontario debt. While the government has made significant progress in reducing the size of the current deficit, it simply is not sufficient to get the books to balance on an annual basis."

I'd like to conclude my introductory remarks this morning by saying that flexibility must be employed in the five-year targets I've suggested. In years of economic downturn it may not be possible to target resources towards the debt. However, in good times, in good years, in years of strong growth, we should be making progress towards reducing our debt. Common sense should prevail, of course, as the government undertakes the serious task of restoring sanity to our provincial finances.

I look forward to the participation of other members in this House on this important issue and ask for their support.

1100

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the member for Wellington bringing this issue before the Legislature. It is one which people in various jurisdictions are endeavouring to wrestle with at this time: That is, with the economy rebounding across the country and with the American economy very strong -- the debate is the same there -- how do we deal with the revenues that we should anticipate would increase with this rebounding economy?

The member has pointed out that he wishes to see a good deal of the dividend, if you can call it that, going to the retirement of the debt. Certainly, when we look at the accumulated debt we have at the present time in Ontario, everyone would like to see that debt reduced. There may be some question as to how quickly it can be reduced and eliminated, but the overall goal in the best of all worlds would be to eliminate that debt.

We have to be careful that we have the flexibility the member talked about, because if you're very rigid it means that during times of deep recession you're going to see a drastic loss in revenue and some increases in expenditures. A good example, the most recent example, was the recession we experienced during the years of the NDP government. They were unfortunate or unlucky enough to come into office and experience a recession after we had had an economic boom in the province for about five or six years. It meant that the expenditures were going to increase; it meant that the revenues were going to drop off drastically. The government, in those circumstances, is faced with difficult decisions. Whether you simply abandon those who are most vulnerable during that period of recession to deal entirely with the deficit, or whether you try to balance it, you try to provide a safety net while at the same time not allowing the deficit to go too high.

The last balanced budget we had in Ontario was the 1989 budget of Robert Nixon. You'll remember that in 1990 there was another projected surplus that would be brought about as well. The economy changed throughout the country. Every province changed its projections; the federal government and the private sector all changed their projections. As a result the Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, who was in the House that afternoon, was faced with a very difficult challenge. With revenues dropping drastically, with the economy beginning to falter considerably, he had a very difficult decision to make. I'm sure he got all kinds of advice on what he should and shouldn't do, and was faced with the challenge throughout the early 1990s of dealing with a deep recession.

The best thing to overcome a deficit and the best thing to have to reduce debt is a strong economy. All of us in this House, regardless of what political party we're involved with, want to see a strong economy, first of all nationally, and second, and more important to us on a personal basis, in the province of Ontario. If we can build a strong economy, then the revenues are going to come in and some of the expenditures that are needed in very difficult times are not needed to the same degree. We'll all work towards that strong economy.

The Alberta example is used. I don't think it's as applicable to Ontario as we would like to think. Alberta has oil in the ground. I suggest to members of this House, if we had oil revenues of the kind they had there, where they have a heritage fund -- that meant they didn't have to borrow as much, if at all, on the regular market. They have the heritage fund to cushion them. Those oil revenues are very good for the province of Alberta. We have some oil revenues here. I think in Petrolia we have a very small amount of oil, but it sure helps to have the oil revenues Alberta had. It's not always a good analogy to use Alberta as the comparison, though there are some things which are the same.

One of the policy pronouncements the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott -- not too loudly -- expressed in the early days was his apprehension about an income tax cut before the budget was balanced. He and a few other members of the caucus expressed that view. The reason there was apprehension about it was that first of all it meant the government had to borrow money. It was losing revenues. As soon as the government cuts its taxes, it loses revenues. They would have to borrow that money to finance a tax cut. That meant, of course, that the provincial debt would continue to rise unnecessarily.

If the government said, "Once the budget is balanced we're going to have this tax cut," then I think more of the small-c conservative observers would have felt less angst about this. I remember the member himself was expressing -- he can't do it too loudly, but certainly within certain circles -- his concern about cutting taxes before the deficit is eliminated. Once it's eliminated, of course, those choices become more available.

The government has been fortunate in receiving some revenues, but they've come to a very large extent from gambling revenues. I think members in this province know my particular concern about governments all over the country and all over North America and the world relying on gambling revenues.

Gambling preys upon the most vulnerable people in our society: those who are addicted to gambling and those who are desperate. They are people who, for instance, don't have the connections in the upper echelons of society to get the good jobs, to get ahead, to get the advantages that might be out there. They often are people who have been unable to afford considerable post-secondary education or may have had to leave school earlier in secondary school because of economic circumstances at home. People who are in desperate straits financially tend to be the kinds of people who will take more of a chance to win that jackpot to bring themselves up to others in society in an economic sense.

We see those revenues coming in, and I know governments of all stripes welcome those kinds of revenues. I would suggest that they're not particularly -- I call it blood money. I don't think they're the same as the kinds of revenues that are levied through taxes, where everybody can see where they are and they take into account a person's ability to pay.

Right now we're fortunate that the economy is picking up. I know that many of the ministers of this government blame the federal government for everything. I suppose they're going to blame the federal government now for the booming economy across this country. I didn't hear much talk of a booming economy during the federal election campaign, but immediately after it was finished, suddenly the economy is booming. It makes me a little bit suspicious that there were some who did not want to put that information out at that time.

Be that as it may, as the lawyers say -- I'm not a lawyer -- it is a circumstance we face and we are pleased to see that happening, though there are many people in our society who are adversely impacted by the present circumstances we face.

I say to the member that I think there should be a dedication of a certain amount of money available to the reduction of the debt in the province. That should be one of the components of an economy which returns to a robust economy, as we all hope we will see a completely robust economy. That should be the dividend that is paid. There are many ways of doing it. We can invest in people and programs, for one thing; we can give some tax cuts, if that's what the government wants to do, on a selective basis to directly help those who are most in need; or third, we can pay down the debt. Probably a combination of the three is what most people in this province would like to see.

I want to ensure that my colleague from Yorkview has an opportunity to express his views on this important issue. Therefore, I will now terminate my remarks and say that I'm pleased we're having this discussion in the House today.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I rise with some trepidation, realizing that when it comes to debt and deficit, I could be regarded as somewhat of a lightning-rod, so I'll be circumspect in my remarks.

I first of all welcome the Arnott family to the Legislature this morning -- Ted's wife, mother and two young boys -- and commend the member for Wellington for bringing this resolution to the House this morning. I must say, though, that when Mr Arnott introduced Michael, who looked to be about 12 years old -- I'm not sure -- he failed to remark that if you are obsessed with deficit and debt reduction, it's the Michaels of this world who will be most hurt as you ratchet down your commitment to the education system. That's what we see happening in this government now.

1110

While I have no problem with setting goals and I like the flexibility in the resolution from the member for Wellington, if you do it, if you get obsessed by that and you achieve that goal by reducing the quality of education or the quality of health care -- and that's the perception in this province today, that this government is obsessed with its tax cut and must reduce the quality of health care and reduce the quality of education in order to achieve that tax cut and at the same time balance their budget by the year 2000-01. I believe that's the year they intend to balance their budget.

I'm always a little edgy or sceptical about people who think there's something simple about this whole process of ratcheting down the deficit and the debt. I must say I very much appreciated the remarks from the member for St Catharines, who I thought took a very fairminded approach in his realization that sometimes things don't work out the way you want them to, that you can get into a severe recession and then you have some really difficult choices, because at the end of the day the people at the top of the heap will always be able to get themselves through a recession, but it's the people at the bottom, who are most vulnerable, who will suffer the most if you are obsessed with deficit reduction and forget about the people who most need the help of government.

I know that Tories tend not to have the view of government helping people. Rather, their view is that government must get out of the way of people. I understand that difference in opinion between me and people in the Tory party, but I would simply say that at some point you have to stop and think about people who are really vulnerable and not allow an obsession with anything such as a tax cut, deficit reduction or a debt reduction to get in the way of your obligation to protect those people.

I want to hear the rest of the debate. I'll probably end up supporting this resolution because of its flexibility. I think the member for Wellington is fairminded and is not obsessed with achieving debt reduction through arbitrary and draconian measures. He has expressed that, as a matter of fact, probably -- or potentially -- at some risk to his own political career, but only events as they unfold will tell us that. At the end of the day, I'll probably end up supporting this resolution partly because the member for Wellington comes to this place with a view that's not as theological as those his Reform-minded caucus colleagues so often have, as I stand here in my place and look some of them directly in the eye. So I will sit down and allow my colleagues to have some more time to speak.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on the debt reduction resolution by my friend and colleague the member for Wellington. I'd like to reiterate the remarks of the former Minister of Finance and welcome the member's mother and his two children, who have just left, one of whom is just a new baby, and his wife to the gallery to watch him present his resolution.

This government supports, I want to stress, the spirit of the member for Wellington's resolution: to retire Ontario's deficit. We also believe that it's necessary for governments to create plans to pay off debt. However, this government feels that our primary goal has to be, and is, to eliminate the deficit by the fiscal year of 2000-01 and that it is premature now to focus on retiring the debt until this goal has been achieved.

On another point, this government believes that the member for Wellington's resolution, which states, "The government...should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, with five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the year 2025," is too restrictive and might prohibit governments from carrying out their very role in certain circumstances.

We made the commitment in the Common Sense Revolution to introduce "A realistic plan for wiping out the deficit and tackling our debt to stabilize our economy." In his 1997 budget, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, said, "Once the budget is balanced, we will put in place a program to cut that debt to ensure that our children will have the opportunities they deserve."

There is no question that since this government took office in 1995, we have remained committed to keeping our promise of working to reduce and eliminate the deficit. When we took office two years ago, the government inherited an unhealthy fiscal situation, to put it mildly. The province's deficit was a whopping $11.3 billion, and Ontario's debt had climbed and passed, in fact, the $100-billion mark, which meant that 20 cents out of every tax dollar was going to pay interest on our debt. We recognized that this was utterly unsustainable.

This government took swift action to restore the fiscal and economic health of the province. In the fall of 1995, we introduced a balanced budget plan designed to erase Ontario's deficit by the fiscal year of 2000-01. It wasn't easy. After spending over $11 billion a year more than we were taking in, we had not only to cut back on spending but to look at delivering programs and services differently.

Today, as promised, the government is on track to balance our budget by 2000-01. But we are still facing a whopping $6-billion deficit, and we recognize that we must remain vigilant in ensuring that our balanced budget plan deficit targets are met.

Our government's view in opposing my friend the member for Wellington's resolution is that we believe we must remain utterly focused on ensuring that the deficit is eliminated and that the budget is balanced before we divert our energy to considering the specifics of a plan for reducing the debt. We have to stress and keep that in focus every single minute. I want to remind you again, however, that as Finance Minister Eves pointed out in his 1997 budget, "Once the budget is balanced, we will put in place a program to cut that debt."

Another reason this government is opposed to locking ourselves into a detailed plan to retire the debt by 2025, as the member for Wellington proposes, is that we want to reserve the flexibility to act as a government should and indeed must in extreme cases involving unforeseen circumstances or acts of God.

In closing, this government supports the spirit of the member for Wellington's resolution to retire the province's debt, but we do not believe that our focus today should be diverted while we are carrying such a large deficit, as we are already doing. We feel also that the specific time frame of the member's resolution is too binding for future governments to adhere to their promises.

That said, I would like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Wellington for bringing forward this important resolution. We promise Ontarians that we would introduce a plan to eliminate the deficit and retire the debt, and we're on track to reaching that goal.

1120

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'd like to add to the debate as well. First I would like to compliment the member for Wellington for introducing this resolution. I think it is another one of those motherhood resolutions that when it's exposed to the public, again they're going to say: "Oh, sure, great idea. Let's do it." I think we should look towards reaching that particular goal and indeed retire our debt and balance the books as well.

I should say, in the five minutes I have, that in 1989 or so, around that particular time, the Liberals balanced the books. We had a surplus, I should say with pride, without cutting any social programs or cutting the health care system or cutting education or otherwise. We did it.

I think the gesture is very noble, something that we as members of the House should subscribe to. I think it is something the public would like government to look at and accomplish in due course. But if we are looking seriously at the whole issue, it's not as simple to accomplish as we individuals would like. We have to be very realistic. We are talking of finding over $5 billion a year if we are serious about retiring our debt, without adding any more to it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The Premier should take the content of the resolution to heart and, as we have suggested many times in this House, abandon the promise he has made of refunding a 30% tax cut to the wealthy and not the needy. That is not needed. If you ask anyone, they will say: "Put it towards retiring the debt or balancing the books. We don't need that 30%." I think that's something that we, as government, as legislators, should be looking at. I'm sure the member will continue to impress upon his own government to take those measures.

I don't have to tell you that very often events happen that are beyond our own control, either because of other levels of government or because of the economic situation, which change the income of the provincial government and thus throw our plans and aims out of whack. We will have to seriously consider, if we embark on something like that, when times are tough, are we going to provide bread on the table to many unemployed people or are we going to continue to chop an extra $1 billion?

I don't have to tell you the consequences of this present government. What is it going to do to our provincial debt? It's going to add an extra $25 billion, $28 billion from its present state.

While I admire and congratulate the member, I hope he himself, together with other members, will impress upon the Premier and say, "If we want to be serious and assist our people without cutting programs, without continuously affecting the most needy in our society, we'll look at a situation like this very seriously." Unless we do that, I have to say again to the member, to Mike and to the younger members of the Arnott family, that 25 or 30 years from now we won't have a health care system for those people. We won't have an education system as we know it today. We won't have programs for our young people to go and meet the challenges of the world. We won't have those programs to provide skilled jobs. They won't be able to afford to enter colleges or universities. Where do we draw the line?

I think it's a very noble gesture to say, "We have to retire the debt and we have to balance our books," but then we have to also ask, at whose expense? I like the flexibility I see in there when we say, "Sure, it's something we have to look at," but we also have to look at the consequences of various actions: either a worldwide recession or the economic situation within our own nation, within our own province, and assess that situation at the time. Governments are here for a very particular reason: To govern on behalf of the people, especially those who cannot look after themselves. If we were so blind that we were to say, "Let's retire our deficit and debt at any cost," I think it would be a terrible flaw in any government, this one or a future government.

I will be supporting the bill because I think the principle is a sound one. It's something we can subscribe to as present and future governments. I hope we do that, keeping in mind the flexibility that the world changes on a daily basis.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to take a few minutes to add my comments to the resolution from the member for Wellington. The member for Wellington has represented his area competently and diligently. He's known as a hard worker in his riding. I know that, based on my experience here, working with him between the years 1990 and 1995. That's why I was somewhat surprised after the 1995 election that the member for Wellington didn't make it into cabinet. However, we know there are going to be some changes made in the next few months and that's something that may change. His spouse is here with him today. I don't know what she thinks about that. Maybe we could put the member for Wellington into a position where he may have some power and influence and be able to implement some of the suggestions he's had, like the one he's put forward here today.

When I look at this resolution we have before us, it makes me wonder how we got ourselves into this position. It makes me wonder how Bill Davis could have moved us so far down this road. I suspect that one of the reasons -- if we consider ourselves, for example, how many of us have never had a mortgage? How many of us have never gone into debt so we could buy a house for our family and for ourselves for shelter? The reality is that on occasion governments are forced to borrow money. They do that because there's a long-term payback for many of the things governments go into debt for.

As the former Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, has indicated, he may be supporting the resolution today. I may support it myself, because I see there is some flexibility within this plan. It's a 25-year plan. It mentions interim targets that need to be met as well. It isn't as binding as the resolution we had before us a couple of weeks ago that was introduced by -- I don't remember the member's name, but it had hard and fast rules. It said you have to have a balanced budget or else you need to call an election. Those are the sorts of resolutions I couldn't support, that bind the hands of future governments and really take away the ability of governments to make those decisions themselves. This one isn't quite as restrictive as that.

The only concern I have about this resolution, however, is the fact that this debt retirement plan begins in the year 2000. The whole premise this plan would be based on is eliminating the deficit by the year 2000. We need to consider how this government is going to reach that point of actually balancing its budget.

As was said earlier by the member for St Catharines, one of the best ways to reduce the deficit is through a strong economy. Right now we're blessed by the fact that we do have a strong and productive economy, but to have a strong economy you also need an infrastructure to support that growing economy. You need improved road and transportation systems. You need an education system that is going to provide people who will turn into a well-qualified workforce to fill the jobs that the growing economy is going to create. You need to have a health care system that is going to provide quality health services at a price that isn't unaffordable for those who may need to access it.

From the Windsor area that I represent, we see the example right across the border in Detroit. We have a big advantage when it comes to the production of automobiles and parts, and that's largely because of two factors: one is the difference in the value of the Canadian versus the American dollar; the other is the advantage we have over the cost of production, and that is because of the health care system we have. In the United States they have to pay additional for that health care coverage and it makes them uncompetitive. I wouldn't want to see us go down that road.

1130

We also need a clean environment so that people will want to live and work and participate in our economy.

Sometimes in order to have that infrastructure and have those systems, there needs to be an investment by the government. Not only is the deficit we have measured in dollar amounts, but we have a deficit that can be measured when it comes to health care, when it comes to education and when it comes to job creation, and that's a deficit we need to keep in mind as well.

Governments often find that they need to borrow money. One of the reasons this government is borrowing money right now is to fund its tax cut. This is an approach that was attempted by Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. What was found when he introduced his tax cut was that the debt actually went up. This is a concern I have, that by implementing this tax cut we're not only putting a cap on social spending to do that, but in effect we're actually increasing the debt. I know that is something the member for Wellington doesn't want to see happen.

I share some of the concerns that have been mentioned as well by the member for Yorkview. When we're considering eliminating the debt, who is going to benefit from that and who is going to pay? As governments, we always have to be conscious of that and maintain a reasonable balance.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate? The member for Wentworth --

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Wentworth North. It has been some time.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It has been.

Mr Skarica: My friend from Wellington asked me to speak. I agreed to do so because I respect him as an individual and I find him one of the finest human beings I've met in politics.

The resolution, I suggest, is based on common sense. The resolution indicates that governments should retire their debts. I analogize it to a family. If you're in a family and you plunge your family into debt, a number of things happen, such as the following: You don't sleep at night because you're wondering how you're going to pay the interest that's coming due. If your children want a certain something, a bike or a trifle that they fall in love with, you can't do it because you're now a slave to your debt.

In fact, a prominent book written many thousands of years said that the borrower is a slave to the lender. When the socialists were plunging us into debt in the last five years, what they were really doing was eroding our freedoms and making us slaves to the bankers. I think they would agree that that's not a good position to be in.

This is not a new principle, that if you plunge yourself into debt, eventually you have no freedoms. Thomas Jefferson, who I respect and admire, said 200 years ago that when a government plunges itself into debt, has to pay interest payments, eventually what happens is that it erodes the freedoms of its citizens. Not only does it erode the freedom of its citizens because it makes the citizens slaves to the bankers or whoever holds the debt; it also means it's not able to look after the citizenry. We've heard that a number of social programs have to be maintained to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. If the government plunges itself into huge debt, like we have -- we're at $100 billion right now, and we're paying $8 billion or $9 billion in interest -- what eventually happens is that you can't help out those people who are poor and disadvantaged.

I was doing the Roy Green show yesterday, and I noted that the education budget is some $12 billion. If we had that $8 billion or $9 billion that we pay in interest payments, just imagine what kind of education system we would have. We could spend $20 billion. We wouldn't have books in the system that are 20 or 30 years old. In fact, there were books I had read. One of the students said he thought he saw my name in one. The only good thing about that is that somebody knows my name.

The member for Windsor-Riverside says that sometimes governments are forced to borrow money. No one is forced to borrow money. You choose to borrow money. We have chosen not well in the past, I suggest. When you're carrying a $100-billion debt, what you've really done is that you've mortgaged the future. You've been selfish. You've said: "I want to live a certain lifestyle right now, and I'll let the future pay for that."

To indicate a real-life example that illustrates that, the Hamilton board of education has a $30-million unfunded liability for teachers' gratuity. I'm not going to make any comment as to whether that's good or bad, the teachers' gratuity. But what I found alarming about that $30-million retirement gratuity was that I said to one of the trustees who was there in the 1970s: "You have a $30-million gratuity and you have no money in the bank to pay for that. That means that when a teacher retires, they have to pay $32,000 of taxpayers' money that's supposed to go in the classroom today." I asked this gentleman, "How come you put no money in the bank?" He said: "That wasn't our problem. By the time it had to be paid, we wouldn't be in power, so we didn't worry about it." That's the kind of reckless non-thinking that got us into this situation.

A family that functions well and lives reasonably and has a prosperous lifestyle is guided by the philosophy that you will spend no more money than you receive. In fact, most families that do well over time spend a little less money than they receive and save money for the future. I do not see why governments cannot do the same thing.

In fact, Ontario seems to be behind the times in this regard. In the United States, all the states except Vermont already have this type of legislation and have balanced-budget legislation. Four of the provinces and two of the territories have balanced-budget legislation. Basically, they will refuse to spend more than they take in.

I suggest that if you do spend more than you take in and you do get huge debts, what you lose is not your social programs, although you do lose those, but you lose your liberty and your freedom because you are a slave to other people. You are not free to make decisions. You're not free to help those who are less advantaged than yourself. Ultimately, what you are doing by spending more than you have over time is that you are selling the freedoms and the democratic rights of the individuals you are supposedly governing.

I applaud the member for this motion. I said I would speak for five minutes. It appears that I'm lying, because it's been about six minutes, so I apologize. I fully support this motion.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's indeed my pleasure to rise in support of this resolution. I think it is both timely and extremely important that we remind people of one of the underpinnings of the Common Sense Revolution and in fact one of the underpinnings of any responsible government.

In our personal lives, in our business affairs, of course we understand that you cannot spend more than you take in. It's called bankruptcy. At the government level, somehow we went off the rails. In the past, somehow they took on a mindset that it was appropriate to overspend. It was appropriate to mortgage the future. We don't believe that's correct. We believe it's more appropriate to chart a path back to fiscal responsibility.

We're very proud of the fact that one of our very strong commitments in the Common Sense Revolution was a balanced-budget plan. Just to remind everyone, we had committed that even though we were inheriting a debt load of $100 billion and an annual loss of over $11 billion a year, we knew the inherent strengths of the province of Ontario, the inherent willingness of our entrepreneurs to invest and all the employees to work hard and contribute to the rebuilding of this province. We knew that in one term we could turn that around and bring the province back to a balanced budget.

I'm very pleased, as we debate here today, to report that we're actually billions of dollars ahead of our own very aggressive forecasts laid out back in 1994 in the Common Sense Revolution. It's not only appropriate to suggest that the year 2000 will see a balanced budget; I think there's even a chance it may be sooner than that. Obviously, to those who wrestle with the challenges and look at the legislative changes we've brought forward, there's always a need to keep it in the context of what's best not just for ourselves but for the generations to follow.

Surely we don't want to be known as the one generation in Ontario that left our successors with less than we inherited. This plan and this resolution speaks very much to our commitment to making sure the generations to follow will have a strong and vibrant Ontario and they will have all the same benefits in the health care system, in the education system, in roads and all the other services that we enjoyed and our parents enjoyed.

I would like to leave a few seconds for my colleague from Niagara Falls, but I just wanted to register my heartfelt and sincere support for this resolution. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward today.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I want to congratulate the member for this resolution, because the resolution has served to reorient all of us about motive. When we took office, we had a deficit of $12 billion. We're reducing that every year, but every year that we have an annual deficit, that gets added to our debt. That means we have more interest to pay.

As Mr Skarica said, we've lost the freedom. Where we spent $8.9 billion in interest when we got into office, now, despite all the expenditure reductions we're making, we have $9.2 billion to spend on interest. It erodes our freedom to spend that money on other programs.

I thank the member for Wellington for the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the member for Wellington, you have two minutes to sum up.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank my colleagues in the House who have spoken to this resolution this morning. I particularly want to thank my friend and colleague the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for the excellent speech she's given and the support in principle to many of the things I'm putting forward today.

Thank you very much to the member for Wentworth North. I must say I admire his courage and his integrity and the way he does his job on behalf of his constituents.

I thank the member for Scarborough East, who was eloquent as always, for the commitment he shows to the principles we put forward in our election campaign, and also the member for Niagara Falls for the short speech he gave and the outstanding contribution he made to the debate.

Thank you to the member for St Catharines, the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Downsview and the member for Windsor-Walkerville also for the points they made. I appreciate it.

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: Did I miss one? Thank you to the Durham caucus, who are here in force, hopefully to support this idea.

There are two points I want to make in response to some of the points that have been made in the course of this debate this morning. First of all, tax cuts. The Premier promised to cut taxes. He delivered on those tax cuts. The majority in this House support tax cuts. I think it's fair to also point out that the Liberal caucus, during their election campaign, talked about a 5% tax cut that was somewhat vague and unspecified, but certainly supported the principle of tax cuts while the deficit was being reduced.

I think it's also fair to point out that the New Democrats, in their election campaign, in their manifesto, promised to balance the operating budget, as they called it, in a three-year time period. So I think there is a general consensus within this House that some of the ideas that I've put forward in this resolution are good ones.

Also with respect to the issue of a possible temporary downturn, of course we know that over a 25-year period there's a very good chance of maybe even two or three recessions, but I had hoped to offer the kind of flexibility within my resolution that wouldn't bind the government to, say, setting aside a specific dollar figure every year, so that in good years we could pay down debt; in tough years we might still have to borrow.

Thank you very much to all members for their participation on this issue.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 95(e), I cannot put the questions until 12 o'clock. Therefore, I will now suspend the proceedings until 12 o'clock.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1200.

VEHICLE SAFETY

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first with ballot item number 103, standing in the name of Mr Martiniuk. Mr Martiniuk has moved private member's resolution number 74. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PROVINCIAL DEBT

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now deal with ballot item number 104, standing in the name of Mr Arnott. Mr Arnott has moved private member's resolution number 72. Is it the pleasure of the House that motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The house recessed from 1201 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COUNTY PARK

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today in the Legislature to bring well-deserved attention to a very special group of people in my home town of Thunder Bay. At a ceremony held this morning at Our Lady of Charity school in Thunder Bay, the County Park community was recognized by the Trillium Foundation as the recipient of their prestigious Caring Communities Award. From more than 160 nominations across the province, this County Park community was chosen as one of five winners who will receive a $20,000 grant for further community development.

In a few short years the residents have developed the neighbourhood of County Park into a community of which members are proud and which people want to join. The local community policing officer, Constable Collin Parkinson, Our Lady of Charity neighbourhood school, the community at large and the Our Kids Count organization have all worked together to sponsor an impressive array of meaningful activities, from an annual neighbourhood cleanup day involving hundreds of volunteers, to a community garden and kitchen, sports programs, volunteer street patrols, prenatal and parenting groups and much more.

The residents of County Park have been exemplary in their remarkably successful effort to work together to solve problems and enhance the quality of life for all who live in the community. I acknowledge, admire and applaud the County Park community's creativity, resourcefulness, determination and selfless dedication of time, talents and energy.

The County Park community is a superb illustration of the wonderful things that can happen when hearts and hands work together. Congratulations, County Park residents -- perfect examples of people helping people.

TVONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yesterday the government announced the next step in privatizing TVOntario: a series of public consultations. The government claims they want to hear from the public, yet the minister made no statement in the House, and consultations will occur in only five cities. Actions speak louder than words, and this government is not listening to people. The review of TVOntario does not reach out to the public.

I'm particularly disappointed in the lack of effort to hear from the francophone and native communities. You have released no details about the extent of the consultations, not even who will be invited to the meetings. TVOntario is an invaluable part of these communities, providing a cultural link and valuable educational service. Your consultation schedule relegates these communities to a sideshow.

People living in remote parts of northern Ontario want to be heard, but your actions prove again that you're not listening. Your one francophone community meeting will be in Ottawa, yet TFO is particularly special to the francophone community because it serves francophones all across the province. How will your hearings consult with francophones outside of Ottawa?

You say you're consulting with TVO's advisory councils, but I understand that those meetings were postponed and have not yet been rescheduled. You're not listening. Don't sell off TVO for the sake of privatization and just to give Rob Sampson and Paul Currie something to do. It's not worth it. Listen to the people.

TEEN RANCH

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): It gives me great pleasure to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of Teen Ranch, located in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. Teen Ranch is a 150-acre facility located in the beautiful hills of Caledon. Campers are given the opportunity to try their hand at both English and Western horseback riding, hockey at the Ice Corral taught by volunteer NHL instructors, tennis, golf or adventure camping as well as volleyball, basketball, swimming and much more.

Teen Ranch is a charitable organization. Kids from schools and church groups come from all over Canada. The excellent reputation of camp director Mel Stevens and his staff has meant campers from around the world come for the unforgettable experience of staying at Teen Ranch.

Teen Ranch recently expanded their facilities by building an Olympic-size arena that can seat approximately 1,000 people. The Ice Corral has already played host to the Toronto Maple Leafs during past training camps.

As unique and spectacular as the facilities are, Teen Ranch is much more than buildings and beautiful scenery. I cannot emphasize enough what an important role Teen Ranch has played to countless families. Mel Stevens has been able to bring together an incredible group of staff that leave campers and visitors with a very special remembrance of their time spent at Teen Ranch.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, it is my pleasure to congratulate Teen Ranch on its 30th anniversary. I wish Mel Stevens and all the people at Teen Ranch all the best and continued success in the coming years.

LAYOFFS

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Today I rise in the House to illustrate yet another example of the government's failed job strategy. Bombardier's de Havilland plant is the largest employer in my riding of Downsview. Since Bombardier purchased de Havilland in 1992, the number of people working at this plant has risen from 2,700 to 5,600 currently.

The de Havilland plant is an integral part of Bombardier's aerospace operations in North America. Currently, the de Havilland plant is responsible for designing and producing the wing for the newly certified Lear Jet 45 business aircraft and final assembly of the world-renowned Global Express ultrarange business jet. In addition, the Dash-8 aircraft, which is also built in Downsview, will soon reach its milestone 500th delivery as it continues to lead the industry in hours of service and dispatch reliability.

Despite these great accomplishments, however, Bombardier Aerospace has announced that it will lay off 450 people at de Havilland. In addition, Bombardier has announced that it will hire 600 people to work in their operations in Montreal. Indeed, the company says it needs workers in all areas, including engineering, flight instruction, marketing and public relations.

The government has prided itself in creating jobs in this province, but here is an example of its failed job strategy. The government has ignored an opportunity to preserve jobs in Ontario. Where is the leadership on this matter?

BIRCHWOOD TERRACE NURSING HOME

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The board of directors of the Thunder Bay District Homes for the Aged -- in the riding I represent, that of Lake Nipigon, Homes for the Aged is located in the township of Terrace Bay -- has decided it will close December 31, 1998. The local council does not support the decision made by other people, those of Thunder Bay. Effective January 1, the residents will be asked physically to move from Terrace Bay 120 miles to Thunder Bay.

We've requested that the Ministry of Health place this issue, because of its human dimension, as a top priority. Originally, the Homes for the Aged in Terrace Bay was sold by Kimberly-Clark, which is the larger employer, for $1. Now the council is asking for the same partnership with the Ministry of Health and wishes to purchase the facility for $1.

What's behind it is that people who were born and raised in northwestern Ontario, in our special part of Ontario, have the right to be given the dignity to stay home, not to move 120 miles away against their will.

1340

LEUKAEMIA AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I rise today to advise the House that October 15 is Leukaemia Awareness Day. On that day, research scientists and clinicians from Ontario's foremost cancer institutes will be uniting, together with cancer patients and patient advocates, at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital to speak of the need for research into leukaemia.

October 15 also marks the one-year anniversary of the date that Christine Ichim, who is in the west gallery here, a young woman from my Kitchener riding, successfully completed her national roller-blading trek across Canada to raise money for leukaemia research and to give hope to her mother, who suffers from leukaemia. Christine's life experiences with the disease and her determination are well expressed in her own words when she stated: "Since I was 10, I had to live with the fear that any day I could walk home from school and find my mother dead.... I can't let my mother die; I can't let other children go through what I did."

On October 15, leukaemia patients, survivors and family members of those who suffer or have died from leukaemia will share their experiences. Former Premier Bob Rae, who is the national spokesman for the Leukaemia Research Fund and whose brother died of leukaemia, has confirmed his participation.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today because I appreciate the opportunity to be here on National Students' Day. I'd like to pose a couple of questions for the Minister of Education.

First, I'd like to know how the minister would explain to parents how his Bill 160 will lead to greater input for them into future changes in the education system. Your bill will allow you to go to cabinet, get any changes you want passed, and then make an announcement. You don't have to talk to anyone. You don't have to listen to the boards of education, you don't have to consult with this Legislature, and you certainly do not have to listen to parents.

You said that the goal of your bill is to provide "education at a cheaper price." Doesn't this really mean that your goal is to give yourself the ability to take a further $1 billion out of the educational system? Parents have been clear. This is not what they want now and this is not what they want in the future.

I also wonder how you'll be able to say to thousands of concerned students in our province that your cuts and your plans to cut teachers will not affect their education.

You said in a meeting last March that your vision is to have your ministry combined with that of economic development, to have students access their curriculum through their own personal computers and to have self-guided lesson plans. That doesn't sound like a plan for keeping teachers and kids in our classrooms. It sounds like a further confirmation of your plans to cut costs without thinking of who you'll really be hurting.

Students are telling you they want --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Now that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has released his numbers, he sits in this place thinking that he's finally solved all the problems. The reality is, he's just confirmed that these problems are getting worse.

In my home town of Hamilton and in our region of Hamilton-Wentworth, we're looking at almost $70 million being downloaded on to our region and $55 million being downloaded on to Hamilton city council.

Here's what Chairman Cooke had to say in the Hamilton Spectator about these announced numbers: "I think the province has really underestimated the carnage and political fallout that's possible from this."

Mayor Morrow says: "This plan does nothing to promote the liveability of our cities and it has to be protested until it is changed. It's ridiculous as it is."

The fact of the matter is, Minister, that while you're downloading all these figures -- and we know that your intent with Bill 136 was to pay all these costs on the backs of our public sector workers, which you've been forced to back away from -- this means either we're going to have cuts in services or tax hikes in the neighbourhood of $275 at both levels of government, totally unacceptable.

This is happening at the same time your health restructuring commission is looking at closing one or two hospitals in Hamilton. We've got $1 billion in total taken out of education, and Hamilton has had its hit. You want another $1 billion there. At the same time, we're losing decent-paying jobs.

Minister, stop destroying our communities.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Since this House will be adjourned for approximately five weeks, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to the brave men and women who defended this great nation, Canada, in times of war.

Remembrance Day is a special time to reflect upon and pay tribute to those men and women who served their country with dignity and who sacrificed bravely to keep this nation free and strong. We will never forget those who sacrificed of themselves to protect our nation and to protect our way of life.

I think everyone in this assembly agrees with the sentiment that is engraved on the cenotaph at the Royal Canadian Legion's Coronation Branch 286 in my riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, which reads: "At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

ROSAMOND AUSTIN

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to pay tribute to a long-standing employee of the Legislative Assembly here, Rosamond Austin.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I rise on behalf of the government to express our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Rosamond Austin, whose untimely passing is deeply mourned by the entire Legislative Assembly here in Ontario.

All members of the House will appreciate the tremendous support that we receive from the legislative library here at Queen's Park. I cannot begin to recount the number of times that I have relied on it for vital information I have needed and continue to need in my work as an MPP. I often think that, for one reason or another, we do not thank the hardworking members of the legislative library enough for all they do for us so efficiently and often at a moment's notice.

Roz, as she was always known and will be remembered by those of us who were privileged to know her and to receive the benefit of her professional expertise, stood in a proud tradition as a member of the legislative library.

As one goes into the library, there is a framed facsimile of Lieutenant Governor Simcoe's proclamation on the pillar on the left. That document reminds us that our legislative library, like our Legislature, was founded at the time of Simcoe and was formally instituted under a Speaker by the name of the Honourable Al McLean, whose descendant sits among us here today in this House.

Roz's professionalism, research skill and encyclopaedic knowledge of legislative and legal issues were at the foundation of her established reputation and strong commitment to all members of Parliament here in Ontario whom she served so well with such distinction and perseverance.

Her friends and colleagues will remember Roz for her outgoing nature and especially her loving smile, whose warmth was felt by one and all. Her circle of acquaintances was very wide and included her friends from Havergal College and Queen's University as well as her colleagues here at Queen's Park.

Those in the Legislature who, in their wisdom, deigned to go on to other opportunities in the private sector were never forgotten by Roz, who kept in touch with them with her thoughtful notes, cards and letters. It has been said that letter writing is a lost and forgotten art. For Roz, it was a highly developed science with which she continued to communicate her love and concern for her friends and acquaintances.

Roz was an active member of St George's United Church, where she will be buried tomorrow. Roz was a person focused on her worship of a God of love. How appropriate it is that the cross of St George is also represented in the coat of arms of the Legislative Assembly that she served for so long and so well. Her inspired love was readily translated into acts of charity, including the various assembly campaigns, and especially the Canadian Diabetes Association, dedicated to the eradication of the disease that eventually overcame her.

We shall all miss Roz. A spirit as loving and kind and outgoing as hers, however, lives on eternally in God, as she does in our hearts and minds.

1350

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and our staffs in extending to Roz's family our heartfelt sympathy on the shocking news that the Minister of Agriculture has reported.

I went into the library on Monday and I knew there was something wrong. I met some of the staff and it was very clear that something terrible had happened. As Mr Villeneuve has indicated, Roz Austin died very suddenly last weekend, suddenly and unexpectedly.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. I spend a fair bit of time in the library. We are exceptionally well served by Mary Dickerson and her staff, and no one in that library, over all the time I've been here, which is now 22 years, has been a more exemplary public servant than Roz Austin. She was, as Mr Villeneuve indicated, always there, always helpful, very quick to the tasks assigned to her. It was amazing what she knew about Ontario and about the community life of not just the Legislature but the province as a whole.

She had family and friends in Renfrew, and we used to talk about that; her connections to the airline industry; her friends at Havergal; at St George's United Church. Through thick and thin, she was a loyal Blue Jays fan. But most of all, she was a loyal and dedicated public servant. She was the best of the public service.

I just hope all members, as we pay tribute to her today, particularly those of us who had the opportunity to work with her in that library, remember just what an excellent and helpful public servant she was. She will be missed. She was a great friend. On behalf of my colleagues and our staffs, we thank her. We will remember her memory, and we certainly extend our condolences.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to join with my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the member for Renfrew North in expressing, on behalf of our caucus, our sadness at the sudden passing of Rosamond Austin.

Rosamond, or Roz, was, as we've seen and as has been said, a long-standing employee of the legislative library, someone who was interested in the goings-on around this place beyond the library, and kept in touch with members and their activities both here and outside this place.

I guess what she will be best remembered for, beyond her efficiency, was her friendly, outgoing approach. She seemed to be able to deal with an MPP rushing into the library looking for information, probably not knowing what she or he was looking for, and she was able to direct them and perhaps deal with, sometimes, the angst or upset of a member in a rush to find out information and not knowing where to go for it.

She was indeed a dedicated employee, one who is remembered with tremendous fondness by her fiends and co-workers, someone whose sudden passing causes a great deal of sadness.

We owe a great deal, as MPPs, to the dedicated work of people like Roz on behalf of this assembly and the people of Ontario. All of us owe her a great debt of gratitude. I know her co-workers will miss her, as will her family and friends. I would just say, on behalf of our caucus, that we recognize this place does not operate without the kind of work and dedication of a Roz over the years. We appreciate it, and we will remember her for that.

The Speaker: I know I can speak on behalf of the legislative staff in the library to thank all members for their comments. It certainly was shocking to all people in the Legislature, I suppose especially the staff of all members.

I want to add one comment briefly, something I've noticed over the time I've been here. It amazes me how quickly the legislative library and people such as this can turn someone who is elected into an expert on certain subjects so quickly. You knew full well it was the background and research and work and incredible timeliness they provided for all members of this place.

I know the legislative library staff is here today. It hit like a ton of bricks, I suppose would be the simplest way of putting it.

I would like to thank all members for the comments they've made. I will be certain that your remarks and comments are forwarded to the family. Thank you once more.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON .FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 140, An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I beg leave to present the third report 1997 of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Two quick issues.

On Wednesday, October 8, 1997, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) raised a question of privilege with respect to the distribution of municipal financial information by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The member contended that his privileges had been breached because this information was made available to him later than it was made available to government members, certain municipal officials and the media.

I have had an opportunity to review our precedents and parliamentary authorities dealing with generally similar kinds of situations.

I want to draw several rulings to the attention of the House. First, on March 1, 1989, Speaker Edighoffer ruled that there was no point of privilege in circumstances where it was alleged that government members were going to receive a briefing that opposition members were not going to receive at the same time.

Second, on June 8, 1992, it was alleged that an opposition critic had received certain information from a government ministry later in the day than had been promised. Speaker Warner ruled as follows:

"I must regrettably inform the member that while he has not lost a privilege, indeed he speaks of something that could be described as a courtesy, which apparently was not extended to him on this particular occasion."

Finally, the same Speaker ruled on July 8, 1993, that it was not a matter of privilege that a member did not receive a ministerial statement at the same time as it had been distributed to the opposition critics.

Turning to the matter raised by the member for Algoma, I appreciate that the member would have preferred that all members could have received the information at the same time. However, the Speaker cannot require the government to release such information -- or to release it at a certain time. There is nothing in our rules or our practices that would permit a Speaker to control the dissemination of that kind of information. It is clear from any number of previous Speakers' rulings that these types of situations do not amount to a prima facie case of privilege.

Let me make this point, however. In a written submission to me on this matter, the government House leader acknowledged that a more coordinated distribution of the information in question would have been desirable. I agree, and to quote a previous Speaker, these kinds of administrative discourtesies do give rise to "a valid grievance of which the government should take serious note." I am certain that, in future, every care will be taken to prevent a recurrence of situations similar to the one on which I have just ruled.

In closing, I'd like to thank the member for Algoma for bringing the information to my attention.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Folks, this is the last day for the pages we have here. I'd like to thank them for doing such a wonderful job in the Legislature and wish them Godspeed on their way home. Thank you very much.

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. A few days ago, I drove to the Stony Point reserve, Ipperwash. I talked with the first nations about their growing anger about your personal refusal to call a public inquiry into the tragic shooting death of a first nations person over two years ago. They said to me that everything the government has said about Ipperwash has proven to be wrong.

The government said there was no evidence of any burial ground there; months after the shooting, the government admitted it had evidence in its files. The government said that Dudley George was shot because he had a firearm. The judge at the trial of the OPP officer said, "I find that Dudley George did not have any firearm on his person when he" -- the OPP officer -- "shot him. The story of the rifle and the muzzle flash was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot." You said one day in the House here that you gave no instructions to Deb Hutton. We found that you did give instructions.

The question is this: In the name of basic decency, will you tell the first nations people today that the government of Ontario will hold --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I refer the question to the Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The issues pertaining to land claims at Ipperwash have a process that can be followed if a claim is made. No such claim has been made.

In addition to that, there are court cases going on that are determining facts in the given circumstances. It would be inappropriate to discuss that evidence, as it would be inappropriate to have an inquiry at this time.

1400

Mr Phillips: Premier, I demand you answer this question. You're acting in a shameful, deceitful way to the people of the first nations. They want a commitment from you that you will hold a public inquiry.

I'll go on with some more examples of the deceit. You said you gave no directions to the OPP. We find that --

The Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I believe "deceitful" to be unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Phillips: I withdraw that word.

I'll go on with more examples. You said that the OPP were given no direction. We find in the minutes of your own interministerial meeting, "The police have been asked to remove the occupiers from the park." On the day of the shooting the headline in the local paper was, "Queen's Park to Take Hard Line with Occupiers." The government laid 43 charges against the first nations and then was forced to drop them. The government's own lawyers said, "No reasonable prospect of conviction." You said no political interference, and your own MPP Marcel Beaubien was at the police command post four hours before the shooting, saying he had faxed you and was looking forward to your intentions.

You owe the first nations people a commitment to a public inquiry. Will you, Premier, make that commitment today that you will hold a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: The government has been quite clear and consistent. The minutes of documentation that have been provided to the member indicate quite clearly, first, that the government would not negotiate on substantive issues while the occupation continues; second, that no direction was given to the Ontario Provincial Police regarding negotiations, as was appropriate; and third, that the only step the government took was a decision by me, as the Attorney General, to seek a civil injunction. The documentation that has been delivered is quite clear that this is in fact what happened. That practice is 100% consistent with the practice of other governments in similar situations.

Mr Phillips: I will say to the public of Ontario, we should all hang our heads in shame that the government will not make a commitment to the first nations to hold a public inquiry. I can't look the George family in the eye and explain your actions, Premier. They have seen nothing but lies and deceit on this whole issue.

The Speaker: Order. You must withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: I'll withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

If Ontario wants to restore any credibility, Premier, with our first nations -- I say again, you told the public that the police were returning fire, and then we find that there were no firearms with our first nations. You said you had no evidence of a burial ground, and we find within your own records evidence of a burial ground. You said no political interference, and then we find that your own executive assistant is saying at that meeting, "Premier wants out of the park...nothing else." Then we find that the OPP superintendent at that meeting was on the phone within minutes to the command post.

I say again, what the first nations are owed without a question of a doubt from you, Premier, is a commitment to hold a full public inquiry. Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mr Harnick: Quite simply, the facts as outlined by the member are inaccurate. I suggest that the member take a look at the minutes and understand exactly what the facts are instead of repeating allegations that have no foundation in fact.

I have said, and the Premier has said, in this House that when the proceedings before courts are completed, consideration will be taken as to whether an inquiry should be undertaken.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, in August your handpicked hospital destruction commission ventured into new territory: They issued a report to do with the future of the Harris health care system. The report was to tell Ontarians what we could expect in terms of home care, long-term care, mental health care and subacute care. Instead, today we learn from the five nursing organizations representing 143,000 nurses that what you've got in mind for us is no care.

The report you commissioned used data and evidence that were completely unsatisfactory to the nurses of this province. You didn't include, and the commission's report didn't include, people under the age of 75 -- they didn't even include them -- looking at long-term care. They didn't include children under the age of 14 for the mental health system -- left them out completely. They didn't even include the people outside of hospitals for home care. When you leave out 60% of the people who use home care, how can people believe that you're not about to shut a bunch of people out of health care?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): First of all, this isn't our report. It was not commissioned by the government, nor was it a report, in the sense that the honourable member is implying, commissioned by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. It was, as it says on its face, a discussion paper. What the nurses have done today, through their press conference, has been part of that discussion. Their concerns, some of them very valid in terms of some of the directions put forth in that discussion paper, will be taken into account, I'm sure, by the commission, as will the Ministry of Health's comments on that discussion paper.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, you've been very reluctant to tell us where you stand in terms of some of the standards that should exist in this province. When it comes to care outside of hospitals, you're pushing people out of hospitals quicker and sicker. You are doing that, Minister, not a commission, not somebody else. You've cut the money to hospitals. When you're doing that, the care that people can then depend on, either in their home or in a long-term-care facility -- there are no standards. In fact, you've cut what standards there were.

Will you stand in the House today in your capacity as Minister of Health, if you're not simply going to abdicate all your responsibility, and tell us that the standards that people will get outside the hospital will be at least as high as the standards in hospital? Will you make that guarantee? Will you take full responsibility to make sure that happens? Will you do that for us today?

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, the decision to be in hospital or outside of hospital is a medical decision. Second, I may say to the honourable member that survey after survey, going back to the Davis government, through the Liberals and the NDP, show that people prefer to stay in their homes just as long as they can and as long as it makes common sense to do so. That's why in an unprecedented way this government, like no other government in the history of Ontario, has put 170 million new dollars into long-term-care services. Today in the province, unlike the situation we inherited two and a half years ago, there are no waiting lists for in-home nursing care in the province in any community. We check that all the time and --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Sir, you must leave the gallery, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: I remind the honourable member that there are some waiting lists for occupational therapy and physiotherapy. I've covered that in this House on many occasions. We're creating over 4,000 new jobs for nurses and home care workers. With respect to standards, these are professional people who provide this care and they will be guided by the standards of their professional colleges in the self-governing model that was set up by the previous government.

1410

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I think it's sad that you wouldn't listen to the Ivey school of business, to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, to your own report on Windsor emergency, and respond directly to what is being asked. We are asking you as the Minister of Health to guarantee some standards.

The nurses who provide the care say there are no standards. This is the message from the front lines. This is telling you as the minister to get on with protecting patients in this province, and for some reason you're reluctant to do that. In this report they say we can't afford to blunder our way to a restructured health system. You seem prepared to do that. It is people who get hurt when we take that approach.

I'll give you another opportunity, on behalf of the 143,000 nurses' concerns, not for their jobs but for the patients they serve every day: Will you stand in this House and guarantee that you won't be cutting standards when you ship people out of hospitals into community care? Will you take full responsibility for making sure that the care outside of hospitals is the same quality as the care in hospitals today?

Hon Mr Wilson: I would be happy to give the honourable member the guarantee that the quality of care will be like it hasn't been in the past. I can tell you that because there haven't been standards set by your government on home care or by the previous NDP government. There isn't a manual, if that's what you're looking for. There are professional standards for the nurses that they have to abide by to maintain their nursing credibility. The registered nurses' association, which we have had very friendly discussion with on many occasions, knows the commission is attempting to write the first manual for standards in home care, which is what the discussion paper is all about.

We appreciate the honourable member's input into that discussion paper. I'm sure we'll get very constructive input from the honourable member.

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

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Health as well. Here is the problem you've got: 143,000 nurses in this province have come together to look at the kind of information that your health care restructuring commission is putting out. They have found, after looking at all of the details, that the health care restructuring commission is wrong in many of its assumptions, and that they announcements you've made about health care reivestments are also wrong.

Specifically, let me put it to you: They have looked at the long-term care services, mental health services, at-home care, services for the disabled, the chronically ill and the mentally ill in community settings, and they have found that your announcements of reinvestment simply aren't adequate. Minister, here is the issue: Will you assume your responsibility as Minister of Health?

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Will you follow up on what the nurses have said and will you come back to this Legislature and either confirm what you believe or deny --

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: I wouldn't deny the nurses' concerns at all, for one minute. These are responsible people. The Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario is one of the very best health associations I have had the pleasure of working with. We have an excellent relationship and have had for over seven years, during my time in the Legislature.

The concerns they point out are with respect to a discussion paper. This is a legitimate part of the process and their concerns will be taken into account. I welcome their comments. These are the people on the front line who know what's happening in the day-to-day affairs of health care in our province.

Mr Hampton: Minister, I don't think you get the importance of this issue. The nurses are saying very clearly that you are cutting hospital services and you are closing some hospitals. In the same breath you pretend that you are making adequate reinvestments in the community sector such that the services people will need will be there.

The nurses have gone out and they have looked at all your numbers. They've looked at all the assumptions that are being made and they say very clearly, it's wrong. They just don't add up.

Look, for example, at nursing homes. You've reduced the number of hours of nursing care in nursing homes so that people who are in nursing homes are not getting the same allotment of nursing care they have in the past; you've reduced that.

Similarly, if you look at the reinvestments you've announced in Thunder Bay, they aren't adequate; in Sudbury, they aren't adequate; in Ottawa, they aren't adequate; in London, they aren't adequate. When you couple the cuts you're making with the inadequacy of the reinvestments, you're creating a disaster. Take responsibility for that. Check out the numbers and come back and tell us.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member's question was perhaps prepared before we put the $100 million, just two months ago, into the long-term-care system, the largest single investment --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Wilson: The honourable member isn't correct in saying there's less care. With the $100 million, that brought an average of 16 hours' more care per resident per home, the highest levels of care available. Those jobs are coming on line. There have been a number of new hirees and there will be about 2,200 new hirees with that single investment alone.

In total, with those two investments of $170 million and the $100 million, that's over 6,000 new jobs being created in exactly the community sector the nursing profession was talking about today.

I've not had one nurse complain about any of the investments we've made today. These services, in-home therapies, in-home nursing, Meals on Wheels, friendly transportation, friendly visiting, are real services to real people. We're doing our darnedest to make sure those people get those services. I know the nurses and professionals on the front line appreciate the assistance the government is giving.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Minister, I have a stark example of the impact of your policies on one elderly couple in my riding of Hamilton Centre. James Currie is a 73-year-old blind man who suffers a form of geriatric dementia. He is in a chronic care hospital, but his wife has been forced to hire a private-duty nurse to cover the hours of care her husband needs, needs that cannot be met by the hospital. Mrs Currie pays $1,100 per month for nursing care, and on top of that she pays $1,240 per month copayment.

This is all because of your cuts. Further, your regulations do not require the hospital to reduce her copayment, even though she is paying for most of the nursing care her husband is receiving. Minister, will you change the regulation now so that Mrs Currie and everyone else in her situation will not have to continue personally subsidizing the hospital to make up for your cuts?

Hon Mr Wilson: It may come as a shock to the honourable member, having been a minister in the last government, but we're spending 55% more on home care today than you did when you began in office. We spend today more per capita on health care than anyone else in any other jurisdiction in Canada. We spend more on physician services. With respect to chronic care, I can only assume from the information I have that it's part of the copayment policy that was introduced by the Liberals years ago. But I'd be happy to look at the individual case and see if there isn't more. We're not doing anything less in home care than any other government. Everything we have done in home care -- the word "cuts" does not apply -- has been new additions, new services to meet the needs of the growing and aging population.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Premier. You spoke to reporters yesterday about the looming teachers' strike, which your government has done its utmost to provoke. You're quoted in the Globe and Mail today as saying, in reference to a teachers' strike, "I don't know whether either side has fully comprehended the implications of that kind of action." Can you tell us, please, what aspects, what part of a teachers' strike action you think your Minister of Education doesn't comprehend.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Absolutely nothing.

Mr Hampton: Premier, they're your words. You went out there and you said that you didn't think either side fully comprehended the implications of a strike action. I know what your Minister of Education has done. This is the Minister of Education who has created a crisis. This is the Minister of Education who has gone across the province provoking teachers, provoking school boards. This is the Minister of Education who talks about Ontario students as being mediocre. This is a Minister of Education who doesn't seem to have any sort of contingency plan to deal with the strike action that he is doing his best to provoke.

Premier, I want to ask you again, what part of this do you think your Minister of Education doesn't understand? What role are you prepared to play to resolve the problems your Minister of Education has created?

Hon Mr Harris: I think the minister fully understands the seriousness of the situation. I'm not sure students, teachers, trustees and parents understand the implications of breaking the law.

1420

Mr Hampton: Premier, I take it it's your view that the looming teachers' strike is all the responsibility of parents, it's the responsibility of boards of education, it's the responsibility of teachers. That seems to be your point. That seems to be what you're saying here today.

Do you ignore the fact that it's your Minister of Education who has gone across the province insulting just about everybody who is involved with our education system? Do you ignore the fact that the first thing your Minister of Education said upon becoming minister was that he wanted to create a crisis in education? Do you ignore the fact that it's your Minister of Education who continues to go out there and talk about taking a further $1 billion out of our education system? Do you assume no responsibility for anything with respect to education in this province? Is that your position, that your government isn't responsible for anything that has happened here?

Premier, your Minister of Finance goes to Harvard and talks about how good our education system is. You go to Europe and talk about how good our education system is. You brought on the crisis, and you're going to bring on the chaos. Are you going to assume some responsibility here and help avoid it?

Hon Mr Harris: What I do know is a few things. Actually, since your election both in opposition and in government, you continue to say things that do not reflect the situations as they exist, including as you speak in your place today. You ask me to react to inaccuracies that bear no resemblance to the facts. So as challenging and as interesting as that is, I don't think it's particularly productive to a situation that is a very serious situation.

What we comprehend and what we are dealing with is perhaps 20 years, but certainly at least 10 years, of an education system that has slowly been falling behind the rest of Canada and the rest of the world, a serious situation where an education system, once the best in the world, is just okay. Yes, we have a Minister of Education and a government and a cabinet --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Premier, can you come to order, please. New question

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Premier. Early this afternoon five students from Scott Park Secondary School in Hamilton came to your office with a petition signed by over 2,000 Hamilton-area students, and there are more to come. These students, Josh Long, Lucas Halbert, Jeff Garrett, Matt Fancey and Joe Bollard are here.

You refused to meet with them. They wanted to speak to you about their concerns with the education system. They wanted to speak to you about the over half-a-billion-dollar cuts. They wanted to speak to you about the potential strike you're forcing teachers into. But arrogantly you went into your office and you didn't have time for these five students. These five students are here. They're concerned. They care about the education system. They're concerned about what you and your minister are doing. Will you or your Minister of Education meet with these five students after question period today?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I certainly did not refuse to meet with anybody who requested a meeting. I think my office was asked if we would receive a petition from five concerned students, and I tell you I share their concern. We were happy to receive the petition. In fact, I can assure the students that everything we are doing is to improve the quality of education that they are getting, to improve their job prospects once they get that education, to be able to ensure that the jobs and the employers are able to have the skills and that they have the skills that are required.

I share their concerns. I am on their side, and we will make the difficult decisions to make sure their education system is better as a result of the very positive changes we are making.

Mr Agostino: It is that type of smug arrogance that has caused the crisis we are in today. Premier, very clearly these five young people were not screaming and yelling. They weren't demonstrating. They wanted a couple of minutes of your time to give you their concerns. No, they don't share your agenda. No, they don't agree with your agenda. Maybe that's why you didn't want to talk to them.

Last night, the Minister of Education was in Hamilton at a fund-raiser attended by 25, protested by 200. The night before, there were 8,000 people at Copps Coliseum: teachers, parents, students. Premier, there is a crisis. These students are concerned about their education, they are concerned about what you're doing, and you do not have the decency to give these young people a few minutes of your time. It is their future that you are playing with. It is their future that is at stake.

Premier, again I'd like to ask you, and rather than skate around it, very directly: Will you or your Minister of Education after question period agree to meet with these five young people that are here from Hamilton and listen directly to their concerns and address their concerns?

Hon Mr Harris: Let me set the record straight on a couple of things. To date, other than you now asking for a meeting, this is the first time that I have been asked, would I or the Minister of Education attend the meeting? I appreciate you asking. What I was asked was, would I receive a petition from the students? My office was happy to receive it and it has been forwarded on to me.

Now, with respect to your request, I believe this: Yes, the Minister of Education will meet with the students, and I think they will find at that meeting that they do share my agenda, that they do share the minister's agenda. I think when they get the facts instead of the rhetoric that they may have been getting from you, they'll find they're on side with me, they're on side with John. They want a better quality education. So we're happy to meet with them.

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Your government is creating another crisis, and this time it's with the public health system. At the same time that you're downloading the funding and the delivery of public health to municipalities, we have a growing problem with tuberculosis in the province, especially in Metropolitan Toronto, especially among the poor and the homeless. There is a growing number of tuberculosis strains that are resistant to available medications and vaccinations.

You've been warned about this. You've been warned about it by the Street Nurses Network, by the medical officer of health here in Toronto, and the committee that is hearing the Bill 152 depositions is hearing it again. I've raised it with you before, but you continue to press ahead with this ill-conceived plan of downloading public health on to the backs of cash-strapped municipalities. Minister, will you reverse your decision and retain provincial responsibility for public health protection?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): There won't be any change with respect to TB testing in the province. This is not a case, as the honourable member said, again in error, of cash-strapped municipalities. We're freeing up over $2 billion off the property tax. We then expect municipalities to set the same type of priorities that we have to set here in the province of Ontario.

We certainly expect that public health will be a priority, and all the legislation and programs in place now are maintained. In fact, the public health legislation which is before a committee now is actually strengthened. There are new teeth in that legislation for the public health community to make sure these programs, the absolute mandatory programs, are delivered. TB testing is provided. The TB strips and testing equipment are provided free of charge to residents of this province, and that will continue under the Who Does What arrangement.

1430

Mrs Boyd: Minister, I think it's time you did a reality check. Here in Metro there's a crisis with homelessness. Last night there were over 5,000 people in Metro's homeless shelters. That's roughly the population of a town like Bobcaygeon or Wiarton, or Stayner in your own riding. The threat of widespread resistant forms of tuberculosis is rooted in the increased poverty and homelessness your government has caused.

Bill 152 will download the responsibility and will seriously affect the ability of medical officers of health to deal with this type of epidemic. It's the whole population, not just that specific population, that's at risk. Your government's policies are increasing homelessness and poverty, and at the same time you're putting local medical officers of health at the mercy of municipal budgets and severely limiting the role of the chief medical officer of health to protect the public throughout Ontario.

Minister, are you going to allow our public health to erode, the way it has in the United States, where similar measures of download have happened?

Hon Mr Wilson: I say with all respect to the honourable member that there's not one supported fact in your question. First of all, we strengthened the role of the public medical officer of health.

Second, the legislation that's before committee is some of the best in the world, and it's by far the toughest Ontario has ever seen with respect to delivering mandatory programs. TB is an infectious disease; therefore it's a mandatory program that must be delivered.

Third, the blanket smear you're putting on the homeless is regrettable. They do not have, according to our chief medical officer of health, an overly high incidence of TB. We certainly don't want people being afraid of the homeless and afraid to help the homeless if they feel that person has TB because you've gone around the province saying they have a very high incidence. The fact is that the homeless living in shelters in Toronto do not contribute significantly to Ontario cases of TB. Scaremongering doesn't help the homeless. I ask the honourable member to stick to the facts.

With respect to those high-case areas --

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Do something to make sure they aren't homeless.

Mrs Boyd: You should hang your head in shame, Jim.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Members for London Centre and Sudbury East, come to order. Member for Sault Ste Marie, come to order.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Where has he been?

The Speaker: Member for Sault Ste Marie, come to order.

Hon Mr Wilson: Again, according to the medical officials --

The Speaker: Answer, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: -- they know what areas of the province and what populations of the province have a high incidence of TB. All those programs are in place. There have been no cuts. There has been new money for public health. We're doing the province-wide vaccination programs for pneumococcal and TB --

The Speaker: Thank you.

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. Recently I, together with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable David Tsubouchi, had the opportunity to attend --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Sault Ste Marie, that is out of order. I ask you to withdraw that.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I withdraw.

Mr Klees: Thank you, Speaker. I will start over again.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Recently I, together with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, had the opportunity to attend a dedication of a new printing machine that cost some $20 million as an investment in Markham.

The president of that company, PLM Graphics, Mr Barry Pike, in his comments that evening referred to the success of his business, which has grown from some $30 million in business to more than $60 million in just two years. He credited the Mike Harris government and the Mike Harris policies with that success. He said that his confidence to invest in this province was as a direct result of the Mike Harris policies.

I understand that KPMG announced a new study today that shows Ontario is one of the best places to invest in the world, and that six Ontario cities were among the top 20 on that list. Minister, can you please comment as to what this survey means on a national and international level in terms of investment?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I think the KPMG report that has just been referred to is very instructive of what's going on in this province. First of all, it shows that Canada is leading the industrial world in terms of competitiveness, and that also means Ontario, because we're 40% of the economy. The study gives Ontario a 3.9% cost advantage compared to the United States. I'd like to say hats off to Hamilton, Sarnia, London, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa for their tremendous showing in the study, ranking as six of the 20 cities that were reported upon.

The fact is that we came out on top in Ontario in food processing, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and software production. I think it proves once again that our efforts are working to make Ontario the best place in the world in which to invest. When you group this study with earlier testimonials from the United Nations and Fortune magazine, Ontario certainly is back on the map for international investors.

Mr Klees: KPMG is a well-respected consulting firm. I would think the results of this survey can be pointed out to international businesses as proof that Ontario is open for business. Can you tell us what the criteria of that survey were, and can you further tell us what other factors about Ontario are positive that we can market to other businesses around the world to bring them here to Ontario to invest?

Hon Mr Saunderson: In response to the supplementary, the study reviewed several business costs. The categories included taxes, land, labour and construction costs, productivity, electricity rates and telecommunications costs. These are essential when foreign investors are looking at a jurisdiction in which to invest.

What the study did not mention were things like the proximity to market, the fact that we're one day's drive from 120 million people. We have skilled workers and a quality of life and infrastructure that are second to none. I would bet that if you factor all these criteria with those of the KPMG study, Ontario cities can beat just about every city in the world. When we have created, since being elected, over 250,000 new jobs in Ontario, that says what's happening in this province.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): My question too is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. The only difference is that he didn't write this question.

With the exception of Essex county and parts of the north, where the per-litre price of gasoline is 61.9 cents in Essex county and 65.8 cents and higher in the north, gasoline prices did ease a bit this summer. But lo and behold, here we are just before Thanksgiving and suddenly the price of gasoline has jumped again.

The Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism said in answer to a question earlier this year: "I have no intention of interfering with the free enterprise system, the pricing system. If we were to do that, we would be the laughingstock, sir." Well, these gasoline prices that jump up before holiday weekends are a laughingstock, Minister. What are you going to do about it?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm going to refer that to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

1440

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): We have done a number of things. The first thing we did was meet with the independent gas dealers to listen to their issues. Second, we met with the gas refiners already to indicate our great concern in this area. What we did from that -- no other government has taken other steps past that point, whether the previous NDP government of the previous Liberal government -- was that we took this issue to the provincial ministers' conference which was held in Regina. Through the cooperation of my colleagues across this country who also have a concern about the fluctuation of gas prices across this country -- no consumer should be forced to deal with these terrible gas prices and fluctuations -- we have taken action. We have been able to create a task force which is in currency right now. We are going to be looking at these fluctuations.

The difference is that it's not just government here; we have included consumers to see at first hand the impact on them and to find a solution to work hand in hand with the consumers.

Mr Crozier: You can have all the meetings you want, you can meet with all the producers you want --

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Thanks to your friends in Ottawa.

Mr Crozier: I'll get to the friends in Ottawa.

The point is that the gasoline prices just jumped this week, just before a holiday weekend. What did your friends in the gasoline industry have to say about that? You know what? Ontario has the fourth-highest provincial sales tax on gasoline in the country. The federal government, on the other hand, has the second-lowest. What are you going to do about the gouging? What are you going to do about the predatory pricing? What are you going to do that's active and not just passive?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Before I left to go to the provincial ministers' conference in Saskatchewan, we asked for the assistance of all parties in this House to take forward the consumer interest to Saskatchewan. To the credit of the NDP, they supported going forward with a vote, because they realized that their constituents, whether in northern Ontario or across this province, had an interest --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No thanks to the Liberal Party, because quite frankly, they kept on saying: "We need to speak more about this. We need to talk more about this. We don't want action." They had eight speakers, yet that wasn't enough for them to come to the conclusion that the NDP and we came to, that we needed to protect the consumer.

I want to pose a question back. He is asking about tax increases. Who the heck put it there? You guys did.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Your Bill 99, attacking injured workers, is scheduled for a final vote today. That means that today is your last chance to listen to what the workers have been trying to tell you.

They know that the workers' compensation system needs to change, but not the way you're doing it, not by taking $15 billion away from disabled workers, not by ignoring the real issues that stress and chronic pain cause in our communities, not by making changes that will have their worst effects on our younger workers, not by opening the door to privatization of WCB services and not by wasting $1 million changing the name of the WCB.

To top it all off, you made a last-minute change to Bill 99 that will make your drastic new time limits retroactive on all past WCB decisions. That means there are tens of thousands of injured workers who must file appeals by the end of next June or lose their rights without even knowing it. People are telling us there is going to be a tidal wave of appeals that will throw your new system into chaos. This is your last chance. Stop Bill 99 and stop your attack on injured workers.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): The legislation which we are passing today is going to achieve a very significant objective, that is, it's going to shift the focus from compensation to the prevention of injury and illness. Bill 99 is, for the first time, going to deal with health and safety.

I would indicate to you that we are certainly aware of the concerns of injured workers. I received a letter yesterday, and I have responded and I have indicated to them that we will be communicating the new time limits to them. The board has also been instructed to be very flexible, and we are going to make sure that all injured workers are aware of the time lines. However, we will be very flexible as to how we deal with those individuals.

Mr Christopherson: Karl Crevar, president of the Ontario Network of Injured Workers Groups, is here and so are a lot of other injured workers who are being hurt by your Bill 99. This is not about shifting responsibility; this is about taking money out of pockets --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Stop the clock, please. You can't interrupt. Please leave now.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Please leave. It's not a debate, sir.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Let me caution the galleries. If there is another interjection, I'm going to clear the galleries.

Mr Christopherson: I think everybody needs to understand that the reason injured workers feel this way is that they didn't get their say. They only got six days of hearings on WCB in the middle of summer. The fact is that in every community they asked for more time to talk about the fact that you're taking $15 billion out of the pockets of injured workers and giving $6 billion of it back to your corporate pals. You gave a 5% gift to your corporate friends and cut the net income of injured workers by 5%, you cut by 50% the amount of pension contribution and you killed the Occupational Disease Panel.

The fact is that there is nothing in Bill 99 that helps workers; it just helps your friends. This is a disgrace, it's an attack on injured workers, and the only honourable thing to do is withdraw Bill 99.

Hon Mrs Witmer: If you take a look at Bill 99, you will see it is designed to help reduce the number of injured workers in this province, because its new focus is going to be prevention, it's going to be health and safety.

I would just share with you some information which you may or may not be aware of. I know that the chair of the board of the WCB has had an opportunity to speak with some of the key leaders of the injured workers' groups.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, I'm not warning you again. Come to order.

Hon Mrs Witmer: He has indicated his willingness to work with the injured worker groups, and I understand it was a very productive meeting. We will certainly continue to address the very specific concerns of the injured workers.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Tony Clement (Brampton South): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training, and it involves Bill 160 which is before this Legislature. Since our election, the government has endeavoured to significantly improve and reform the educational system in Ontario, to create a system that works for students, for parents and works with the help of teachers as well. Bill 160 is one of the ways we are trying to instil quality, efficiency and standards on which students will be judged in the increasingly competitive world in which we live.

Even David Cooke, a former education minister, has said it's about time that everybody understand that the strength of our public education system is that it is able to change.

I have received several messages from my riding in various forms, including my Web site at www.clementmpp.org, from constituents and citizens of Ontario who support our goals but are concerned about the perceived increase in instructional time and the decrease in prep time. One of the most valuable things that teachers do is co-curricular activities. Will these survive?

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I want to thank the member for the question. Obviously, there is a long record of this government helping to improve education, with a professional college for teachers, with province-wide testing, with a reduction in school boards, with a new funding model, with the province being responsible, with a new curriculum with clear standards for our students, with province-wide report cards, with a new secondary school program, all designed to improve education for our students in Ontario.

In response to requests not only by the Education Improvement Commission but by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association and others, we have asked the secondary school teachers to take the same amount of time in class instructing students as other provinces do. But I want to assure the member that in other provinces there are extracurricular activities. Teachers are able to work with their students before and after school. We're not asking our teachers in Ontario to do any more than what our elementary school teachers are currently doing, and that is be in class the same amount of time as the average of their colleagues in other provinces.

Mr Clement: Thank you, Minister. I'll be posting your response at www.clement.mpp.org. But while I have you, I want to ask another question. The bill will also attempt to minimize classroom sizes in order to provide students with a greater opportunity to seek assistance when it's needed. Why is it necessary for the government to take over an area that has traditionally been the purview of boards and unions?

Hon Mr Snobelen: I thank the member for the question. Obviously, the record is very clear. In the negotiations between boards and teachers' unions over the course of any number of years, we've seen an increase in classroom size and we know that's not good enough for our students. We have proposed in the bill before the House and the province to make sure that class size can no longer grow and no longer continue to jeopardize the education of our students. It's not okay for this government to have Ontario be the caboose in the education train in Canada. We will not rest until Ontario students have the best performance of any students in Canada. That's our goal and we will attain that objective.

1450

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Your municipal restructuring order for the Kingston area is causing a great deal of confusion as we get closer to the January 1 implementation deadline. The agreement that was reached between the affected municipalities and you clearly stated that the decisions of the board of control could be overridden by a simple majority of council. But it appears that under the restructuring order you signed this is not the case and that a two-thirds majority is needed to override a board's decision.

This has come as a great surprise to the many area politicians and to the transition board itself. Why did you not inform the councils when you issued the order that this request for a simple majority vote to override the board of control was not granted? What will you do to correct this situation that you have created before the November 10 election deadline?

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for his question. The council members in Kingston were advised that the Municipal Act has a clause in it that if there is a board of control created in a municipality, you need two thirds to overrule a decision of the board of control. They were advised of that and went ahead and set up a board of control knowing full well that was a requirement of the Municipal Act.

It was a decision the elected officials made when they were putting their restructuring proposal together to establish a board of control. They did that. They did that knowing full well that it requires a two-thirds vote of council to overrule any decision by a board of control.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me just say that the members of the transition board and the people who were involved in those negotiations in the city of Kingston certainly don't agree with you on that issue at all.

Let me raise another problem with you with respect to the restructuring order. Can you tell me why that restructuring order, unlike all the other restructuring orders you've issued, does not deal with the issue of policing in the new city? Generally, the other orders gave police services boards the right to decide how policing would be provided in restructured communities. This is not the case. The order is silent.

Let me just remind you, Minister, of something you stated in a letter to them on June 17: "Given the knowledge and experience of the chair and board" -- the police services board -- "I'm confident that you will all be in a position to make a significant contribution to the police servicing issue in the new city of Kingston."

The issue of policing is central to public safety in the community. Unfortunately, in the absence of a clear direction in your restructuring order, the process of making policing decisions for the new city has degenerated into confusion. Will the minister let those, as you have put it, with "knowledge and experience," assume their proper role for amending the restructuring order for the city of Kingston and give the police services board of the city the authority to decide policing issues in the new city? Will you amend the order?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm not familiar with the issue on the police services board. I'd be pleased to take that question under advisement and get back to the member as quickly as I can. Seeing as this is the last day of the Legislature's sitting, I would be glad to get together with the member personally or provide him a response in writing before the November 10 election.

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): My question is for the Premier. Today, the disabled community won a tremendous victory with a Supreme Court ruling that people with disabilities must have equal rights to access the health care system. In particular, the court found that people who are deaf or hard of hearing have rights to sign language interpreters when they're accessing health care services.

The Attorney General intervened in this case and argued that because health services are delivered by hospitals rather than directly by governments, it wasn't the government's responsibility to ensure that access is provided for people with disabilities. Well, you lost. The Supreme Court said that argument was not valid, and your government has been evading its responsibility, but you can't stall any longer. All citizens have the right, confirmed by the Supreme Court, of access to health services, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that they have it. Will you stop your stalling and work with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee and others to ensure access to our health care system?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Attorney General can respond.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): We have received the decision. It's a lengthy decision that involves a significant review of charter issues, and certainly we are reviewing the decision to assess its implications for Ontario.

Mrs Boyd: It's not particularly lengthy. It's only 10 pages. It is a Supreme Court of Canada decision and has far-reaching implications for people with disabilities, guaranteeing them access not only to health care services but to all other government services.

The decision today says, and I'll quote from page 5, "Legislatures may not enact laws that infringe the charter and they cannot authorize or empower other persons or entities to do so." On page 6 it says, "Governments should not be allowed to evade their constitutional responsibilities by delegating the implementation of their policies and programs." That is exactly what this government has been doing with the restructuring commission, with many of its other actions: trying to shove down decisions to other bodies to evade their responsibility for access to services.

The reason the question was to the Premier is that the Premier promised that he would enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act in this province in his first term and he has yet to meet with the committee that has been formed, a rainbow coalition across --

The Speaker: Thank you. Attorney General.

Hon Mr Harnick: Certainly, the first term isn't over yet. I can say that the member has a very convoluted way of taking a look at what the Supreme Court said on page 5 and on page 6 and relating it to issues that bear no resemblance at all to what this case was about. Quite simply, as she recites those passages on pages 5 and 6, it shows how necessary it is to review and assess the implications of this decision on Ontario, and that's exactly what we're doing.

CROP INSURANCE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The farmers in our area depend on a tremendous number of variables for their survival. They have to be some of the most optimistic people in the world. They have concerns about weather conditions, they have concerns about prices, they also have to worry about disease and pest problems. Traditionally, crop insurance has helped to give them protection from this. My constituents are quite concerned about the changes that recently have been made to crop insurance. Could you explain to us those changes and how they're currently working?

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Agriculture has had some major changes. Indeed, just a short report on crops: We had a cold, wet spring and a summer that was somewhat dryer. However, farmers are harvesting, as we speak, the biggest crop of soybeans in the history of Ontario.

Crop insurance is now in the hands of AgriCorp. AgriCorp is administered by farmers. We know we have certain areas under crop insurance that are not serving the agrifood community as well as they could. The farmers in charge are now looking at changing, particularly as it addresses the forage situation.

The corn crop this year is smaller acreage, but we have new outlets. A new ethanol facility will be operating in Chatham within the next month and a half, a brand-new outlet for Ontario's corn crop. Our farmers are thinking positively and I do believe are having a reasonably good year.

Mr Galt: The minister made reference to the crops. We did have an extremely dry period during this past summer, which traditionally leads to a crop failure. The harvest is well on its way and we're well into the corn harvest. Could you describe what kind of harvest we're really having in Ontario?

Hon Mr Villeneuve: Mother Nature has not been as kind as she has been in some years. However, there is very little the government can do. We do have safety nets in place. The crop insurance is there, the safety nets are there and governments do contribute.

I want to remind my friends opposite that the government of Ontario produces one third of the returns to the crop insurance, provides one third of their premium, as does the federal government, as do the farmers of Ontario. There is a substantial amount of money in there that will protect our farmers in the event of an absolute catastrophe, which is not the case this year.

1500

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I was hoping to ask the minister for privatization to expand the public hearings across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Why don't we just have your petition.

Mr Gravelle: I have a petition here that speaks to the need for public hearings across the province. We only have five that the minister has agreed to, which is woefully inadequate.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas TVOntario/TFO is owned by the people of Ontario; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has opposed public support for maintaining TVO as a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster by putting TVO through a privatization review; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has not confirmed that full public participation will be part of this privatization review" -- and the hearing process is not enough, Minister.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to hold open and honest public consultation with the people of Ontario before making a decision on the future of TVO/TFO."

We call for hearings in Kenora, Fort Frances, Dryden, Windsor, Kingston and all the communities where we know TVO truly matters.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I would point out that there are representatives from S.A. Armstrong here in the gallery today.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the introduction and passage of Bill 7 in 1995 legalized the use of replacement workers (scabs) in strikes and lockouts; and

"Whereas the use of scabs has contributed to lengthening the bitter dispute between S.A. Armstrong Limited in Scarborough and the United Steelworkers of America Local 6917; and

"Whereas the strike at S.A. Armstrong begins its second year in late April; and

"Whereas, as this case demonstrates, the legalizing of scabs makes the democratic decision of workers to withdraw their labour meaningless;

"We, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly to rescind Bill 7 changes to the Labour Relations Act which allow the hiring of `replacement workers'" -- scabs -- "thereby to restore the legitimate bargaining power of workers who have chosen to organize themselves into a union for the purposes of securing a collective agreement, and thereby to restore some small measure of fairness between the unequal forces of labour and management in this province."

On behalf of my NDP colleagues I proudly add my name to those of these petitioners.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I have signatures from about 50 people from across the Niagara South area, including Donna Ruegg from Stevensville and Claude Winger of Ridgeway. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless; and

"Whereas the federal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to enact legislation to ban going topless in public places."

I affix my signature in support.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition on secondary school reform in Ontario, and it reads like this:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We believe that the heart of education in our province is the relationship between student and teacher and that this human and relational dimension should be maintained and extended in any proposed reform. The Minister of Education and Training should know how strongly we oppose many of the secondary reform recommendations being proposed by your ministry and government.

"We recognize and support the need to review secondary education in Ontario. The proposal for reform as put forward by your ministry, however, is substantially flawed in several key areas: (a) reduced instruction time, (b) reduction of instruction in English, (c) a reduction of quality teaching personnel, (d) academic work experience credit not linked to education curriculum, and (e) devaluation of formal education.

"We strongly urge your ministry to delay the implementation of secondary school reform so that interested stakeholders -- parents, students, school councils, trustees and teachers -- are able to participate in a more meaningful consultation process which will help ensure that a high quality of publicly funded education is provided."

I fully agree with the thousands of people that have signed this petition and I affix my signature.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today to present to the House by way of petition 100 to 200 letters written by students from Mount St Joseph College in Sault Ste Marie, concerning Bill 160 and their rejection of that piece of legislation. It goes like this:

"Whereas I have become aware and concerned that the changes your government is making to the education system will not increase its quality; and

"Whereas your goal was to increase the quality of the education system and to lower the costs, the latter goes against the recommendation of the Education Improvement Commission, which your government hired, that indicated that any savings from changes be reinvested in the education system to increase its qualities; and

"Whereas it appears to me your government is cutting $1 billion from the education system to support your credibility, a tax cut, rather than to maintain the quality of the education system;

"We ask that you withdraw Bill 160."

This is signed by many, many students, all in their own handwriting, from Mount St Joseph College in Sault Ste Marie. I add my voice and name to their call.

COURT DECISION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I am pleased to rise to present a petition that was submitted to me by the Cedarview Community Church in the town of Newmarket, as well as the Newmarket Alliance Church, the Valley View Alliance Church, Living Water Faith Fellowship, the St. Elizabeth Seaton Catholic Church and the Church of the Nazarene. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to ban going topless in public places."

I am pleased to add my name to the signatures.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): This petition was signed by 349 students to protest the destruction of our education system by Bill 160.

"We are asking that the Harris government to withdraw Bill 160 immediately. Bill 160 will not help our education, it will only hinder it. Anything that you and your colleagues can do to stop this bill from becoming law will be appreciated not only by the students at West Toronto Collegiate but by students all across Ontario.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the students of West Toronto Collegiate, feel Bill 160 will hinder education and that the teachers' concerns about this bill are valid."

This is signed by Kathryn Cooper and 348 other students whom I commend for expressing themselves today, and I add my signature to theirs.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I have a petition signed by members of CUPE Local 79, who are taking a workplace health and safety course, level 2, and therefore are aware of the issues.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas approximately 300 workers are killed on the job each year and 400,000 suffer work-related injuries and illnesses; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario continues to allow a massive erosion of WCB prevention funding; and

"Whereas Ontario workers are fearful that the government of Ontario, through its recent initiatives, is threatening to dismantle workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have consistently provided a meaningful role for labour within the health and safety prevention system; and

"Whereas the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre have proven to be the most cost-effective prevention organizations funded by the WCB;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately cease the assault on the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre; and

"Further we, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure that the workers' clinics and the Workers' Health and Safety Centre remain labour-driven organizations with full and equitable WCB funding and that the WCB provide adequate prevention funding to eliminate workplace illness and injury."

I'm proud to add my name to theirs.

1510

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): I have another petition submitted, this time by Mr Henk Bruggink of Nepean, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the rock band Marilyn Manson was permitted to play a concert at the Ottawa Congress Centre on Friday, August 1, 1997; and

"Whereas Marilyn Manson's wilful promotion of hatred, violence, immorality and obscenity has been linked to teen suicides and adolescent crimes across North America; and

"Whereas by allowing Marilyn Manson to perform, the Ottawa Congress Centre, a crown agency with a public mandate, helps to legitimize the band and its unethical messages; and

"Whereas the Ontario Court (General Division) has ruled that Marilyn Manson's music does not meet the definitions of obscenity or hate literature in the Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Liberal government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code in order to ensure that Marilyn Manson and other people directing messages of hate and derision towards vulnerable children and youths are not permitted to perform in Canada, and to ensure that messages which offend the moral and ethical sensibilities of Ontarians are not given a voice at venues financed by the taxpayers of Ontario, including the Ottawa Congress Centre."

I affix my own signature thereto.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): "Whereas tomorrow morning the Health Services Restructuring Commission will be presenting its preliminary findings to the people of Windsor; and

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospital expenditure is underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and other desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to call on the Minister of Health to provide appropriate levels of health care funding to Windsor hospitals which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I join thousands of my fellow Windsorites and people from Essex county in signing this petition.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas over half the people in Ontario are women;

"Only 5% of the money spent on medical research goes to research in women's health;

"Women have special medical needs since their bodies are not the same as men's;

"Women's College Hospital is the only hospital in Ontario with a primary mandate giving priority to research and treatment dedicated to women's health needs;

"The World Health Organization has named Women's College Hospital as the sole collaborating centre for women's health for both North and South America;

"Without Women's College Hospital, the women of Ontario and of the world will lose a health resource that will not be duplicated elsewhere;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to ensure the continuance, independence, women-centred focus and accessible downtown location of the one hospital most crucial to the future of women's health."

This is signed by hundreds of people from all over Ontario and I'm proud to affix my signature.

COURT DECISION

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise today to present petitions presented to me by concerned citizens of my constituency: Corinne Mariani of Newmarket, Mr and Mrs Harold Sellers of Newmarket, Deborah Vereecke of Tottenham and Mr Danny Howell of Midland. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to ban going topless in public places."

I'm pleased to add my signature to this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas since Mike Harris took office consumers across Ontario have been gouged by the large oil companies who have implemented unfair and dramatic increases in the price of gasoline; and

"Whereas this increase in the price of gasoline has outpaced the rate of inflation by a rate that is totally unacceptable to all consumers in this province because it is unfair and directly affects their ability to purchase other consumer goods; and

"Whereas Premier Mike Harris and ministers within the cabinet of his government, while in opposition, expressed grave concern for gas price gouging and asked the government of the day to take action; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government could take action under Ontario law and pass predatory gas pricing legislation which would protect consumers, but instead seems intent on looking after the interests of the big oil companies;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Harris and the government of Ontario to eliminate gas price fixing and prevent the oil companies from gouging the public on an essential and vital product."

I affix my signature to this petition as I'm in complete agreement with its contents.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mrs Witmer moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 99, An Act to secure the financial stability of the compensation system for injured workers, to promote the prevention of injury and disease in Ontario workplaces and to revise the Workers' Compensation Act and make related amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 99, Loi assurant la stabilité financière du régime d'indemnisation des travailleurs blessés, favorisant la prévention des lésions et des maladies dans les lieux de travail en Ontario et révisant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et apportant des modifications connexes à d'autres lois.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would simply like to begin the third reading debate of Bill 99 by making some very brief remarks and indicating that I will be sharing my time with the member for Niagara Falls and the member for Northumberland.

It's with a tremendous amount of pleasure that I speak today. If Bill 99 is passed today, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act will be the final step in the complete overhaul of the workers' compensation system. For seven and a half years, since our government first adopted a policy on WCB, we have been working under the leadership of Premier Harris to achieve our goal of refocusing the system towards prevention of workplace injuries and illnesses, to restoring the financial viability of the system, to refocusing the system as a workplace insurance plan and to getting injured workers back to work in a safe and timely manner.

I'm pleased to say that as a result of the changes that have been made to the workers' compensation system, we will be able to achieve all those objectives. I am particularly pleased that the board's mandate has been expanded to include prevention of workplace injuries and diseases and the promotion of health and safety, because I believe people in this province will be the ones who are the beneficiaries of this change in the mandate of the WCB. It will certainly enhance their quality of life as we see fewer injuries in the workplace and less in the way of disease. Certainly our policy as far as fatalities are concerned is zero tolerance.

1520

At this point in time, having been the critic for labour for five years and now having been responsible for the WCB these past two and a half years, I simply want to express my sincere appreciation to the thousands of groups and individuals who have worked with us to ensure that the overhaul of the act was done in a manner that reflected the varying viewpoints, that took into consideration the unique needs of all of the stakeholders. I believe that we have a system now in this province that will be sensitive to injured workers but obviously also responsive to the needs of the employers who fund the system.

I'd also like to particularly thank my parliamentary assistant, Bart Maves, who has certainly done an outstanding job in dealing with this legislation.

I'd also like to express my appreciation to all those others on the committee who sat for many days in the committee hearings and very carefully took note of all the input that was provided and made recommendations for the changes. As you know, there were some very significant changes made, which again reflected the input we had received. Of course, the two changes were the fact that we were now going to be compensating those widows who had not been compensated before and the fact that we're going to take a look at the issue of chronic pain, in order that we can gather all of the data and ensure that our policy reflects the scientific data that will be available to us.

I'm pleased that we are in the final stage of Bill 99. I also want to thank the opposition critics, Mr Patten and Mr Christopherson. Certainly they brought their points of view to the table. They represented their constituents and their stakeholders extremely well, and I appreciate the fact that they have been able to do so. So it's with a lot of pleasure that I stand here today and look forward to the passage of Bill 99.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I think that because they are splitting the time, you may want to wait until they are fully concluded.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It is a pleasure to rise today to speak to third reading debate on Bill 99. I'd like to touch upon several items in my comments on the bill. I also want to leave some time for the member for Northumberland, who would like to make some comments himself.

The first thing I would like to touch upon is something that came up quite a bit during hearings on the bill and prior to the bill, something that comes up actually on most bills that this government, and really every other government, ever brings through the legislative process, and that is the process itself.

Quite a bit of discussion and time were spent on whether or not the process was one of enough consultation. I know you've heard that before, and as I said, it happens on most bills. I said several times, and will repeat again today, that, in fairness, the Liberal government brought in legislation in 1989, I believe it was. They had hearings and consultation around that. The NDP government did consultation and hearings and brought in a bill in 1993. It was revealed to me during the hearings that Mr Mahoney himself and the Liberal Party did quite a bit of consultation on the workers' compensation system. His consultation ended up in the red book and the position the Liberal Party took on workers' compensation during the last campaign.

There was the work of the royal commission that was taken into consideration. Mrs Witmer, as she said, was for five years the critic for labour and she worked very diligently on the subject matter for those five years. Cam Jackson, the minister responsible for workers' compensation, did consultation and wrote an excellent paper on workers' compensation reform wherein he spoke with over 150 injured workers and received upwards of 200 written submissions. Bill 99 was based on all of that input over all of the previous decade.

Bill 99 was introduced, I believe, in November 1996 and was out there for quite some time. We had several days of debate in the Legislature and then we put it out to four days of hearings in Toronto. We went to five cities for hearings and then we came back again to Toronto for another four days of clause-by-clause analysis and debate. I think that shows the amount of time and consultation that has gone into reform of this system over the last decade, and I think it was substantial.

One thing that has been made clear since I've been in office, and before being in office, before many of the members were here, is that there was a great deal of need for change in the system. I think that's why there was so much consultation on the workers' compensation system over the years.

I'd like to read into the record some quotes from a few people from other parties which I think clearly demonstrate that all parties on all sides of the House have agreed there's a great deal of need for change.

The first quote I'd like to read into the record is from the NDP labour minister, Bob Mackenzie, when he talked about Bill 165:

"There is a growing feeling that the WCB is becoming a drain on Ontario's economy, on our ability to attract investment and jobs and spark business confidence. Never has there been such unanimous agreement that the board is in such critical need of reform and renewal. Our goal is a future where workers can count on fair and reasonable compensation for workplace injuries and a future where employers get top return on their investment dollars.

"Never in its 80-year history has the board been the subject of such scrutiny and review. The status quo represents an enormous economic and moral waste of human potential and expertise."

Clearly the previous NDP labour minister noted the need for reform.

The NDP labour minister who followed Mr Mackenzie was Shirley Coppen. She said subsequently:

"We have to get the unfunded liability under control because it threatens the whole system. I have to take my responsibility as minister seriously and take the interests not only of injured workers but of businesses which fund the system into consideration."

I think it's relevant that we look back at some of the history there and say that the previous government recognized the need for reform of the system.

As well, the opposition party, when they were in opposition -- as I said, Mr Mahoney did his own consultation and came up with what eventually was the campaign platform on WCB which went into the red book. I'd like to read from that red book, if I could, page 9. This is the Liberal Party, now the opposition:

"Ontario's workers' compensation system is a mess. High premiums are chasing away investment and jobs. The unfunded liability is out of control, soaring by $2 million a day. Workers receive a deplorable level of service from a system that doesn't focus enough attention on getting them back to work. The WCB is failing both the employers who pay for it and the injured workers it is supposed to serve."

Again, that was from the Liberal red book.

I think you can see all the consultation that was done over the years that I've mentioned. The quotes I've just read into the record from members from all sides of the House clearly show that there is a need for reform and many problems with this system.

The next thing I'd like to speak about is a change of direction that Bill 99 brought in for the Workers' Compensation Board, now the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. This change of direction was really to move the board into an era where it would be the principal architect of health and safety in Ontario. We need to improve health and safety. We don't really want to see anyone in this system, because we can avoid that by increasing prevention, and that is a new mandate of this board.

1530

If you read from the purpose clause of the bill, you would see that the very first purpose of the system now is, "To promote health and safety in workplaces and to prevent and reduce the occurrence of workplace injuries and occupational diseases." That's extremely relevant, the change in the direction of the board itself.

In the new functions that have been assigned to the board, again it is very clear now that the board is responsible for prevention and education. Let me read a few of those. The functions of the board include:

"1. To promote public awareness of occupational health and safety.

"2. To educate employers, workers and other persons about occupational health and safety.

"3. To foster a commitment to occupational health and safety among employers, workers and others.

"4. To develop standards for the certification of persons who are required to be certified for the purposes of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and to approve training programs for certification.

"5. To certify persons who meet the standards.

"6. To develop standards for the accreditation of employers who adopt health and safety policies and operate successful health and safety programs.

"7. To accredit employers who meet the standards....

"9. To provide funding for occupational health and safety research," and to make public that research, which is something that was amended to the bill later on in a different section.

What I want to say about this is that when we started off, we removed the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and its responsibilities for overseeing the safe workplace associations and the training centres and the medical centres, and we've given this to the board. The board previously funded the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and those agencies underneath it. The Provincial Auditor said in 1994, I think it was, that the WHSA was absolutely ludicrous in the way they spent money, that there was no accountability to the WCB, that there seemed to be no coordination in our entire occupational health and safety system and the different bodies that were there to administer it in Ontario.

By putting them all now under the WCB, these agencies will be more accountable to their funding agency, which is the WCB. They will be better able to see to it that their activities are coordinated and that occupational health and safety in Ontario continues to improve.

Again, the WCB, the new board, will now take over from the Occupational Disease Panel responsibility for research. Prior to 1985, you should know, there was no requirement for occupational disease research in Ontario. The Occupational Disease Panel was given that responsibility. But even members of this panel themselves came forward and said the system wasn't working because quite often even the bipartite board that the previous NDP government brought in would ignore the advice, they would ignore the studies, that the ODP brought in, and often do their own duplicate studies. So that was a problem.

Now with this bill, as in every other province, the board that will fund occupational disease research is responsible for that research. But they will do this, I must tell you, in conjunction with employers, employees, research hospitals, universities, the Institute for Work and Health, and others.

At the beginning of the process, the minister made a clear announcement that under this new system of occupational disease and research, there would be increased funding for research. There was a commitment made that it would go from $5.5 million, I believe the figure was, that is currently spent right now in total to $12 million on research by the year 2000. I think that's something of note.

As well, I must note that the WCB is taking this preventive role, this coordinative role, quite seriously. They have already set a goal to reduce accidents in Ontario by 30%. I think that's laudable. It's very important to set goals that we can shoot for, and preventing and reducing the amount of injuries that occur in Ontario is vital, so I applaud them for that. My understanding is that they have recently hired a vice-president of a prevention program who will report directly to the CEO of the board. I think that also is vital and shows the importance that they know they now have in the system in preventing injuries.

I also want to commend the minister. She brought in the youth awareness program and the safe communities project, which are there to help educate people about hazards in the workplace. The youth awareness program is particularly important because it says to kids in high schools, before they get out in the workforce: "Here are some of the hazards in the workplace. Here are some of the things you should be aware about." I think that's absolutely vital.

I also want to speak quickly about the minister's record. When she came in as minister she said that within the streamlining that occurred in the ministry, one area that was vital in her mind was inspections, that inspections of workplaces would not drop off. In fact, she has increased the amount of inspections done across Ontario dramatically. One way she has done that is to have a few blitzes of different workplaces around the province.

Recently in Windsor, the minister undertook a blitz of some of the manufacturing facilities. In that blitz, more than 800 orders were issued in just one month. A team of six inspectors made 312 visits to companies in the Sandwich South township area. It resulted in 98 new companies being registered under the act and 825 orders to remedy unsafe conditions being issued. I think that's a good example of her commitment to health and safety.

Similarly, she undertook a blitz, a forklift campaign in Ottawa, where more than 2,600 orders were issued in the Ottawa area during a six-month blitz by the ministry.

In almost 55% of the 1,500 visits by ministry officers to workplaces, at least one order was issued under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It's important that those inspectors continue to do that job. I must tell you that the minister hired 20 new inspectors. These were vacancies that hadn't been filled by the previous government. One of the first things the minister did was get to work on hiring those 20 new inspectors. The ministry is now currently looking for another 33 inspectors because that is a vital role, and the minister has acknowledged that, for her ministry to play.

I think these statistics are extremely important to note. Overall, inspections increased 51% during the past fiscal year, and there was also a 51% increase in the number of orders issued. This reverses the trend of declining inspections of the previous government. With the changes we are implementing, we expect further increases in the number of inspections this year. In addition, 128 convictions were obtained, resulting in total fines of $2.3 million in 1996-97.

I think that commitment -- the new orientation of the board to be responsible for prevention, the commitment of the board to reduce injuries, and the commitment of the ministry and the minister herself to inspections -- is something that we really need to note.

I think another thing all members of the House will agree on is that there needed to be some improvement in service delivery. Every single one of us has had many people come into our offices with complaints about the WCB, and most of the complaints surround service delivery. When this government changed the previous board of directors, it was a bipartite board which was locked in a struggle and couldn't make many decisions. They had increased substantially the amount of money that was being spent on administration, and there needed to be a new focus, the board itself.

The minister did bring in a new board. It was a multitalented board with people with labour experience, people with employer experience, people with insurance industry experience, and people with actuarial experience. The board has made several significant improvements already. For instance, in the first year they reduced administrative costs by $18 million. That's a substantial amount of savings and they are to be lauded for that.

They also brought in new managers of the investment fund. These are assets at the WCB that are supposed to stay there, supposed to grow over the years and provide revenues into the system. It's a capital fund that should never be touched. It has been in recent years, and that indicated part of the financial problems at the board. It's like dipping into your RRSPs really to pay today's current costs. That had to be stopped. It has been stopped. There are new managers of that fund, and the fund has grown substantially over the past few years.

1540

I think this is relevant. Forgive me if I read a bit of this into the record, but I think it's very significant for anyone watching at home, anyone within the WCB system right now, to know that the WCB is undertaking a reorganization which is going to help with service and staffing. It's going to improve service delivery. This is vital.

The service delivery model will consolidate both claims management and employee revenue administration, including appeals within one division, in order that customers can get one-stop shopping. We now are going to have an adjudicator, a nurse case manager and a customer service representative assigned to each case.

One of the criticisms that always comes out about the WCB service delivery is that it doesn't seem that any one person has responsibility for a claim. The WCB has understood this problem and now the adjudicator role is being consolidated so that one adjudicator is responsible from beginning to end in a lost-time claim.

A new customer service representative: A lot of people have problems with cheques, different amounts, when they're late. There are always problems with that. A new customer service representative will act as an account manager, and that person will be responsible to ensure that both injured workers and employers receive the information and services they need.

Finally, the third person on this team would be a nurse case manager. That nurse case manager will be assigned to injured workers to ensure that they receive the best medical care at the right time, to ensure full recovery and early and safe return to work.

That's an important thing to note, that it's been heard loud and clear that one of the biggest problems at the board is service delivery itself. I think the board is now undertaking in earnest to address that problem.

There is much, obviously, in the bill, much discussion about rates and benefit levels. The benefit level used to be 90% of net and it has been reduced to 85% of net. This is in line with many other provinces around the country. It reduces some overcompensation problems that could come up in some cases. I would note that the Liberals noted this also in their red book. It improves the incentive to return to work for some who might otherwise be hesitant to do so.

As Mr Christopherson I believe will say later on -- he's said several times that this reduction in benefit levels is just there to pay for a reduction in premiums to employers. He makes the claim, as he will I'm sure today, that this is unfair. The one question I guess I have to ask Mr Christopherson and those in his party is, why was it fair for them to reduce premiums by 21 cents between 1992 and 1993, and a year later bring in changes, brought in the Friedland formula to reduce the unfunded liability by $18 billion? It was much the same scenario.

If you look back over several years of the NDP in office, the average actual rates did decline. As I said, then they turned around and brought in the Friedland formula which did reduce some of the benefit levels and the inflation indexation. If it was okay then and if his party saw the need for that then, it's strange why they don't also see it now.

I think it's also fair to point out that over the years, especially in the 1980s, rates for premiums went up dramatically. Year after year they went up dramatically, until, as I said, when the NDP got in they did halt some of that rise in premiums. They still were quite high. They had gone up, previous to that, very dramatically. Many employers over the years have said to us and said to the previous NDP government -- and that's perhaps why they reacted the way they did -- that it was hampering their ability to create jobs, not only the system itself, the amount of red tape involved, but those crushing premiums.

Now with some lower premiums, some relief there, they're more reasonable. Job creation is increasing, as you can see, and now, with about 300,000 net new jobs since June 1995 in Ontario, I think there is more choice, more jobs opening up for injured workers to go back to if they couldn't get their previous job.

As I said before, all three parties have agreed that there were some fiscal problems in the system. The previous government was taking money out of an asset fund to pay current liabilities, something that is really a no-no in a pension fund or an insurance fund. There were some problems.

A lot of people have said, "Why not get that from the employers?" I must tell you, Bill 99 and the previous Bill 15 did address this problem. In fact, this government increased penalties to employers who violated the act. For instance, if someone doesn't report an injury, it's illegal under the act; the previous fine was $25,000, but we've increased that to $200,000. Also, Bill 99 makes employers pay fully the costs of the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Previously, there was a cap on how much employers would pay towards the administration of the act. We have removed that cap. WCB will no longer be responsible for paying that out of its revenues; the entire amount will come from the employers.

Also, two major changes in the act were very relevant. The board's ability to collect outstanding premiums will be strengthened by permitting the board to request payments in advance, to revoke coverage when there is a default and to set off the amount owing from the payments the person is entitled to receive under the plan.

Successor employers who purchase a business or assume a business will now be held responsible for amounts owing to the board. Previously, it was felt that the odd company would undergo a sale, would transfer ownership in some way in order to get out of their debt owing to the WCB. We've now changed that so that a successor employer is responsible for that debt. They need to know about that debt before they try to purchase a firm or take over a firm.

Those are some good examples of how we're trying to make sure that the money that should be coming into the board does come into the board from employers.

Just a couple more things here before I finish up.

Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Speaker: I raise it now because I'm mindful of the time. The member will know that on Monday we had unanimous consent to split the time that was available because of this time allocation, and at 5:45 the debate is over. We agreed to split it three ways. I've just spoken to the government member and the official opposition and there have been staff calls in the background. It's my understanding that this is also agreeable again today, so I would ask you to ensure that we set the clock appropriately to reflect the fact that all three parties will split evenly the time available this afternoon, as we did on Monday with Bill 136.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed.

Mr Maves: Speaker, what kind of time does that allow us to finish up?

The Deputy Speaker: I'll find out in a minute.

Mr Maves: I'm going to continue, Speaker. I'm almost done my remarks anyway.

1550

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if we have a quorum.

Acting Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk at the Table (Ms Donna Bryce): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls.

Mr Maves: I take it, Speaker, that 18 minutes is the time left for the government caucus. I will try to leave some time for Mr Galt, but I want to say a few more things that I think are very relevant.

During the hearings, especially the last day -- this is why I was very concerned about this; I want to get this in -- we had a presentation from OPSEU. OPSEU had a document that had a lot of the myths about Bill 99 in it, things that, during the hearings, we had been able to say, "No, that's not true." When an organization like an OPSEU comes forward, after the bill has been out for such a long time and after the hearings have been ongoing and debate in the House, I think it's very important that I lay some of the myths to rest so that some people who might have heard those myths will maybe have their mind set at ease.

The first one that we heard all the time was that the employer decides whether an injury has occurred or whether a claim is valid. This is not true at all. The WCB adjudicator decides this. As I said earlier, it's illegal for an employer not to report an injury. This could result in a possible $100,000 fine.

Another myth was that the employee has to get a claim form from the employer. This is not true either. The claim forms are available through your employer, through the employees' union, through the WCB, doctors, and hopefully many other sources.

The next one was that the doctor must give out private medical information of the injured workers to an employer. It's not true. What we talked about was a functional abilities form. The WCB had a sample of that out in public to be talked about. The functional abilities form: There are not diagnostic things on the form. They speak of the physical limitations caused by the injury so that return to work, which is a major part of the bill, is informed and safe. We heard from many unions out there who already have return-to-work programs and have functional abilities forms. I can tell you their forms were very similar to the forms WCB has, so I want people's minds to be at rest about that.

Another crazy one that was out there, just an awful premise, is that the WCB can do experimental surgeries and force experimental drugs on injured workers. This is absolute nonsense. There is a clause in the bill, brought forward from the previous bill, which talks about the WCB and the responsibility for an injured worker to participate in a health program, to get them healthy and back to work. It's just nonsense to let anyone think that if they go on WCB, they're now going to be subject to experimental drugs or surgeries. I want people to have that out of their minds.

Another myth is that the unfunded liability is not a problem. The Provincial Auditor clearly says it is, a neutral party. All three parties in the House have done things, said things, brought in legislation to address that. It is still a problem.

The next one is that the government is killing the Occupational Disease Panel and not doing research on occupational disease. I mentioned this quickly before, but the government is putting the Occupational Disease Panel under control of the WCB and is actually increasing the amount of money that's going to be spent on research, from $5.5 million to $12 million by the year 2000.

Another myth is that Bill 99 takes away coverage for people with repetitive strain injuries. That's completely false.

That Bill 99 imposes a three-day waiting period for benefits is again completely false.

Another myth: Bill 99 removes mental stress as a compensable injury. Mental stress has never been a compensable injury under the WCB policy under any government, so it really didn't remove it; it just put into legislation what has been the policy all along.

Last, I think there's going to be support on both sides of the aisle for this bill in its final form. The reason for that -- and I want to draw your attention to the Liberal red book, specifically page 11, where they made their campaign platform on WCB, where they would go if they were elected. I want to just read some of this to you. You and the people at home will realize that Bill 99 does, or we have already done, just about everything the Liberals said they would have done in their red book. For instance:

"Freeze WCB rates paid by employers." Done and gone one better.

"Change the makeup of the WCB board of directors to make it less partisan and more accountable to a wider range of stakeholders and the people of Ontario." Done.

"Improve the administration of the WCB by hiring a chief executive officer with a strong background in accounting and the administration of insurance." Done.

"Speed up the time it takes to process claims by better training adjudicators...and streamlining the appeals process." Done.

"Create a WCB return-to-work department that will help clients develop individual return-to-work programs." Done in 1999.

"Cut down on fraud by creating an investigative internal audit department that will signal zero tolerance for fraud and investigate all allegations." The board is doing that right now under their own operational aegis.

"Put the WCB on a sound financial footing by eliminating overpayments to injured workers, cutting administrative costs, and improving the rate of return on the investment portfolio by hiring private sector money managers." Done.

"Disband the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and put it under the WCB." Done. So I'm sure there are many members across the aisle who will support the bill.

The last thing I would like to say about that is that here's a question, TVOntario, November 28, 1996, on Studio 2, the Liberal Party leadership debate. The question to Dalton McGuinty, now the leader of the Liberal Party, was: "Dalton, the Conservative government is making changes to workers' compensation. Would you keep them?" His response was, "Yes, I'd keep those changes." "Would you bring the rates down?" "Yes."

It's clear that the Leader of the Opposition supports the bill. I think many people in his caucus are going to support the bill because it's completely in line with what they've said in their red book. I want to thank members for their time and their patience and hand over the floor to Mr Galt.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if we have quorum.

Acting Clerk at the Table: Speaker, quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk at the Table: Speaker, quorum is now present.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on Bill 99, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. It's a bill that certainly has been a very emotional bill. It created an awful lot of concern among members both in opposition and in the government. But this is a very positive approach to the whole issue. As you look at the name of the bill, the old bill, the WCB, the Workers' Compensation Act was looking more at the negative and compensation after accidents occurred.

It's very obvious that reform was indeed necessary. There were many things over the years, some 83 years. There have been no new acts since the original act came in, although there have been some adjustments. A massive debt of some $11 billion of unfunded liability has evolved to become a job-killing payroll tax. There has been all kinds of maltreatment of injured workers, both from non-support and also from oversupport. I think every member in this House has heard about the various kinds of problems when people come into their offices about the kind of service they've received as injured workers.

We've had problems, and certainly both opposition parties have talked about the bloated bureaucracy of the organization. They've recently built a big, fancy new headquarters worth millions of dollars.

This present act, which was developed in 1914, I think was probably just an excellent act at the time it came out. But when you work your way down the road some 83 years, certainly change is necessary. That was certainly true. We recognized it some time ago in our Common Sense Revolution on both pages 3 and 15. In the summary on page 3: "Cut WCB premiums for all employers by 5%." That was to create jobs. Then looking at "Cutting Workers Compensation Board Premiums" on page 15: "WCB premiums will be cut by 5%. This will save Ontario employers an estimated $98.5 million."

1600

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Is there a quorum present here?

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Marion Boyd): Check to see if there is a quorum.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Northumberland.

Mr Galt: I'm running out of time. To give as much time to others as possible, I just want to wind up with a few closing remarks about what these reforms mean for Ontario workers. The reforms are going to mean that there will be safer workplaces for employees, there will be faster and safer return-to-work programs in place and there will be more secure benefits and better services. It ensures that employers will be able to fund the system in a more fair and equitable manner. That certainly, we understand, hasn't been the way in the past. The new board will have increased powers to go after those who try to avoid financial obligations. There will be new incentives to encourage employers, such as to help employees return to work faster and, second, to invest in health and safety programs. Finally, it will ensure that Ontario workplaces are among the safest in the world.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe it was previously suggested that the time should be split equally between the three parties. I want to put everybody on notice of the fact that we have completed our debate and would offer up the rest of the time remaining to be split equally between the two opposition parties so they will have a little more.

The Acting Speaker: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): That's very generous of the government. It's too bad 1,200 delegations couldn't be heard on the bill in public hearings and that you didn't show that kind of generosity to injured workers right across this province.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Windsor-Walkerville, take your seat a moment. I have to remind the visitors in the gallery that the rules are very clear: You can't clap or make any noise whatsoever.

Interruption.

The Acting Speaker: I just want to remind people that you cannot speak or clap. Those are the rules of the House. At some point, if you keep doing that, I'll have to clear the gallery, so please try to control yourselves.

Mr Duncan: I'm pleased to join the debate on this draconian bill on behalf of the official opposition. The member for Northumberland said this is the first time the bill has been rewritten since 1914. I find that very interesting. He wouldn't know this, because the people who write what he says in the back rooms wouldn't have told him that as recently as 10 or 11 years ago we had a major rewrite of the bill. That bill was Bill 101, which was introduced by the Davis government, and it was implemented by the Peterson government. That bill provided for a complete overhaul of the WCB system and addressed in a meaningful manner many of the concerns and complaints and issues that had been raised. That's not to say that the system it produced was perfect, but to suggest that there had never been reform in the system is, in my view, understandable coming from the member, because he can only read what is put in front of his eyes, without taking the time to study or understand the issues.

Yes, this is a complete rewrite of the act, but it's certainly not the first and I can tell you it's certainly not the last, because in a year and a half's time we will go back at this and we will fix the system that you've broken.

The member for Niagara Falls distorted, took out of context and didn't address completely the position of the official opposition. First, he's right: We said we would freeze premiums. We would not cut premiums. We would not cut them because we did not want to have to inflict $15 billion in cuts on injured workers. Second, he spoke about the Occupational Disease Panel. I'll remind him that we implemented that in 1986.

The member spoke about comments our leader made, again taking them out of context. He was referring to, if the member had quoted completely, certain aspects of Bill 15. If he had bothered to get the rest of the quotes, he would have found that what he said took out of context and distorted the position of our party and our leader. But I'm not surprised; this government has mastered that art, mastered the art of misuse of information, distortion and attempting to take the facts of a situation out of context and try to put them in a context that defends a position that's absolutely indefensible.

This bill, in our view, is a backwards step for injured workers and a backwards step for the province of Ontario. This government has reduced benefits of injured workers from 90% of net pay to 85%. The member from Niagara Falls would not have pointed out that we said specifically we would not do that. I can tell you that this will be revisited in a year and a half.

The government took it upon itself to reduce employer assessments by 5%. What that tells us -- and yes, we agree that an economic climate has to take into consideration payroll taxes. I listened attentively today as the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism responded to a question with respect to a study by KPMG. The minister and the government will also be aware of a similar study that was done a year ago by the federal government that found that Ontario's payroll taxes were in fact very competitive when compared on a city-by-city basis, that our payroll taxes were competitive, in fact better than the payroll taxes in many southern American jurisdictions.

To somehow suggest that the price of having a fair compensation system is a less efficient economy first of all can't be justified by the statistics, and second, points very well to what the priorities of this government are. The priority is not with injured workers; the priority is not with the vulnerable. The priority is, even when you have a large unfunded liability -- and yes, we agree, as previous governments have agreed, that the unfunded liability had to be dealt with. It had to be dealt with to protect injured workers; it had to be dealt with to protect future pensions. But you don't do it by giving away $6 billion in premium refunds and at the same time take away $15 billion from injured workers. You've got your priorities all wrong. Yes, a freeze on premiums was appropriate, and yes, we would have done that. We would not have gone from 90% to 85% and we certainly wouldn't have attacked pensioners the way this government has attacked them in this bill.

1610

The bill goes beyond simple dollars and cents, because you don't take into account the effect this has on the lives of people, people right across this province. I've had the opportunity over the last two years to meet with injured workers in places as diverse as Thunder Bay and Tilbury, here in Metro, in my home community of Windsor, in Ottawa, Oshawa, Niagara Falls. You have taken away and eroded the rights of these injured workers, not only to fair compensation -- and let me remind you that when you're on compensation you've been injured at work. You can't work. These are people who want to work; these are people whose quality of life has been reduced.

Even if you take money out of the picture, their injuries and their suffering are significant enough that they're not able to be in the workplace, many of them for the rest of their lives. Yet this government thinks nothing of trampling on them in the interest of efficiency, in the interest of eliminating an unfunded liability, but at the same time they give $6 billion away in employer assessments.

They've eliminated the rights by placing limits on chronic occupational stress, which will no doubt open the door to significant court challenges. We heard that time and time again from lawyers in the field, from people who understand the workings of the system. But the government didn't want to listen, just as they don't want to listen today.

We see these little examples: "We're generous. We'll give you an extra three-and-a-half minutes for each opposition caucus." Nice try, gang. I'll tell you something. You can keep those people quiet today in the chamber because they're polite, but they know what you've said and done. They understand what this is all about and they understand what you're all about. You're all about a narrow agenda that doesn't see a broader picture. If you're really interested in the unfunded liability, then don't give away $6 billion to the people who pay into it -- if that's your priority.

Yes, we would have made changes to the composition and structure of the board, and yes, we would have dealt with fraud, both employer and injured worker fraud. You left that out when you talked about it, but again, we're not surprised. We're used to it: half truths, half-baked arguments, ideology, blinders, "too far too fast" -- words that will come back to haunt you in a year and a half, words that will see your government chased so far over the hills of damnation you won't know what hit you.

Injured workers, teachers, firefighters, police, doctors, lawyers -- all those special interest groups, all those whiners, all those people who milk the system, all those people who take advantage of hardworking taxpayers. Well, every one of them is a taxpayer.

We have historically evolved a system of compensation in this province that's fair, not perfect, and this government chooses to take us back not only 10 years but to take us back a generation or two.

I had to laugh. The member for Niagara Falls talked about the new chair of the WCB. You know what he did before he that, don't you? He was the wagon master on Mike Harris's campaign bus, from the life insurance industry. I had a chance to question him when he was appointed. I asked him about the unfunded liability the day he was appointed. You know what? He didn't know what it was. He didn't know the amount and he didn't know the calculation of it. You wanted to put in a chair who would follow your political marching orders. You've gotten rid of people who questioned you. Let me tell you once again, those things will all change in a year and a half. A year and a half is not that long from now.

I enjoy the fact that the government says it is fundamentally changing the primary emphasis from compensation to prevention of injury. Time and again I've gone back to the bill and I've read it over and over and over again and there's not a dollar commitment, there is nothing but a bunch of empty rhetoric about injury prevention. You have done nothing in the area of occupational health and safety other than to take statistics, exploit them out of context and try to make a case for your politics. You know what? It's not a compelling case at all.

I find it interesting that the government is prepared to spend $1 million to change the name of the board. The government that's interested in reducing costs and making things run efficiently will spend $1 million to change a name, a name that, by the way, takes the word "worker" out of the title; it takes the word "worker" out of the name of the bill. Think about it. It's subtle but important and it bespeaks a mindset. It takes the word "compensation" away. It removes the words "worker" and "compensation" -- gone and replaced with some pabulum about injury prevention.

If you were committed to injury prevention and health and safety in the workplace, you wouldn't get rid of the Occupational Disease Panel. You would have amended the Workplace Health and Safety Agency but you wouldn't have got rid of it. You deep-sixed it and you deep-sixed everything that it did, both positive and negative, without any accounting for the future.

The Occupational Disease Panel, no longer independent. I've spoken to the Minister of Labour about this here in the House, in committee and even privately. When Professor Weiler did his study in the early 1980s and when the Davis government introduced legislation to create its predecessor, it did so for a reason: The government of the day and successive governments have needed independent advice with respect to the compensation of diseases in the workplace.

I remember goldminers in the north; that was a big issue in the early 1980s. Every time one of these situations came about, governments had to appoint a royal commission or a study. Instead of systematically looking at these questions, questions that are more prevalent today than they were 10 years ago, and in my view and in my estimation will be more prevalent yet again in the coming decades, instead of dealing with these according to the recommendations of the Weiler report, according to the views of the Davis government, according to the views of the Peterson government, according to the views of the Rae government -- this gang? Back to the future. "We don't need science, heck, no." The Flat Earth Society, that's it: You don't need science in determining occupational disease. It's absolutely sad.

1620

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal: Government members won't remember -- and those who spoke today, it wasn't included in the notes they had written for them -- the days when the board served as both judge and jury. They don't remember the frustration that was created not only for injured workers but for employers. Why? Because the last level of appeal was the board itself. That doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot to these guys across the way, but you're going to find out very quickly that it bogs the system down and creates inefficiencies the likes we haven't seen since that body was created.

Now, when you have an appeal to your decision, who hears the appeal? It's the same court that made the original decision. It's absolute tomfoolery. Yes, the way WCAT evolved was not what was envisioned when it was created. We would agree, as I'm sure injured workers would agree to some extent, that the WCAT became too legalistic, became very difficult. An injured worker reasonably could not represent themselves at the hearing on the more complex issues. I know government members who have taken the time to study the history and evolution of workers' compensation law will know that when Professor Weiler envisioned that appeals tribunal, it was envisioned to be an appeals tribunal that was accessible. I think people of good faith, of differing views, have all discussed those issues and have all agreed that there were things that could have been done to improve it. But what did you do? Did you improve it? No, you got rid of it, without much thought, without much compassion and certainly without much consultation.

Process is important here. In addition to the obvious agenda -- and let's give the government credit: They said they would do this in the election. They added to it, but let's talk about the process. The minister only appeared once, on the first day of hearings, and refused to meet with injured workers. Then they get up in the House today and try to create the illusion that somehow they've been consulting, that somehow people have had equal access. That's the saddest thing of all, because people see through that. People understand. People aren't stupid. People realize. You can get up, say all you want, but the emperor has no clothes. The emperor has absolutely no clothes. The emperor has a closed mind, the emperor is not prepared to listen, but the emperor has no clothes.

Injured workers demonstrated angrily at the hearings because of the inadequacy of the process. But again, we ought not to be surprised. We've seen it time and time and time again; a government that has mastered the art of not listening, a government that bullies ahead without a lot of thought. We saw retreat really for the first time on Bill 136. There will be more retreats. The courts are going to find errors in law they'll strike down, as they did with parts of Bill 26. But what will finally force your ultimate retreat will be your Waterloo, which will be the next election. All those special interest groups are starting to add up, all those whiners, all those people who don't agree with everything the government says. Heck, even some of your own members.

The minister promised 14 days of debate, but there were only 10 hours in Toronto and six days across the province, including one half day in Windsor. Again, here we see a government that says one thing and I guess they think if you say it over and over and over again -- they're like trained robots -- that it must be true. You got away with that to some extent early on in the mandate, but people are seeing through you. People understand now, and with each one of those special interest groups that you impale, you lose more and more and more support.

Some 1,200 groups applied for standing and 118 were heard. That means less than 10% got a chance to be heard. The government will say: "They're all the same special interests. An injured worker in Thunder Bay is no different than an injured worker in Windsor. They all say the same thing, blah, blah, blah." But you're affecting their livelihoods. You are undercutting their very existence. No matter what you call it, any attempt to say you consulted or listened is a sham. It's simply not accurate.

Employer groups certainly had access to the minister. Employer groups certainly had access to the government. Their views were heard before, during and after the election. Their views were fully taken into account. Pretty well everything they wanted, they got. With that government that's okay, because you're not interested in balance, you're not interested in fairness.

That is an absolute shame, because the way we've evolved compensation law and labour law in this province, it's been a system of what I would call consensual evolution, that is, nobody got everything all at once, and we evolved our laws. We made changes. We took time. What we've seen is a complete breaking with that tradition. The good news is that in a year and a half we'll return to that tradition. We'll have an opportunity to revisit many of these issues. We'll have an opportunity to deal in a substantive way with the real concerns all people have, both injured workers and employers.

The government is obligated, in our view, to listen to all sides. Yes, government will make choices that don't appeal to everyone, and yes, I suspect whoever had to deal with these problems would have made somebody angry. The point is not to win 100% support. Members in this House know full well that's unachievable.

But when you deny a process, when you say to people, "Your views aren't important," and when you say to injured workers, "You take a $15-billion cut while we give $6 billion to employers," you're saying unequivocally and very clearly what your priorities are. I have a very strong suspicion that those injured workers will tell you what their priorities are in about a year and a half's time. You can shut them down now and you can jam this bill through with time allocation, but you can't stop thoughtful, caring people from working for a better way and from returning this province to a state where it can look at all people with a sense of compassion and understanding.

I want to take a few moments to address the amendments and what the government did with these amendments. Again, this is indicative of a government. It's really sad. There were 256 pages of amendments to this bill, including 57 from our party. Only 20 were considered before the time allocation kicked in. We could review less than 10% of the amendments. The government will say: "Those are all redundant. We don't need to review every one of them." Wrong. Good public policy, good law, emanates from a review, from an understanding, from thoroughly investigating all the issues in any given piece of legislation or indeed, for that matter, any given regulations. The committee couldn't provide research in time prior to the amendments being submitted, because they wanted to jam through their bill without due consideration.

The government announced amendments to Bill 99 on August 21, saying that it, "listened to the very useful advice provided by injured workers and their spouses, employers and medical experts during legislative hearings across Ontario." Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. You did not deal with a single one of those considerations.

1630

On chronic pain, for instance, the minister said, "Research will be targeted to this pressing issue." The hearings heard plenty of evidence that chronic pain is real, that it does exist and that it is not subject to normal healing times -- not only evidence, but competent evidence. The committee heard that there are scientific data that suggest underlying organic causes, specifically biochemical, neurotransmitter and neurophysiological abnormalities for the most common musculoskeletal pain states.

On WCAT, the minister said she would introduce a limited policy audit function. She didn't. A close review is not there. On widows' and widowers' pensions, the minister responsible for seniors announced reinstatement of their benefits lost by the unfair penalty imposed by remarriage prior to 1985. The amendments to WCAT and to widows' and widowers' pensions would have happened anyway, as a result of extensive litigation. So you didn't give them anything. You may try to sell it that way, you may try to take credit for it, but it was going to happen anyway. You only responded, or reacted I should say, to the reality you were confronted with.

What's going to happen as a result of this historic rewriting of workers' compensation in Ontario? First of all, it will be harder for injured workers to get compensation. The government members say bravo to that. It's absolutely sad. It means somebody who's hurt in the course of their employment will not be compensated as easily. I will predict now that many of those people will wind up in some other form of government assistance, so there's no net benefit to society. Rather, there's a $6-billion questionable benefit to employers.

There will be increased numbers of long-term disabled workers who will be forced to top up their benefits with welfare. To my mind this is the most shameful of a whole range of shameful things you've done. It's those pensioners. It's those people who are suffering and will suffer through the rest of their lives, through no fault of their own.

You know what the government thinks. The government thinks: "Oh yeah, those injured workers are all just milking the system. They're all just lazy." Wrong again. That's what you think; that's what you believe. It's at the core of your being. If it wasn't, why are you penalizing them $15 billion? It's a scandal. The good news is you only have a year and a half left. Your disgraceful treatment of these injured workers right across this province, your absolute distortion of fact, is unparalleled, in my view, in this Legislature and in any debate I've ever been part of.

What does that really mean? It means injured workers won't be able to support themselves and their families. Many of them are at bare bones to start with. They don't get what we get. They don't have the lifestyles we've become accustomed to -- and God forbid any of us should find ourselves on compensation. They don't have the quality of life we have. Many of them, like us, have young families they have to support. You're taking $15 billion out of their pockets and you don't even give them a chance to speak.

What else does it mean? It means the cost of compensation will be shifted from employers to communities, because when those folks wind up on welfare, whether they wind up on -- what is the replacement for family benefits? I forget what it's called now. When they wind up there, you're shifting the burden, as you are in so many other ways, to property taxpayers, the government that's raising property taxes right across Ontario.

The offloading on to other systems is ultimately offloading on to the people we have pledged to support in illness or in injury or, unfortunately, in some cases in death. Curtailment of the tribunal's power will ensure that the very real and legitimate pressures that gave rise to the tribunal in the first place will return, and they're going to return with a vengeance.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that we all agree that workplace injuries serve no one. Injuries don't serve the employer at the workplace, nor do they serve the workers who are trying to earn a living for themselves and their families.

Bill 99 isn't about fairness or equity; nor is it about balance, the fundamental values upon which the system was conceived. It's not supposed to be one-sided, but this is the direction the government has chosen to go in. Bill 99 has little to do with meaningful reform and everything to do with cutting benefits to injured workers and the most vulnerable people in this province. It's based on an ideological agenda that is mean-spirited and designed to blame the weakest in our society for all our problems.

That's been the agenda of this government from day one. We've seen in their cuts to hospitals, to our seniors, to our children and to schools, and now they're going after injured workers. The agenda of this government is not about helping people; it's about setting this great province back. The introduction of anti-fraud measures on May 16, 1997, is consistent with the Harris government's attack on the weak and the vulnerable.

There's nothing in Bill 99 which reforms the system positively for injured workers. It's being reformed on the backs of injured workers. This is a sad, sad day. I join with these injured workers today in condemning this government for its shameful attack yet again on the poorest and most vulnerable. But I tell you today, in a year and a half these people, tens of thousands of them right across this province, will join and teach you a lesson you won't soon forget.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I want to congratulate my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville for some very penetrating comments, I think heartfelt comments about a bill that he's followed in committee and feels very strongly about. He's pointed out again to all of us how difficult it is for anyone to accept this bill and certainly why our party is so much against it. I congratulate him for his work on it over the past couple of years.

This Bill 99, if put in context of other things this government is doing, becomes quite frightening. If you look at our cities, if you look at our province, you'll see there's a growing gap between the wage earners at the top -- the chief executives of companies, the owners of companies, the employers -- and the workers. There is a boom of sorts going on now in Ontario, but that boom seems to be focused on the people at the top.

There are a lot of people at the bottom rung of the income brackets across Ontario who don't see any benefits of this boom. Their wages have not increased at all. In fact, I think wages over the last four or five years have increased for workers maybe 1%, yet you see executives -- you know the stories about the chief executives of the banks making $3.9 million. They're all trying to outdo each other in terms of how many millions they can make in salary. That's not to say that these chief executives should not be rewarded. They should be given compensation for taking on that job as the chief executive; they deserve to be well paid. The problem is that what's happening is that the employers or the owners seem to be getting a disproportionate amount of the benefits of the economy, whereas the workers seem to be seeing nothing but more bills, more heartache and more difficulty.

1640

There's a growing gap between Bay Street and Main Street. There's actually a chasm, a canyon growing between Main Street and Bay Street. People on Main Street are just scraping by to pay bills, scraping by to put food on the table, scraping by to buy clothes for their kids, scraping by to buy shoes. People on Bay Street are talking about the new Porsches they've just bought.

I was in a drug store yesterday and this accountant told me a story about a 25-year-old who grossed $2.5 million on Bay Street last year. These are the success stories, and sure, it's great for these success stories to happen, but they're disproportionate.

Bill 99 has to be taken in that context. What this bill does is perpetuate that gap between those who don't have and those who have. What it does is that there will be $15 billion essentially taken from workers, and that money could have been left in the hands of these injured workers -- some of it could have been; I'm not saying all of it. There will be about $15 billion less paid to injured workers and $6 billion given to employers.

The poor working person who was maybe recently injured ends up with 5% less of a measly pension, because this government feels it's more important to put more money in the hands of the top income earners.

Bill 99 is enmeshed with this income tax policy whereby they've given a 30% tax cut worth about $5 billion. Why not keep some of that tax cut back and give it to injured workers, put it in our schools, put it in our hospitals to keep them open? But this government is perpetuating and widening that gap between Main Street and Bay Street. They're going to have more people buying Porsches and fewer people able to afford to drive a Chevy or TTC fare. That's what they're doing with this type of legislation.

Every day in my riding of Oakwood, whether it be on Eglinton Avenue or Oakwood Avenue or St Clair, I see these injured workers. They talk to me. They come to my office on a regular basis. They are just scraping by. The only reason they're able to scrape by is because a lot of them are exceptional savers. They go up and down the street on St Clair looking for something on sale. Instead of buying a loaf of bread for $1.25, they'll look for that loaf on sale for 99 cents to save that 25 cents so they can make ends meet. These are the injured workers whom this government feels deserve less money.

What are the hardships of that 25-year-old who earned $2.5 million playing the stock market on Bay Street? What possible hardships could he have when he's earning $2.5 million? I don't think we should be giving that $2.5-million wage earner any more breaks. The breaks should come for people who are on the injured worker lists in this province. They're the ones who need a helping hand.

Employers don't need to be punished, sure, but they don't need this extra money going to them, taking it from the workers. What do these workers do with the money they get from workers' compensation? They get it and spend it on food and clothing and heat and light and telephone bills or paying their mortgage. That's what they do with that pension. They're not doing the economy any harm by buying bread and shoes and paying for electrical bills. They're putting that money back in, so it's even good economic sense to give them that little bit of money they deserve.

My own father was a steelworker. He worked at the American Standard plant on Lansdowne Avenue and Dupont in the city of Toronto. I can remember, when I was a young boy living down on College Street, that my father was injured on the job. I can remember the panic that set in in my family when my father could not move for two or three weeks and was bedridden: Where and how would we ever pay for the rent, for food, for anything if the main bread earner was injured?

That's the type of situation that people faced and are still facing. What happens if your mother, your father, a wage earner, is injured? You're going to add more fear and more uncertainty for these families that already have a lot of uncertainty and fear. There are injuries in office work, no doubt about that, but a lot of these people work in factories, they work in marginal jobs, in construction; they work in all kinds of unorthodox situations to make a living, and they're very much subject to potential injury.

The chances of the Bay Street stockbroker getting injured as he gets in and out of his Porsche aren't that great. But that worker who works on construction, when it rains, when it snows, when there's improper scaffolding -- these things are going to happen. This government is trying to say that those people, in the future and today, don't need extra support, don't need a basic pension. That is adding more fear, more insult to a person who is going to in many ways risk their health by taking these jobs.

They work in meat-freezing plants -- I've seen them -- in subzero conditions. They're lifting sides of beef. These people are risking their health every day in plants and factories and on the roads and highways of this province, in building houses, in building apartments. If you go up and down St Clair Avenue, you will see these injured workers, who gave their best years, their 20s and 30s and 40s, to this city and this country. They built this city and country, and they built it with pride.

This is why they're so angry. I know the government members sometimes can't understand why they've been so angry at these hearings. It's like a slap in the face. These men and women have worked and endangered their lives and gave everything they had to this province, to this city, to this country, and then along comes this Bill 99. They're told, "Listen, what you did was great," and they get a little patronizing slap on the back and are told to go away, and they get their compensation basically gutted. That is why they're so angry across this province.

Put yourself in their shoes, with less money coming in, more uncertainty, the loss of pride because they can't work, and then ask why they're angry. I think they have every right to be angry, especially when they see the well-to-do in this province doing better and better and better, when they see the tax cut going to the well-to-do, when they see that Bill 99 gives more money to employers and takes money out of their pockets. That's why they deserve to be angry.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On point of order, Speaker: There is no quorum, I think. Would you check?

The Acting Speaker: Clerk, is there a quorum?

Acting Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Oakwood.

1650

Mr Colle: I would like to thank the member for St Catharines for noting the fact there was not a quorum here and coming to my assistance.

As you know, Bill 99 is totally opposed by the injured workers and workers across this province. They have every right to be. I support them in opposing this, and as our party does, I hope people across this province support injured workers in their opposition because, as we know, this government just doesn't pick on injured workers. It's teachers, it's union workers, anybody who gets in their way they will bulldoze.

I ask them to stand firm, to keep opposing this government. Today it seems the rumours are flying that there is an imminent cabinet shuffle coming. Some of these ministers we've seen here before us are on the way out and they will be replaced by other ministers. But we know no matter what shuffles take place, no matter what deck chairs they shuffle on the Titanic, Commander Admiral Harris is still the one to blame.

I'm not that angry with Elizabeth Witmer, actually. My anger or the workers' anger is with Mike Harris because he controls this government and this agenda totally. That's where we must focus our opposition, at the Premier's door because he's responsible for setting the agenda. He's responsible for the targets, and he has targeted injured workers, he has targeted hospital workers, he has targeted teachers. We know that.

Even though Mike Harris may shuffle the cabinet tonight, it doesn't make any difference who takes their places. You must remember that it's still the Premier, Michael Harris, who sets the agenda with his back-room whiz kids who know nothing about the plight of injured workers. They don't know what it means to be injured on a job and unable to work and going home without your job, without your a paycheque and without your pride because you got hurt.

They want to restore their pride. With a little bit of support the injured workers' pride could have been helped by revamping this compensation act. They could have done it in the right way. They could have put less money into the tax cut and a bit more money towards injured workers. They could have helped these people pay their bills and they are good, taxpaying, hardworking Ontarians whom this government has targeted. It doesn't make any sense to target these people and it doesn't make any sense to pick on workers who through no fault of their own are disadvantaged.

That's the crazy part about it. They are injured because of an accident. They didn't plan it. The workers didn't want to be injured. They are there through no fault of their own, so this bill is punishing them for having been in an accident. That is what is so dumb about Bill 99.

I think what we have to do, as the opposition or people who are opposing Bill 99, is continue our fight to ensure that injured workers get justice. It may not be in the next year and a half, but we must commit to justice for injured workers because they are, through no fault of their own, being disadvantaged and hurt doubly by this bill.

Although many in Ontario are lucky and fortunate in not being injured on the job, I ask them to stand shoulder to shoulder with people who aren't as lucky, who are victims of Bill 99, and support them in their ongoing struggle and have empathy with them in their ongoing struggle for justice, and just a fair compensation package so they're not just treated like pieces of material. They are people with families, with feelings and with emotions who want to contribute to this country and to this province, so let them do it. Let them live in dignity through their injury.

Remember, no matter what cabinet shuffle takes place, whoever the Minister of Labour is going to be tomorrow, the fault lies at the feet of Mike Harris, who is running this province totally. He's a total control person and he is the one who has made Bill 99 and all these other bills. So keep your focus on the Premier. No matter what the shuffle does, he's the one who sponsored Bill 99; he's the one we must remember is the cause of Bill 99.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the final reading of Bill 99. I regret there wasn't more opportunity for many of the people who are here in the galleries. I know people at home can't see them, because that's not the way the camera system works, and that's understandable. But there is quite a crowd of injured workers here today bearing witness to the rights of injured workers that are being taken away by the enactment, on third reading today, of Bill 99.

I want to talk about a number of things that are contained in Bill 99 and what they mean for injured workers. Just as important for anyone watching who is not an injured worker and feels, "This doesn't apply to me," you ought to thank your lucky stars that today you aren't an injured worker. But every injured worker who is here today -- in fact, every injured worker in this province -- didn't plan to be an injured worker the day they went to work.

They went to work thinking they would return home to their families and continue their regular life just like everybody who doesn't. But some people, for whatever circumstance or for whatever reason, are injured on the job; far too many, tens of thousands, workers are killed on the job. When you become an injured worker, suddenly the whole system of the WCB, when you get caught between the cracks, comes crashing down on you. We saw the stress and the heartache that can cause people. When you add on top of that all the things that are in Bill 99, it's almost monstrous what this government is considering and contemplating and prepared to vote for today.

I want to start first of all with the issue of the royal commission because that was sort of the first decision of this government around WCB. For all their talk about wanting to change things, the government says, "Because there are problems with the WCB, everything we're doing is justified." What they don't explain is that what they're doing is making it worse. No one is saying the WCB should stay the way it is. There's not one of those injured workers behind me or at home watching this who believes the system ought to stay the way it is. But they believe it ought to be improved, something Bill 99 does not do.

There was something under way that was going to deal with matters that had to be looked at, complex matters. This is not a simple bill. It's not a simple issue. We struck a royal commission after we passed our amendments to the WCB because our amendments did not deal with every single problem. I and my colleagues will be the first to admit that. But we did what we could in the time we had, and on those things that required more discussion and more analysis we said, "Let's strike a royal commission." After all, that's how the WCB came to be, the result of a royal commission.

What did this government do as one of their first decisions? They killed it. They killed the royal commission into the WCB and they handed the work that had been done over to junior minister Cam Jackson. He took all that work and he went underground and disappeared for months. Where the royal commission was meeting with people in public, a wide-open session so you knew what was being said to the commission, who was saying it and therefore you'd have an opportunity to respond when your time came, that kind of open, transparent process was gone when Cam Jackson took over. He met with people privately. We don't know how many people he met with, we don't know who he met with, and we don't know what they said.

1700

When the parliamentary assistant stands up and says, "We've consulted; Minister Jackson met with 150 workers," well, most of those were at one public meeting in his own riding in Burlington. I was there. I can attest to what happened. He didn't want to be there but the injured workers forced him. Phil Biggins is right here watching today. He was there. Cam Jackson didn't want to be there. Phil's organization and others in support of what they're about forced him into that public meeting. I'll bet 149 of those injured workers that he's referring to were from that meeting alone.

Minister Jackson talked about the fact that what injured workers told him was that they wanted the bureaucracy fixed and they wanted the system fixed. First of all, nobody would argue that. But that's not what I heard at the one public meeting he held, or one of the few. What I heard injured workers talking about was the fact that money was being taken out of their pockets and given to employers; that compensable claims that were allowed today will not be allowed tomorrow; that the WCAT that was there to make great strides and great breakthroughs for injured workers was losing its independence. Those were the issues they cared about. Pensions and the fact that 50% of the contributions made to the pension plans for injured workers were being cut: That's what they wanted to talk about at those public meetings.

It's disgraceful that any member of the government would say that you consulted on Bill 99. You may have talked to your friends in the corporate world and you may have talked to your friends in the insurance industry, but you sure did not give workers and their representatives and injured workers and their representatives and community agencies their opportunity to be heard, not in the same fashion that the royal commission did. But then you really didn't want to solve the problems, did you? What you wanted to do was set the stage to go after injured workers in the way that you have in Bill 99.

Right after you made that decision, we dealt with Bill 15. At the time, people thought it was a fairly innocuous bill. It was rather small in terms of its size but it had incredible implications for workers who are hurt on the job. If you look at the odds, there's probably someone watching right now who will have a friend or a family member or themselves injured by this time tomorrow. Bill 15 affects them because Bill 15 took away the right of workers to have a 50% say in how the WCB was operated. We know the government has a difficult time with workers who get uppity and don't know their place. That must be how they viewed those representatives.

When we, the NDP government, the Rae government, gave workers those 50% of the seats on the WCB, what we said that was doing was finalizing the chapter that began in 1914-15 with what's called the historic compromise. The historic compromise was the result of the royal commission I referred to a few minutes ago, which at the end of the day said there ought to be a no-fault system in place that does two things. First, employers would be protected from any lawsuits by their employees if they were injured on the job. So no matter what happened, how negligent an employer might be, if one of their employees was hurt on the job, they could not be sued in a court of law. In exchange, workers would have a fund that would pay their wages and their benefits without question when they were hurt on the job through no fault of their own.

When we looked at the WCB, we said, "This is not a government plan per se, this is not an employers' plan per se, and it can't be an employees' plan because they're lucky to get a couple of seats." We in the NDP said that what there ought to be is a recognition and a reflection that there's a partnership here. The partnership is the government, which of course sponsors the bill and provides the legal framework, but half the seats ought to be employer representatives. That's fair. They should. They are a partner in the system. But 50% of those seats should also be worker representatives. It's their plan also. In fact, the plan was created for them.

The royal commission was not struck because a bunch of corporations at the turn of the century said, "Hey, we need a better way to deal with injured workers because we're concerned about it." They agreed to it and the government of the day responded because there were too many bodies piled up and corporations were losing the lawsuits. That was the motivating factor.

Bill 15 took away workers' rights to 50% of the seats on the board. So now the overwhelming majority of that board, with few exceptions, are Mike Harris's handpicked cronies who think like him, talk like him and are prepared to do his bidding. In fact, they fired labour representatives who were already on there who hadn't completed their term. The courts ruled it was illegal for them to do it. How many times have we seen that, I say to my colleague from London Centre who just showed me another court decision? How many times have we seen that it finally took the courts of this land to stop this bullying government? That's what Bill 15 did.

When we take a look a little later at everything that is in Bill 99, we begin to see that all the decisions that were done by independent agencies, whether it was WCAT or the Occupational Disease Panel, all of those decisions now directly flow back to the board of directors. And who runs the board of directors? The overwhelming majority of Mike's corporate pals. That was the importance of Bill 15.

After November 26, a day that truly will live in infamy in terms of benefits or, better said, attacks on injured workers, when Bill 99 was introduced into this House, the minister, under a great deal of pressure certainly from our caucus, and to some degree from the Liberals -- certainly a priority for us, if you check the Hansard, was forcing that minister to say there would be province-wide public hearings. Why? Because we knew that if we got the government out of this place and out of the protection and sanctity and comfort and cocooning of this room, they'd have to face exactly those people up there and hundreds and thousands of others all across the province. We thought, "That's our best chance: public opinion." How many members of the public would support something that takes away benefits they may need, particularly when it's giving benefits back to the people who owe the money in the first place? I'm talking about the employers.

What happened on that commitment after the minister said, "Oh, yeah, we'll do that"? Six days of province-wide public hearings, an insult, a disgrace, for a bill that doesn't just amend the Workers' Compensation Act; it replaces the whole law.

You made a few changes to the Employment Standards Act, and when we embarrassed you into recognizing they were takeaways from some of our most vulnerable workers who didn't have the benefit of a collective agreement, you finally agreed to four weeks of province-wide public hearings -- four weeks -- on a bill that you said, your words, was minor housekeeping in nature. But when it comes to Bill 99, an entire replacement of the Workers' Compensation Act, you give six days. And what six days? In the middle of summer, in the dog days of summer.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Shameful.

Mr Christopherson: "Shameful," says my colleague the member for Cochrane North, and he's right. It is shameful.

Oh, but they had a surprise waiting for them. There was a surprise in every community we went to, because in every one of those communities we held a rally in the morning, and at those rallies we had standing room only -- banners and buttons and hats and balloons and music and marches from that rally all the way over, down the middle of the main streets in many cases, to where the hearings were being held.

1710

I think the government was shocked. They thought that with their bullying reputation and the fact that this was the dead of summer, we might end up with five or 10 people, a couple of signs maybe, a little bit of resistance and that's about it, that they could skate in and skate out and get this out of the way. That's not what happened. Those injured workers were out in force, and they sent a message to this government, a message that you were told back when you introduced this bill on November 26, 1996. That message was, "If you attack workers in the way that you propose in Bill 99, you will feel the wrath of those injured workers, because they are justified in taking you on, and you have no justification for what you've done," and that's exactly what happened.

When we finally got to the final hearings, we had the Kingston resolution. The Kingston resolution was the result of every day, in each community, the government members of the committee -- who form a majority -- denying my request for unanimous consent to introduce a motion that would extend the hearings, and in every one of those communities, the government backbenchers blocked it. Both opposition parties were in favour. Certainly all the people who were in the audience were in favour, because a lot of them wanted to speak. The government backbenchers denied those injured workers their day in court, if you will, in our democracy.

Shame on every one of them, because since then I have heard every one of them give a speech either here or in another committee, where they have said: "We're listening to people. We want to listen to people. We care what people have to say." Sure, as long as they're people who agree with you, but God forbid if there's someone who maybe disagrees with you.

I see the member for Peterborough has just entered the chamber. How timely, because Mr Stewart, while we were in Burlington, was the only one prepared to put his name on the record on that one day when I said, "Who exactly is objecting?" Suddenly he disappeared and didn't make it to Kingston, and when we got to Kingston, they were all unified again. I suppose they were following the theory that there is safety in numbers. But on that one day there was so much emotion in that room that not one of them was prepared to say anything and go on the record, and we almost had unanimous consent except that member who just walked in, the member for Peterborough, said, "I don't want those hearings extended, and I go on the record saying so."

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: It's in the record. You can hear him now. He gets his voice. Where was their voice when they wanted to talk? Where is their opportunity? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): And you know why? Because you weren't allowing the disabled to speak, that's why, because you had all your union buddies speaking. You didn't give them the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Peterborough, come to order.

Mr Christopherson: You have no right to speak in here, morally, given what you did to those injured workers, and it's in the Hansard. You can't change it.

Mr Stewart: That's the problem and you know it. Absolutely. You should have let them speak instead of your union buddies.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I ask the member to direct his remarks through the Chair, and I would ask the member for Peterborough to come to order.

Mr Christopherson: For the record, in the Hansard of August 13, I state:

"Chair, all I want to know is who said no? I didn't hear anybody. Who is going on the record to say no?

Mr Stewart: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I said no."

Then he goes on -- get this. This is what's so bizarre. Two comments later, after I called him a disgrace, he said, "I suggest I probably care for them more than you do because I want to listen to them."

That's after, two seconds before, he went on the record saying, "I don't want to listen to anybody else." That's how bizarre and backward some of the members of that committee are.

What happened the next day in Kingston, after Mr Stewart was very quietly and effectively whisked off the scene so he wasn't there to be seen in Kingston? I'll tell you what happened in the morning in Kingston.

Mr Peter Boyle, of the Kingston and District Labour Council, placed the following resolution on the floor. Do you know what the workers had to do? I don't think they were proud of it, but they felt they had no other choice. Do you know what they did? They took over the beginning of the committee meetings and they at least had one resolution that dealt with their concerns.

I honestly don't think they were proud of that, because regardless of what you think, working people in this province have a great respect for the institution of this Parliament. But you disgraced it and you shamed it to the point that they had no alternative but civil disobedience. What did that resolution say?

"Whereas the overwhelming majority of workers who have presented to the Ontario standing committee on resources development, which is holding public hearings on Bill 99, have testified that Bill 99 attacks injured workers in the name of greater profits and will lead to greater numbers of injuries and deaths in the workplace; and

"Whereas the government members of the standing committee on resources development holding public hearings on Bill 99 have demonstrated that they have no intent of taking into account the concerns of injured workers and their advocates;

"Therefore, be it resolved that the participants at the Kingston public hearings on Bill 99 call on the labour movement, the injured worker movement and all progressive organizations to continue the fight against the concepts in Bill 99. They should use their resources to fight these regressive changes on the streets, in the workplace and to build support within their communities for a just compensation system and safe and healthy workplaces. That fight begins in Kingston today."

I tell you, members of the government, these people are here because that fight continues today.

I want to talk just a little bit about the unfunded liability, because the government likes to talk about that a lot. The government likes to say -- and you certainly heard the parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, talk about it -- that it's this unfunded liability that's driving them to do all these mean and horrible things, and they really don't want to do that, because they would suggest to you that they're very nice people and they wouldn't do this unless they had to.

But there's a problem when we take a look at the facts. The facts are that the unfunded liability, in fact all of WCB, has not one penny of taxpayer money. Not one penny of taxpayer money is in the WCB. It's paid by the employers who pay the premiums into that fund to pay their share of the historic compromise because their employees can't sue them.

So this unfunded liability is certainly not money that injured workers owe, and it's not money that taxpayers owe -- this government likes to spin it out there and put it in the same context as the provincial debt and deficit, and therefore give them some cover. No. This is money that employers owe, because they pay the premiums. That's what's so despicable about the fact that you're taking $15 billion by virtue of the changes in this bill out of the pockets of injured workers between the now and the year 2014, and giving $6 billion of it back to the employers by way of a premium cut of 5%. So you cut injured workers' net income from 90% to 85% and give the employers who owe the unfunded liability in the first place a 5% gift on the premiums they pay. And you wonder why injured workers are so angry?

1720

The government likes to talk about the fact that this unfunded liability is crippling the WCB. They characterize it that seriously. But again, let's analyse it.

Number one, when we talk the unfunded liability, we're not talking about money that has to be paid tonight or tomorrow or next week. It's all the obligations the WCB has, all the payouts they're going to have to make in the future.

It's no different from any one of us here or anyone watching at home sitting down and saying, "How much am I going to pay in mortgage payments or rent over the next 20 years, and how much am I going to pay in fuel on my vehicle, and how much am I going to pay on insurance and heating the house and paying for the phone, and clothes and food?" and adding it all up and saying, "That's my unfunded liability." The suggestion from the government is that if anybody watching and doing that calculation can't cut a cheque today to cover that total amount, you're in crisis. By that definition, we're all in crisis; certainly every middle-class working family in Ontario is in crisis.

What else? The other thing they don't talk about much is the fact that the unfunded liability has gone down in the last three years since our legislation, the NDP legislation, came into effect, by over $1 billion. Yes, it's going to take some time for that to come down under our plan, but our plan didn't involve the attack on injured workers' rights the way yours does.

Chronic pain: Between now and 2014 this government is planning to take $1.4 billion out of the pockets of injured workers for chronic pain; pension benefits, $1.4 billion; and reducing the benefit that a worker gets from 90% to 85%, $3.1 billion. That's just a sample of what happens to injured workers. All that is happening at the same time that the employers, who owe the money in the first place, are getting a $6-billion gift.

The parliamentary assistant likes to talk, as he did today, about the changes we made and point out that we made some changes that redirected some of the benefits. It's true. Were injured workers angry? Yes. But let's look at the details.

First of all, there were substantive negotiations between our government, labour and business. At the end of the day business did not agree, but business also could not say, like labour does now under Bill 99, that they didn't get their say. They did. On Bill 99, workers didn't get their say before or after you introduced Bill 99.

The other thing is that we improved the income of over 40,000 of the most disabled, permanently injured workers by up to $200 a month; over 40,000 injured workers had improvements of up to $200 a month, and that money was 100% inflation-protected. That is what happened under our legislation.

What did the Ontario Federation of Labour do? They were not happy with some of the changes, but they recognized that on balance this was better legislation and improved legislation for injured workers. Coupled with the royal commission to look into a lot of the other issues, they gave their support for the total overall package we brought in.

What did we do? We gave over 40,000 people over $200 a month, and inflation protected that money 100%. And we dropped the unfunded liability by $1 billion over three years. What did we not do? We didn't give one penny of that redirected money back to the employers. What sense would that make?

My friend from Niagara Falls says we did. The reality, and he knows this, is that all the changes he talks about were part of reorganizing and putting everybody into different categories that had virtually nothing to do with Bill 165. That was an independent process under way within the WCB and had nothing to do with 165, and he knows that. That's the reality. That stands in stark contrast to this government, which takes $15 billion out of the pockets of injured workers and gives $6 billion of it back to the people who owe that money in the first place.

Before I leave this -- you promote yourselves as people who think about common sense. Ask yourselves this: If the unfunded liability was such a crisis, why would you give $6 billion of your revenue back at a time when you say the debt is the major crisis? That doesn't make any sense at all to anybody. It's very similar to your 30% tax cut, I might point out. You talk about the debt and deficit being the top priority and then you give $5 billion back through your 30% tax cut, of which 10% of the population gets the lion's share of the benefit. It's the same thing, and people are beginning to see that.

Let's take a look at what this government is doing. One of the things they did when we were at committee was slide in an amendment that nobody raised during the hearings; nowhere can I find it in the Hansard. They brought in number 211. My colleague from Windsor-Walkerville mentioned how many amendments there were. Here are the amendments; that's how many there were. As he said, we got to maybe 20 of them. The rest of them were rammed through. We didn't get anywhere near number 211. Number 211 was a sneak attack. What does it say? It says, under "Application," under 106.1(3):

"Sections 114 and 117, subsection 119(2), section 119.1 and subsections 169(1) to (4) of this act apply...to pre-1998 injuries and to decisions of the board rendered before January 1, 1998...."

What are those clauses it refers to? Those are all about appeal procedures; it refers to a couple of other things. It takes the time limitation, the restrictions in the bill after it takes effect on January 1, 1998, and says, "Every one of those time restrictions is now retroactive," so that every decision made before the bill was enacted is subject to the six-month time line.

They didn't talk about that in Bill 99. It's not in there as it was proposed at first and second readings. They didn't talk about it out in the communities when we were out doing public hearings. The only time they raised it was after public input had been shut down by a time allocation motion and buried it so far down that we never got to it at all. That, in my opinion, is nothing but a sneak attack, a cowardly attack on workers who are affected now by a bill that doesn't become law until January 1, 1998. How despicable.

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): Typical.

Mr Christopherson: My colleague from Sudbury East says, "Typical." Despicable and typical, to put something like that in there and never once hint during the public hearings that you're going to do it. Think how you would react, any of you, if this had happened to an issue you cared about.

It's going to mean one of two things. It's either going to mean that people are going to be extinguished in terms of their appeal rights, because they don't know about it -- the minister today said, "We're going to contact everybody." Well, you take a list of tens of thousands of people and make a commitment to find every one of them within six months. Good luck. I think they're hoping, of course they're hoping, that a lot of those appeal cases fall off, and once the time limit goes by you're out of luck.

If that doesn't happen, the other expectation is that any representative of an injured worker worth their salt, whether they're ready to make a substantive appeal on a case or not, is going to fire in a letter keeping the file alive. This represents possibly hundreds of thousands of appeal cases, and yet the minister has refused, in questioning in this House from myself and my leader, Howard Hampton, to commit that she will put the money up front that is necessary to hire the staff to deal with that caseload. What does that tell you about how sincere this minister is and what this government really thinks about injured workers?

1730

What are some of the changes? I've got about 15 minutes left, so I can't deal with everything. There's not enough time, because of course they've time-limited everything so we don't get as much time any more. One of the really serious concerns expressed by public sector and private sector representatives, community groups, truly anybody who actually understands what's going on in the world of injured workers and why these things happen, is the killing of the Occupational Disease Panel.

I made a note when the parliamentary assistant was speaking, and he was running through a list of achievements they did. He was reading one out and he said, "Done," and then he read another one, "Done," and read another one, "Done." I want to read a list too.

There was a letter sent to the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Labour, on July 4, 1995, within weeks of this government's taking power. The actual transition had taken effect. The ministers hardly had time to get their pen sets on their shiny new desks and this letter came rolling in. It's from the Ontario Mining Association and it's addressed, "Dear Madam Minister," and they offer their congratulations and they have worked together well and they look forward to working in the future -- not unusual in that. Everybody says that. Then they say in the second paragraph, "Among those discussed" -- talking about the issues they have discussed -- "we believe that the following require your most immediate attention and resolution."

This is the Ontario Mining Association to the new Minister of Labour a few weeks after she has taken power, and what do they think needs immediate attention and resolution? Repealing of the Bill 40 Labour Relations Act amendments -- done; dismantling of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency -- done; amending the Workers' Compensation Act -- done; cancelling the WCB royal commission -- done; restructuring all bipartite processes -- done. That's five out of six. What would the last one be? Dismantling of the Occupational Disease Panel, and now, with Bill 99, the government can mark this "done."

What does this panel do? First of all, they have attracted worldwide attention and respect and commendation and credit for the work they have done, because what they do is provide an independent -- that's the key here -- independent evaluation and study by scientists, academics, medical doctors, all the experts in the field you need to look at whether there is a causal link between exposure in the workplace and disease and illness, sometimes leading to death, that workers face. What do some people say? The Ontario Mining Association wants it killed. That's on the record. The government is planning to do it.

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): Silicosis -- done.

Ms Martel: Lung cancer -- done.

Mr Pouliot: Black lung disease -- done; hydrochloric acid -- done.

Mr Christopherson: My colleagues from Lake Nipigon and Sudbury East are echoing some of the things that have also been done, and I can only hope that Hansard caught those.

First of all Homer Seguin, from the United Steelworkers of America, District 6, who has 46 years of active experience in health and safety, 31 years of active experience in workers' comp and occupational disease, four and a half years as a member of the board of directors of the WCB and nine years as a member of the Occupational Disease Panel here in Ontario, what does he say about it? He says:

"The facts demonstrate that the Occupational Disease Panel's work and reports have resulted in considerable disease prevention activity, while the WCB's 70-year track record has been proven to be a disaster.

"The two opposition parties are on record as supporting the maintenance of the Occupational Disease Panel." This is Homer speaking to the committee.

"Madam Chair, government members, this is a critically important matter. Literally speaking, if the government stubbornly proceeds with the elimination of the ODP...as proposed in Bill 99, in the face of the overwhelming contrary evidence, the blood of innocent disease victims will be on your hands and on your record. I plead for reconsideration of all the above and for the health and lives of potential disease victims whom your decision will impact upon."

More dead workers -- done.

That's what Homer said. I have quotes in here from Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers; Gord Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour; Harry Hynd, director district 6, UFCW; the Catholic teachers' association has spoken out. Virtually anybody who cares a whit about workers had something to say about this. But you might argue that their opinion is biased, because you would certainly never give any credibility to a democratically elected labour leader and we wouldn't expect you to.

But what else have we got? We have a letter signed by a dozen professors and associate professors of the department of work environment --

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: I don't think you've got too much to say, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, given what you're doing to our communities. I would think this is a fight you might want to stay out of.

These dozen professors and associate professors of the department of work environment at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell, what do they say?

"We recently heard that the province of Ontario is planning to eliminate the Occupational Disease Panel in the near future. We urge you to reconsider this decision. Several of us have worked with the panel over the years and have always been impressed at the extremely thorough and rigorous way they have approached the difficult and often contentious task of determining the work-relatedness of disease.

"The Ontario workers' compensation system has been described as a model for how scientific research can be successfully used in the development of occupational health policy."

That's using the Occupational Disease Panel as an independent agency, not folded into the WCB. It came out of the WCB because for 70 years it didn't work. That's why it was created. You're taking us back. You keep making this speech that you're moving forward, as the parliamentary assistant said, into a new era. No, you're not. Like virtually everything else you're doing, this is yesterday. It didn't work. But then you don't want it to work because, you see, if you identify that there is a link between exposure to substances and chemicals in the workplace and illness or a disease that a worker has, two things happen. One is, that claim is compensable. It costs money because the employer pays the premiums that pay the fund, so they have an interest in keeping those costs down. They don't want to pay the money. But the worker is paying with their health and with their life.

The second thing that happens, when this panel can make the linkage, and they don't always -- that's what's so important about it. If it's not a direct link, if there are suspicions people have, then fine, let's not spend any more time looking there. We've still got a sick, dying worker. Let's move on to something else and find out what is causing it. When you find it, they get compensation, and second, there's then a legal obligation on the part of the employer to correct it, and not just in that workplace but to clean it up in every workplace. What does that do? It prevents other workers from getting sick.

That's why it is so important that it remain separate, but this government doesn't care about that. They care about the dollars. They are literally more concerned about the dollars that are involved in paying compensation and in illness and disease prevention than they are in taking care of workers who are dying.

You know when this will come back? This will come back if, God forbid, we're still under a Tory government, the same way that everything in WCB that's positive and progressive ever happened before: When the bodies line up, when the bodies stack up and public opinion says you have to respond, then we begin to turn the curve. Until then, injured workers are going to get sick, they're going to get hurt and they're going to die.

I want to talk about two other items while I have time. I'm down to the last five or six minutes.

The government has now eliminated -- oh, before I leave this, there's one thing I want to say about this Occupational Disease Panel. Remember I said how important it was for you, the government members, that Bill 15 get passed? Well, this independent agency used to make their own decisions about what got studied and what didn't. It was based on priorities and it was based on the number of people who seemed to be getting hurt in a given industry or a given part of our labour economy. They would make that decision based on what's best for the most amount of people and they made that decision independently, which is why it was pointed to as a model for the world to look at and why we have letters from around the world supporting it.

By taking this away and folding it back into the WCB and under the new procedural regulations, the board of directors gets to make the final decision about what gets studied and what doesn't. Many times what doesn't get studied is as important as what does. It's Mike Harris's corporate pals who now make those decisions. The parliamentary assistant likes to talk about the fact they've got a new direction for workplace illness and accident prevention. Bull.

You shut down the Workplace Health and Safety Agency that again was 50% run by workers and 50% run by employers. You folded that, you killed it, and you put the mandate for that back in the WCB. In both these cases, the Occupational Disease Panel and in the case of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, the reason they were created, the reason the mandate was taken out of the WCB and set up as independent entities, is because it didn't work. They didn't do anything. They never quite got around to it. It was separated out so that it could be focused on as a priority.

When the minister talks about the fact that she's reorienting and refocusing and re-engineering, all she's doing is taking the mandate that the Occupational Disease Panel had and the mandate that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency had and put them back into the mandate of the WCB from whence it was taken in the first place because it didn't work. That's the game plan there.

Two other things, and I probably won't get to both of them. One I want to talk about is the fact that you're eliminating mental stress, completely eliminating it. The parliamentary assistant said, "All we're doing is reflecting the fact it's not in the law of the WCB now; we're just codifying that." Not so.

Occupational mental stress has begun to be recognized by WCAT, but of course you're limiting the independence of WCAT so that can never happen again. That's where the first case was won. We had people come in from the Ontario Psychological Association, Dr Ruth Berman, the executive director. I asked her point blank: "We hear from the government the reason they don't support occupational mental stress is because it can't be differentiated between the day-to-day stresses that we all face in order to create a legitimate WCB claim." She's in Hansard on the record as saying yes, they can. They have the psychological tools to make that separation. She's not the only expert. There are others there. Anybody who studies this in the future will see them. They're all there to be looked at.

The fact of the matter is that you're only worried about dollars, and more and more people are going to be denied WCB who are legitimately ill because of the workplace, whether it's sexual harassment or whether it's technological overload or just downsizing and loading up so much work that no human can possibly comply. Those people will be denied. Ultimately what's going to happen to them? Ultimately they're going to end up on the welfare system and their medical costs are going to be paid by the taxpayer.

Who wins then? The employers, because they don't pay the WCB premiums. Who loses? The worker, because they're not getting a decent compensible standard of living that they're entitled to under the historic compromise of 1914. Who else loses? The taxpayers, because they're paying for the employer's negligence. You're always the ones who say you care about taxpayers. How come you don't care about taxpayers in this case? How come you don't care?

You talked about chronic pain. I'm down to my last minute. Chronic pain, you said, "Oh, we're going to take a look at it." The amendment, and it's right near the end, that takes care of that merely says that this part of Bill 99 does not come into effect on January 1, 1998, but is deferred until a later date to be decided by the minister. The only commitment she has made is to look at it. The way I see it, she's buying some time, she'll look at it for a while, but at the end of the day, through the effect of a regulation, she will enact what she was intending to do in the first place and hopefully everybody will have been forgotten, everybody except the injured workers who will be denied legitimate chronic pain compensation. They will lose.

At the end of the day, this government, the parliamentary assistant and the minister know that there's not one thing in Bill 99 that helps injured workers, but it sure takes care of your corporate pals. It takes care of them legally and it takes care of them financially. This is one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation that this Legislature has ever had to put up with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated May 29, 1997, I am now required to put the question. Mrs Witmer has moved third reading of Bill 99. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1747 to 1752.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Interruption.

The Speaker: Clear the galleries.

Mr Pouliot: The poorest of the poor.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Lake Nipigon and Scarborough-Agincourt, please come to order.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Brown, Jim

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Gilchrist, Steve

Hardeman, Ernie

Harnick, Charles

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kwinter, Monte

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 24.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

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

It now being nearly 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 6:30.

The House adjourned at 1759.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

9 octobre 1997