Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Mrs Sullivan: In Halton, 900 children are eligible and waiting for subsidized child care spaces, but no money is available to those 900 children to assist with their entry into child care. Yet 205 child care spaces are vacant because families cannot afford them without help from subsidies.

In Halton, seven out of 10 children from birth to five years of age who are in child care are in independent centres. The regional municipality of Halton has formal agreements with the majority of those centres to provide subsidized care. Those spaces are licensed and inspected, but more than 20% of those spaces sit empty. We have the children, we have the spaces, but we do not have the money to ensure that the children are put into the spaces.

The Minister of Community and Social Services, however, has $75 million. She told us that the other day. She should have used that $75 million to ensure that children have access to the child care system, that the system is affordable and that the system provides a high quality of care. Instead, she is using taxpayer dollars to pursue an ideological aversion to the private sector and to ensure that children do not have resources to enter the child care system.

The priorities of this government are skewed. Yes, child care workers need and should have increases in their wages. Yes, they are underpaid and a $30-million enhancement in salaries which is being provided is a needed one, but the other $75 million which the minister has put into funding child care should have gone to the children. With this announcement, the NDP has failed the children of Ontario.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Jordan: Labour legislation being proposed by the government is scaring the business leaders of Lanark-Renfrew. Already devastated by the recession, this legislation could be the final nail in the coffin of many. At a time when this government should be bringing in legislation to get people off the welfare rolls and back into jobs, we seem to be taking major steps backwards.

Eric Stille, the director of economic development in Smiths Falls, says owners and managers are expressing "grave concerns." Mr Stille says, "Many owners are faced with the challenge of trying to keep their business in operation." The more restrictions the government puts on the owner of a facility, the more chances there are to drive him out of business. "This may be great for the worker, but what good is it if there isn't a job to go to?" asks Mr Stille.

There is not a town in my riding that has not been hit hard by factories going out of business. Attracting new business is extremely difficult. Faced with this proposed legislation, people will not invest in Lanark-Renfrew or Ontario. In fact, many who have invested will shut down and head south.

Labour and business have worked well together at firms like Hershey Canada and Stanley Tools in Smiths Falls, 3M in Perth, Boeing in Arnprior and Hovey Manufacturing in Renfrew. Before there are no businesses for labour to work well with in Lanark-Renfrew, the government should please withdraw this legislation at this time.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr O'Connor: I want to take this opportunity to speak out in support of the white ribbon campaign commemorating all women who have been victimized by men's violence. Men have been a part of the problem, as we witnessed yet again in the death of Louise Zollerano at the hand of her estranged husband last night, but we must also be part of the solution.

In fact, there is a parallel white ribbon campaign under way right now to try to raise the level of consciousness around pornography, and I ask all members to talk to their local clergy about more information on that campaign.

The white ribbon campaign is a nationwide men's campaign to stop violence against women. The level of awareness and attitudes about violence against women can be changed. It is the responsibility of each of us to ensure that we bring about the much-needed change. December 6 has been declared the Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

Last year in my constituency, the Jackson's Point Housing Co-Op designated itself as Canada's first domestic-violence-free zone. This was a very important step and there is a great deal more that needs to be done to improve the plight of women suffering from abusive treatment in my constituency. I urge all levels of government to radically increase their support for rape crisis centres, for shelters for battered women and for services to treat men who batter.

CREDIT COUNSELLING

Mr Bradley: The decision of the Bob Rae government to cut off funding to credit counselling agencies across Ontario when their services are needed the most has prompted justified criticism from a variety of sources. These agencies provide clients with counselling and assistance in the use of consumer credit and money management and act as negotiators between debtors and creditors. Credit counselling agencies in Ontario assisted consumers to repay almost $14 million to creditors last year and are the only factor preventing the bankruptcy of 60,000 individuals.

In Niagara, the agency represented 1,266 families and paid back $984,000 to creditors. As Susan Davis of the St Catharines Unemployed Help Centre appropriately pointed out, "These services have demonstrated their value and contribution by helping to keep people in the workforce and off of social assistance rolls."

1340

I agree as well with CAW Local 199 recording secretary Doug Hamilton, who contends, "The money that has been spent in past years has probably been the biggest bang for the buck the government has received back." Mr Hamilton, who has referred many people to Niagara Region Credit Counselling, as I have, suggests that what the government is forgetting about is "the number of people who have managed to keep their self-esteem by paying their debt off without going through the bankruptcy process."

His request that the government "return the funding, if not improve the funding for a service that is helping many in our communities" is a reasonable one and one which I urge the government to heed.

The Speaker: I draw the member for St Catharines' attention to standing order 30(a), which allows members other than leaders of a recognized party to make statements in the House, and trust that it will be firmly committed to memory.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Health and concerns her misguided policies that have resulted in health care rationing in Ontario.

I would like to make the minister aware of the deteriorating eyesight of Mr William Marcellus of Wyevale. Mr Marcellus has severe cataracts and his eyesight is progressively deteriorating. He requires implants, but because of restricted operating time at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, there is no guarantee that the surgery can be performed any sooner than the summer of 1992.

Mr Marcellus's doctor indicates that implant surgery is a relatively simple operation. If the surgery is done now, Mr Marcellus would be released within hours and there would be no need for him to be hospitalized. But the government-sponsored health care rationing has resulted in an inadequate number of operating rooms and insufficient hospital staff.

I agonize with patients like Mr Marcellus who have a visual impairment which is improvable. Mr Marcellus is a victim of a minister who refuses to see the results of her misguided policies and decisions. I urge the minister to press for a reallocation of the government's funding priorities to prevent patients like Mr Marcellus from being the victims of this health care rationing.

The doctor indicates he wants to do the operation, but there is no operating time set aside at the Royal Victoria Hospital for him to help patients like Mr Marcellus.

TOM EDWARDS

Mr White: I rise to congratulate the new mayor and the council of the town of Whitby. I had the pleasure of attending the inaugural sitting of the new council on Monday evening.

Our new mayor, Tom Edwards, has been on town council for the better part of three decades. While he has a background as a representative of labour in our community and province, Tom enjoyed the support of a broad cross-section of the leaders of our community. He has become known as a supporter of the businesses and heritage of our town and he has demonstrated a strength of conviction that has earned him the admiration of many. He is living proof that strong social convictions and business acumen are partners in building real community feeling.

I would like particularly to point out a risk that Tom took during his campaign. Abhorring the waste and clutter that election signs generate, he ran a no-sign campaign. This was particularly risky, as Whitby is a growth community where many new residents would not necessarily be familiar with Tom's long history of dedicated service. With his success and the support he received, perhaps others will run on their own merits and not rely on a massive amount of plastic signage. This is a truly dramatic demonstration that a green campaign can work.

The town of Whitby and all of Durham region face enormous challenges over the next few years. The pressures of growth, the need to enhance our local industrial base and the services that all require judicious division of limited tax dollars will require effective leadership. I am confident that the town of Whitby will have that with Tom Edwards as its mayor.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: I was pleased to co-sponsor this morning a news conference here at Queen's Park on behalf of the Monarchist League of Canada. The league is mounting a campaign to convince the NDP to reverse its unpopular decision to abolish the oath to the Queen for police affairs. The crown is an important symbol of Ontario's heritage and Canadian unity. I fully support the monarchist league's right and fight to preserve the royal oath.

Following question period today, I, along with other members of the Liberal caucus, will present petitions to the government on behalf of the monarchist league. The petitions call for reinstatement of the oath to the Queen. Approximately 16,000 people have signed the petitions, an overwhelming show of support for the monarchy.

During the recent visit by the Prince and Princess of Wales, the Premier used the royal couple in a bid to boost his waning popularity. Yet as recently as this morning the Premier said he is not prepared to listen to people who are asking him to reverse his unpopular decision to abolish the oath.

Hon Mr Wildman: Take the high road. Talk about cheap shots.

Mr H. O'Neil: You know it too.

I urge the Premier to admit he has done wrong. He should listen to the people of Ontario and reinstate the oath of allegiance to the Queen for police officers in this province.

Mr Jackson: Today in the Legislature members of the House will be presenting thousands of signed petitions on behalf of the Monarchist League of Canada asking --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would you reset the clock, please?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House to come to order. Would the table reset the clock at one minute and thirty, and the member for Burlington South could restart his statement.

Mr Jackson: Today in the Legislature members of the House will be presenting thousands of signed petitions on behalf of the Monarchist League of Canada asking the Premier to reverse his arbitrary decision to remove the name of the Queen from the police oath of allegiance.

Earlier today, dominion league chairman John Aimers was joined by the member for Quinte and me at a press conference at Queen's Park to affirm that the historical symbols of Canadian identity and unity are important to the citizens of Ontario, especially at this time of national constitutional debate, and that we stand solidly behind the Canadian crown and its rich contemporary meaning for Canadians in the 1990s.

This petition has the support of municipal councils and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police. I wish to publicly recognize at this time the singular efforts of one Charles Clark who collected more than 1,000 petitions by himself.

The Premier has said he consults with the public before making decisions. This morning, however, he said that when it comes to the police oath of allegiance, his decision to remove the Queen will stand no matter what. If this is how the Premier consults with the 63% of Ontario's citizens who support the monarchy, then Ontario is in more serious trouble than he thinks.

I now join with all members on both sides of the House in calling on the Premier to admit his mistake, even at this late date, and to restore the police oath of allegiance to the Queen.

God save the Queen.

IRVING ZUCKER

Mr Christopherson: I rise in this House today to pay tribute to an outstanding Hamiltonian, Mr Irving Zucker.

In the words of Ruth Slater, marketing director at Theatre Aquarius, Mr Zucker "in his own quiet way helps people, organizations and most, Hamilton. He really loves this city and has a tremendous pride in what's happening here." Mayor Bob Morrow adds by praising Mr Irving Zucker for putting "the interests of the community ahead of his own. He's fair and has impeccable integrity. Irving is an outstanding human being."

Mr Zucker's contributions are multiple: endless laudable Jewish concerns, St Joseph's Hospital, ballet scholarships, the opera and library, nursing homes, child care groups, welfare organizations, the local chapter of Ontario Friends of Schizophrenics, a list without end and contributions into the multimillions. In Mr Zucker's own words: "It's a great feeling to do this for Hamilton. It's where I was born and raised and I love this city."

Hamilton was a vastly different place in the days of Irving Zucker's youth, reeling under the weight of a worldwide Depression. The young Irving was raised in the north end of Hamilton, which happens to be in my riding of Hamilton Centre, a thriving community of immigrants seeking a better life while at the same time making enormous contributions to the city of Hamilton. As members know, our province's economic, social and cultural strengths are largely the result of these hardworking immigrants.

One can often distinguish great leaders by the views they hold of society as a whole. All members of this House, I am sure, will agree with Irving Zucker's words: "If people are successful and have things they've earned in their community, then they should give something back." It is this philosophy that makes Mr Zucker among the most respected leaders in my community of Hamilton.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

UTDC INC

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is indeed my pleasure to advise members of this House that this government has decided to enter into exclusive negotiations with Bombardier Inc for the sale of the transit-related assets of UTDC Inc. We are confident that these negotiations will result in a bright future for this company.

UTDC is the only Ontario-based producer of rail mass transit equipment. Its plants at both Thunder Bay and Kingston currently employ 860 people. In addition, up to 2,000 people are employed by companies all across Ontario that supply goods and services to UTDC. The company has been the sole supplier of railcars to the Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit.

Bombardier est une compagnie canadienne qui a fait ses preuves tant par sa présence que par ses antécédents imposants dans ce domaine. L'achat de la SDTU permettra à la compagnie de devenir un chef de file sur les marchés internationaux du matériel de transports en commun.

Over the past 17 years, Bombardier has sold about $4 billion worth of transit equipment, and 90% of that has been exported to more than 20 countries around the world. We are confident that when the sale closes at the end of January, Bombardier will be in an even stronger position to enter new markets with exciting new technology.

Bombardier will enter into a joint venture arrangement with Alcatel Alsthom, a European consortium, for the establishment of a centre of excellence in research and development at Kingston. The partners will make an investment of $10 million in this venture.

As members are aware, our government took effective control of UTDC in September to prevent its closure due to the financial difficulties being experienced by its parent company, Lavalin Industries. We carried out extensive negotiations with two major international corporations, Bombardier and AEG Westinghouse (America).

Both corporations saw UTDC as a strong and viable company with approximately $1.3 billion in contracts which had been placed on hold pending the sale. Bombardier was selected because its proposal included the best financial terms, as well as other benefits for future growth. Bombardier will make a major financial investment in the future of this company, including committing up to $25 million to upgrade and modernize the Thunder Bay facility.

To place the UTDC operations on a sound footing and poise them for the future, the province has agreed to participate to the extent of $17 million. Bombardier will provide the type of stability, manufacturing experience and international marketing skills needed to continue the firm's operations and growth.

La réussite de ces négociations permettra au gouvernement d'atteindre ses objectifs en assurant la qualité d'emploi, un partenariat solide entre la main-d'oeuvre et la direction, une formation professionnelle améliorée, une technologie pratique et surtout, une augmentation des investissements dans notre province, la province de l'Ontario.

The sale provides Ontario more opportunity to maintain its capacity to produce rail transit equipment for domestic and export markets. It also means the operations in Thunder Bay and Kingston will play an important role in the future prosperity of our province. The Toronto Transit Commission and GO Transit are now assured of a continued and even stronger Ontario supplier of high-quality, reasonably priced equipment, with more than $1 billion in coming orders -- no small task indeed.

This government is committed to economic renewal for our province. We believe this sale will be a positive step in this revitalization. The sale of the transit-related assets of UTDC to Bombardier Inc will indeed ensure Ontario's presence in the forefront of the development of rail transit technology and equipment. Monsieur le Président, a proud day indeed.

RESPONSES

UTDC INC

Mr Mancini: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the statement made by the minister today. The statement basically tells the House and the public that the government is going to enter into negotiations with Bombardier for the sale of portions of the UTDC operations.

We are always concerned when the government chooses to sell its assets. We are concerned for the value of the assets themselves. We are concerned for the employees. We are concerned for whatever research and technology has been developed in Ontario. We believe it should remain in Ontario. We are concerned about the markets carved out of, I believe, some 20-odd countries that some of our facilities had been sold to. We are concerned about any number of things the minister only marginally addressed in his statement today.

The minister talked about quality employment. Quality employment is good, but we are concerned not only about the quality of employment but about the quantity of employment. The minister talked about labour-management partnerships. We believe in enhanced labour-management partnerships. The minister talked about enhanced training. We have heard a lot from this government about enhanced training, but we have seen very little.

We would recommend that the minister and the government ensure that the contractual arrangements between the government and Bombardier are in fact clear and that the contractual arrangements can be enforced by the government in regard to the enhanced training. Skills development -- yes, we support the government effort to ensure that skills development is part of the overall deal.

The announcement in no way refers to the future security of the jobs of UTDC workers. I believe the contractual arrangement with the government should guarantee a specified number of jobs; in our view, a guarantee of all the existing jobs.

We are also concerned about protection for the Lavalin employees. The government is helping the UTDC employees, or says it is, but the Lavalin employees could be affected by Lavalin closures. Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology staff have indicated that if Bombardier purchased UTDC, there would be pressure to close Ontario operations to accommodate US sales.

I refer the minister to a Toronto Star article of October 28, 1991, where an official of the MITT is responding to similar concerns. I quote from the article:

"Bombardier also has a plant in the United States to satisfy federal Buy America legislation for transit funding." Mr Tanaka, an official within the ministry I mentioned earlier, "acknowledged that Bombardier would have duplicate plants and a large incentive to rationalize production if it acquired UTDC. But he said Bombardier is not being counted out."

As a matter of fact, Bombardier is now in. So the concerns that were raised by the ministry officials, in public, to the government and the taxpayers are, in my view, still valid. We need to see the contractual deal signed, sealed and delivered before we can conclude whether a good deal has been made and whether the workers, our industry and the research and technology have been protected.

1400

I see the minister shaking his head. We are not prepared to congratulate the minister on making an announcement that he wishes to accomplish something which may be positive. We are prepared to congratulate the minister when he signs a deal that does all the things that he mentioned and that I am pointing out to him and that I am sure other colleagues will want to point out to him in the same manner.

Mr Tanaka, an official of the ministry, goes on to say that --

The Speaker: To the member for Essex South, your time has expired.

Mr Turnbull: I am pleased to rise to say to the Minister of Transportation that the Conservative Party is supportive of the sale by the government of the balance of its shares in UTDC to the private sector, but we are obviously concerned.

We want to see the full details. We do not want to find that there is some secret deal being made with respect to any other parts of the business. The minister used the expression that it is for the "transit-related assets." We would like to know what the assets are. Is the minister saying that the real estate and other portions of the company are being held? In that case, what ownership will the government have in this?

We want to make sure we do not have a fire sale made, as we saw with the Liberals when they sold 85% of UTDC and then left an awful lot of residual costs to the taxpayer. We want to make sure the $17 million mentioned is not just a bribe for Bombardier to take this business off the government's hands.

Certainly I approve of Bombardier. Bombardier is one of the premier companies in Canada and has shown that it is a world-competitive company, but we should not allow any secret deals to relate this to the high-speed train transit between Quebec City and Windsor and there should be no relation to de Havilland.

This experience should indeed show that government has absolutely no place in ownership of manufacturing companies. It should be a lesson that the government should not be venturing into part ownership of de Havilland. It is a mistake. A government-run company is inefficient and will never compete on a world basis. We have to make sure this is a clarion message to the socialists. It does not work.

We are delighted that the government has sold this business, but it should make sure the taxpayers are not penalized by some secret deal. We want to know the details. Other than the $17-million support, are we getting money back or is it just a gift of $17 million and we say, "Take this business so that we don't have to bleed any more"? These questions have to be answered.

I hope the government has learned from these lessons and I hope the Minister of Transportation will sit down with the Treasurer, the Premier and the Minister of Labour and talk about the lessons of UTDC and explain to them what went wrong.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Sorbara: I have some questions today for the Premier, whom we welcome back into the Legislature. We like to see him from time to time.

My questions relate to the undertakings the Premier gave to the people of this province relating to the environment when he was Leader of the Opposition. Before I raise that, I just want to remind the Premier that he once said, "The reason voters hold politicians in such low esteem comes from politicians who say one thing when they run for office and another thing when they hold office."

I remind the Premier, who during the course of the 1990 election campaign portrayed his party as an environmental crusader, that during the course of that campaign he came into my riding, stood with his NDP candidate, Laurie Orrett, on the edge of the Keele Valley landfill site and gave his undertaking that there would be no expansion of the Keele Valley landfill site without a full environmental assessment. Notwithstanding that undertaking, the Minister of the Environment recently introduced a bill which not only gives the czarina of the environment the right to order an extension of the Keele Valley landfill site --

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

Mr Sorbara: -- a site that has six years of capacity left, but takes away any right to any hearing from anyone, no matter how close they live and no matter how they are impacted.

I just want to ask the Premier, was it really him who stood on the edge of the Keele Valley landfill site and gave his undertaking as a politician, as a lawyer, as a human being, as a candidate and as a potential Premier that he would not allow the expansion of that site?

Hon Mr Rae: The question relates directly to a matter that now comes under the responsibility of the Minister of the Environment. I will let her answer that question.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to respond to that question and I have responded to that question in the past. I think too much of the honourable member to infer that he thinks this government takes any pleasure in not having environmental assessments for anything to do with waste disposal, but I think this member also recognizes that what we are trying to do is solve a very long term problem.

Mr Sorbara: Another undertaking premiers give when they swear the oath of office is that they will come to this House and answer questions directed at them. I simply asked the Premier whether that was him, whether he gave that undertaking, and he did not have the courage to answer that.

I ask him, through you, Mr Speaker, and I guess through the Minister of the Environment, whether or not it was the Premier who gave an undertaking to pass immediately an environmental bill of rights and whether it was the Premier and the NDP who gave an undertaking to improve the Liberal municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program that they said was not stringent enough. Was it the Premier who gave an undertaking to move towards zero discharge of toxic chemicals into the environment? We have seen nothing on that; we have seen nothing on MISA. Was it the Premier who promised and gave an undertaking to expand the Countdown Acid Rain program? Was it the Premier who promised to ban -- a complete ban, by the way -- ozone-destroying CFCs? Was it the Premier who said we would have a safe drinking water act?

I want to know from the Minister of the Environment or from the Premier or from the Treasurer or from any one of those people over there whether they gave those undertakings during the last election campaign.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am proud to stand in my place on behalf of this government and on behalf of the New Democratic Party and say we made those commitments, we are keeping those commitments, and to be asked by that member from that government about our environmental commitments is quite unacceptable.

Mr Sorbara: There is no one in that cabinet who has disappointed the people of this province more and who has breached more undertakings than the Minister of the Environment. She has introduced in this Legislature, I say to members, one bill and one bill only relating to environmental matters, and that bill took away the rights of citizens to participate in the environmental decisions that directly affect their lives. So anything she says about fulfilling undertakings cannot be believed.

1410

WATER QUALITY

Mr Sorbara: I will put another question to the Minister of the Environment. I think she recalls that during the election campaign her party gave an undertaking to deal with organochlorine dumping. They gave that undertaking to Greenpeace. They gave that undertaking during the election campaign to just about anyone who asked. It would have an impact, they said, on the pulp and paper industry, but it was right to do.

But last July the Premier said it is not something you can just snap your fingers and do overnight. My question to someone over there, whoever is speaking on behalf of the government, is simply this: The federal government today came out with its own pulp and paper regulations. It contained virtually no restrictions on the dumping of organochlorines into the water streams of this province from our pulp and paper industries. Is it safe to say that the policies of the NDP government of Ontario are identical to those of Brian Mulroney and the Tories in Ottawa?

Hon Mrs Grier: This member's expecting me to answer for Brian Mulroney's environmental policies carries it to absolute absurdity. Let me remind the member that in the year this government has been in office we have done more about waste reduction and reuse than any government on this continent. We have put in place a ban on waste incinerators. We have been the only government to introduce a moratorium on nuclear facilities. We have put in place sustainable forestry, and we are the only government to have made a commitment to zero discharge of persistent toxic contaminants.

For this member, who was part of a previous government that did none of those things, to imply that this government has not lived up to its environmental commitments or changed the climate of environmental action in this province is completely and utterly ludicrous.

Mr Sorbara: I simply say to the minister that she is the gravest disappointment to this province the environment has ever seen.

PARTY MAILING

Mr Sorbara: I have another question to the Premier. I hope he will take up the courage to answer this one. Jill Marzetti is in the news again. Does the Premier remember Jill Marzetti? She is the provincial secretary of the Ontario New Democratic Party. She is the woman who was going to be running the Consultation Central Co-ordinating Committee, that big ad campaign the government whip suggested would build us new bases -- "us" meaning the party -- all across Ontario. The Premier will remember her. She is the one he said has to get off the CCCP immediately so it could perhaps regain some of its credibility.

Jill Marzetti is now sending out fund-raising letters on behalf of the party. I guess that is her right. I want to ask the Premier whether he agrees with the statement in this fund-raising letter from the provincial secretary referring to the problems people have getting in touch with ministers. In this statement she says: "You know the story" -- referring to the old regimes, Tory and Liberal -- "women would work diligently to be heard by an older, male minister. It would be a polite exchange, but we all knew our voice, our message, would be diluted and misunderstood."

What does the Premier say to the eight women from State Farm who tried to see any minister, old or young, male or female? What does he say to the women working at Superdrugs who pleaded to have an opportunity to talk to the Solicitor General and were refused? What does he say to the nurses who had to chant outside the office of the Minister of Health to get an audience? What does he say to those people about being able to get in touch with a minister and bring a message to government?

Hon Mr Rae: I have not seen the letter in question, but I would say to him that in general, if his question is about access to this government and who we see, I would be happy to share my appointment schedule over the last year with the honourable member, as would other ministers. I cannot imagine a government that has seen more people from different backgrounds and that has been as accessible as possible right across Ontario. I think it is essential.

Mr Sorbara: Frankly, I am surprised the Premier, who has so much time to see so many people, would not spend a minute with Jill Marzetti to go over what she is saying about what his government is doing.

This letter misrepresents the government's record in a very serious and troubling way. For example, in recounting the government's record, this letter says that Ms Marzetti is "proud...to give just a short list of what the Ontario New Democrats have done in our first year of government for the women in this province." Included in this list is that they have "extended pay equity to an additional 420,000 women who work in jobs that until now did not qualify for pay equity increases."

Have I missed something? Was I not here for an announcement? Was there some bill introduced in this House that was not put on my desk? Pay equity has not been extended to 420,000 women who previously did not qualify. Nothing has happened on pay equity, and it is a gross misrepresentation for the Premier, Jill Marzetti or anyone else to suggest this has happened in Ontario. Women and men in this province deserve an apology from the Premier and Ms Marzetti.

Hon Mr Rae: I would simply say to the honourable member that the government's commitment to extending pay equity is very clear. Our legislation on this issue will be discussed and debated by the House.

Mr Sorbara: Nice words about what we would like to do have nothing to do with the suggestion that it has already been done.

I want to point to another accomplishment claimed by Ms Marzetti in this letter. Let me reiterate that this letter was sent to people from a rented list and included the addresses of some of our own members and some of the spouses of our own members. Notwithstanding the fact that the minister responsible for child care in this province announced only a couple of days ago an increase of $30 million to raise the wages of child care workers, why would it be that a letter obviously prepared several weeks ago would say in it that the government has "passed on $30 million to raise the wages of child care workers"? Why is it Ms Marzetti knew about this passing on of $30 million before the rest of the people of the province knew about it?

Hon Mr Rae: The commitment with respect to the down payment on child care, as has been pointed out by the criticisms and comments of members of the opposition, was made several months ago by this government. That commitment was announced very explicitly and clearly. The question of exactly how it would be done and the terms under which it would be done were issues that were discussed and were not decided by this government until last week, just prior to the announcement made by the minister in this House.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Tilson: My question is for the Premier. I have been informed that within the next 24 hours the government is going to present its long-awaited plan on auto insurance. It is calling this plan The Road Ahead. I can tell him the road is going nowhere. In fact, it is going to be a rocky road going to disaster. Contrary to the promises the Premier made personally with respect to auto insurance, will he now confirm that his government intends to remove the right of everyone to sue for economic loss?

Hon Mr Rae: I would refer that question to the minister responsible for car insurance, the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Hon Mr Charlton: I have confirmed for the member for Dufferin-Peel on several occasions in this House that we intend to reform the auto insurance legislation in this province to allow for the right to sue for pain and suffering, and pain and suffering alone.

1420

Mr Tilson: It is unfortunate the Premier cannot answer the question. The question had to do with his promise to the people of this province.

The Liberals took away the right to sue from everyone except those with serious and permanent injuries. The Premier and members of his party were critical of this plan. Much time was spent in this House criticizing the previous Liberal government over its plan. The Premier promised to open up the full right for everyone to sue, yet we understand tomorrow the Minister of Financial Institutions plans to remove every single Ontarian's right to sue for economic loss. Why is he taking away that right?

Hon Mr Charlton: As I have said a number of times in the House to the same member -- because he is raising a question he has raised here three or four times now -- we have determined as a result of all the work and consultations we have done over the course of the last year that we can better deliver economic loss benefits through a no-fault benefits package.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: You're nothing but a bunch of vote buyers.

Mr Tilson: The question was very simple: Why has he changed his mind? He made a promise.

Mr Harnick: You could never tell the truth to anybody.

The Speaker: To the member for Willowdale, I remind the member, as I would remind all members, that inflammatory language can be the cause of disorder in the House. I ask the member to consider carefully the remarks he makes in the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker: With the co-operation of the member for St George-St David, the member for Dufferin-Peel will be able to place his supplementary.

Mr Tilson: The Premier, members of his party and the Minister of Financial Institutions have all promised the full right to sue. They did not promise a meat chart, and that is what they are going to give us. They promised no restrictions on that right to sue, and that is what they are going to announce tomorrow. Why are they breaking their promises?

Hon Mr Charlton: Anybody who makes a promise and then finds there are in fact better ways to deal with the problem --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Any individual who finds he can deliver a better product than he promised is a fool if he sticks to his promise.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please.

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, regarding the $100-million announcement yesterday to put private day care operators out of business, thereby eliminating a substantial number of spaces currently available to the children of this province.

There are about 33,000 children currently who are well cared for in private child care centres. There are 33,000 children in centres for which the minister holds 100% of the regulatory power to license if any aspect of that care is not the best in the world. Could the minister explain to me why she is determined to put the private day care operators out of business and take off the market 33,000 spaces now available for children in this province?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I entirely reject the sense of the question from the leader of the third party. We are not putting the for-profit sector out of business at all. We will continue to license them. Those that currently receive subsidies are eligible to continue to receive them. Those that receive direct operating grants are eligible to continue to receive them. It has long been the policy of this government to put government dollars into the non-profit child care sector. We are doing that, and prior to our major review of the child care system, we are making it very clear that this is the context within which that review will take place.

Mr Harris: I thought the minister was very honest in the last few weeks. I heard her being interviewed on television. She very clearly said, "Our goal is to eliminate the for-profit sector and make sure in the future, at some point in time, that as part of our step to universal free, 24-hour day care on demand, we are going to have all our day care spaces not for profit."

Today the minister has changed that. She is saying something a little different. But what the minister is doing is having that net effect. We all understand that.

She is spending $100 million. What are we getting for our money? Here is what we are not getting: We are not getting one new child care job. We are not getting one new child care space. In fact, we are going to get fewer spaces. The $100 million could have provided subsidies for 11,000 children now on waiting lists for subsidized spaces. She could have provided subsidies for 11,000 children to go into existing spaces already sitting there waiting for children to come to them. Why would she not have put that money towards helping the children and the families of the children on these huge waiting lists for subsidized spaces?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Of the $105 million, $30 million is going as a wage enhancement to the staff in existing non-profit centres and $31 million will be available for wage enhancements and full direct operating grants to for-profit centres that convert to non-profit.

Both opposition parties have been urging us to go ahead with those wage enhancements, because they have been talking about the stability of the system and the necessity for well-paid child care workers as part of the quality of care for children. We agree and are therefore doing that. The rest of the money is there to assist the conversion of for-profit to non-profit child care so that we will not put those centres out of business, which is exactly what the third party has been wanting us to make sure we do.

Mr Harris: I want to deal with the $70 million we were just talking about. After she has driven the private sector out of business, this is the money to go buy back those existing spaces. This is $70 million to pay for spaces that are already there. She thinks this is a good use of taxpayers' money.

There are many children on waiting lists. They are not there because of a shortage of quality spaces. Families are on the waiting lists because they cannot afford to send their children to the existing spaces. The $100 million could have helped 11,000 more afford the existing spaces. The minister's plan is costing us jobs. It is costing us child care spaces. She is removing the right of parents to choose how their children will be cared for.

Is the minister's bias against the private sector, the entrepreneurs and the investors in this province worth $100 million without creating one new space?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The members of the third party have pointed out to us a number of times that there are empty subsidized spaces available, but they are not in the places where the children who require them are. Part of what we need to be doing is to rationalize the system, which in fact has never been planned or organized in such a way that it will benefit all the children of Ontario.

We have a very different philosophy of child care. We are working towards a system where every parent who wants and needs child care and every child who needs child care is able to receive it in the province. The only way that will happen is if all available government funding is directed into the non-profit sector, where there is some accountability.

1430

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Conway: My question is for the leader of the government and it concerns --

Mr Stockwell: Which one?

Mr Conway: The Premier. It concerns the salary of the new chairman of Ontario Hydro. On October 24 in this Legislature, the Minister of Energy announced that largely as a result of a voluntary commitment by Mr Eliesen, Mr Eliesen would not be receiving $400,000 a year; rather, because he recognized the sensitivity and the controversy about that $400,000 figure, he had offered to take a substantial cut to $260,000 a year.

That was the announcement of the government on Thursday, October 24. Twenty-four hours earlier, on Wednesday, October 23, the Premier recommended and signed an executive order, order-in-council 961/91, wherein Mr Eliesen's original three-year term was extended to a five-year term. Can the Premier indicate to the House why, on the eve of the minister's announcement, he felt that Mr Eliesen's three-year term should be extended by two years to five years?

Hon Mr Rae: For the simple reason that in looking at the precedents within Ontario Hydro with respect to appointments of previous chairmen, the five-year term was the standard term.

Mr Conway: This Premier and his colleagues have rightly complained about cynicism in the public about what we do as politicians. To the public it appears that the Premier and Marc Eliesen made a deal. The original compensation package of $400,000 over three years would have cost the taxpayers $1.2 million. The new deal of $260,000 over five years is a total of $1.3 million.

What does the Premier say, given the sensitivity and the controversy about this whole matter? Why did no one in the government volunteer on October 24 what it had done 24 hours earlier, which bore materially on this question? What kind of deal did the Premier make with Mr Eliesen in this connection?

Hon Mr Rae: With mathematics like those demonstrated by the member for Renfrew North, it is no surprise that the Liberal Party was predicting that the province would have a surplus after the last election.

The honourable member was on his feet in this House on many occasions asking this government to exercise its discretion under the current act and with respect to the precedents under the current act. That is the basis of the precedents upon which the government acted.

Mr Scott: Why did you make a secret deal with him on the eve of the event?

Hon Mr Rae: In response to a comment that has just been shouted out by the member for St George-St David, who refers to something having been done in secret, the order in council is a public document of cabinet to be publicly discussed and publicly scrutinized. I am quite happy to have that scrutiny.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing which I think will be of great interest to the Treasurer. My office is receiving countless letters from Wawa asking why the government is going to spend $5 million to build 40 units of non-profit housing in a town where you could buy virtually every house in the community for that amount of money.

They are saying: "If you wish to assist our community, our need's not housing. Our apartments are empty, our homes are empty. Would you please tell the Treasurer if he's short money" -- maybe he is not, I do not know -- "if he wants to save $5 million, quit blowing this money in our community by wasting it on something we no longer need."

Can the Minister of Housing tell me why she is planning to proceed with 40 units of non-profit housing at a cost of $5 million at a subsidy cost of $500,000 a year in a community that says this is the last thing it needs?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I would be glad, in spite of my cold, to attempt to answer the leader of the Conservative Party. There was a study of the needs of people in Wawa that took place in June 1988. It was established that there was a large number of people in what is a small town who were in need of access to affordable housing. They needed rental housing. There have been large economic changes in Wawa, as the member is quite aware. The economy has been under severe difficulties and a lot of people in that town have encountered real economic need. That is also reflected in their housing need.

In an attempt to meet that need we accepted a proposal that came from the Wawa community that will provide affordable housing for those people in need. I think the community as a whole will benefit from that decision, in terms of access both to affordable housing and to the work that will be going on there as we build it.

Mr Harris: The letters I am getting are saying this is typical of government bureaucracy run amok. They do a study that is now at least three years out of date. They say it was done five years ago, and at that time it was a booming little town. Now they tell us logging in this town is over, tourism is dead and gold mining is double dead. That leaves one working iron mine potentially up in the air; the future of it is in doubt.

The letters go on with phrases like, "In closing, I would like to say, quit killing us with government kindness." They suggest to me the owners of the homes and the few apartment buildings there are going to go belly up as it is. They are also saying that just the ongoing subsidy of $500,000 a year for 40 families is $10,000 a family. They say: "Give the Treasurer the $5 million back. Tell him we think he needs it more than we do. If you want to help us, you could help 200 families in Wawa subsidize their housing in the existing empty houses and apartments." Why will the minister not do that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: This government has not written off Wawa, this government has not written off the people in need in Wawa, and neither this government nor the hardworking public servants in the Ministry of Housing have some kind of stupid bureaucratic mindset. That is an unfair description of the people who work in the Ministry of Housing.

Let me explain for the benefit of the member, because of course we heard from the same people he heard from, that we take those complaints seriously. In fact, during the process of carrying out our consultation for the housing policy framework, which has been going on over the last few months, we had a consultant who was working with people in the deepest core need in that area of northern Ontario, who went and confirmed the housing need which had been established and re-established in 1989 by a Statscan survey. Again, just over the last few months, that need has been reconfirmed and we have decided that the community of Wawa has as much right to the kind of assistance we provide to people in need of affordable housing as any other community in Ontario.

1440

CEMETERY MAINTENANCE

Mr Sutherland: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Recent media reports of a government tombstone tax have people in my riding concerned about the additional costs of markers in this province. The Ontario Monument Builders Association has also issued a press release claiming that the government will be adding this tax to the sale of monuments and markers and such a tax is unfair to seniors and others who can least afford it. Can the minister explain this policy and how it will affect my constituents?

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to say to the member and the many people who perhaps have been alarmed by the recent media reports on this issue that in fact this is not a tax. There has always been a care and maintenance fund associated with cemeteries. It is not a tax or a new policy but an extension of a policy we have had for many years. It is part of a public trust fund.

When you purchase a marker for a burial plot, you currently pay into such a fund. The problem is that these funds have not been sufficient for the necessary repairs to ensure safety. A small child a few years ago was killed, another child injured, and public safety is our main concern here. But let me reiterate, it is not a tax, it does not come to Toronto. It will be going into the local community for safety reasons.

Mr Sutherland: In a press release from the Ontario Monument Builders Association, it is asking that the act be reopened so the fund can be made to work. Can the minister tell us what will be happening next?

Hon Ms Churley: The Cemeteries Act will be proclaimed once all the regulations have been finalized. We are still in the process of talking to the various stakeholders involved in the act and we are changing and including some new regulations. It is not necessary to reopen the act to deal with this particular issue; it will just be proclaimed by regulation.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Premier. At the risk of once again being labelled a neo-isolationist by our Oxford-trained Premier, I would like to ask him about the future of the automobile industry in Ontario. When the auto industry is facing the fiercest competition it has faced in its history here in the province, when the North American industry is in the process of restructuring and rationalizing and downsizing, when Ontario is in the midst of the deepest recession in many years, why is the Premier proceeding with polices, taxes, legislation, regulation and rhetoric which is discouraging new investment and is in fact driving existing investment south of the border?

Hon Mr Rae: We have worked very closely with the automobile industry in encouraging and allowing for new investment. For example, the cabinet has allocated moneys to many companies that have needed public assistance. We have continued to forward funds to centres of excellence across the province in terms of increasing and encouraging research and development. We have the manufacturing recovery program, which has received additional support in this year's budget and in which we are offering assistance. The Ontario Development Corp has been actively involved with members of the industry in encouraging more investment. The minister and I have met on many occasions with different leadership in the industry, and we are obviously working as hard as we can to attract new investment and to make sure it is going to be productive.

It also requires a positive effort by the industry itself in terms of training, in terms of apprenticeship programs and in terms of its making investments itself to become competitive with other parts of the world.

Mr Bradley: When I directed a question to the Premier about this on Monday, he quoted the Ford Motor Co as having faith in Ontario. The very time he was quoting that in the House, the chief executive officer of Ford, Mr Kenneth Harrigan, was saying: "It appears that Queen's Park is doing everything possible to put roadblocks in the way of economic recovery. Not one NDP policy initiative is aimed at stimulating economic growth and competitiveness within the province. Frankly, entrepreneurs are afraid to invest or expand in Ontario." Mr Harrigan said that.

I have another concern about another company in Ontario, and that is General Motors. In St Catharines, General Motors employs over 8,000 people. General Motors at this time is looking at where it is going to put its future investment and where it is going to remove its investment. Many of the workers at General Motors in St Catharines are apprehensive about their future, their future employment opportunities and those for their children. At the end of his term, after he has implemented all his policies, after he has engaged in the kind of rhetoric which is driving business out of this province, how can the Premier guarantee to the people of St Catharines, particularly those who work in that industry, that their jobs are going to be there when his term is completed?

Hon Mr Rae: It would only be a Liberal who would think it is rhetoric that either creates or takes away jobs. The reality is that businesses like General Motors and Ford make their judgements based on the competitiveness and the productivity of the companies that are making cars across North America. That is the basis upon which they make these decisions.

Let me say to the honourable member that as a government we have contributed very substantial funds to continue to attract investment and to work with those companies. We have done it with Ford, we have done it with General Motors and we have done it with Chrysler. Chrysler has made a decision with respect to the minivan and the expansion of operations in Brampton as a result of its view of the competitiveness of the situation.

I would say to the honourable member, with respect to General Motors in St Catharines or anywhere else, that the company is going to be making decisions with respect to its future investment in terms of the competitiveness and productivity of the companies that are operating here in Ontario. We have cheaper health care costs, we have cheaper payroll taxes, we have a lower dollar and we have hydro costs which, despite increases brought about by the policies of construction of the Liberal government of Ontario, in fact are still very competitive with our competition in the northern United States. I would say to the members of the Liberal Party that I do not mind their running down this government, but when they start running down the productivity of Ontario plants I start to worry.

Mr Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I know the Premier would not want to mislead the House with his last statement, but if anybody in this House sat and listened to the question that was directed, he would know that all of the question was directed at the incompetence and the policies of his government and not at anybody who works in the automotive industry.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines will know he does not have a point of privilege.

Mr Harris: I would say to the Premier that if we had a competitive climate here --

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: It is the Premier I am talking to. If we had a competitive climate here, he would not have to bribe companies with billions of dollars to try to trick them into coming here. That is the disgrace of the matter: how much he has to bribe companies to come to his jurisdiction.

SCHOOL BREAKFASTS

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier as well. Last Thursday I introduced a resolution calling on this government, with the support of both opposition parties, to co-ordinate and facilitate nutrition programs for schoolchildren. I was pleased that my resolution received unanimous support, but we need more than the heartfelt rhetoric from all three sides, as good as it was last Thursday, and we need more than the promises from all three sides, as good as they were last Thursday. I would ask the Premier, when can we expect some real action and some leadership from him and his government on the provision of daily nutrition programs for schoolchildren?

1450

Hon Mr Rae: If I had been in the House last week, I would have supported the resolution. I think it points to a need. It is something I have discussed personally with the Minister of Community and Social Services. Obviously we have to look at the overall budgetary plans of the government with respect to the next year, but I think it is already in place in several school boards. This government is looking at it in a way that is focused and affordable. It is something the government is discussing.

Mr Harris: I really want to talk about the budgetary process and the affordability process. I hope the Premier does not do it in the way that he helped the people of Wawa.

It is not often that I rise in the House in a totally non-partisan fashion, but I do so today as a parent and former educator. The nutrition programs that I visited and the educators and those I met with are not asking for government money. They are not asking the government to pay for it. They are asking for a little co-operation, a little co-ordination and a lot of leadership. They are not asking the government to do it. In fact, they feel that if the government budgets and does it, it will destroy the program.

This is our opportunity to join with communities, parents, children, educators and the private sector in addressing a very important need. I suggest it does not require dollars or budget approval; it requires some leadership. All I am asking the Premier today is to commit to taking the first step and to bring together the educators, the private sector, the communities, the parents and the other stakeholders to address this proposal as to how we could take a leadership role, not with government dollars but in facilitating nutrition programs in all our schools. Will the Premier commit to that?

Hon Mr Rae: I will certainly commit to continuing to give my support to the leadership of the Minister of Community and Social Services and to the Minister of Education, who I think are providing effective leadership and will continue to do so.

Rather than throw his papers in the air, the honourable member should know that the resolution and the debate which took place last week were, in my view, a debate and a resolution which found a considerable degree of resonance across the province.

DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr Martin: Lately there has been a lot of activity around the issue of milk processing and distribution in the Sault Ste Marie and Algoma area. A few months ago, a decision was made to allow Beatrice Foods to close its milk processing plant in the Sault. Would the minister be willing to share with the House how he will ensure that there is a sufficient level of competition in the Sault Ste Marie milk market?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I appreciate the question from the member, who has shown ongoing concern for milk prices in Sault Ste Marie.

The director of the dairy inspection branch is expecting to hold, some time early in 1992, public hearings under the Milk Act which will look into applications for distributorships in Sault Ste Marie. He is expecting to hold those hearings in early 1992. I think that having those hearings and looking into applications will probably -- if there are successful applicants -- do something to increase the competition and therefore lower milk prices in Sault Ste Marie.

Mr Martin: As the minister is aware as well, there are a lot of concerns in my riding about employment and the impact this decision is going to have. I would like to know today what options exist for local groups that would like to process and distribute milk within their own community.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I think the member is probably referring to a local group that is currently doing a feasibility study, with support from the northern Ontario heritage fund, to look into the possibility of having a group of producers form what would probably be some form of co-operative operation to process dairy products in the Sault area. They are currently doing that feasibility study.

If they get the go-ahead, depending on the feasibility study, I think the director, who is going to hold public hearings into new applications, will certainly entertain their application, if they decide to make one. We look forward to the conclusion of that feasibility study. If it says they should go ahead with an application, we would be more than willing to hear that at the hearings in the spring.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. Last Thursday, he finally made public the consultation paper on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. At the time he said, "Today I am pleased to announce the launch of a key component in our strategy to ensure the prosperity of this province."

According to the minister's own claim, the OTAB proposal is a major plank in his efforts to get Ontario's economy going again. Yet, despite the minister's claim, his major announcement flunked in the press. It got a five-liner in the Toronto Star last Friday and fared little better in the Globe and Mail. Yesterday, columnist David Crane put forward the very same criticism I advanced last Thursday.

Would the minister not agree that this ho-hum reception by the media should tell him something about the significance of his announcement and what the media think of his plans for economic renewal?

Hon Mr Allen: I was not paying attention at the beginning of the question; I thought it was being directed to the press gallery.

I am really surprised at this member's response to the whole question of the proposal of this government to implement a major initiative in the training of the young people and adults in this province. This was an initiative started by the previous council under the previous administration and was never endorsed by the past Premier, but none the less it comes out of an initiative of a government that this person was related to. I cannot understand his continual dumping on the idea. It is an excellent concept. The media will cover it in ample form in coming weeks. It is a broad general restructuring in terms of the way in which we are delivering.

It does not immediately have a program content, and I can appreciate why the media might not have thought it had immediate human interest impact. But it will be a growing feature of news in the course of the coming months as we move out into consultation all across the province with every sector of the economy and with every locality. I would just invite the member to take a more positive view of the world and smile occasionally.

Mr Daigeler: I would be very prepared to take a great and positive interest in his announcement if right now we did not have more than 400,000 unemployed people in this province. That is why the media was not paying attention to the minister's initiatives.

They are waiting for some very concrete, new retraining efforts. When people who are unemployed and people who are in danger of being laid off are phoning the ministry for any programs, they are told, "Go to the Ministry of Labour." When they phone there, they are put on hold or they get a machine to answer. When they finally get through to some real person, they are told, "Sorry, we don't have any programs for retraining."

What is the minister doing, as an NDP government above all -- he always took pride in saying he is working for the disadvantaged -- for the disadvantaged workers who are being laid off and who are now unemployed? Where are his new training efforts now?

Hon Mr Allen: The member describes precisely the problem we were left with by the past government in terms of a disparate range of training programs spread all over the map, delivered by anybody anywhere, which have now to be pulled together into a major integrated initiative.

If the member wants an answer to his question, I suggest that he contact the following people and ask them whether they think we are doing the right thing: George Peapples, the head of General Motors; Douglas Maracle, who is the head of one of the boards of education and who is a native person; Gordon Wilson; and Jim Bennett of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

1500

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Turnbull: My question is to the Minister of Labour. I understand the Workers' Compensation Board has signed a letter of intent to lease half a million square feet of space from Cadillac Fairview in the CBC centre. My estimate as to the cost of this -- and I would be delighted to find I was too high -- is that the net rent will be something in the order of $25 per square foot and the additional rent for taxes and operating costs will probably be about $18 per square foot. That will mean $21.5 million per year.

A build-to-suit building in the outskirts of Toronto that desperately need some help at the moment could be had for about $15 a square foot and $8 in operating costs. That could be potentially in excess of a $10-million-per-year saving, even after allowing for the shuttlebus.

Will the minister justify why he is going into this kind of expense at a time of fiscal restraint?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member that I will have to get an answer for him on that particular question and will get back to him tomorrow in the House.

Mr Turnbull: It is amazing. While the minister is getting his answer, maybe he will ask about the fact that he is just projecting that his staff will be 18% less, yet he is increasing floor space by 32%. Why on earth is he doing this at this time, going into prime downtown space and increasing the cost, when we are crying out for development in the suburbs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I said to the member, I will get back to him with the answer tomorrow.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Harrington: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Yesterday, he, along with the minister responsible for women's issues, announced an initiative to combat date rapes at our universities and colleges. I would like to know how this program will be developed and when it is going to be implemented.

Hon Mr Allen: I am delighted to respond to that question. The member will know that the campaign against date rape we have initiated with this project is part and parcel of a $3.5-million program announced last spring for women's campus safety. It is a huge regret to all of us that with 55% of the students in post-secondary institutions in Ontario being women, they in fact do not feel safe and comfortable on campus, nor often even in classrooms.

We have therefore put out a competition for a project. The competition was won by representatives of Glendon College, of Seneca College and also of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Over the next six months, working with student groups, women and men, using their own research into sexual assault and gathering what expertise they can, they will undertake to put together a kit that will have materials in it that will be useful for all universities.

Ms Harrington: I understand the minister named three institutions which will be developing this kit, but will it be available for every single college and university across this province?

Hon Mr Allen: I am sorry; I neglected that part of the question. The project will be completed next May. I will receive a report in June, but simultaneously the team will be holding consultation sessions with representatives from all these colleges and universities in terms of the nature and contents of the kit and how it can be used on local campuses. They will then take that back to the institutions so that it will be applied campus by campus.

The kit will include leaflets, posters, booklets, resource materials and videotapes and it will also include methods and techniques of using the kit, campus by campus, across the province. I want to encourage every post-secondary institution to take this project up and to deal with it seriously and very actively in the coming academic year.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the Speaker to examine standing order 23(l) as it relates to the question. The standing order talks about a member not being able to speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty or any of the royal family or the Lieutenant Governor or the Administrator of Canada or the Administrator of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider seriously, and perhaps provide this House with a written response, whether the actions of a member of this House in arbitrarily withdrawing the oath to the Queen for police officers in Ontario without notifying or consulting this House represents a breach of that standing order. As all Speakers of British parliamentary democracies and of Commonwealth members have been called upon to consider this, I ask if you would provide that in writing.

The Speaker: The member will take his seat, please. To his point of order, he might know that in fact he does not have a point of order. The matter to which he refers is a government decision. There is nothing in the standing orders that would allow the Speaker to make a decision regarding a government initiative or decision. I appreciate his interest in the matter and his bringing it to my attention.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Standing order 32(a) has to do with oral questions. I know all parties are at fault on occasion in terms of length of questions and responses, but I am particularly concerned in light of the ongoing Liberal leadership convention that a variety of Liberal leadership candidates are taking up to 15 minutes in leader's questions. I am not critical of the government in terms of its responses, and I hope you will take note of that. We have very few days left and private members are being precluded from asking legitimate questions.

The Speaker: To the member for Leeds-Grenville, I appreciate the matter he brings to my attention. Indeed, I keep close watch on the clock and of course we have been timing the exact amounts used by both the questioner and the responder. I of course encourage all members to keep their questions and their responses brief.

PETITIONS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE / SERMENT D'ALLÉGEANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: Along with many members of our caucus and members of the Conservative caucus, I will be presenting several petitions this afternoon. I would like to present a petition with 439 signatures out of the 16,000 to 17,000 people, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

Mr McLean: I have a petition signed by approximately 400 people. It says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

1510

Mr Kormos: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

That is signed by Sophie Paroschy, RR 2, Welland, Ruth R. Wilson, RR 2, Welland, Father Joseph Bubanko, Beatrice Street, Welland, and several hundred others, and of course, by myself. I have affixed my signature with some pleasure.

Mr Mancini: I would like to present a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

This petition is signed by more than 1,000 Ontarians, and I have also affixed my name to this petition.

Mr Jackson: I have several petitions today.

"Whereas the government of Bob Rae has placed our heritage in danger; and

"Whereas we live in a constitutional monarchy; and

"Whereas the symbol of our national unity and identity has been removed;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To immediately restore the name of Her Majesty the Queen to the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers in Ontario."

This is signed by about 1,000 constituents and residents of southwestern Ontario as part of the total number of petitions. It has my signature affixed for support as well. God save the Queen.

Mrs Fawcett: I too have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to it, along with 1,642 other residents of Ontario.

Mr Cousens: I have a petition as follows:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91, made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my name. This petition of several hundred names includes many people from Markham, Unionville and Thornhill.

Mr Cooper: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario which reads:

"Whereas the government of Bob Rae has placed our heritage in danger; and

"Whereas we live in a constitutional monarchy; and

"Whereas a symbol of our national unity and identity has been removed;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"To immediately restore the name of Her Majesty the Queen to the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers."

It is signed by several residents of the province of Ontario.

Mr Phillips: I have a petition which says:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

This petition is signed by over 1,000 people from Hamilton, Welland, Thorold and around Ontario, and I have affixed my signature as well.

M. Villeneuve : J'ai une pétition à l'Assemblée législative ontarienne qui se lit comme suit :

«Attendu que le gouvernement de Bob Rae met notre héritage en danger ;

«Attendu que nous vivons dans une monarchie constitutionnelle ; et

«Attendu que le symbole de notre unité nationale et notre identité a été enlevé,

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante :

«Que le gouvernement réintègre le nom de Sa Majesté la reine dans l'assermentation d'allégeance des officiers de la Police provinciale ontarienne.»

J'ai inclu ma signature et j'appuie complètement cette pétition.

Mr Owens: I have a petition which reads:

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the tradtional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature.

Mr Cleary: I have a similar petition. It says:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

That is signed by over 1,200 residents, and I also have affixed my signature.

Mr J. Wilson: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right;

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

With pleasure, I have affixed my name to this petition. It forms part of the petition of thousands of names presented to this assembly today and the hundreds of names I have presented on behalf of the people of Simcoe West in the past regarding this issue.

1520

Mr Johnson: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr McGuinty: I have a petition which reads as follows:

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

"Whereas gasoline prices are significantly higher in the Ottawa area than those in southern Ontario;

"Whereas such a price disparity discriminates against Ottawa area consumers;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has eliminated vehicle licence fees for northern residents to compensate for a similar gas price disparity between southern and northern Ontario,

"The Legislative Assembly of Ontario should urge the Ontario government to correct this injustice to Ottawa area motorists."

This petition has been signed by some 125 people, and I have affixed my signature as well.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr Runciman: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature. God save the Queen.

Mr Callahan: I am pleased to stand in the Legislature and present a series of three petitions totalling 1,236 signatures, including three of my own. They are addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Her Majesty the Queen, at her coronation in 1953, took a personal oath to the people of Canada, and Canadians have always reciprocated with oaths of allegiance and service to the person of the sovereign;

"Whereas it is our right and duty to take oaths of allegiance and service in such form;

"Whereas Ontario regulation 144/91 made under the Police Services Act, 1990, denies Ontarians this right,

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, loyal to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council be requested to revoke Ontario regulation 144/91 and restore the traditional oath of service to Her Majesty for police personnel in Ontario."

I have affixed my signature to this.

The Speaker: The time for presenting petitions has expired.

Mr Carr: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In light of the fact that there are some petitions of the same nature, I am wondering if we could have unanimous consent to extend the time period for this, if that would be acceptable.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend time?

Some hon members: No.

The Speaker: No. It is now time for reports by committees.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Caplan from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 135, An Act to provide for the Payment of Physicians' Dues and Other Amounts to the Ontario Medical Association / Projet de loi 135, Loi prévoyant le paiement des cotisations des médecins et d'autres montants à l'Ontario Medical Association.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 20th report.

Mr Runciman: I have no comments to make.

The Speaker: The member has indicated he does not wish to make a brief statement, so pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr110, An Act respecting the City of Nepean.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 158, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act with respect to the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Sector of the Construction Industry / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail en ce qui a trait au secteur industriel, commercial et institutionnel de l'industrie de la construction.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Before we begin second reading of Bill 158 this afternoon, I want to explain its importance for strengthening and improving the collective bargaining process in a major sector of the construction industry.

Members may know that province-wide bargaining has generally worked well in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector -- commonly known as the ICI sector -- of the construction industry. Province-wide bargaining in the ICI sector has been a requirement of the Labour Relations Act since 1978, but after 12 years and seven rounds of bargaining a number of issues emerged concerning how well the province-wide bargaining was functioning.

Therefore, last December I appointed Professor George Adams, now a judge of the Ontario Court, to conduct a review and report his findings. The measures in Bill 158 closely follow the recommendations contained in his report.

During the course of his review, Professor Adams consulted widely with both labour and management. After I received his final report and recommendations in July, I distributed them to all interested parties for one final look. I also asked the Construction Industry Advisory Board to consider the recommendations in the Adams report.

I am pleased to inform the House that this extensive process of consultation and co-operation on the issue of province-wide bargaining has come to a successful and harmonious conclusion. As a result, Bill 158 presents three amendments to facilitate the collective bargaining process in the ICI sector. These amendments are designed to bring greater stability to Ontario's construction industry and thereby improve the prospects for greater construction activity.

The first amendment would require that all province-wide agreements in the ICI sector operate for three years, not the current term of two years. It would mean that the next set of agreements would take effect May 1, 1992, and would extend until a common expiry date of April 30, 1995. In the consultation process there was general consensus that the three-year term will help stabilize the industry and encourage construction starts. This provision would allow for longer-range planning in the ICI construction sector.

The second amendment undertakes to ensure a more democratic process in the handling of regional voting results whenever ICI sector ratification votes are held. While a proposed agreement is province-wide in scope, voting may take place on a regional basis at different times. This amendment would prevent regional results from being released while voting is still going on in another region.

Just as in all other electoral processes in Ontario, voters need to be protected from premature disclosure of results in other areas. Therefore, this amendment would forbid the release of voting results until all ballots have been cast across the province. Let me add that the act does not require ratification votes, but in many of the province-wide employee and employer associations in the ICI sector votes are held on a regional basis.

1530

The third amendment proposes the establishment of a corporation, a tripartite labour-management-government agency, to gather, analyse and distribute data concerning collective bargaining and the economic conditions of the ICI sector in the construction industry. The need for such an agency was identified in the Adams report, which called for relevant information to be gathered and provided to employer and employee bargaining agencies. With the passage of Bill 158, my ministry officials will consult with union and employer representatives on how best to create an agency that will serve the information needs of everyone in the ICI sector.

In closing, let me point out that these proposed amendments are of a housekeeping nature and are independent of the broader measures proposed in the government's recent discussion paper on reforms to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Mrs Witmer: I would like at this time to speak to Bill 158. I would like to review briefly some of the information that has been shared by the Minister of Labour. As he indicated, on December 14, 1990, he did announce a review of the operation of the current province-wide single-trade bargaining process in the ICI sector of Ontario's construction industry. When he did that, he did point out that the current structure had been in place since 1978.

Also, he indicated at that time that the Construction Industry Advisory Board -- this is an advisory body to the minister that is composed of key representatives from labour and management in the construction industry and chaired by Victor Pathe, the government's special adviser on labour-management relations -- had recommended this specific review to him. This had been recommended to him because of the very important nature of the construction industry in this province and the need to reflect the changing times and organizations.

I would like to mention at this time how very important the construction industry is in this province and in this country. Construction activity in Canada is of very important economic significance to the country. The total value of construction purchased in Canada during 1990 was $106 billion. This represents 15.6% of the country's gross domestic product. During 1990 the total value of construction purchased in Ontario was $40.2 billion. This accounts for about 38% of the national total. That gives us some idea of the significant importance of the construction industry to Ontario.

Expenditures for construction in the ICI sector of the Ontario construction industry were $11.2 billion. This represents 28.1% of the total value of construction in the province. In 1990 there were 291,000 individuals employed in construction occupations in Ontario. This represents 5.9% of the total number of people who were employed in the province. I think that gives us some indication of how very important this industry is to this province.

I would, however, like to continue at this point and make some comparisons between the manner in which this review was conducted and the manner in which this report was prepared. I have pointed out that the key representatives from labour and management were involved in the process. The committee was given some issues and asked to take a look at certain issues and answer certain questions, such as: Has the province-wide bargaining responded sufficiently to geographic considerations? Are the existing voting procedures of employer and employee bargaining agencies adequate? Is the current requirement of two-year agreements appropriate? Those were the types of questions that were asked of this committee.

The consultation was set up and a process was put in place, and Professor George Adams, QC, a member of the faculty of law, University of Ottawa, and the former chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, was asked to undertake the review last December 14. He filed his report in July 1991.

The minister had asked Professor Adams to accept written briefs from all employee and employer bargaining agencies. He required that the brief set out "the consensus of opinion" of the bargaining agency and that this information be appended to the brief. That I believe to be very significant, because this is in stark contrast to what is happening as we take a look at the labour relations proposals and if we take a look at how those are being developed, how they have been brought forward, the uncertain economic climate they have created in this province and how they are threatening investment and jobs for people in this province.

Here we have a process of consultation; we have real consultation. All the stakeholders -- employers and employees -- are being asked to share in the development of legislation which will impact on them all. We have here Bill 158, which is the result of management and labour achieving consensus and agreeing on the three amendments here and the need for this specific change.

However, if we take a look at the labour law reform proposals, I have to remind the minister that they were drafted by him after consultation only with trade unions. Management had no role whatsoever in the minister's original 30-point plan that was presented to the Burkett committee and, after discussion, management came back and said there is no need for any of this.

If indeed the Ministry of Labour wants to improve co-operation in this province and wants to do something about increasing harmony and partnership between employers and employees, I suggest that it follow a similar path as it has in the preparation of Bill 158. I suggest they take a look at the recent proposal put forward by Project Economic Growth.

I remind the minister that Project Economic Growth represents over 300 of Ontario's large, small and medium-sized businesses. They asked the Premier and they asked the Minister of Labour to create a co-operative task force on competitiveness and productivity in the Ontario workplace prior to making any changes whatsoever in the Labour Relations Act. This task force, which they had suggested should comprise labour, government and business, should take a look at current Ontario models of co-operative and innovative industrial relations. This task force should take a look at and identify and analyse current incentives to productivity and competitiveness in Ontario's workplace, and this task force should conduct a proper economic impact analysis of the government's labour law reform package.

However, this request, which could have led to increased labour-management co-operation and partnership, was denied. Business and employers continue to be denied a seat at the table when these proposals are being discussed, and we must remember there is not a single proposal within the discussion paper which is going to promote partnership and co-operation. The package we are presently looking at is simply going to tip the balance of power towards labour.

1540

If we truly want consultation, if we truly want to improve the co-operative partnership and give all these stakeholders equal access and a level playing field, we need to approach labour relations reform in the same way as the minister has approached Bill 158 and we need to involve the key representatives from labour and management, just as they were involved in this construction review.

Our party is pleased that the consultation took place in the manner it has. We support the three amendments that are being proposed here. We recognize that the three-year agreement is going to provide much-needed stability for the construction industry, which is probably suffering as much as, if not more than, other industry in this province. I know the construction industry has many concerns about the labour relations reforms, so I am pleased that we are here able to meet some of its concerns and at least give it stability in this one area.

I agree with the amendment concerning the announcement of ratification vote outcomes. I believe it is important that no outcomes are announced until all the ballots have been counted across the province in order that one region cannot influence another region.

I am pleased that the third amendment, to establish the industry secretariat, is going to be funded, again equally by labour and management. I recognize the importance of passing this legislation this time, because I know the current agreements expire in April 1992 and the upcoming bargaining round is going to commence early in 1992.

To all those workers, to all those people in management positions, I congratulate them on working with the government in this very co-operative manner, a manner of true consultation. As I have indicated, I am pleased to be able to indicate that we will be supporting the amendments. However, I would just say again, it is in such stark contrast to the development of the labour law reform, I would again urge this minister to reconsider the discussion paper and the manner of consultation and adopt a similar method as has been adopted here in the development of Bill 158.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to join in the debate on a very important piece of legislation. I believe the substance of the legislation has been referred to as containing three minor changes. They may be thought by some to be minor, but to those involved in the industry, they are not minor. They are important changes. They are changes which will allow the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction sector to operate and to proceed in a more timely and organized fashion. That is not minor. That is important. It is substantive, and I would like to respond directly to the minister that our party will be supporting this particular piece of legislation. We do so recognizing that the amendments contained within are important amendments and are necessary at this particular point in time. In the time today, I want to talk for a short while on some of the substantive aspects of the legislation and also about the process.

Before doing so, I think we all recognize in this Legislature that our province is going through and has gone through a very damaging recession. All sectors of our economy have been ravaged by the recession. There is no question that many jobs have been lost, that a great deal of the confidence that people carried with them in years past is not there right now. People are hoping the economy picks up. People are hoping that the confidence which is not here right now is restored, that jobs are created, that wealth is created and that expansion continues in this province.

We have to look at that in terms of this piece of legislation, because the construction industry has not been immune from this recession. It has felt the recession. It has felt the slowdown. It has felt the stoppage of work. We all know when one sectors feels that, the spinoff affects other people. It is not just one person who feels the effects of the recession. When one person does, four, five, six, seven other people in other areas of the economy also feel it and it results in a general slowdown of the economy, something which those in this Legislature and those watching on TV know all too well.

We have gone through this in the last year and a half. We hope the economy will start to pick up. We hope those who have lost jobs, many for the first time in their lives, will once more find employment and that our economy and our sense of confidence start to be restored.

This particular piece of legislation calls for three amendments. The first amendment deals with the length of the agreements. The current agreements -- there are 25 province-wide agreements in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector -- have a duration of two years. This bill extends those agreements from two to three years.

I believe and my party believes that is important. It is important for those who negotiate the agreements to recognize there will now be a three-year agreement. There will be greater stability in the industry. In this economy and in this province I believe that is good and we fully support it.

The second substantive aspect of this legislation deals with the announcement of ratification votes. We realize the current process is that balloting on ratification votes is done through regional centres. In fact, when one centre does its voting, the results of the voting are announced. They may be announced at a time even before another regional centre has conducted its vote. Of course there is the concern that the knowledge as to how a ratification vote in one centre has resulted may affect a vote in another centre. This particular piece of legislation and the amendment say the votes must all be taken and that no count of the vote shall take place until all votes have in fact been taken.

In essence, of course, people will be voting before they are aware of the result of any of the ratification votes, and that is not only right; it is common sense. What we want to do is make certain that in any ratification vote, all those who are entitled to vote and do vote do so at a time and place without any knowledge as to how another centre has voted. This change is really founded on common sense and good judgement and certainly is one we will fully support.

The third aspect is something I think we will all benefit from in years to come, the setup of an industrial secretariat. Certainly there is no question that there is a need to establish a body to assist the parties in collective bargaining, providing economic and other information or a whole variety of analyses and examinations. You really cannot see it, feel it and touch it here, but I think in years to come this type of work is really going to be an important addition to the wellbeing of this particular sector.

Certainly we will support that. Anything which expands the knowledge, the examination and the analysis of the collective bargaining process in one area is something we will support. When there is a need and a body to conduct that type of analysis and that need is shown, certainly we will support that aspect.

1550

Our party is very much in agreement with those three substantive areas. We recognize the necessity to have the bill passed quickly and we are prepared to do that. We recognize negotiations are ongoing and will be in the early part of the new year. It is important that people recognize they are now negotiating on a three-year basis as opposed to a two-year basis. Other factors come into play. We will certainly support not only the legislation but its quick and timely passage.

I would like to take a moment to congratulate not only George Adams, whose report was the basis of these amendments, but also Vic Pathe at the Ministry of Labour and those individuals with the Construction Employers Co-ordinating Council of Ontario, especially Mike Vukobras, the executive director, and the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. In that respect I commend Joe Duffy, who is the business manager and the secretary-treasurer. They have done a great deal of work for their organizations to make certain the issues were brought forward in a consultative, consensual manner so that the piece of legislation we have before us today is one which all parties in the Legislature support not only terms of substance, but also in terms of the need of passage in a timely fashion.

That does not happen magically; it does not happen by accident; it happens through initiatives and I believe, in this instance, through the work of George Adams, Vic Pathe, the Joe Duffys and the Mike Vukobrases of the world. I recognize that the minister had seen fit to bring forward the legislation early, which allows us to say yes to the legislation. We will be doing so today. When we talk about how successful this consultative consensual process has been, we cannot leave for a moment the other consultative process ongoing in the Labour Relations Act, those other aspects of the Labour Relations Act which have caused some very great concerns for businesses and labour across the province.

They are very concerned about the way that process has been undertaken, how it started, what its mandate is and the fact that it truly is not addressing the questions posed by business across the province: Why the need for change? What has prompted that type of process?

That has really resulted in the other process becoming, in a way, fundamentally flawed. It will have to carry that scar with it because business does not have the confidence in the proposed changes and the consultation around the Ontario Labour Relations Act that it did in the construction industry consultative process.

The process which resulted in the bill we are debating today was applauded. People in the sector said that it was right, that they felt part of it, that the process is there and attempting to be flexible and that it responds to their concerns. What happens as a result of that? We have a bill all members of the House, all three parties, support.

We stand in support of changes not of a minor nature, but of an important nature. "Minor" and "major" are not for deliberation in this House. What is for deliberation is importance, and these amendments are important. They are important to the construction industry. They are important to an important aspect of our economy. They are important to build in a stability and a flexibility and a foundation for future growth. That is what we end up getting.

When we talk about changes as proposed to the Labour Relations Act in another area, we do not have that type of confidence through many players -- not just labour, not just management, but the general public that is concerned that the process which is now ongoing is not really going to be responsive to its concerns. They are concerned it is not going to be reflective of the issues which are important to them; it is not really going to provide the foundation for future growth in this province which will result in more jobs, an expansion of business, an opening up of options and opportunities for ourselves and our children.

There is a real concern that the implications of that change have not yet been embraced by the government. There is a concern by business that in this increasingly competitive economy it is irresponsible to move in any area without asking, "What does it mean to the economy? What does it mean to jobs? What does it mean to business?"

People understand and accept that governments have the right and in fact the responsibility to introduce initiatives, new policy and legislation. They recognize they may not agree with everything -- and that is fair ball; that is not surprising -- but they also say that in our economy, where the barriers are falling, where the competition is not just southern Ontario or Ontario with some other place in Canada, but also with other areas in the United States and with Europe. In places like my riding in Mississauga, where 10 years ago we would be competing with cities adjacent to ours, where we would be competing with the Torontos and the Kitcheners and the Barries, today we are competing with Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

That is a result of barriers falling. We may not like that, but we all recognize that this is where we are. We have to recognize that where there are initiatives announced by a government in that type of economy, increasingly competitive, it must understand what that means, what the implications of those changes are. To do so and to introduce initiatives without recognizing those implications truly is courting disaster.

That is what business is saying. Businesses are asking first, on the consultative process, "Why aren't we asking the question as to why the necessity for change?" and second, "Why aren't we looking at what the implications of change will be?" They are saying the governments of the day must recognize that these things must be embraced. Not to do so is to court disaster and really make it increasingly difficult to compete with the economies of the world.

We say that we stand in support of this legislation and in support of the process of consultation which resulted in this legislation. We certainly commend those individuals who in no small way contributed to the consultation process which resulted in the legislation. We say it is an example of something that works. We say it is a model to be followed. That type of activity, that type of consultation, resulted in a consensus which all members of this Legislature stand on proudly and say they support.

But remember also that there is this other process of consultation going on where there is not that feeling, where there is a very strongly held belief that it is fatally flawed, that the consultation is one that is exclusionary, that people do not feel part of, that they do not believe the government recognizes the implications of.

1600

That is something which is going to cost jobs. It is going to cause lack of expansion. It is going to cause an increasingly large difficulty for people in the Mississaugas and the Barries and the Kitcheners and the Windsors and the Waterloos and the Ottawas and the Kingstons of our world to be able to compete with the Atlantas, with cities in Tennessee, Florida, Pennsylvania and New York state.

We had better realize that this is where the competition is coming, and we had better realize that when we announce initiatives here, we had better know the implications of those things. We do not want those people who have businesses here to think about moving them elsewhere or to think about expanding them elsewhere, because that affects each and every one of us. It affects each and every person in this province, and it is something we just cannot afford to continue.

In conclusion, I once more stand with my party. We are supportive of this particular piece of legislation and certainly we will be voting in favour of it. We think it is a good piece of legislation, although it certainly does meet three very important needs.

But we also use this opportunity and this time with the minister in the House to impress upon him that in his other consultative process there is some deeply felt concern about the process of consultation that is ongoing and what it means to the economy of this province, to the creation of jobs, to the expansion of business and the creation of wealth. We ask the minister to look at the success of this bill and the process of consultation which resulted in this bill and to compare that with this other consultation, which does not share in that type of confidence, flexibility and in fact good feeling.

There is an opportunity here for the minister to relook at what he is doing with the Labour Relations Act, to relook at the process of consultation, for him to say: "This bill, as passed today, had a process which everyone felt part of and felt good and confident with. The other process doesn't. Let's see if we can change it now, before the damage is done."

My party will support this legislation. We commend all of those who have had part in its creation -- I mentioned them earlier -- and we ask the members of the government to look at that process, to compare it with the other process, which I am sure they are all well aware of, and to say: "Now is the time. It's not too late. It can be changed. We can make it better. We can instil a sense of confidence in business and labour in this province." Where there is that will, then it can be accomplished.

Mr Sterling: At first I was not going to enter the debate, but I thought it was important after I heard the member for Mississauga North put forward his comments to bring forward to the Legislature my wholehearted endorsement of this legislation. This legislation is an amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act which deals in one very small part of the act with the construction industry in the province.

Back in 1977 and 1978 when I was then a member of this Legislature and a member of the government at that time, that government saw a problem in regard to the settling of strikes and construction disputes across this province. That government went to the construction industry, that government went to the labour unions which represented construction workers, and it had meaningful consultation and brought forward an amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act at that time which has proved itself successful save and except perhaps for one exception a year ago.

That is an example of what a government should do in dealing with business and labour interests. When there is a problem, when there is industrial strife, what they should do is go to the parties and consult with them to find a solution to the problem. That is what the former Conservative government did with regard to this legislation. It was successful in finding a solution, and today we are fine-tuning that solution in order to make what was a very successful resolution mechanism even more successful. That is why we are adding our support.

However, we are very concerned when this government goes to the labour side alone, as it did with its present proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The government went to labour lawyers representing the labour side who brought forward their recommendations to change the Labour Relations Act, without any evidence that there was abject industrial strife widespread across Ontario. There is no evidence of that at this time. In fact, I understand about 95% of industrial disputes are settled amicably without strike action, without any confrontation, etc.

But this government is not operating on that kind of agenda. What we are seeing day by day in the legislative and policy initiatives of this government is a union-driven agenda for the workplace of Ontario. We have it in terms of the policy paper put forward under the Ontario Labour Relations Act. It is an agenda of the Ontario Federation of Labour; it is an agenda of the labour union movement. It is not trying to address a problem we have in Ontario; it is an attempt for union control. That is what this government is all about. It is a control issue.

We could talk about it in terms of the presentations brought forward in regard to setting up the new Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which is going to be controlled essentially by labour and unions; a $2-billion government expenditure that is going to be turning that control over to the union and labour movement.

Then we see another piece of legislation, Bill 150, which we are going to debate perhaps tomorrow. It provides for union takeovers of businesses, to be contributed to or invested in with taxpayers' money. A worker can put up $41,500 of our taxpayers' money through his union to take over a company under this new legislation, Bill 150, which we are going to talk about tomorrow. That is another spoke in this wheel in terms of union control of the economy and the government.

Let me speak about another one the government is going to bring down the pike in a very few days: getting control of public service pensions and investing them, through union control, in other businesses across this province. It is control, control, control. That is the agenda of this government. It does not care about the workers; it cares about the union bosses, the union bureaucracy, the Gord Wilson daughters, the Gord Wilson offspring, in terms of what they are going to get out of the system. That is what this government is all about.

1610

I want to alarm business. I want business to understand that the agenda of this government is not to remedy problems. The agenda of this government is to gain control of the economy and hand it to union people who have no direct responsibility for investing in the businesses of this province.

This piece of legislation graphically shows the differences between the approaches of two governments. The Progressive Conservative government in the late 1970s, when there was a proven problem of industrial or construction strife, as in this case, would go to both sides and say, "We will consult and we will find a solution to that problem and we will amend the legislation in order to deal with that problem."

With this government we have a very frightening approach with its change in legislation and the financial structures of this province. As day by day goes by and we are given more and more pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, what we are seeing is the destruction of Ontario and the destruction of people's desire to invest in this province. We are very much concerned on this side about the ideology of this government, how much it is owned by the union leaders across this province and how much it kowtows to the union movement.

I read the Ontario Federation of Labour Outlook last week, which was blue in colour incidentally. It should have been pink in colour because it was an agenda for union control in this province. As we read forward their economic vision for this province, we see the pieces put in place by this government to give those unions control over various parts of government, which means our tax dollars or the tax dollars of our constituents, without the responsibilities people who have had control before have had to bear.

While we are in full agreement with this piece of legislation, we will continue to sound the warning bells with regard to the overall strategy of this labour party to put forward the unions as the ultimate masters of the people in this province and not the legislators in this Legislative Assembly.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to thank my opposition colleagues the member for Waterloo North and the member for Mississauga North for their comments and their indication of support of the bill. It is, we think, a win-win situation for both management and labour. We are pleased to be able to get it through in time for the bargaining, which is a very tight fit.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTERE DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'ALIMENTATION

Mr Buchanan moved second reading of Bill 144, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food / Projet de loi 144, Loi modifiant certaines lois dont l'application relève du ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation.

Hon Mr Buchanan: This is an omnibus bill to amend the Beef Cattle Marketing Act and the Milk Act. As members may recall, the purpose in amending the Beef Cattle Marketing Act is to remove the upper limit on the checkoff licence fee and provide enabling legislation for the proposed national beef checkoff system.

The checkoff system provides funding based on a low percentage of the sale price on each head of cattle. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association uses these funds to promote the beef industry. Traditionally, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association has had to request an amendment to the act every time it wanted to increase the licence fee. With the removal of the upper limit, the association will be able to request and receive these increases more rapidly, through the regulatory process.

Of course, the government will retain control and scrutiny of any increases through the regulatory process. The current fee stands at one fifth of 1% of the sale price. The OCA has secured the support of the majority of its members to increase it to one quarter of 1%. The fee increase will in no way affect the price of beef to consumers. At the same time, the amendments would provide enabling legislation to allow the OCA to participate in a national beef checkoff system.

The second part of the bill would amend the Milk Act. Changes proposed would allow an increase in the producer levy charged by the Ontario Dairy Herd Improvement Corp. The levy would move from a maximum of three cents a hectolitre of milk to six cents. This change will be put in place over a three-year period.

The Ontario Dairy Herd Improvement Corp is run by producers and provides information on herd management and health. The corporation also uses this information to help in marketing and breeding stock. It was government-funded until 1981 and is now funded by milk producers, the federal and provincial governments and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board levy.

The increase in the upper limit of the levy was because of anticipated increasing costs due to decreases in government funding. Our long-term objective is to encourage the corporation to become more self-reliant. It has proven itself as a very efficient and capable operation that contributes substantially to the industry's high standards and competitiveness.

These amendments will help ensure that our beef and dairy industries continue to produce top-quality products and market them effectively. They deserve our support.

Mr Cleary: I intend to make only some brief remarks on this legislation. Our caucus has been contacted by both the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the marketing boards. It is our intention to support this legislation. However, there are a few brief remarks I would like to make.

This bill proposes changes to checkoff fees under the Milk Act and the Beef Cattle Marketing Act. I am glad to see that the amendments under the Beef Cattle Marketing Act simply provide that the licence fees may be set by regulation. Too often, we waste time in this Legislature setting fees and fines and numbers in legislation that are changed shortly thereafter. This is the type of amendment that will allow the fee changes the Ontario Cattlemen's Association has requested but will also allow the fees to be changed in the future without requiring further amendments of the act.

There is a tradition under many marketing schemes that the democratic administration of agriculture boards and agencies provides the necessary accountability to set fees and levies. We support the principle that farmers be able to manage their own affairs, and establishing fees and levies through regulations provides the simplest way to do this.

I want to know why the minister is not following the same procedure with the section of the bill dealing with the Milk Act levies. Why are fees and levies to be set by regulation for cattle but capped at a certain rate for milk? I hope the minister can answer why the two commodities are being treated differently.

The minister will know that the dairy farmers and the cattle farmers affected by this legislation have a number of other larger concerns and may be preoccupied at this time. Dairy farmers are quite concerned about the future of their entire industry under the current GATT talks.

1620

The minister knows that while there has been movement to resolve the international subsidy wars, our marketing boards are still under threat of changes to article 11 of GATT. I cannot emphasize enough how important the GATT issue is to our farmers. If marketing boards are threatened under GATT, then the legislation we are dealing with here today is meaningless.

The minister will also be aware that the cattle farmers have many other things on their minds besides the changing fees. As they head into the winter months, many farmers who are not protected by marketing boards, such as cattle producers, are wondering how they are going to survive in the income crunch of 1991.

At the Ontario Federation of Agriculture's convention last week, my colleagues heard one message: that the government does not understand the crisis the farmers are facing. We have already raised the issue of the minister's strange mathematics. The Minister of Agriculture and Food told the House that his government put $119 million into new funding for agriculture, but the money he talked about just is not there. The ministry's budget is only up $48 million over last year and agriculture's share of the provincial spending actually dropped.

This government has shown how much it wants to help civil servants and doctors through tough times, but it tells the farmers it is out of money. Too often I hear farmers saying the government does not care about the particular sectors of farming -- dairy, cattle and other commodities.

I ask the minister to listen to what farmers are saying about the policies of this government and then react by really assisting the province's agriculture industry. My remarks have just about concluded, but I hope the minister will answer some of my questions. I have been pleased to participate in this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haeck): Any further comments or questions? Any further debate? The member for S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Villeneuve: First, thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate by replacing me in the Chair. It is most appreciated. Let me also congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and Food on, I believe, his very first bill before this Legislature. I think it is one that we all support wholeheartedly.

Our caucus has discussed it with the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and with farmers' groups in general and everyone is very supportive of the increase in checkoff both to livestock marketing and to milk marketing because they need to improve their situation both on the local front and on the world front. Without money, this does not occur.

The cattlemen's association certainly has to continue bringing to the fore the message that indeed red meat is a wholesome product. Red meats have been traditionally and continue to be very excellent sources of animal protein in our diet here in North America.

We have many concerns, and I speak as a livestock producer, as we see groups of people forming into organizations that tend to be against livestock producers. We have those people who believe there should not be any meat in our diet at all, and certainly I do not agree with that. If they do so for their own purposes, that is fine. However, to be preaching that red meats and meats in general are not wholesome and that livestock are not cared for properly is very disconcerting to the livestock industry and indeed is not true. I know the minister is very concerned about animal rights groups, as we are in our party, and about those people who preach very much against the consumption of red meat.

Certainly the farming industry here in Ontario, and indeed across Canada, is very heavily involved in the production of grain and the production of meat. We often have so-called doctors from other parts of Canada and possibly also from the United States who, for whatever their reasons, all of a sudden come out with a very strong campaign against red meat consumption for health reasons, cholesterol and what have you.

Quite often the cattlemen's associations, both in Ontario and in Canada, have to refute these and prove them wrong. In 99% of the cases it has been done. However, it does not get the same play in the media, a front-page story. Proving that some of the statements that come through indeed are not true winds up on the back pages, and our consumers are left with the perception that the consumption of red meat is an unhealthy situation. That is not true and I know the minister knows that.

As far as the dairy industry is concerned, the Ontario Dairy Herd Improvement Corp, or ODHIC for short, has been around for a long time. I think it has been one of the very excellent tools of increasing the production and the management capacity of our dairy producers, those who produce nature's most nearly perfect food: milk and milk products.

Certainly they have to be supported in their campaigns to assure the purchasing public, the housewife who on a weekly basis purchases dairy products, that indeed the cholesterol in dairy products is a positive, it is good cholesterol and that, yes, there is cholesterol, but there are two kinds. It takes a long time and a lot of education, and this is the responsibility of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board.

I certainly want to commend them for the promotion programs: the "Cheese, Please" campaign and the number of high-profile athletes and former athletes now promoting the use of dairy products as compared to soft drinks and other replacement products that quite often the modern-day housewife and our young people tend to consume instead of milk, which, in the long run, will create health problems and will cost us in the health care of the people.

I know that my Progressive Conservative leader has brought forth a private member's bill to promote the consumption of dairy products along with others in schools. I heard the reply from the Premier today, and indeed we do not want to involve government spending; we simply want to make sure that private industry such as the dairy farmers of Ontario and Canada, along with other groups, can promote and provide dairy products to our students while they are still in school to promote good health and increase their ability to learn and absorb.

I commend the minister on his first piece of legislation. I could probably talk about a number of areas. I know there is one couple in particular in the North Gower area who are trying to set up their own small milk processing plant, which would be a European-type yoghurt, and they are having one heck of a time trying to get through the bureaucracy. I have been involved and I know the minister has been involved. We have to promote that type of thing, because we are faced with a declining per capita consumption of dairy products and we cannot allow this to happen simply because bureaucrats seem to want to interpret the letter of the law. We must bring common sense.

I compliment the minister on his first bill. He has unanimous support. It may not always happen, but he has it today. I look forward to his bringing forth legislation soon that will enable the production of ethanol in the province of Ontario.

These are a number of things he has unanimous support on from everyone. We are here to assist agriculture, to assist in cleaning up the environment and to provide us with not only a healthy economic climate but a healthy population in Ontario. We are 100% with the minister on this one.

1630

Mr Sterling: It may surprise some, but in my riding of close to 100,000 people, I still have a number of farms in my area, and I am very much concerned when the Legislature gives to the cabinet of Ontario more regulation-making power, which this legislation basically does.

One of the reasons I am concerned about it in this area is because one of my constituents, Ulrich Bollinger, has been going through a horrendous fight with the dairy inspection branch and the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. Mr Bollinger and his family operate a dairy farm near the small community of North Gower and they want to take the dairy product from start to finish. They want to feed the cows and milk the cows on their own farm and take that milk and produce a final product to sell at the farm gate.

Mr Villeneuve: Through the board.

Mr Sterling: Through the Ontario Milk Marketing Board. Mr Bollinger went, I believe, before the necessary licensing body and got a licence to do this. Then the milk marketing board evidently got wind of the fact that Mr Bollinger got his licence. It started to impose conditions on that licence, and the dairy inspection branch got into the act in terms of imposing more and more conditions.

Quite rightly, I think, the milk marketing board has a genuine role in terms of this matter. Under our market supply system, a milk producer has to buy a quota, has to buy the right to produce milk, and he is limited in how much milk he can produce. When there is a vertical integration taking place on one farm in one area, it is very difficult to know whether that farmer may or may not be living within what he is supposed to be producing, when he is taking the milk and actually producing the product and selling the product at the farm gate. If in fact he was producing 100% of his quota or 120% of his quota, no one could probably tell.

I do not think any of the officials are challenging the integrity of Mr Bollinger or his farm, but we always have to be concerned with precedent when we are dealing with these matters. If Mr Bollinger obtains a licence to have a vertically integrated operation, where he is taking the milk and producing the product at the end, it could happen on a number of occasions in much larger operations. The milk marketing board must have some inspection and control over the situation.

Mr Bollinger, even though he is a qualified grader, has agreed to have an independent grader come on to his farm and have things checked out as to how much he is producing, etc, but the roadblocks are continually being set up by the dairy inspection branch and the OMB. At least that is the suspicion of Mr Bollinger.

What is really very, very discouraging about this is that here we have a dairy farmer in our own area of Ottawa-Carleton, where it has been getting more and more difficult to farm because of the urbanization of the area, and he wants to be an entrepreneur. He is willing not only to invest in his dairy herd but to invest in production machinery. I believe he wants to produce some specialty yoghurt and that is what the end product would be. He also wants to bring schoolkids out, show them the operation from the point of calves being born, to feeding calves, milking the cows, showing how the milk is processed and how the end product comes out.

But as we set up these structures, and within our legislation, we give certain powers to the milk marketing board, the dairy inspection branch and other administrative bodies under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. They get further and further away from political control and feel they are stronger and stronger in terms of what they can say to our constituents and what their powers really are.

I wanted to bring Mr Bollinger to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, because Mr Bollinger and his family are not going to quit. They came to our country, I believe back in the 1950s, worked hard and raised a very successful business. They are not going to quit. In fact Mr Bollinger, on the strength of the licensing, has prejudiced himself to the tune of something like $80,000 to $100,000 in constructing production facilities, yet he continues to find roadblocks placed in his way. All he is asking for is fair dealing from these bodies.

While we delegate responsibility, I want the minister to know that I, as a member of this Legislature, expect him to go back to those bodies and say, "Look, we gave you this responsibility, but you must be fair in how you mete out your powers." In this case, I believe Mr Bollinger and his family are being badly done by. It appears now that the milk marketing board is writing him letters about other infractions, in effect trying to intimidate Mr Bollinger, in my view. I do not think he is being dealt with fairly by people we have placed a great deal of trust in.

The milk marketing board is not going to like my saying that, but I must stand up for my constituent in this case and say to the minister that I hope he will look into this matter and resolve it quickly. Mr Bollinger has been on the hook now for a year and a half. He had the licence to begin with and then everybody started to look over their shoulders and say: "Hey, we let something go by us. We didn't know what happened."

Mr Bollinger has acted in good faith, and I think his operation will be a tremendous asset to the community and to the dairy industry because kids could come out there. He has expressed a great desire for local schoolchildren to come out and see milk from the raw production stage right to the finished product.

I have a great deal of faith in the Bollinger family and the hard work they have put into Canada over the last 30 years, and I hope our government institutions can respond to people who have put that much into our country and our province and be fair to him.

Mr Villeneuve: I fully support the position of my colleague the member for Carleton. I was at the Ulrich Bollinger farm in January of this year and, yes, the building is partly complete and many hoops and barriers have been placed in the way of their progress after they had been granted the right to produce, process and retail, all through the board, and all done with what any dairy farmer normally has to go through.

We met with representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We had an excellent meeting and I thought we had everything in order and ready to go. However, it still is not clear what has to be done to meet the requirements of this family in producing, processing and retailing on the farm, going through the milk marketing board, as my colleague the member for Carleton mentioned.

I want to touch on another subject, which I believe is in the minister's hands right now. It pertains to the supply of milk to a thriving cheese processor in my area and I know the minister is involved with it. It is the cheese factory in St. Albert, which is a little north of the north limit of the riding I represent. However, many of the producers and shareholders of this co-operative live in my riding, and they are in desperate need of additional milk supply so they can produce sufficient fresh curd to meet the over-the-counter demand. This is not replacing the cheese that is being sold elsewhere. It is a very specialized, excellent product. I had some at the Ontario Federation of Agriculture annual meeting a week ago today and they are always complimented on some of the best curd anywhere, bar none.

Mr Sterling: Mr Speaker, I agree with everything the member for S-D-G & East Grenville said. Of course, it was all complimentary to me and you might understand why I might be in agreement with it.

1640

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, the minister.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I have just a couple of things. First, I would like to thank the opposition parties for their support in this. For me, this is an example of the opposition parties and the producers, the Ontario cattlemen and the ODHIC group, being able to talk about what some of the problems are and sort of work together. It is a co-operative effort that we can exchange ideas and concepts and bring in a bill that is agreeable to everyone in the House as well as to the producers, and I thank all members for their support.

The member for Cornwall raised a few points about GATT talks and so on and the future of supply management. I think I would like to talk about that perhaps at a future time.

The concept of the family farm has been raised here. This government supports very strongly the family farm, and if the member for Carleton has not heard me say it in the past, I have been saying over and over that we have to get more of the consumers' food dollar into the hands of farmers. The kind of operation his constituent has sounds to me very much like that kind of operation. I think perhaps the member for Carleton and I need to sit down and discuss his constituent's problems and get them resolved, because the kind of family farm operation he is talking about is certainly the one this government supports and I want to do what we can to facilitate that project getting under way.

Again, I would like to thank everyone for participating and for the co-operation and support we have received, and I hope this will serve to support the dairy industry and the beef industry in Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Projet de loi 86, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, implements tax increases in the Treasurer's budget of April 29, 1991. It will also reduce tax evasion through registration and bonding of those who deal in gasoline, aviation fuel or propane and through increased fines and penalties for non-compliance. The amendments to the act support the need to impose tighter restrictions on the sale of motor fuels in Ontario. Unlawful practices and wilful gasoline tax evasion cost the province and the people of Ontario millions of dollars annually. These amendments complement existing anti-evasion measures by the Ministry of Revenue.

Changes to the act will also enable the exchange of operator and vehicle information among provincial, federal and state governments. This information will assist the province in registering all Ontario gasoline transporters.

Stricter regulations are being proposed for importers and exporters in collecting tax on gasoline. Importers who register under the act can by so doing refrain from paying tax at the Canadian border. Exporters are also required to register to transport gasoline out of Ontario and must account for all exported gasoline. Both importers and exporters must provide security upon registration. These measures were recommended in 1989 by the Legislature's standing committee on public accounts.

There are provisions in the proposed amendments which require interjurisdictional transporters of gasoline to register. Those provisions will allow the detaining of vehicles for inspection, and gasoline, aviation fuel or propane can be seized from those who fail to comply with the legislation. If a penalty is not paid, the product is sold to ensure it does not improperly re-enter the market. Penalties for non-compliance with the act have been increased and tax evaders are subject to prosecution, fines and possible jail terms. In keeping with the Treasurer's budget, the tax on gasoline and aviation fuel increases is included in this legislation.

Clearly these changes are intended to improve tax collection and compliance in the gasoline distribution system. The result will be increased provincial revenue, to the benefit of the Ontario taxpayer.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would just like to comment on the minister's opening remarks. I am certainly happy that there will be further efforts to reduce tax evasion in this province because we certainly, with this government, need every bit of revenue we can get. What bothers me is that the minister would totally avoid any mention at all of the 1.7-cent increase that is going to take place in this province on January 1, 1992, as a result of Bill 86. That particular clause of this bill has engendered discussion from every corner of this province. There was not one mention of it, not one mention that anything has been heard. We certainly all have heard much.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would just like to respond to the member, stating that I did mention the fact that this bill includes the increase in the gasoline tax.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I rise today to participate in the debate on Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. The Treasurer, in his April 29 budget, announced a number of fuel tax increases. Taxes on diesel fuel for trucks, trains, boats and other vehicles are covered in the Fuel Tax Act which we have just debated, while increases to the tax on gas for automobiles and on aviation fuels are covered in amendments to the Gasoline Tax Act which we are discussing at this moment.

Among other things, this bill authorizes the government to collect gasoline tax increases contained in the Treasurer's budget of April 29, 1991. These excessive increases, one of which consumers and businesses are already paying and another of which will befall them all on January 1, 1992, will take another painful bite out of the competitiveness of Ontario's small business sector and every border community in this province. Bill 86 will take millions of dollars out of the pockets of Ontario drivers.

In the course of these remarks I would like to comment on the effect of this government's budgetary policy on two specific areas of concern on this side of the House. The impact of Bill 86 on the struggling economies of many areas of eastern Ontario and the burdened economy of northern Ontario and the crisis of cross-border shopping which is devastating the retail sector of Ontario's border communities and spreading its negative impact across the whole economy of this province are the areas I wish to emphasize.

On April 30, 1991, the Ontario budget increased the tax on gasoline by 1.7 cents per litre, to 13 cents per litre for unleaded gas and 16 cents per litre for leaded gas. Aviation gasoline and fuel taxes were increased by 0.3 cents per litre, to 2.4 cents per litre, also effective April 30, 1991. On January 1, 1992, the tax on gasoline will increase by a further 1.7 cents per litre for unleaded fuels, bringing the total tax to 14.7 cents per litre, and also on leaded gasoline tax by the same amount, bringing the total tax to 17.7 cents per litre.

1650

The Treasurer's own forecasts indicate that a total of $205 million will be raised by this budget initiative in the 1991-92 fiscal year. This figure includes leaded and unleaded gasoline and aviation fuel. Of this total, the portion which will come into effect on January 1, 1992, is expected to raise $79 million by March 31, 1992. This is $79 million the Treasurer could put back into the pockets of Ontario drivers.

Also on January 1, 1992, the tax rate on aviation gasoline and fuels will be raised by 0.3 cents per litre, to a total of 2.7 cents per litre. In total, the new gasoline and aviation fuel tax increases will raise over $410 million in new revenue on an annual basis and will cost the average Ontario driver $88 more this year alone and every year thereafter.

Ontario's gasoline tax increase will become the highest in all Canada in January 1992. Is that a distinction we in the Ontario Legislature need? It certainly is not one the Ontario economy can afford at this point.

This new tax is being implemented at a time when gas prices are reportedly lower in the United States by an average of 2 cents per litre. This means there will be an additional 5-cent differential in the price of gasoline between Ontario and the United States when Bill 86 is fully implemented. This situation only serves to encourage more people in border communities to shop in the United States for their gasoline and indirectly -- in fact almost directly -- encourages them to shop for other things while they are there.

In the city of Sarnia alone, estimates tell us that the effect of cross-border shopping will be the loss of over 200 jobs in 1991: 200 jobs lost in one Ontario city in one year.

Eastern Ontario, an area from which I come proudly, is suffering. Gasoline prices in Ottawa-Carleton have been consistently among the highest in Ontario. We all know that. Statistics from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have shown that between the years of 1985 and 1990 gasoline was, on average, over 3 cents per litre more expensive in Ottawa than it was in Toronto, day after day, week after week.

According to an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen on October 28, "For 23 of the past 24 weeks, our city has been competing with Timmins as the home to the highest gas prices in Ontario." In the latest survey of Ontario gas prices, Ottawa is reported to have the fourth-costliest gas among the 16 Ontario communities surveyed.

The federal competition bureau is conducting an investigation into the Ottawa-Carleton gas market and a House of Commons committee has held hearings into gasoline pricing. However, this government, the Ontario government, the NDP government, is going blithely along slapping a 1.7-cent tax increase upon 1.7-cent tax increase.

Has the minister had any input into the federal government's study? Has she appeared before the House of Commons committee, as other ministers have gone to Ottawa to appear on other issues? Is she pressing her federal counterparts to push along that study's completion and co-operating with the federal competition bureau? I would like to have some answers. Bill 86 does nothing to help the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton, who are dealing with, among other things, Ontario's highest-priced gasoline market.

Then we turn to the north of the province. Northerners feel particularly disappointed with the NDP for raising the gasoline tax. The Minister of Revenue herself is from Thunder Bay, a northern community. She must be aware that people in northern Ontario have to travel longer distances over rougher roads and in larger vehicles. Northern communities do not have access to the public transportation systems found in many other parts of Ontario -- the minister knows that -- and therefore they are forced to use the automobile as their primary means of transportation, whether they are going to work, to shop, to visit or indeed to have health care.

When the Liberal budget review tour travelled in northern Ontario last spring, my colleagues often heard complaints about the increased impact of gasoline and fuel taxes. In fact, that was the common thread in every single community. These concerns were the strongest that came forward. Everywhere the budget review tour travelled in the north, people emphasized the direct effect increased gasoline prices have on them, specifically because as residents of northern Ontario they are required, as I mentioned before, to drive longer distances for work and recreation.

While the budget removed the $33 annual licence fee for the residents of northern Ontario, the increase in fuel taxes will mean average northerners pay at least $110 more for gasoline every year, leaving them on balance worse off by $77. The Treasurer has given a little with one hand and taken a lot with the other. That seems to be a consistent method to implement policy by this government.

I now turn to the border communities. The border communities come up in this House from day to day in a few little initiatives here and a few little initiatives there, but the real crisis is not faced head on. To the Ontario border communities, the lower price of gasoline in the United States is a very strong factor. It lures Ontarians to the other side of the border. They are attracted because we know how closely people are having to watch their pocketbooks in 1991. The Ontarians go over to get gas and then they stop for weekly shopping, grocery shopping and shopping for other staples. We all know this.

Mayor after mayor, person after person, has brought this message to Queen's Park and to two standing committees that served over a long period of time in hearings on this issue. They have begged us -- I use that word advisedly -- to assist them in some meaningful way, and all this government can do and see fit to provide in their hour of need is more and more scapegoats and less and less real help that would be so simply implemented and that would be to remove the second stage of implementation of Bill 86. These communities need solutions. They do not need scapegoats. They do not need Band-Aids. They need a change in policy. They need a change in budget '91 and Bill 86.

It seems that this government takes every opportunity to do nothing, or even worse, to do the wrong thing, to make the wrong policy decision for border communities in this province. Bill 86 is the wrong policy decision, particularly as things have worsened through 1991 and the second stage will still be implemented on January 1, 1992. The estimated annual lost sales resulting from cross-border shopping is $1.24 billion. That is $1.2 billion this year in lost sales. Lost sales mean lost jobs: lost retail jobs and lost manufacturing jobs. The NDP government answers all of that by imposing new gas taxes on January 1, 1992.

The NDP ministers, including the Minister of Revenue, have stood in this House time and time again and said that the federal government is the only culprit in the cross-border shopping problem, indeed the main culprit, and denied provincial responsibility. Surely the minister cannot deny that increasing provincial gas taxes will tempt more and more residents of Ontario border communities to go to the US to buy their gas. Every single day of every single week and more on weekends if you cross the border the first gasoline station you come to has at least 10 cars at the pumps. It is certainly becoming a way of life for people within at least a 10-mile radius to go to the other side for their gas.

We have offered several suggestions as to how gas taxes could be graduated, how border communities could have special exemptions and considerations, but everything has gone unheard. None of it is going to be implemented. "Just slap 1.7 cents on every litre of gas. That is so simple. Let's do it, let's get that revenue in." In the meantime jobs are lost, revenues are lost, businesses are going bankrupt and stores are closed.

1700

Over the past year, particularly during the Liberal budget tour, my colleagues and I continued to visit those border communities. As I noted before, the minister is from Thunder Bay and should be aware that communities suffering from cross-border shopping -- or out-shopping, as it is called in her community -- are also suffering the deepest recession, for the reasons I have just outlined. Business bankruptcies and unemployment are well above the provincial average in every single one of these communities and this government knows that.

Cross-border shopping has reached epidemic proportions in Ontario, and through its first complete year in government the NDP has been unwilling or unable to act meaningfully. The statistics being compiled by several groups, including fair shopping organizations, retail councils and other independent groups and affected municipalities, are all equally forthright. These groups have done outstanding work and have certainly supplied those of us who read their reports with wonderful, up-to-date data from business people who know what is really happening in these communities. Unless the provincial government acts quickly, the numbers we have seen so far, millions of dollars in trade and thousands of jobs, will continue to be lost and the numbers will increase.

The Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping reported in January 1991: "Border communities have lost sales of gasoline in excess of 300 million litres annually." That was in January 1991, before these taxes were imposed.

The Retail Council of Canada has estimated that cross-border shopping will cost Canada's retail sector $3.5 billion and 55,000 jobs this year. That is the population of quite a few larger Ontario communities.

Almost a whole year has passed since those numbers were released, a whole year of worsening economic prospects for Ontario's border community retailers and a whole year of inaction or worse. Now we get misguided taxation policies still flowing from this government at this late date, with all the knowledge it has after 14 months in power.

The Canadian Automobile Association released a position paper last week which stated that in August of this year, when the average cost of a litre of gasoline was 58.5 cents across Canada, average taxes amounted to 25.2 cents of that cost. By comparison, US taxes, stated in Canadian funds, amounted to 10.1 cents. This government can no longer deny its responsibility for a significant share of this discrepancy. The finger-pointing does not work. We are talking about a provincial tax bill.

The government has been asked by the chambers of commerce and municipal leaders from several major Ontario communities to take action to deter cross-border shopping, but this minister and this government have done little but implement new taxes to encourage even more people to go across the border to shop.

This budget will create new jobs, but we all know where they will be. They will be in Buffalo, they will be in Detroit, but not in Ontario where our economy desperately needs them to be, where this government promised to create them.

Ontarians from all walks of life are angry about this new gas tax. They are going to be even angrier when they go to the pumps on January 1 and 2, 1992, and see that it is going to be even more out of their pockets in the cold months of winter when many of them will be unemployed, and many are unemployed.

I would like to share with the House some of the things Ontarians are saying. During the Liberal budget tour, Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley noted his concerns regarding the impact of the new gas tax increases on cross-border shopping. He recalled that the border mayors met with the Premier before the budget. Again I use the word "begged" for relief on gas tax. He also recalled the devastation of realizing, after the budget was introduced and this government raised that tax by over 30% after communities came and begged to be heard, that he and others had been totally ignored.

David Bradley, vice-president of the Ontario Trucking Association, was quoted recently in the Ottawa Citizen as saying, "Ontario's New Democratic Party government should send out a signal of hope." A signal of hope is what people want in 1991. That is what good government does. It leads towards hopefulness. The signal these people wanted was a cancellation of the proposed gasoline tax increase of 1.7 cents per litre set to take effect January 1, 1992. That still could be changed.

Windsor's former mayor, John Millson, concurred. He called the NDP's 30% increase on gasoline tax a slap in the face of the communities trying to combat cross-border shopping. Windsor is one of those.

The Hamilton Spectator said on April 30, 1991, "Gas taxes in the new Ontario budget will drive more shoppers across the border to fill their tanks and empty their wallets in the United States."

Catherine Newell of the Hamilton Automobile Club said, "It's an unfair, unjust, regressive and inflationary type of tax that affects everybody," whether they are rich or poor, old or young living in parts of the province that have public transportation or parts of the province where automobiles are a necessity. The Treasurer has pledged that money from gas taxes will go towards the improvement of public transportation, but that is not going to help everyone.

I have just explained that many parts of the province do not have public transportation. The word was always: "Let's have progressive taxes. The NDP will put progressive taxation in when it gets to be government." And the words "unfair, unjust": Unfortunately the Ontario public is describing the NDP's taxation policies as "regressive, simplistic, unjust, unfair, inflationary," and we could go on likely for 20 different and not very complimentary adjectives.

The majority of Ontarians have to use their cars to go to work. They do not have the luxury of the transit system outside the doors of this building as Toronto does. This tax forces rural Ontario to pay for urban transit if we are to listen to what the Treasurer said the revenues will go to.

David Bradley of the Ontario Trucking Association has been quoted as saying, "It is a tax on distance, so shippers, manufacturers and consumers outside the major metropolitan areas are going to be hit.... I don't know what it is going to take for the federal and provincial governments to wake up and smell the coffee.... We need governments at both levels to look at tax levels."

This is not just a tax on drivers; it is a tax on shippers, manufacturers and consumers. It is a tax on us, again, being uncompetitive, a tax which is certainly going to have its effect on jobs, the retail industry and the manufacturing industry. Again we asked for data collection on impact studies. We ask for them, we talk about them, but we never see them.

Even the OPP, as the member for Renfrew North has brought to our attention, which we learned earlier this month is facing a $16-million deficit, is suffering as a result of this government's tax policy. The OPP has stated that the NDP's own gas tax is a leading contributor to this huge deficit and has caused restrictions to be placed on the use of cruisers to cut down on gasoline costs. That is a judgement call that is being made by the OPP in its budget line.

1710

Finally, let me quote from the January 2, 1991 edition of the Sault Star: "The provincial government hopes to find a way this spring to reduce the price of gasoline and keep Canadian consumers on this side of the border." Who do you think said that, Mr Speaker? None other than one of the ministers of the NDP government, the member for Algoma. "The provincial government hopes to find a way this spring" -- he is talking about spring 1991, long past -- "to reduce the price of gasoline and keep Canadian consumers on this side of the border." A cabinet minister in this government had some very good, progressive ideas.

"He said reducing taxes on gasoline -- not introducing a subsidy -- would be the best way to lower gas prices in Sault Ste Marie and to fight cross-border shopping," a real problem in that community. "However, one way to lower the price of gas and give Canadian shoppers less reason to cross the bridge to fill up could be to reduce the amount of taxes that are included in the price."

How novel -- a minister of the NDP government saying what everybody else in the province is saying about how we could help these communities. Even members of the cabinet obviously agree with some people in Ontario, most people in Ontario, that this tax measure is not helpful to cross-border cities. It seems the hopes of this particular northern Ontario cabinet minister have not been realized. At the cabinet table, his arguments were lost. Budget '91 was prepared and presented after the consultation process. Obviously some of the cabinet had heard what some people in Ontario were saying, but unfortunately their message was not acted upon.

In view of the overwhelming negative response to this tax policy -- you have heard it, Mr Speaker, and I am sure every single member in this Legislature has heard a comment in the negative about Bill 85 and certainly even more directly about Bill 86. In view of this, I want to ask the minister -- who of course did not find time to stay for the debate; she had to leave -- if she collected data on the impact of this gas sales tax in border communities. I think that is really important. I have not heard her mention one impact study on this issue or other issues in related bills in this budget. I hope and trust she considers this information essential. I hope she has this information even if she has not shared it.

If this government is going to work on the economic recovery of our province, we have to have the facts. They are readily available. I ask the minister -- I wish she were here to answer -- to indicate whether her ministry has conducted any study of a graduated gas tax system. That has been brought forward by many people. It is used in the province of Quebec. It is used in all of the New England states that border my part of the province, eastern Ontario. It certainly has its effect on prices in that area. This system has been successful. We have asked that it at least be studied and tried, but there has been no response, not one word, in answer to the graduated gas tax system.

If the minister has studied this option, I wish she would make that information available to us. I do not think she has, but perhaps she has, and I now give her the opportunity. If this option has not been studied, I want to know why. I think the people of Ontario want to know why, because many border communities have asked that this at least be studied and many have requested pilot projects in their own communities.

Bill 86 is another example of the NDP's policy of hurting small business. Certainly it is another example of the stifling of economic growth in the middle of a recession. This government continues to implement draconian, regressive, old-fashioned taxation policies that add additional costs to one of the most fundamental pieces of the puzzle of business, and that is transportation.

Bill 86 is a tax policy that hits the pocket of every driver in this province, a regressive tax. This is my opinion and certainly the opinion of many others in Ontario. It is a backward step and, as has been stated by many in the province, indeed a slap in the face.

We are in for more of the same in January 1992 from a government that says it is listening, from a government that says it is consulting. This is a very simplistic message, a gas tax increase that may not and could not, but will, however, be placed on January 1.

This government should indeed present a new budget. Many of us have suggested that. Bill 86 is but one of the many policy decisions that need to be reassessed if Ontario is to be competitive and productive.

I want to end by drawing to members' attention a cartoon. Really this is not funny, but sometimes you have to take the heavy things in life a little lightly. We have the Ontario taxpayer pictured here, both pockets being emptied, one on one side by the federal and one on the other side equally -- in fact I think the arm is a little longer -- by the provincial. His comment as he helplessly stands is, "There ought to be a law against tax harassment."

Bill 86 is tax harassment, harassment that could easily be prevented by this government not implementing the second stage on January 1, 1992, a sign of hope, a sign that people have been listened to. But I understand there are no changes. I gave the minister opportunity earlier today and there has been no indication, no movement on the part of this government to change this bill. I feel it is a real slap in the face. It is a real regressive action on the part of the NDP government to introduce and to continue to push Bill 86 without amendments.

Mr Johnson: I listened with great interest to the member for Ottawa-Rideau. It concerns me when I hear the members of the opposition speak as if the times are better than they actually are, as if this is not the worst time the government of Ontario has seen in, I guess, 50 or 60 years. Those of us who have jobs and those of us who are working may not be aware that this is probably the worst recession we have faced in a long, long time.

The government needs to raise revenues. The opposition members tell us, on one hand, that there is a need to fund many programs, that many programs are necessary in this very difficult time and, on the other hand, they tell us we have to cut taxes. God, I would like to ask them, where do they think the money comes from? If they want the programs funded, where are we, the government, going to get the money? Well, somewhere, and it just happens to be that taxes is where we get it from.

There are fewer people working now in Ontario because of the recession that we have to deal with, so the people who would normally pay personal income tax are not. They are either collecting unemployment insurance or may even be worse off and collecting welfare, an expenditure for this government. I think that is something that is not taken into consideration.

When you speak about the highways around the province and the maintenance that is required to look after these highways, and the fact that people have many demands and many interests in seeing them built in the north and built up and made better in other parts of the province, tax money has to be raised somewhere to make sure these programs occur. Where is the money going to come from? Certainly people who drive on the highways can make a contribution by paying their taxes.

The Liberals, I want to say, recently were quite handy at raising taxes over the past few years, and I am sure when they raised the taxes, they raised the taxes, in their opinion, for a good purpose, to maintain the highways, to maintain the services that are necessary on those highways and in fact even to make sure we had services like the OPP to police the highways. Certainly these are expenditures we have to fund.

1720

Mr Ruprecht: I listened to the comments of our colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau describing the excessive increases in gasoline taxes. Obviously she has a point. As she said, this will take millions out of the pockets of taxpayers, especially in Ontario, and Ontario will now have the highest gas prices. In all of Canada, that distinction will go to us. What will that mean? It concerns me a great deal, because we have to think about competitiveness and the competitive position Ontario will be in compared to all other jurisdictions in North America. Today we know what the facts are.

A day does not go by that every one of the corporations that is exporting to the United States, whether it is widgets or fridges or stoves or whatever we produce here -- a day does not go by that other jurisdictions -- it may be Ohio or Wisconsin or even North Dakota or Vermont or New York -- are not sending letters to our manufacturers asking them to relocate. Why are they doing that? Under normal circumstances they would be unable even to get a response or a reply. They are getting a response and a reply simply because in this jurisdiction our taxes, our prices and our labour costs are simply too high. To add gasoline prices in order to raise $205 million from the public will be another nail in the coffin of industry in Ontario. It becomes obvious that unless this government looks at wealth creation and not distribution, we will not be in a position to recover.

Mr Stockwell: I thought the comments brought forward were very insightful. They offered some sincere criticism, I think, to this government and its piece of legislation. It is no real secret out there that there are many constituents, businesses and taxpayers that have some real money problems. When the government institutes pieces of legislation such as this, it only exacerbates the difficult times we are in even further, because you are faced with new and unexpected expenses that you can very doubtfully afford at this time.

It was put forward by some members opposite that it is exactly when we are in very difficult times -- 30 or 40 years ago, I assume he was talking about the Great Depression -- that we need revenues to offset social programs, etc. I guess my concern is that this point in time, when we can least afford new taxes -- taxes that make you even that much more uncompetitive, taxes that directly impact the bottom line of any viable operating business, taxes that in some instances can take a business that is marginally profitable and put it over the edge, making it unprofitable and causing many people to lose their jobs -- is exactly the wrong time to go about increasing taxes on the taxpayers, the businesses and the people of this province.

Anyone who suggests, simply stated, that because the economy is running so poorly and because we are in such dire economic straits this seems like a logical time to increase taxes simply has no understanding of business, no understanding of the private sector and no understanding of what it takes to meet a payroll and operating expenses. This is the worst time to pass on new taxes to businesses for sure, because this is the time when those businesses can least afford it.

Mr Mills: I would like, for the record, to correct something the member for Ottawa-Rideau said that is not correct. She attributed the leading cause of part of the $60-million deficit of the Ontario Provincial Police to the cost of gasoline. That is not correct. The leading cause of the deficit is the fact that about 250 Ontario Provincial Police officers were to retire and that attrition did not take place. In fact, only 40 or 50 retired.

Another leading cause of the $16-million deficit the Ontario Provincial Police is facing is of course due to unexpected demands for services and the overtime that those services result in. I would just like to correct that for the record.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau has two minutes to reply.

Mr Chiarelli: I believe there might be one more comment. Can we check the count on that?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): We have had four participants. We have reached our maximum, and the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau has two minutes to reply.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am sorry I was misquoted by the member for Durham East. I did not say it was the leading cause; I said it was one cause of the OPP's budget problems, and I certainly think it is. Anybody who would deny that would certainly have difficulty.

I really agreed with the member for Etobicoke West when he talked about the assessment of how this tax is affecting people in the worst time, the worst place and the worst way. Taxation can be creative, and it can be full of incentives. This is a very simplistic manner to raise revenue that is taking place here, and it really is not taking into any account what the business people or the people in this province who must use transportation for all of their activities have said to this government, indeed to each member of this Legislature.

I feel very strongly that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings should take a look at and listen to some of the things that I have said. It certainly is a very strong argument that business is making. There is nothing wrong with business telling us how it can be more competitive. Indeed, that is what we need to create jobs in this province, and this is one tax that it has told us over and over, consistently, is not going to help it to be more competitive. It is certainly not going to help to feed the families who are unemployed when they have to use their car to go to the grocery store that they have to put 1.7 cents more out of their pockets every time they go up to the pumps as of January 1, 1992. This tax is very poorly placed at the wrong time. It is the wrong thing happening at the wrong time -- a double negative.

Mr Sterling: As the critic for Revenue from my party, I am pleased to enter this debate. First of all, I would like to say to the member for Durham East, who claims the problem with the budget was that 250 police officers who were expected to retire or take early retirement stayed around on the job, that it is not our fault. It is not the OPP's fault. It is the fault of the Solicitor General for not properly budgeting last year. When times are tough, he has to know that most people will stay on longer in terms of their jobs because there are no other jobs to go to. When times are tough, people stay in their jobs. That is a logical conclusion to come to.

Last year when the Treasurer was sitting down to budget, he knew that times were tough, because he had a $9.7-billion deficit. It is not our fault. It is not the OPP's fault. It is not the fault of the communities in eastern Ontario and the rest of Ontario which are suffering. It is the fault of this inept, incompetent government.

I want to start into the debate on this bill by, first of all, offering an apology to the officials of the Ministry of Revenue who are sitting behind the Speaker. When I was dealing with Bill 85, I said to those ministry officials that they had not supplied me with the information I had asked of them at our briefing session, which they were so kind to give to me and the critic for the Liberal Party. At that time I must admit I ripped a bit of a strip off them for not giving me that information prior to getting into the debate. After I sat down on Bill 85, which was a similar bill to this bill, the parliamentary assistant came over and gave me the information I asked for. So I should not have been ripping a strip off the ministry staff who supplied the parliamentary assistant with the information. I should have been ripping a strip off the parliamentary assistant for not doing his job.

1730

Mr Johnson: We understand you got it and lost it.

Mr Sterling: I did not get this information. I never had this information. I had asked for this information so that we could bring a proper perspective to this debate and could compare the different taxes implemented by this government with those of other surrounding jurisdictions.

What a lot of people do not realize is that last year in May, when the Treasurer brought this budget down, he increased gasoline taxes in this province by 30%, by one third. People in the government like to talk about 1.7 cents. But if you add up 1.7 cents last April or May, whenever this was instituted, and then the 1.7 cents that is going to come in on January 1, that adds up to 3.4 cents. It increases the tax from some 11 cents up to, I believe, 14.7 cents per litre, which is going into the coffers of the Ontario government. That is higher than any other province in Canada.

Mr Speaker, because you and I live near the Quebec border, we know about our concern in those areas of eastern Ontario that businesses which formerly would locate in the Ontario will locate in Quebec. In 1985, when the Progressive Conservative Party left government, corporate income taxes in Ontario were about 10% lower than they were in Quebec. We had an advantage. We could say to business, "Come to Ontario because you're going to get a better break on taxes in Ontario than you will in Quebec or in many other jurisdictions in the United States." We had a heck of a tool to say to people: "Come on and invest, entrepreneurs. We're not going to take an unfair amount of your profits away." Over the last five or six years corporate income taxes have increased so that now we are even. There is no advantage to being in Ontario over Quebec in terms of corporate taxes.

We used to be able to say to people in Ontario who were doing business and were involved in transporting their products across Ontario, "Come to Ontario because you can purchase gasoline cheaper here, which will then mean you will have cheaper costs in transporting your goods from your plants to your customers." With this gas increase on January 1, we are going to forge ahead of Quebec, which is now second in gasoline tax. They charge 14 cents a litre and we are charging 14.7 cents a litre.

The tax rates which were supplied to me under the good offices of the officials of the Ministry of Revenue and which I eventually received from the parliamentary assistant show us to be at a tremendous competitive disadvantage with the United States, particularly those states which surround us, in talking about gasoline.

In eastern Ontario one of the most important industries, particularly for the rural areas and the areas outside Ottawa-Carleton, although Ottawa-Carleton is very important as well, is the whole industry of tourism. We are finding that more and more Americans, who used to come to Canada and spend their dollars at our resorts and at our hotels and at our recreation complexes, are no longer there. Upper Canada Village probably suffered tremendously this summer as a result of the decline in American tourists.

That is because if you look at the comparable tax rates for gasoline -- I am talking about provincial and federal tax rates together -- in the state of New York, federal and state taxes amount to seven cents per litre. After January 1, in our province it is going to be 23.2 cents per litre; three times as much tax on gasoline in Ontario as New York, and that is the most important state for us in terms of attracting tourists in eastern Ontario.

In the state of Michigan, the total tax, federal and state, is nine cents per litre. In Ontario, after January 1, 23.2 cents per litre in tax: 14.7 cents per litre by the province and 8.5 cents per litre by the federal government, about two and a half times as much tax as Michigan. In the state of Minnesota, although there are not as many tourists who come from Minnesota, the tax is 10.5 cents per litre, federal and state. Ours is 23.2 cents per litre.

By increasing taxation by 30%, by taking taxes up to 23.2 cents per litre, how does this government expect tourists, families in cars, to drive over to Ontario, fill up on gas and drive around Ontario and visit the many scenic places we have? What the Americans have said to us is, "Enough is enough." But unfortunately you and I, Mr Speaker, and our constituents have to put up with the onerous taxation of this government.

One of the arguments I heard from the parliamentary assistant was, "We've got to have the money because we've got to pay for roads and we've got to pay for the schools and we've got to pay for all of these other things." My answer to him is, he should not spend the money before he has the money. We have seen this government continue to expand, to spend money.

Today our leader brought forward an example of the very prudent spending this government is undertaking. In Wawa, Ontario, which is rapidly depopulating at this time -- I believe they have a vacancy rate of something like 15% or 20% in their housing -- what is this government doing where there are empty houses going begging for people to live in them? This government is going to spend $4 million or $5 million in building 40 new units of housing in Wawa, Ontario; $4 million or $5 million in what is a rapidly depopulating town.

Mr Mills: It's not always going to be that way.

Mr Sterling: We hope it is not always going to be that way, but you can buy the accommodation for a quarter of the price that government is going to pay for it. My leader says, "If you want to spend $4 million or $5 million helping the people of Wawa out, don't build a brand-new building which is only going to make the vacancy rate in the already surplus housing stock increase." Have you ever heard of such a stupid thing for the government to do, Mr Speaker, as to go out and spend $4 million or $5 million in a place which does not need any additional housing?

People from Wawa have written to me. Over the last four or five days I have received numerous faxes and letters from the people of Wawa and they have said: "Don't favour us with your kindness. Don't do us the damage."

I was talking in response and I will try to come back to the bill. But when the parliamentary assistant says to us, "We've got to have this money because we're going to spend it in good places," I say, "Humbug." They are not spending it good places. They are not spending it on the roads. They are not spending it on things we need, the basic services. They are finding new ways to spend money -- or new ways to waste money is really what is happening in this government -- and the people of Ontario are fed up with it. They see day by day the examples of waste from this government. It is getting very discouraging for the businesses that have to pay the taxes and the people who have to pay the taxes in order to support these wastrels.

1740

I sat on the economic development committee last year when we had hearings on cross-border shopping. Mr Speaker, as a representative of a very long reach of border with the United States -- probably you have the longest contiguous border area in the province held by any single member; I believe your area goes on for probably about 100 or 110 miles along the New York border -- you understand the problem with cross-border shopping. When you and I sat in Cornwall and listened to the various people who presented briefs to us, and as the economics committee of this Legislature sat and heard briefs from people who were concerned about cross-border shopping, if you listened to all their briefs, to them the most important issue of all was gasoline taxes, gasoline prices. If there were anything this government could do to dissuade people from going over to the United States to cross-border shop, it would be to decrease the price of gasoline. That would be the best thing, in terms of the evidence we could hear, which would dissuade people from going across the border.

In fact, in our minority position to the cross-border shopping committee, we recommended that this government meld, put together, the provincial sales tax and the GST into one tax. That would generate a significant amount of revenue for this government. We suggested as a result of that move that all the windfall this government would receive from joining those two taxes should be used to drop the tax on gasoline. It is our opinion that of all the areas that need amelioration in terms of taxation, gasoline is the most important one to the people of Ontario, and particularly to those businesses which are suffering along the borders of the United States.

I have heard the government say in response to the other bill, Bill 85, that during the former Progressive Conservative government we increased taxes nine times over a period of two or three years. That was the story. I do not know if it was eight or nine or whatever it was, and do members know what? If you take those nine increases, they do not even add up to the two increases these people are instituting. All we have is two increases of 1.7 cents each, which are two bigger hits than we took in nine bites. We took nine bites, and we took them over a period of time so that industry could readjust to the increase in taxation.

I want to add too that by the time we left office, taxes on gasoline were only 8.3 cents a litre, and now these fellows have it up to 14.7 cents. The NDP and the Liberals have increased it from 8.3 to 14.7 over six years.

If members also look at the percentage of the budget which was taken up by the Ministry of Transportation back in the early 1980s, they would have seen that the percentage of gasoline tax going back into our roads and bridges was much higher than the percentage of tax that is going into those particular hard services at this time.

We have a government that is spending tax money on buying the groceries, not building the house. That is the problem we have with this government. We have a government that is taking taxes from the people and in order to operate, to run the machine of government, it is going into debt. Day after day they are going into debt. They are not spending it on buying new schools or building roads or whatever; they are spending it on buying the groceries. That is how we equate it to the members' lives and my life.

Mr Speaker, you and I were members of a government that was in power for 42 years, and when we left government we were spending about $26 billion to $27 billion a year. Over six to seven short years, we are now at a budget which is twice what the budget was six or seven years ago. If you take inflation, which some of the members over here would like to talk about, you would be at about $40 billion. So there has been a $13-billion increase over the last six years due to the spending of the Liberals and now the spending of the New Democratic Party, and they talk about us not being good managers.

Mr Mammoliti: Oh, no. I said that you were the best.

Mr Sterling: We are the best. You are right. I am glad the member for Yorkview is suggesting we are the best managers of fiscal management of this province. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that.

The people of Ontario, even the 25% who voted for the NDP in the last election --

Mr Turnbull: Twenty-three per cent.

Mr Sterling: Twenty-three per cent. I am sorry. Thank you very much.

Even the 23% who voted for the NDP in the last election will now realize that they made a mistake. It would only do my heart good, as I read the polls that are now taking place: 41% for the Liberals; 31% for them, down from where they were in the last election, and 23% for us. Their popularity is falling. People realize that the management of the financial resources of this province is out of control.

Probably a gasoline tax is the meanest tax of all for the poor people who live in your constituency, Mr Speaker, and in my constituency. It is regressive.

Mr Johnson: Poor people don't drive cars.

Mr Sterling: The poor people in our constituencies live in the outskirts. I suspect the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings would know that. But in our constituencies the poor people live further out from the urban centres and actually rely on their automobiles much more than the people who are able to purchase homes that are closer in to the urban areas. Because the land is cheaper out there, the houses are cheaper, and quite frankly a lot of them live quite a piece away from the places where they must go to work and where they must shop for groceries and those kinds of things. There is no public transportation out in those areas, so the poor people whom the Acting Speaker and I represent in the riding of the regional municipality of Carleton and the riding of S-D-G & East Grenville are suffering more because of the gasoline tax increases than any other kind of tax increase that this government could have brought in. This is a cruel tax for them to bring in.

We oppose it on that basis as well. Taxation should be progressive. If the government has to bring it in, it should be against the people who can afford to pay. This is an indiscriminate tax which taxes in large measure people who are less able to afford it. We are against this particular tax for that reason as well.

I want all the people of Ontario to understand we not only have the distinction of being the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America thanks to the Liberals, but we are now paying the highest gasoline taxes in all of Canada because of the New Democratic Party.

1750

Mr Johnson: Again I listened with great interest to the member for Carleton. He mentioned some things about Ontario. One thing I would like to say about Ontario is that it is probably the finest place to live in the world. I think the reason it is the finest place to live in the world has a lot to do with the systems that are in place, systems that probably for the most part were initiated by the Conservative government, were worked on more by the Liberal government and were inherited by us, systems we would like to modify because we like to think we can improve them. I have no doubt that in time that will be shown to be true.

The member for Carleton talked about cross-border shopping. I think to say a 1.7-cents-per-litre tax increase on gasoline is the reason people cross the border is not true. It is a factor; I would be wrong if I said it was not. I think one of the most important factors is that the Canadian dollar is becoming more closely aligned with the American dollar. The advantage we used to have not too many years ago with regard to the difference in our dollar is wrong. That is something he never talked about.

If we look at the idea of taxing gasoline in the first place, we certainly know it was the Tory government's idea. The Tory government in the last five years increased gasoline taxes 100%. The Liberals were quite handy in the short period of five years in increasing gasoline by six cents per litre. I think the increases we have made are marginal in comparison.

Mr Callahan: I have listened very carefully to the speeches that have been made in this House. There is one factor that keeps being very elusive. As I drove out of my riding today, gasoline was 49 cents. As I drove into Toronto it was 52 cents. I am sure if you drove north you would find the price was different. My good friend is nodding over there. Where is that great promised board the Premier said he would set up to monitor whether the prices are going up and down as a result of some sort of big deal that is going on with the oil companies? The Premier of this province made that promise. I know rhetoric is easy on the stump when you are trying to be elected, but where is that promise? Has he fulfilled that promise to the people of this province? Has he set up that board? Every time we ask the question in this House he avoids it.

The essence of any government is the credibility of its Premier. Today we heard one of our members point out to the Premier that the deal made with the Ontario Hydro chairman was that he would reduce his salary by half, and we found out afterwards they had negotiated a little deal in the back room that it would be a five-year deal. Surely the people of Ontario are waiting. Now that the Premier has made the deal with the Hydro chairman to up his salary so that he gets the same amount, they are waiting for that board. They want to see why the prices in gasoline seem to go up and down with the number of times the Premier can raise the ladder. These people deserve an answer from the Premier. He should set up that board, because he said on the stumps while he was politicking to be Premier that he would do it.

Mr Stockwell: I think a very important and poignant point brought forward by the member for Carleton was the increases this government has brought forward and the number of cents of increases they represent on a litre of gasoline.

The member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings suggested that the Conservatives, in their five years, increased the gas tax by something like 100%. Let's just examine those numbers very carefully, because I find NDPers tend to do this -- they give you a bit of information. The real information is that in five years, under a Conservative government, that 100% increase represented four cents in gas tax over five years. I do not know if the member realizes it, but this government has increased it by 3.4 cents in one year. If it went along under that theory and was in power for four years, it would increase the gas tax by some 12, 13 or 14 cents over the same time period the Conservatives increased it by four cents; a rather shallow argument, typical of the NDP. They give you some of the information and allow you to make a decision with partial information.

Second, the member suggests the information about cross-border shopping -- and the member for Carleton spoke to this -- is not necessarily related to gas. The cross-border shopping committee met with many border towns and the three most important issues for why people cross the border -- and many members who sat in on the committee can attest to this -- are (1) alcohol, (2) cigarettes and (3) gasoline. What did this government do in the last budget, knowing full well the three most important issues that drive people across the border? It increased taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline. It is so far out of touch with the economic realities that it brought that forward and crucified border towns even further.

It is hilarious to listen to the defence, because there is no defence.

Mr Mammoliti: I sat here and listened in dismay to the member for Carleton. I did not say a word. The member has the audacity to stand up and talk about our neglect. I would say to that member, "Don't contradict yourself." We are all concerned about taxes, and rightly so; of course we are concerned about taxes. My point is that this member stands up and complains about this government.

I want to ask this member a particular question. I believe this is my forum to ask that question. Has this member written a letter to the federal Conservative government in reference to the GST? That is the question I want to ask him and I am hoping he will respond, because it is probably no. After his concern with taxes and tax increases, I think the letter would say he disagrees with it and wants to get rid of it. I am willing to bet he did not write that letter, and if he did, I would like to see it.

Second, again federally, in 1979 -- and I think it is important to mention -- why did Mr Clark, the Prime Minister at that time, get booted out of office? It was because of his neglect.

Mr Sterling: I may be one of the few members in this House who agrees with the GST. I think it was a progressive step. All three parties in the federal Parliament realized there had to be a value added tax. That was agreed in the finance committee of the House of Commons. When it comes to guts, in terms of doing it, I congratulate the federal government for doing that.

I agree with lowering the manufacturers' sales tax from 13.5% to 7% or 8%, because our manufacturing industry in this province has suffered tremendously. If the government had not taken that step, we would be in an even more disastrous position.

I think the GST is going to prove a tax which Audrey McLaughlin will not turn around on, or Jean Chrétien, or any other Prime Minister in this country. Mark my words: Every party knew it had to be done and there was only one party that had the guts to do it.

Ontario used to be one of the finest places in the world. I still think we have the opportunity to rescue Ontario, but unfortunately day by day the people who create wealth in this province are leaving. Today we have only an example of one of those reasons why those people are leaving this province and that is that useless spending on the part of the government and the concurrent need to raise taxes put us in a position where we cannot be competitive in transporting our goods and we cannot be competitive in attracting tourists. I believe this tax is a bad tax for Ontario, and we will oppose it vehemently.

The House adjourned at 1801.