35th Parliament, 3rd Session

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE


Report continued from volume A.

1723

House in committee of the whole.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Consideration of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Mr Chair, could I ask for consent for staff to come on the floor of the House and for the parliamentary assistant to sit in the front row?

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Agreed.

Are there any questions, comments or amendments, and, if so, to which section of the bill?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): There is an amendment to section 5, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Could you read the sections to which you have amendments.

Mr Sutherland: I have three amendments for section 5 and one for section 14.

The Chair: Are there any questions or comments on section 1?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Just in a general context, if I may, dealing with Bill 32. It may not be easy to answer this question, but understanding that first reading of this bill was June 1, 1992 -- that's some 14 months ago -- what I find very difficult is that a government comes along, makes an announcement in the budget that it's going to have a tax change and then doesn't order the business of the House in such a way that that bill is passed during either that session in the spring or in the fall session before Christmas. The House prorogued at Christmas and we came back in April, and here now, in the last minutes of this summer session, the government comes forward dealing with a bill that really has to do with business the government decided to do well over a year ago. That's one part of it: Why would you have such a delay in dealing with it? Maybe you could comment on that, because I have a number of other questions that have to do with the timing of this bill.

Maybe I'll throw the next one in, because we've got enough time in the House that you can go back and forth. The second one is, when did you come up with the amendments? If the amendments were so important to the bill, is that the normal length of time it takes for the government to develop amendments? Again, we're talking some 13 months after the bill was given first reading, and now we have four amendments to it.

Give me the rationale for the time it takes you to deal with the bill and the time it takes to prepare amendments for the House to consider.

Mr Sutherland: If I may, the member for Markham is fully aware of how House business is decided; he knows full well that it's negotiated between different House leaders. If he was so upset by the fact that it hadn't been called, I'm sure he could have encouraged his House leader to a great extent to push to have it called earlier. He also knows that there are only so many days for debate and that not everything gets discussed here.

With respect to the amendments, these amendments we're putting forward today relate to the changes that were announced by the former Minister of Revenue, the Honourable Shelley Wark-Martyn, on December 16, 1992, in response to concerns that I think had been raised by consumers about the administration of the collection of the retail sales tax on used cars, which had been raised by consumers and I think by members of all three parties here in this House.

Mr Cousens: It was a flip answer that you gave on the first part. I do know how business has gone in the House. I've been Deputy Speaker and I've been here long enough that I understand that. It has far more to do with what the government decides is going to be done than with what the opposition decides, so don't give me the line that it depends on what the third party is going to do or the opposition party is going to do. It has to do with your government House leader and your government deciding on its priorities.

I'm not going to go on for an undue length of time, which I am entitled to do, on this matter, but I want to just put on the record that it's an offence to the whole system and the approach of parliamentary democracy not to deal with things at the time at which the law is going to come into effect. That is being done this year now with other bills, where the government has made a number of announcements in its budget and even yet we haven't dealt with those changes to the law.

There is nothing fun about our job when we're having to increase taxes, but it is important to deal with it in a current way. That is an issue that I think frustrates many people. They don't know what the law is, so when someone in a law office or someone really wants to know about -- why have it proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor when in fact it is the law by actions now in the province of Ontario? Seriously, it makes a mockery of the process we're going through right now.

I'm not going to give you a hassle on your amendments. You've got the majority to pass them anyway. But it's something for responsible opposition to have at least the opportunity to debate these issues before they're so long in effect that the debate is meaningless. That's what's happened now. To be dealing with this bill some 13 months later is hardly going to make any change to anything that goes on.

1730

I just wanted to go on the record. You personally might do it if you're House leader. Maybe what I should do, Kim, is see that you're given the high promotion of being the government House leader, and you might start to order business more efficiently. You've got the enthusiasm and the vigour so that it might happen. Maybe these old sods who have been there for a few months haven't got it.

There is a problem. Take it seriously. It's on the record. Our caucus, in representing the people of Ontario, feels that the government owes it to a good business procedure to deal with items such as this in a more current way and not allow them to be brought up much later. And disabuse yourself of the view that we have anything to do with when things are scheduled in the House: We have no way of influencing your House leader. We're having a few games right now, as we're considering whether or not this House will adjourn tomorrow or recess for a period of time.

But we don't have the power. You, as the government, the NDP, with 38% of the vote back on September 6, 1990, won a majority government. You're the ones who order proceedings; you're the ones who bring out the budget bill; you're the ones who prepare government bills; you're the ones who call it; you're the ones who call it for a vote. You've done it late. You've brought it in 13 months past the time you should have. I just wanted to put that on the record so it wouldn't be forgotten.

The Chair: I just want to remind you that we're dealing with Bill 32 and we're dealing with section 1. Are there any amendments or questions on section 1?

Mr Cousens: Are there any aspects to the bill as of June 1 that are retroactive prior to June 1, 1992?

Mr Sutherland: If the member for Markham looks at section 16 of the bill, he will see that it talks about commencement of different provisions of the bill and when they are deemed to have come into force.

Mr Cousens: It's pretty hard to understand section 16. If one were to read it now, I can assure you that there isn't a person who's paying attention to what is happening in this House. "This act, except as provided for in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5)," and it goes on. What impact does that retroactivity have on the bill with regard to the Retail Sales Tax Act?

Mr Sutherland: I guess the member's question is in terms of collection of taxes. The main provision of the bill, which is the changes to retail sales tax collection regarding used vehicle sales, came into effect on October 1, 1992.

The Chair: Does section 1 carry? Carried.

Shall sections 2, 3 and 4 carry? Carried.

I believe you have an amendment to section 5.

Mr Sutherland: I move that section 4.2 of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Severe damage or excessive use

"(1.1) If both the fair value and the appraised value, as defined by the minister, of a used motor vehicle are, by reason of severe damage or excessive use, less than the average wholesale price of the used motor vehicle as determined in the manner prescribed by the minister, the tax payable in respect of the consumption or use of the used motor vehicle shall be computed at the rate of 8 per cent of an amount equal to the greater of such fair value or appraised value and not as set out in section 2 or in subsection (1)."

Just to explain for folks what the changes are, this is in response to concerns that were raised by some of the people who had bought a car that maybe had a lot of use and the value they bought it for was far less than the Red Book value. What they had to do, though, was submit the sales tax, then go get their car appraised and then ask for a rebate for the sales tax. This changes the process so that they can get it appraised before they pay the sales tax, and if the appraisal is a lesser amount, then they only have to submit the appraisal for the lesser amount.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The explanation by the parliamentary assistant to the amendment that has been placed deals with one of the areas of the bill that was a real irritation to a lot of people. When I spoke about this during second reading debate, I pointed out to the government that the legislation created a highly bureaucratic, very cumbersome process for people in that it would be irritating to them. When they attempted to implement those features of it, they got a lot of complaints from people. I know we, as well as the critic responsible for the piece of legislation, had complaints into our office.

I know that the amendment is intended, and has been working now for quite some time, as a new process. I want to tell him that people still resent having to go and get the appraisal and then come back and pay, on the basis of that appraisal, the additional tax that this puts on.

The other thing I'd point out to him is that when I read through the amendment he first read out, it was absolute gobbledegook. It seemed to me that they could have written an amendment that would have clarified, as he did in his explanation. I know legislative language is such that it often is a little cumbersome, but this amendment was to clarify a process and make it easier for people. Anybody reading this legislation -- I myself, when I first read the legislation -- you read it and you say, "What is it that you're trying to achieve here and couldn't you say it in simpler English so people could understand?"

While the amendment does clarify from the first piece of legislation, and I think it's a worthwhile amendment, it's unclear. While it eliminates some of the bureaucracy, it is still resented by people. I must tell him that I will not be supporting any of the legislation, but I think this amendment is at least an attempt to make it a little bit easier for people.

I was pleased that he listened to what I had to say during the remarks and that he listened to all of those people who were so angry and frustrated by the process the government had originally put in place.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

I believe you have two other amendments to section 5, Mr Sutherland.

1740

Mr Sutherland: Yes. I move that subsection 4.2(4) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), adding "or" at the end of clause (c) and adding the following clause:

"(d) a used motor vehicle whose average wholesale price as determined in the manner prescribed by the minister is less than $1,000."

Mrs Caplan: This is one amendment that I will be supporting. This exempts all of those people, particularly those who I think are sometimes buying their very first car, the young, sometimes the foolish, certainly the eager, who will buy what might be known as a handyman's special, who've saved. It exempts them from this sales tax, and to me that is right and proper. They'll be paying less than $1,000 for the car, and if they do that, they're exempt from the tax. I think that's a good feature in the bill. We spoke about that.

Very often these taxes hit exactly the wrong people, and often the clunkers, as we used to call them when I was a teenager, were purchased by people who couldn't afford anything else, who had worked long and hard at second jobs to be able to buy the car and afford the insurance. The exemption for those who have paid under $1,000 is an important feature of this bill, so I will be supporting that amendment to the legislation.

Mr Sutherland: I hope my response doesn't mean that the member for Oriole will withdraw her support for the amendment. I think it's important to clarify for the public that it's not a complete exemption. What it means is they don't have to go and get the appraisal done, which is really where the savings are, because in some cases the amount for appraisal is running anywhere between $75 and $80. The amount for the appraisal would be more than the savings they would get in the sales tax.

Mrs Caplan: So you are going to charge sales tax for those people who pay less than $1,000?

Mr Sutherland: Well, they already had to pay sales tax. The legislation is not being changed that way. You already had to pay sales tax on those vehicles. What it means is you don't have to have an appraisal certificate to go with it, and with appraisals sometimes being $75, $80, the amount of sales tax you were trying to save would be taken up by getting the appraisal. So that's really what it is, to simplify the process for those folks.

Mrs Caplan: In that case the amendment doesn't go far enough. It seems to me that those cars which are valued according to the Red Book at under $1,000 should not be taxable, and the parliamentary assistant and the minister had the opportunity in the legislation to exempt them entirely. To not do that just places a burden on those who can least afford to pay the tax.

It wasn't just a question of getting the appraisal. The cars that are valued today at under $1,000, they're not much of a car. The fact that they require a safety certificate and certification is in and of itself the only guarantee that the thing is roadworthy. They usually don't look like much and they're purchased, as I say, either by people who are buying this first car as a handyman's special -- it seems to me that you're penalizing the very people you would want to support and encourage, and I will not be supporting the amendment.

Mr Sutherland: Again I just want to clarify for the record that we're not adding any extra tax burden that wasn't already there. As the member for Oriole will know, sales tax on used cars, while people may have concerns about that, as far as I know was in place while she was a part of the government. It was also in place during some of the 42-year period the PCs were in government.

Mrs Caplan: This legislation changes very substantially what exists and what has existed for some time. I would point out to the parliamentary assistant and to the minister that you've been the government now for two and a half years. During that time we've seen some very significant changes to revenue bills, increases in taxation.

We've seen drivers particularly hard hit in this province. We've not only seen increases to retail sales tax for used cars, we've also seen increases to auto insurance premiums and we've seen a tax on those premiums. We know how important and vital the auto industry is to the economy of Ontario, yet your government over and over again has hit the middle class, the drivers of this province and those people who are both ready to buy a new car and have to or want to sell their old car or trade it in.

I take some offence at the comments of the parliamentary assistant, because this is just part of a package of revenue and taxation policies which has been piling tax upon tax upon those who can least afford it. What I'm pointing out to you is that when you brought this legislation forward, in light of the big picture, of all the taxes that you've been heaping on the middle class and people who either want to sell their car or buy a new car, which would stimulate the economy of Ontario and create jobs, you had the opportunity to make some progressive changes. You failed to do that. You didn't do that. To stand in your place and defend it on the basis of the status quo when everyone knows the world has changed in Ontario, I think is indefensible.

Mr Cousens: Sometimes it's fun to sit here in the House and watch what goes on. The member for Oriole, with all due respect, my memory goes back to a few years ago when you were in power with the David Peterson government. There were 33 tax increases.

Mrs Caplan: And 22 tax decreases.

Mr Cousens: But there were 33 tax increases. When you were in cabinet, you were just pushing them through. You've never seen it worse for the middle- income tax earner you were just defending. So there is some benefit in seeing an honourable member become a member of the opposition, although I know it is not the desire of all people in opposition to stay there too long.

I point out, though, the failure in the honourable member's memory of the 33 tax hikes that took place in the peak years of the Peterson government, and especially after the accord with the NDP, where the two of you were such close bedfellows.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Bedpersons.

Mr Cousens: Bedpersons. I must be careful with that. I want to come back to the $1,000. How did you choose $1,000? What was the basis of that decision? Did some lobby group really make the point to you or did you choose $1,000 rather than $500? Does your $1,000 have an indexing available for inflation so that it can change or do we have to come back and look at the bill?

Mr Sutherland: I don't think there was any one specific criterion. As I said in response to the member for Oriole, part of the problem with those vehicles below $1,000 is what many people were charging for appraisals. I certainly know in my community, some of the people who came to talk to me talked about appraisals at $75 and $80. When you start talking about appraisals up in that range, you're looking at the fact that by the time you have the appraisal done, you haven't saved yourself any money. Any money that might have been saved has been used up in the appraisal. So I think that was probably the main basis for coming up with $1,000. No, it's not indexed.

Mr Cousens: We're voting against the entire bill, but I make the point --

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Glad we know.

Mr Cousens: And the amendments. You should know where we're coming from.

What comes through in the discussion by the honourable member is all part of too much government. We say it so easily when we're in here: $78 or $75 to go through these. These are heavy, heavy costs for people. The fact that there has been some recognition of that at this $1,000 level is good.

But understand that the cost of doing business in Ontario is now just so prohibitive and that we're discouraging people from wanting to do business here, from wanting to stay here. You see that with the number of people who would like to move elsewhere.

As you are in a position of great responsibility, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, as you go through the next stage, whatever it is, of involvement within that ministry, the more you can work to remove regulations, to streamline things and to make it easier for people to do business and to do transactions with the government, the better. That should be one of those things you really should start looking at. This is a very small move. I realize it shows some goodwill, but you've got to go an awful lot further than what you're going.

1750

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Sutherland: I move that subsection 4.2(8) of the act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(8) If a purchaser of a used motor vehicle pays tax under subsection (1) but could have paid tax under subsection (1.1) by providing an appraisal of the used motor vehicle at the time the tax was paid, the minister may refund to the purchaser an amount equal to the difference between the tax paid and the tax payable upon such terms and conditions as the minister may prescribe."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 6 to 13 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Sutherland: I move that section 14 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(0.1) Clause 48(3)(g) of the act is amended by inserting after 'section 2' in the second line 'or 4.2."'

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 14, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 15 to 17 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

Consideration of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de transfert de véhicules.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio): May I make a request for staff to enter the House, please?

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

We're now dealing with Bill 34. Are there any amendments?

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I intend to move five amendments to the bill at the appropriate time during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, these being the long title of the bill; section 1 of the bill, proposed section 11.1 of the Highway Traffic Act; section 1 of the bill, proposed clause 11.1(4)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act; section 2 of the bill, proposed section 43.1 of the Personal Property Security Act; and section 4 of the bill.

The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 1?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): If I may, I have a few questions I would like to ask on the bill which haven't been fully addressed in the earlier section. I could easily have given them to the parliamentary assistant before we got started, but I'm sure with the resources that are there now -- the first one has to do with the bill as a whole. Inasmuch as this bill has to do with the registration of vehicles that are being transferred from one owner to another, what legal value is there to this whole transaction, if any?

Mr Dadamo: Would you mind repeating that, please?

Mr Cousens: I want to know what the legal value of this whole thing is. I see it as an information package, and I worry about it having no real legal power to it. What is the legal power that is implicit to Bill 34? Explain what that is.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Fight fair.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Don't ask hard questions. It's almost 6 o'clock.

Mr Cousens: We're here till 8:30.

Mr Dadamo: If I may respond briefly, it actually deals with liens and the history of the vehicle; we can actually go into it and find out where it's been etc.

Mr Cousens: As you're dealing with a lien that deals with a vehicle from Ontario, what happens if there is a vehicle from Quebec? How does one deal with that? Sometimes the person who gets the information package, as you're going to call it, will have that in their hands, they'll fill it through and they'll see it all. But what happens with those vehicles that come in from another jurisdiction and have been stolen, and the person who bought the vehicle really hasn't had protection to his investment? The real question is, how does your bill deal with so many of the transactions that are really extraprovincial?

Mr Dadamo: As far as I can tell, there isn't a deal set up with the province of Quebec on that particular issue. We need to inquire on laws with Quebec, and I would imagine that certain meetings must take place to solidify that at a later date.

Mr Cousens: I was aware of that. What I really am trying to present to you is that we've really got to move towards more integration of these kinds of bills so that what goes on in one province, where you think you're in Canada and you're protected -- you really aren't, because the province hasn't come together with other jurisdictions to try to work those things out. I can see there being more of a problem if you're dealing with south of the border, but I would like to encourage you and the ministry to try to develop a more comprehensive approach to these services than what is seen here now. Maybe you have some more comments on this point.

1800

Mr Dadamo: We are trying at this point to become a role model; also, other jurisdictions have shown they're very supportive of what we are doing and what we are addressing, and that at some point we can sit down with them and be constructive and finalize.

Mr Cousens: The bottom line is that a person who buys a car and it comes from another province, it doesn't really give them any legal power because of this information package you're bringing out, and they're still going to be short the money. That's really what I'm leading to.

I want to ask you further about the information in the package. My understanding is that the information in the package has the name of the previous registrants, with the town or city, but it doesn't give the actual addresses, it doesn't give the serial number or description of the car or any outstanding liens, if any. Why does this information package not give greater detail such as I've just described, such as the actual addresses of the previous owner, the serial number, the description of the car, in case it's changed, and any outstanding liens? Why is that not included in your information package?

Mr Dadamo: I'm not sure I have the complete answer for you at this time, but we'd be happy to get the information out to you.

Mr Cousens: I'd appreciate that; if you would, I'd be grateful. To me, it shows an inadequacy of the process that we're now going to pass in the House; not to know why they aren't there is a concern.

I'd like to know what your definition is of the legal owner. As that's such a key part of what this bill is all about, could you define what the legal owner is?

Mr Dadamo: I would imagine, to put it in the simplest form, it's the person owning the car at the moment, and registered in your name; that would be the legal owner.

Mr Cousens: It could be registered in any number of ways: by a company, by a company that's gone bankrupt; it could be registered under a leasing business; it could be registered by an owner who has multiple vehicles; it could be registered with a scrap dealer; it could be registered with various other things. I don't mind leaving that with you as well, to come back and give a more clear definition through the legal resources that are available within the ministry to define what legal ownership is all about.

I want to go one more point on the information package. There is nothing in the package, to my knowledge, that tells you what the vehicle was used for. What the government's doing is saying, "Here is an information package to help people be protected when they buy." That makes sense, if you say you're going to have something like that. Then why doesn't it tell us that the vehicle was used for a taxi or for a police car, an airline limo, a pizza delivery van or whatever? If I were to buy a used vehicle and it was used for any of those purposes, it would have less value by virtue of the stop-start and the multiple drivers and what the thing was used for. Why doesn't your information package define in greater detail what the vehicle was used for?

Mr Dadamo: As far as I can give you, the definitive on that is that there is nothing written into the legislation, there is no law stating that you must be told where that particular vehicle has come from. If it was a pizza vehicle, there's no law stating that we have to tell you that.

Mr Cousens: Why is the mileage not recorded in the information sheet? I know we've got pretty strong rules now to prohibit you from turning back the clock on the car. Why is that not on your information package?

Mr Dadamo: As before to the member, it still is not written into the legislation that this has to be recorded and has to be told to you at the time of sale.

Mr Cousens: I've put these on record. I wanted to get comment back from the parliamentary assistant. What we're dealing with is a very flawed piece of legislation. If you look at this --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You say every piece of legislation ever brought into this place has always been flawed.

Mr Cousens: The honourable member is saying everything's flawed. This bill has been in the House since June 1, 1992: 13 months.

Mr Perruzza: I have yet to hear you say any piece of legislation is not flawed.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Cousens: If you want to be part of the debate, this debate can go for quite a while.

The Chair: The member for Markham, please.

Mr Cousens: I'm saying the bill has been on the order paper for 13 months, and it is still flawed. We're still talking about the anomalies of dealing with cars that are brought in from other jurisdictions. We're dealing with the situation where cars may have been a wreck and have been fixed up, and the person has no way of knowing that within the legislation. You're talking about an information package that's going to help people who are buying a vehicle to know what it was used for. There is nothing there that tells you what it was used for, how many miles or kilometres are on it. There is no security at all to the person who is buying it.

I want to just put on the record that what we're dealing with here is a very flawed piece of legislation which I'm not going to support. You can put forward your amendments now, and I just wanted to make sure that some of those thoughts were expressed.

The Chair: I believe you have an amendment to section 1. Would you please read your amendment.

Mr Dadamo: I move that section 11.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out "vehicle transfer package" and "vehicle transfer packages" wherever they occur and substituting "used vehicle information package" or "used vehicle information packages" as required.

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Mr Dadamo: I move that clause 11.1(4)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(d) exempting any class of sellers or transferors from the application of subsection (1) or any class of purchasers or transferees from the application of subsection (3)."

The Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr Dadamo: I move that section 43.1 of the Personal Property Security Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "vehicle transfer package" wherever it occurs and substituting "used vehicle information package."

1810

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 carry? Carried.

Mr Dadamo: I move that section 4 of the bill be amended by striking out "Vehicle Transfer Package" in the first and second lines and substituting "Used Vehicle Information Package."

Mr Cousens: The only concern that I have is, why has the government not come in with a true title system for vehicles that really has some kind of legal hold to it rather than an information package? Can you deal with that question?

I mean, other jurisdictions are beginning to have some way in which a vehicle is registered and the information on that vehicle is clearly defined. What we're dealing with is a very weak type of document that just sort of helps a little bit, but it does not really have the binding authority that a title would have over a vehicle.

That will be my last question on your series. Why is it you haven't moved further on this whole thing to allow pure title to be registered and to be guaranteed in the whole transaction?

Mr Dadamo: Can I just say to the member that's a section that I'm really not that versed on. Am I permitted to get the answer to you at a later date? Fair?

The Chair: Shall the amendment to section 4 carry? Carried.

Shall section 4, as amended, carry? Carried.

I believe you have an amendment on the title.

Mr Dadamo: I move that the long title of the bill be amended by striking out "Vehicle Transfer Packages" and substituting "Used Vehicle Information Packages."

The Chair: Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall Bill 34, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.

Hon Mr Wilson: Mr Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Shall the motion carry? Carried.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The committee of the whole House begs to report two bills with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Hon Mr Wilson: I request unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 32.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Mr Sutherland moved third reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I believe we had a very extensive debate during second reading. We've had committee of the whole. Because I'm sure the opposition members, or some of them, are going to get up and again say that there are tax increases, I want to state for the record one more time that people have had to pay sales tax on used vehicle sales. They've had to do that for many years.

This mechanism is allowing us to ensure that everyone is paying the appropriate amount of tax, because clearly if people are to have faith in the tax system, then those hardworking people who pay the appropriate amount of sales tax need to be assured that everyone else is paying the appropriate amount of sales tax. I believe the measures in Bill 32 allow us to do that more effectively.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm going to keep my third reading debate very, very short. This bill was tabled for the first time in June 1992. It followed what we're now referring to as that ill-fated budget of spring of 1992. The government has not brought it forward until this summer of 1993 for third reading. It's a bad piece of legislation. It's not fair. It hits the middle class and motorists in this province in a way which is regressive. It raises taxes at a time when every objective, thoughtful observer is saying to the government, "This is not the time to raise taxes."

I think there should be a rule that says that if the government hasn't got all of its tax bills in place before the next budget, they should automatically fall from the order paper, because it adds tremendously to the confusion and to the cynicism of the public. The government has been collecting this tax since June 1992. I think it is regrettable that we stand here July 28, 1993, debating a budget bill from the 1992 spring budget of the NDP government. It's just another example of NDP mismanagement and it's another example of misguided fiscal and taxation policy. We will not be supporting it.

Mr Sutherland: I don't want to drag this debate out in third reading. I know we're in third reading but, once again, the member for Oriole and members of her caucus have got up and it seems to be a common habit that on any type of move the government makes, whether it's a specific tax measure for enforcement purposes to ensure everybody is being treated fairly or whether it's revenue increases for licences, they want to say everything is a tax increase, everything is a case of mismanagement.

That is just simply not the case in this. As I've said many times, people have for a long time had to pay sales tax on used car sales. Not everybody has been paying the appropriate amount of tax on used car sales. This bill is designed to ensure that there is greater enforcement. You know as well as I do that while people are concerned about paying taxes and don't want to pay more taxes, they get even more concerned when they think their neighbour or someone else they know is getting away without paying the taxes they have to pay. That really irritates people. This is an enforcement measure to ensure that we can collect tax that people are already supposed to be paying.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I wouldn't be serving the tax fighter well if I didn't say just a word about the strong position that our leader, Mike Harris, has taken ever since he took over the leadership of our party three years ago. The fact is that the Liberals before you and now you are in the tradition of taxing the province just to the point where people have reached the wall. It's the tax wall.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Tax fighter? He sent out a mailing of the Toronto Star --

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, if I'm going to be interrupted by --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Downsview, you don't have the floor.

Mr Cousens: -- hungry people who need to have a banana, then let them go and do it. I mean, there are ways for them to participate in the debate.

Mr Perruzza: He's a tax fighter. He photocopied a copy of the Toronto Star and sent it to every councillor.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, I ask you to come to order.

Mr Cousens: Actually, they just don't know how to take it. There is a way in which you as an honourable member in the House can be honourable, and that is that when you have a chance to speak, stand up and speak. You don't have to keep interrupting other members when they're speaking. That's really what it's all about.

Mr Perruzza: You photocopied the Toronto Star and you sent that to everybody.

Mr Cousens: My rights as an opposition member are such that I should have the right --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, we have procedures that we follow. I ask you to remain quiet. The member for Markham.

1820

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn't mean to wake him up. It would be better if he'd just stayed asleep, the way he's been for the last two years since he's been in the House.

The point I want to make is that it's another tax. The government can't stop taxing the people of Ontario, and all we really need to do is if you ran the government more efficiently and if you began to remove --

Mr Perruzza: You photocopied the Toronto Star and you sent it around, a 43-cent stamp.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, I don't have too many alternatives to ask you to keep quiet. The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's difficult to make a point with the kind of interruptions that are coming so rudely and so fast and so loud from the honourable member for Downsview.

The Deputy Speaker: I'm sorry, but your time has expired. The member for Oriole, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Caplan: Just to conclude the debate, we will not be supporting this bill. I believe it's bad public policy. It certainly isn't in the interests of the public at this time to see any additional revenues taken out of the economy. We've heard from the parliamentary assistant that they seem to be quite sensitive about whether or not this bill technically raises taxes or not. In fact, the results of this legislation will be to remove additional dollars from the economy. We know that economists tell us that for every $40,000 you take out, you kill a job. This legislation will kill more jobs. This is not the time to see any additional revenues taken from the economy, and for that reason we will not be supporting this legislation.

Mr Cousens: I have a chance to speak now without the limits of time. I think I've made the point, and for once I agree with the member for Oriole, that I'm not going to support the bill. It's an additional burden to the people of Ontario. The government has to reach the point where you run things more efficiently rather than go back into the pockets of the people of Ontario.

We really have to find ways of getting together on this. The system isn't working. People are being discouraged totally from wanting to live and work in the province of Ontario, and one of the reasons that's happening is because of the very heavy tax load. If we could find efficiencies in government, if we could eliminate the fraud in the social assistance, improve the health card, find ways of doing things better, then we wouldn't need to continue the heavy taxing that's going on within our province.

This bill will pass. The government's been extremely late in dealing with it, but now it's about to be over. Let's just say goodbye to Bill 32 and the people can end up paying for it the way they will anyway.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved third reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): I respectfully request unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 34.

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

VEHICLE TRANSFER PACKAGE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES DOSSIERS DE TRANSFERT DE VÉHICULES

Mr Dadamo, on behalf of Mr Pouliot, moved third reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act and the Personal Property Security Act in respect of Vehicle Transfer Packages / Loi modifiant le Code de la route et la Loi sur les sûretés mobilières à l'égard des dossiers de transfert de véhicules.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I'd like to give brief comments. Passage of this bill will require people selling used vehicles privately to purchase the package, make it available to prospective buyers and deliver it to the buyer at the time of sale. Buyers will then be required to present the package in order to transfer the vehicle registration to their name.

Mandatory use of the package should help to reduce problems in the marketplace, including unscrupulous vendors who misrepresent the previous use of vehicles or who fail to provide accurate information on the existence of any liens.

Only private sales of cars, light trucks, vans, motorcycles and motor homes will be affected by this bill. We will recognize exemptions for such transactions as gifts between certain family members and sales by licensed dealers who must satisfy the separate requirements under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Since February 1993, the information package has been available, and we have encouraged voluntary use of the package for private sale of any vehicles in the province of Ontario.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As Revenue critic, it's my responsibility to carry Bill 34 for the official opposition. I spoke at length during second reading and now, during third reading debate, I'm just going to make a couple of points.

This legislation was first tabled in June 1992 as a result of the budget of 1992. It's now over a year; we're in the summer of 1993. This has been in place, and people have been confounded and confused. I think what they have realized is that Bill 34 has complicated essentially a private transaction.

This government has given new meaning to the old phrase, "If it moves, tax it." It's my view that Bill 34, which requires people to purchase a vehicle information package -- it used to be called a vehicle transfer package -- is really just a tax grab. Charging people for something they don't want is just another way for the Treasurer to take more money out of the economy.

I think the new system that is proposed in Bill 34 is unfair to both used car buyers as well as sellers. It creates additional red tape for people who simply want to sell their car or people who want to buy a used car. In essence, this is yet another way for the Treasurer to enhance the treasury at the expense of motorists in Ontario, who have been very hard hit by the policies of the NDP government.

We know that motorists have faced increases in their insurance premiums as a result of the government's auto insurance legislation. They've had increases in the costs of premiums because of the retail sales tax being imposed, 5% on top of the increase in premiums. We know that the curbsider legislation, Bill 32, ensured that taxes were collected where, previous to that, people were not paying them on insurance. Now we have Bill 34, which imposes yet another irritation and aggravation and takes additional money out of the economy at a time when we should not be seeing additional resources being taken out of the economy.

We will not be supporting Bill 34. It is a piece of legislation that is not deserving of support.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The bill is flawed. When we were reviewing it through second reading and committee of the whole, it became increasingly obvious that the government has not moved to the extent that it could and should to protect people who are going to be buying a vehicle.

You can buy a car, and if the car is one that's been fixed up after an accident -- it might be imported into Canada from the United States -- it should have on it in some way something that says it's salvaged, that it was a wreck. That is not there. What we're really inviting into Ontario are the wrecks from other jurisdictions. There is no control here. There's no legal value. When you say you have an information package and you fill it out, it still does not protect the buyer.

A government that's in a position to protect people has a chance to do something by establishing title on the vehicle so that those who are making the investment in a vehicle -- it's one of the biggest investments that many of us ever have to make. Let's have some way of protecting that investment. As it stands now, where we're dealing with a bill that has caused a considerable amount of confusion. We started out when it was called a vehicle transfer package, and now it's called a vehicle information package; extremely misleading to the public. They feel they're going to be protected with this information when in fact they're not. This information we're trying to get in this package is available anyway, anywhere right now.

1830

One of the positive things you could have done is that you could have taken advantage of all the linkage of information that exists among the ministries of the government and then do something with it, but not so. I've tried to point out through some questions to the parliamentary assistant this evening, when we were talking about the flaws in the package, that there is no legal proof, no legal entity to it.

The package itself does not have an expiry date. A lien may be registered against a vehicle while someone is in possession of the package: You go and pick up the package from the Ministry of Transportation and while you're dealing with it, someone could register a lien on it. There really isn't any way you can control that.

You're not dealing with vehicles from other jurisdictions, so a vehicle stolen from Quebec or another province or the States will really cause nothing but trouble for the buyer.

I've tried to point out how incomplete the information in the package is. It doesn't give the actual addresses of the people; it doesn't give the serial numbers; it doesn't give a description of the car; it doesn't describe any outstanding liens; it does not define who the legal owner is, and I think that's something that should be within the information package. That may be something the parliamentary assistant can take back to the ministry to look at that. There's nothing that shows on the information package whether that vehicle was used for a police car or an airline limo, pizza delivery or whatever; mileage is not recorded; there's nothing showing whether the vehicle -- I mentioned this earlier -- is a salvaged wreck.

A gentleman in my riding, Mr Keith Chandler, who's president of Canadian Title Systems, has brought forward a number of proposals that the government has had an opportunity to listen to. I hope the government will still have an open mind to try to find ways to protect the consumer. The consumer who buys a car really needs to have that protection, and there are ways of doing it. British Columbia is looking at it. In the United States, there is a whole new process that's being reviewed by the US government that will protect purchasers of vehicles.

All I'm asking is that the government have a review of that. The legislation coming in now is flawed, but there is time in the future to do something about it. Hopefully, the government will take the comments I've made in the spirit in which I've tried to give them and find a positive way of dealing with what is a very, very real problem. I have never had the problem of buying a lemon or a car which I didn't know where it came from, but I know that it happens more frequently than we need. We've got to protect people, and if there's anything we can do to protect the public, that's something we as legislators should do.

I'm going to vote against the bill. As it stands now, it is incomplete, it's flawed. The fact that it's taken you 13 months to bring it forward for final reading is really a disgrace. So much of what's going on within this House really has that kind of time lag to it. No wonder people get frustrated with government if you can't order the business of the House more efficiently than that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): If not, Mr Dadamo, you have the last word.

Mr Dadamo: I would like to be brief as well on this one. Let me just say that this new section, which is 11.1 of the Highway Traffic Act, will require a person who sells or transfers a used motor vehicle to deliver to the buyer or transferee a vehicle transfer package. The vehicle transfer package of course will be made available from the Ministry of Transportation and as well from the registrar of personal property security.

A purchaser or transferee of a used motor vehicle will be required to produce the vehicle transfer package for the vehicle before obtaining a permit for the vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act. The contents of the vehicle transfer package will be defined by regulation. Fees for the package will be prescribed by regulation; and provision is also made for regulations, exemptions from the requirements related to the vehicle transfer packages.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Dadamo moves third reading of Bill 34. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I resolve that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): I ask for unanimous consent to do the 31st order, sir.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

BUDGET STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN FONCTION DU BUDGET

Mr Sutherland moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 84, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax and reduce certain expenditures as referred to in the 1993 Budget / Loi modifiant certaines lois afin d'éliminer l'impôt sur les concentrations commerciales et de réduire certaines dépenses comme le prévoit le budget de 1993.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I don't have extensive comments to make at the beginning of second reading. The only thing I can say is that I'm quite positive the opposition is going to support this, particularly the member for Mississauga West, because I distinctly remember, on the day the budget was brought down, the distinguished mayor of Mississauga going up to the Finance minister, the Honourable Floyd Laughren, and extending sincere congratulations and appreciation for Mr Laughren taking away the commercial concentration tax.

There may have been some merit to having a concentration tax in 1989 when the economy was still very growing and the Metro area was really developing, but it's quite clear in this economy, with so much surplus space out there, office space etc, that the concentration tax is not appropriate in 1993, and therefore the government has withdrawn it.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): It's interesting that the parliamentary assistant, Mr Sutherland, would use the example of Mayor McCallion congratulating the Minister of Finance for eliminating the commercial concentration tax. That was the day of the budget. I remember it well, because she was sitting in my office, watching everything that was going on.

As you can appreciate, when legislation comes down like that, one simply takes the title at face value. The title of the bill says "to eliminate the commercial concentration tax and reduce certain expenditures" and provide for increase of certain revenues. It doesn't tell you what's in the bill.

I would have liked to be a fly on the wall when Mayor McCallion discovered what was in the bill and have seen her then talk to the Minister of Finance. Something tells me there might have been a different message coming out of Mayor Hazel when she realized that the original legislation, not Bill 84 that we're dealing with but Bill 29, amended some 14 acts.

1840

It was, in my short six years in this place and in the previous nine or so in municipal government, the first time I had seen such an omnibus bill. I don't even know if you could describe it as omnibus because -- just take a look -- it dealt with absolutely the elimination of the commercial concentration tax. Then it went on to amend the Legal Aid Act, then to amend the Corporations Information Act, to expand the power of the Ontario Science Centre, then to expand the power of the St Lawrence Parks Commission, then to end the Employee Share Ownership Plan Act, then to end the Small Business Development Corporations Act, then to amend the Health Insurance Act -- I'm still on the same bill -- then to amend the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, then -- here's one that really relates to the commercial concentration tax -- to amend the Game and Fish Act. Right in there, there's a lot of hunting and fishing that goes on in the GTA.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Well, certain parts.

Mr Mahoney: Well, no, it belongs in that, a certain amount, but I'm talking about the Game and Fish Act. You behave.

Then to amend the Public Lands Act, North Pickering. Is that where the dump is? I'm trying to get my bearings here. The one that you want, to amend the Public Lands Act. There were 14 pieces of legislation. How this parliamentary assistant, with due respect, could wind up being the one carrying this legislation is really quite strange.

What happened? Let's just talk about the history a little bit. The government House leader and my House leader, the member for Bruce, and the Tory House leader, the member for Parry Sound, meet, along with the three party whips, once a week and we discuss business of the day, the week, the month, the Legislature.

There were some 26 pieces of legislation that were brought on the table to go through in a very short period of time in this place, because this government, if you go right back, failed to recall the Legislature in a timely fashion. Now we're sitting here on July 28, looking like we're extending into August, and that's fine, to deal with government bills and pieces of legislation that this government has not been competent enough to bring to the floor of this Legislature.

This was the one that they decided they could just sneak through. They could get people like Mayor McCallion to congratulate the Finance minister because she thought it truly was --

Mr Sutherland: She did it on her own.

Mr Mahoney: Just a minute. You have to admit she had not read the bill, she did not know there were 14 amendments to the bill. It was totally misrepresented.

If you want to tell somebody that all you're doing is eliminating what many have referred to as the "hated commercial concentration tax," well, of course, a mayor of a municipality like Mississauga or Scarborough or North York or other parts of the GTA is going to say: "Good move. Good move for business."

Let me tell you, the member for Oriole introduced her own bill, also numbered 29, on July 7. It was a private member's bill and it solely dealt with the elimination of the commercial concentration tax. She didn't try to do some magic by weaving in game and fish acts and the Ontario Science Centre and all of these things. She didn't try to trick anybody.

The member for Oriole stood up in this place and said: "When I tabled the bill I noted the surprise on the Finance minister's face, and in fact he should be surprised. It is quite unusual for an opposition member to table government legislation, and that is what my bill is today." It is exactly the same number as the first sections of Bill 29 that deal with the commercial concentration tax repeal. There was no trickery, and that is exactly what you attempted to do.

Of course, the other thing is if you could then force members of the opposition to vote against the bill because of all the damaging amendments that were in here, then you could go around in the intersession and tell anyone who wanted to listen that opposition members in both opposition parties were opposed to repealing the commercial concentration tax. Tell me that was not the method you were attempting to put forward.

How could we simply vote for a bill that totally ignored the entire pharmacists' community in the province of Ontario, that unilaterally by this government, without any discussion, without any debate, without any input by the pharmacists --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't think there's a quorum here for this presentation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check if there is quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, thank you. Interruptions like that almost require you to start over, but I'll try to pick up from where I was, if I can.

The problem, as I was enunciating --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): No short-term memory.

Mr Mahoney: No, I'll never forget what's-his-name. I don't have a problem with memory.

As I said, the government was clearly attempting to back the opposition parties into a corner of voting against the elimination of a tax. Let me congratulate members of the pharmaceutical industry out there in Ontario, because we saw very, very quickly mobilized a protest and a telephone and a fax campaign to get the message through, certainly to the opposition parties, but also, I'm sure, to all of the backbench government members over there. All the druggists, the pharmacists in your ridings, I'm sure, were calling you, saying, "What are you trying to do here?" Clearly, they were attempting to set pharmaceutical dispensing fees by fiat, rather than by negotiation, with a very heavy-handed approach.

But more importantly, if that alone had come in as an amendment, as a separate bill, then you could say: "Maybe we don't agree with that and there should be consultation, there should be some committee process, there should be an opportunity for input from the pharmacists. There should be an opportunity to hear from seniors, who are clearly affected by drug prices and dispensing fees. There should be all of that opportunity." If it was a separate bill, then you could say, "We don't agree with this government once again, but we do at least recognize that they are the government for the time being and they have a right to introduce a piece of legislation to make changes."

But when they attempt to bring it in by hiding it on the back of Bill 29 and by not telling people what's in there and wrapping it up in a bow as if it's the elimination of a tax, Kimble, that wasn't your idea. I know you're a more honest parliamentarian than that and that clearly you would have put the message out right on the front burner to say this is what you wanted to do.

So what happened? The reason I tell you about all of these hidden changes that were buried in the original bill that has led us to Bill 84 was, frankly, through the negotiations by my House leader and the House leader for the third party, who simply said: "We're not going to put up with this. Now either you amend this Bill 29, withdraw it or bring in sections of the bill that we might be prepared to allow to go through. Even though we might not like them, we might be prepared to give in to some, if you eliminate the ones that we're just not prepared" -- otherwise, I tell you, we'd be here right straight through to December 25 debating this bill alone because of the heavy-handed, draconian way in which this government introduced the original bill.

Let me talk about the commercial concentration tax.

1850

Mr Cousens: You brought it in.

Mr Mahoney: We brought it in, and it was a tax that took a lot of heat, I say to the member for Markham. But interestingly enough, at least there was a direction there. While it was difficult to explain to the communities and to the private sector that was impacted by it, you could say to them: "Look, we're going to give you more GO trains. We're going to improve" -- in the case of my own riding -- "the GO train service for Erindale, through to Streetsville and on into Milton. We're going to increase the frequency of that particular line. We are putting a tax on."

At the time, we said, "The commercial concentration tax will go towards the program known as Let's Move," a program, by the way, that I congratulate. One of the members opposite said that we never say anything good over here. Generally, that's true, because there are not a lot of good things to say about what's going on, but I think for the most part you have tried to carry on the beginnings of the Let's Move transportation program. Minister Pouliot has worked reasonably hard at attempting to carry on that fine Liberal program that was introduced, but you have to pay for these things.

Mr Sutherland: No.

Mr Mahoney: Yes. You have to pay for them. So it was our government's suggestion that we put in place a commercial concentration tax and that the money generated go directly towards improving transportation services in the GTA. That's called user fees. It was at one time a position that the Tory party used to support, that the people who get the benefit are the people who should pay. Why should someone from Parry Sound be funding improvements to the Gardiner Expressway?

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): They've been doing it for years.

Mr Mahoney: They have been doing it for years, and that's my point. My point is that this was seen as a tax that would be specific to a community that would reap the benefit of it. For too long, we've been thought of in eastern Ontario and northern Ontario and southwestern Ontario as the province of Toronto. Clearly, we're not the province of Toronto and we're not the province of greater Toronto.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Mississauga.

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): The province of Mississauga.

Mr Mahoney: No, that includes Mississauga. Toronto, Mississauga, North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, Markham, all vitally important parts of the economic engine that drives the greater part of this great province of Ontario. But there is some rationale that says if you're going to spend money in a particular area, maybe you should try to raise the revenue from those citizens who will benefit from that. Frankly, that's what the commercial concentration tax was all about.

We realize that this economy and particularly the recession that started in some earnest about three years ago has been exacerbated by much of the legislation and many of the policies this government has put in place. If you ask a citizen out there what's the one thing that could happen in this province that would give a boost to the economy, that would give a sense of confidence to the business community, they would not say, "Get rid of free trade," they would say, "Get rid of Bob Rae." That's what they would say, my friend. That is the one thing that would boost the confidence of everybody in the province of Ontario. So we're getting rid of something. We're taking away a tax.

What was really interesting is that members will recall on budget day how all the seals were there and everything was lined up and, boy, Floyd read out how we're going to eliminate -- remember the two taxes? "We're going to eliminate the tire tax." Great applause. "We're going to eliminate the commercial concentration tax." Great applause. "We're going to impose an insurance premium tax." There was silence. Do you remember? There was real silence back there. They were saying, "Oh, well, maybe we'll just try to sneak that one through."

Let me just tell you, Mr Speaker, just to get an idea of the difference in the impact, the commercial concentration tax last year brought in $111 million in revenue to the province of Ontario. By the way, it will bring in another $45 million this year, so it's not totally eliminated yet; but $111 million. The tire tax, and I'm approximating this, earned about $45 million last year. We're talking about $155 million in revenue.

That's elimination of a tax. Nobody liked that darned tire tax. You'd go to Canadian Tire, you'd buy a new tire, and gee, they'd charge you a $5 tire tax on top of the Ontario sales tax. I didn't like it. Nobody liked it. It was visible. It was up front. They told you what it was for. Everybody remembers Hagersville.

In fact, it was Bob Rae, when he used to sit over here -- what do you call him? Robert K. Rae QC -- screaming that it was all Bob Nixon's fault that Hagersville burnt and that Jim Bradley, the Minister of the Environment, couldn't do anything about it.

The tire tax was put in once again for the specific purpose of generating revenue to be spent --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Let me finish -- on research on how to get rid of tires. Was it done? No.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: Listen to me. I'm admitting it. Don't get so excited here. I admit it wasn't done.

I have been saying for years that when a tax is put on, the taxpayers should know what the money is being raised for, how much is needed by the government, when the money will be spent on the project that it's designated for, and then the tax should end. You sunset the tax and you set specific purposes for the use of the money.

Explain that to the taxpayers. Tell them that you're going to put on a tax that will indeed solve the problem of used tires that are accumulating all over this province. Explain to them that you're putting on a tax on commercial properties that will indeed generate revenue to be spent on improving the transportation infrastructure in the province or in the GTA. Explain it and tell them how long it's going to take, based on your best guesstimates, how long it's going to take to raise the money you need and then end the tax.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sorry to interrupt the member --

Mr Mahoney: Another quorum call?

Mr Stockwell: It was a good speech, but I think we should have a quorum to hear it. It's a very good speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there a quorum?

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, the member for Etobicoke West, for pointing that out.

The point I was making is very simply that we should be very specific when we introduce taxation. We should tell the public what it is, because by and large the public are the ones we should be servicing, who should be benefiting, whether it's improvements to the Gardiner, whether it's new GO train facilities, new cars, more lines. Whatever it is, we should benefit.

I pointed out that there was about $155 million in reduced revenue by this government in that budget by eliminating the hated tire tax and the hated commercial concentration tax, and then they introduced the lovable insurance tax. How much do you think that generates? Let me tell you: $745 million will be generated revenue year over revenue year from taxing every driver, every young person, every senior citizen.

We're not just talking automobiles. How are you going to have a house without insurance on it? Do you have a choice? If you do, you're playing with fire, you're playing with serious loss and risk to your family, and so you have no choice. But I think I've figured out the government's mentality in this.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to know where you've got that figure. I'd like to know where he got that number from, if he could be clear because I --

The Deputy Speaker: It's not a point of order. Take your seat.

Mr Stockwell: So it's the first time you've heard of it. So you don't know if it's true or not?

Mr Mahoney: It probably is the first time he's heard it, because I know that one of the honourable members opposite told me that he had been assured in a caucus meeting that all small businesses were exempt from this insurance tax. He swore that was the case the day after the budget. He said, "Steve, I tell you, for sure, small businesses are exempt." I won't mention his name to embarrass him, but I said: "So-and-so, that's not true."

Mr Stockwell: Randy.

Mr Mahoney: No, it wasn't Randy Hope. I said, "That's not true," and he swore it was. I said, "Go and get me the part in the budget that says there is an exemption for small business and I'll be delighted to eat the page in front of you." Now, I haven't seen him. He hasn't shown up, because it ain't there.

1900

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): He was only pulling your leg.

Mr Mahoney: Well, somebody was pulling his leg, I say to the member; somebody was pulling his leg. I saved him from some embarrassment, because he would have gone back to his riding and tried to convince the proletariat that indeed their small businesses were sacrosanct in the mind of this government and that they would be exempt from that.

We're talking about a $600-million windfall for this government. You ask yourself, "Why would they tax something that is not an option?" If you have a car, it's law that you've got to have insurance; that's not an option. Why would they tax senior citizens paying the premium on their home insurance?

Did you read in the paper where the delivery boys who deliver the newspapers in communities have to pay $50 for insurance? They've got to pay tax on that. You're taxing the newspaper delivery boy. It's unbelievable. You just grab at everything and anything you can. Unbelievable. If it moves, tax it.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I know you're going to get me on that, but I'll get you back, and at the end of the day no one will really care, so be quiet.

Very clearly, the attempts to package up the elimination of the commercial concentration tax are really quite laughable.

Let me tell you what I think the mentality of the government is. If you went around this room and asked everybody in this room when their insurance premiums come due, when their policies expire or are up for renewal, I would venture to say that, with the exception of the Downsview twins, everyone would have different expiry dates, I'm sure. Well, you probably buy your cars together. You get a cheaper deal if you buy two motorcycles at once. Everyone would have a different date, and therefore it's not --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: The member from Etobicoke's losing it, or he lost it a long time ago; perhaps that's the message.

Everyone would have different dates where their insurance premiums would come due; therefore, you would never get a concerted, angry effort from the constituents out there. You'd get a couple of calls in August and a few calls in September and a couple of calls in November. It's divide and conquer.

You see, I believe, and I know my colleagues believe, that everything this government does has some kind of hidden agenda or motive or sneaky way of doing it, and this bill proves it to be the case. Absolutely no question about it.

What they've done is they've taken away the commercial concentration tax. Hallelujah. Are you in favour of that? All in favour? Carried. I'm in favour of that. I think it's absolutely the right thing to do.

But then you go on. You expand the powers of the Ontario Science Centre. Are they happy? Well, they're a little scared. How are you expanding those powers? This is really quite ironic for an NDP government to be doing this. This should be Tory legislation; I'm sure they'll vote for it. "So they can follow a more commercial mandate than possible under the current legislation."

Mr Stockwell: Right on.

Mr Mahoney: "Right on," he says: more commercial. Well, do you know what they want them to do, though, to the member for Etobicoke West? They want to generate some profit out of the Ontario Science Centre -- not a bad idea -- so that it comes back into the government coffers so they can whittle away at that, what is it now, $9.2-billion deficit? They're deficit-fighting on the Ontario Science Centre.

Now, who is that going to impact? Well, who uses the science centre? An awful lot of school kids, I'll tell you. An awful lot of school kids go to that Ontario Science Centre so they can further their education, and you're turning it into a more commercial mandate than previous so that you can generate some more revenue. "Revenue," in government parlance, is another word for tax. It is another word for tax.

So once again, the trick's here: They eliminate the commercial concentration tax --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry they get so upset; I'll try to talk to you -- and then they find a new way of generating revenue, which means generating tax.

Mrs Haslam: No, it doesn't.

Mr Mahoney: Well, we'll see. They also expand the powers of the St Lawrence Parks Commission. Why are they doing that? Let's examine why they're doing that. They're doing it so they can get more revenue out of Old Fort Henry in Kingston. And what's revenue? I say to the members to my left physically and my right philosophically --

Mr Stockwell: That's not true.

Mr Mahoney: Not totally, but close. Help me with this now. What is another word for revenue for a government?

Mr Stockwell: Taxation.

Mr Mahoney: Taxation. So we have more taxation.

The one that really gets me, I say to the member for Oxford, who stands up and says he's sure I'm going to vote for this, is that they want to end the Small Business Development Corporations Act, which I think even the Conservatives would support, which offers incentives to investors to place money in Ontario's small companies. They did not eliminate this because there was no interest, let me tell you. There have been more than 1,300 registrations under this program and, I admit, the government cost has been about $175 million.

But what the NDP never does, and again it fails to do it here, is to analyse not just what is the cost, but what is the cost-benefit? Are we actually making money out of this? Are we getting people investing in Ontario businesses, creating jobs, creating taxation, revenue, call it what you like? Let's not worry about the cost-benefit; let's just look at the cost. We'll look at this side of the ledger. We'll forget this side of the ledger, and we'll axe it.

What that then does is force you to increase your revenue in other areas that heretofore you had not done. The fact of the matter is that it almost borders -- Mr Speaker, I use this word with some care -- on being fraudulent when a bill purports to eliminate a tax in its own right but in fact generates increased revenue, aka taxation, for the government in other aspects.

I suggest to you that this bill is trickery, even with the amendments that have been put in place. I heard the Minister of Agriculture and Food yelling earlier in reference to Bills 34 and 32. He referred to them as fair taxation. You've set up your fair taxation mentality. The public out there is saying, "We don't think you're being fair; we think you're fooling us," and it's up to members of this opposition to constantly be on guard, to never give approval to a bill put forward by this government without examining every word, every paragraph, every sentence, without looking at every i to see that it's dotted and every t to see that it's crossed. Otherwise, we do a disservice to the people we represent, because this government has shown it is quite prepared to trick not only the opposition but the public at large with its ad hoc amendments to certain legislation going through in an omnibus style of bill.

I want to make it clear that I am very much supportive, and my party; in fact, as I mentioned earlier, the member for Oriole introduced a private member's bill that would have eliminated the commercial concentration tax. We understand that it's time to put some incentive back into the economy, that it's time to say to the small business entrepreneur that we believe you indeed are the one who can save this province.

It's time we had less government. It's time this government started practising what the Premier likes to say in public but never delivers in a cabinet meeting; that is, we've got to look to the private sector to help get the economy going so we can generate more revenue so that our deficits can be reduced. We have to do it not just for the sake of those of us here on July 28, but for all of us coming here in future generations and for the entire future population of Ontario.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to put on the record some of the concerns I have about this particular legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions, any comments? The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: From the speech that was just delivered by the member for Mississauga West -- it's a two-minute thing, by the way -- I can only suggest to this House that he must not have been in favour of the commercial concentration tax when he was a part of the government.

Mr Wiseman: He said he was.

Mr Stockwell: Look, I can understand that, and sometimes you get caught in a position of having to --

Mr Cousens: Suck and blow.

Mr Stockwell: Sometimes you get caught in a position that your party puts forward policies and positions and you're left in the awkward situation of having to either simply vote in favour of those policies put forward or stick by your principles and oppose them.

I guess I can understand that, because I think when this was introduced, of the two taxes that were levied by the previous administration that I found probably the most offensive, this was definitely one of them. Coming from the Metropolitan Toronto area, or the greater Toronto area as they refer to it, it was a tax that was just obviously a Toronto tax. There was nothing else that could explain this.

Mr Wiseman: It was Durham too.

Mr Stockwell: Well, a Toronto tax, being the greater Toronto area, GTA, I just said that, and it was a greater Toronto area tax.

The revenues were suggested, and the argument that was made, "You'll get some extra GO trains or a few more stops," may well be true in Mississauga, but the vast majority of the money that was derived from the commercial concentration tax came from Metropolitan Toronto. The bottom line on that is: Let's Move was a nice-playing document, but it was never instituted in Metropolitan Toronto and we didn't get any great transportation improvements in Metropolitan Toronto under that Liberal government.

I can understand today why you'd see it as an offensive tax because with the depression that's taken place in the commercial sector of Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area, it has even become more obviously a distasteful tax to those people who in fact work in Metropolitan Toronto or own commercial property in Metropolitan Toronto, so I'm happy to see the tax go.

The other segments and points he made in his speech are very well taken. This government has simply replaced a bad tax with a couple of bad taxes, and the couple of bad taxes they replaced it with are going to generate a heck of a lot more money than the bad tax they retired. So to me, that's not any great victory for the taxpayer, it's moving one bad tax off for another.

Mr Sutherland: I just want to clarify a couple of points that the member for Mississauga West has made, particularly related to comments about the bill and how it refers to the St Lawrence Parks Commission.

The member tried to indicate that the changes being put forward were a tax increase. They're not a tax increase. What has to occur now is that any moneys or fees that the parks commission collects go into the consolidated revenue fund. Then, when we give money back to the parks commission, we give them some type of transfer payment, plus we give them an amount equal to the fees that they have collected.

We've heard a lot from the two other parties about effective management policies, about streamlining. I can't think of a more archaic process than the St. Lawrence Parks Commission collecting its fees at the park, submitting them and then us having to give the equal amount back. If that isn't an archaic, outdated management process, I don't know what is.

The Liberal government was there for five years. That's something they could have dealt with. I don't know, maybe it was instituted by the Tory government, but it is not a tax increase. It is doing what they keep asking for: simplify government; simplify the process of how our different agencies operate. It just does not make any sense whatsoever for them to have to submit it and then us to give it back to them. So that is what's being done there.

The commercial concentration tax: Again, it is a good thing, and as I said earlier, I was so pleased to see that Hazel McCallion was supportive of a government initiative. I considered it a very, very historic day when I saw her congratulating the Finance minister for withdrawing the commercial concentration tax, and I'm sure there will be other initiatives she'll support.

Mrs Haslam: We all love it when the member from Mississauga central, south, east, north, whatever, stands up in this House, it's so amusing. He picks the evenings. It's like entertainment and showtime when he does his debate, and we all are his captured audience. We can't leave. We have to sit here. We keep yelling, "Don't tease the bears." He never, ever listens to us. So I'm going to be the second clarification for the mistakes he's made today.

When you're talking about the Ontario Science Centre, you're talking about a group of people who produce programs and displays, and now they're being allowed to market that, because they were so popular. There were other science centres all over the world that liked what the science centre produced and wanted to buy those particular programs or their particular expertise, and it wasn't in their mandate to do that. So we're allowing them to market skills that we have here.

It's interesting that you haven't looked deeply into these issues. You say, "Look," you say, "Gee, it's taxation." You can't see beyond -- you're supposed to look to the second and third and the fourth page when you do review and when you do research. I know it's late and I know it's hot, but that --

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): You're supposed to read beyond the title.

Mrs Haslam: Yes. Thank you very much. You're supposed to read beyond the title.

However, I do appreciate your being here tonight to entertain us. It certainly has helped the attendance on this side. We always like to see you participate in debate. It's too bad none of your friends are here. You sit over there all alone, and that's awful, but you always have friends on this side who sit night after night listening to you and we do appreciate you showing up tonight. Welcome back.

Mr Perruzza: It's with great caution that I take the floor to respond very briefly to the member from Mississauga, because each and every one of us, when you come into this place, I think you make rules for yourself. One of the rules that I try to make for myself is, never heed or try to respond to someone who is factually not honest in his assessments and in his comments. My own view is to --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You're on a borderline for your language. Just be careful.

Mr Perruzza: I'll heed my own rules and not proceed with that line of argument. But I appreciate some of the comments that the member made with respect to the concentration tax and the tire tax. When it was initially introduced, that was a hated tax. They were essentially despised. But, Mr Speaker, I'll have to tell you that I was sad to see the --

Mr Stockwell: What are you trying to say, Tony?

Mr Mahoney: Spit it out.

Mr Perruzza: What I should do is follow my own rules and allow the member from Mississauga to conclude, although I would agree that any tax element or any tax is not welcome or appreciated.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Mammoliti: On a point --

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of what?

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, put my two minutes back.

The Deputy Speaker: What kind of point?

Mr Mammoliti: I move unanimous consent to give him a couple more minutes.

Mr Mahoney: Unanimous consent. I agree with that.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Mahoney: Could I have my two minutes back on the clock, Mr Speaker? Thank you.

First of all, let me thank the members for their comments. Whether they were flattering or not, I don't much care. I always have a philosophy that if you spell the name right and use a current picture, everything else will take care of itself.

But let me point out to the rather theatrical member for Perth -- whom I've always enjoyed as well, your pronunciations in this place. May I say also, respect to you for standing up for your principles with your constituents and for having the courage to tell Mr Rae that you were not going to vote for his bill. I think all Ontarians respect that kind of integrity.

But let me just tell that perhaps you're not aware -- I did do the research. Trust me on this one. Perhaps you're not aware, Mr Speaker, and others are not aware that in fact -- let me just read, "Charging higher fees in order to visit the Ontario Science Centre and other tourist attractions is economically unsound and will hurt low-income Ontarians."

1920

Let's call a spade a spade here. Let's be realistic about this. You people are eliminating one tax and you are, in a very dubious, tricky way, bringing in other revenue generators. I don't care what you want to call a revenue generator. I've been around government for about 15 years and I call it a tax. I rest my case on that particular argument.

To the members opposite, who I realize get upset, let me tell you that you don't get nearly as upset as the senior citizens when they see the increase in the nursing home fees. You don't get nearly as upset as the young drivers, as students who have to go with the taxation we just put in here half an hour ago to increase the cost of used cars, which those kids need to go to school. You're totally on the wrong track. You've got to stop taxing Ontarians. They've had enough.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cousens: We're dealing with a bill that started out as Bill 29, and the title of the bill made everybody say, "That's one that we're going to be so pleased to support." Because the title as it was, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax -- and then it has more words -- was primarily going to eliminate the CCT, which was brought in in 1989 by the previous government, Mr David Peterson, and here they were going to do something about it.

The bill, unfortunately, includes so many other pieces of a grab bag of changes to the way Ontario does business. What you're seeing is that section 12 deals with the Ontario Drug Benefit Act and it goes into a new cost-sharing program which has the pharmacists in Ontario apoplectic about the way the government is dealing with them and the way it is dealing with previous agreements. The bill is full of detail on a wide range of subjects, and one of those happens to be the commercial concentration tax.

I'm grateful for the leadership from the member for Parry Sound, our House leader, who in discussions with the government made it very clear that we wanted, as a party, to separate the bill into two parts. It should be separated into about 20 parts if you're really going to deal specifically with all the different components of this bill, but at least we're in a position now that Bill 29 -- this is for the record as much as anything, for all those who were concerned with the diverse impacts that this bill was going to have on their businesses and in the way Ontario does business -- is now known as Bill 84, and then there's Bill 81.

We had worked that out in an agreement with the government House leader yesterday, that we're now talking about Bill 84. We're dealing with it so quickly after it was introduced by the government that we still don't even have printed copies. I'm satisfied that the government listened to us in breaking out the bill so that we can have at least a couple of sections that we can identify and separate from this larger picture that they created.

I can't believe that the New Democrats can so mismanage this House and the business of the province of Ontario, can continue to do it so badly. They haven't learned a thing since they came to power in 1990. This kind of continued amalgam, pieces of legislation, just demonstrates their failure to understand the logic that goes into putting together good legislation.

Having said that, it's also quite extraordinary that the government claims tremendous credit in eliminating the commercial concentration tax, while at the same time this year it introduces another tax on parking lots, on parking meters, so that there's an 8% sales tax now on parking meters. On the one hand you're eliminating the commercial concentration tax, and on the other you're continuing to derive revenue out of people parking their cars in the greater Toronto area and all around the province, because the new bill expands it so that anyone who's collecting money on parking is going to be paying the 8% sales tax.

This government really knows how to put its hand in your pocket and take every last penny you've got. If there's anything they were good at, they were good at saying all kinds of things against it when they were in opposition. Now that they're in government, they really know how to shove it at us. There isn't any remorse on their part. They seem to derive great pleasure in continuing to take the money away from Ontario taxpayers, while at the same time doing nothing to improve the way in which business can and should be done in the province of Ontario.

They have not begun to touch the fraud that exists in health cards. They have not begun to do anything about social assistance fraud. They have not begun to look at ways of improving expenditure control in Ontario.

This government, when it comes in with anything, has a way of doing it half-baked. That's what they've done with the commercial concentration tax, though I support the removal of the commercial concentration tax and though I fought it vigorously, as our caucus did, when the Liberals brought it in under their previous Treasurer, Mr Nixon. We said, and everybody said: "Don't do it. It's a stupid thing to do."

The member from Etobicoke said it well: There isn't any doubt it was one of the worst pieces of legislation of the previous government. Taxation in itself is bad, but a bad tax, a tax that has universal anger and dismay about it -- you look at the people who were impacted by the commercial concentration tax. They didn't listen. In fact, you really wonder how well the New Democrats listen, because of the new tax they've levied on us as far as the 8% is concerned. There isn't any doubt that this government doesn't know how to listen and doesn't know how to respond to the real needs of people.

The fact is that the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto is gravely impacted by the commercial concentration tax. You're talking about an industry that's struggling to stay alive. Everything they saw with the commercial concentration tax was: "Don't do it to us. Things are tough enough as it is. We're trying to attract tourists. We're trying to attract people to Toronto. When you start levying these extra costs, we've got to get it back one way or another. It's making us uncompetitive." There were many shows and exhibitions that were cancelled for Toronto and for the greater Toronto area because of the extra burden of cost.

One of the best reports that was put together on this whole issue was one that was paid for and arranged by the Hotel Association of Metropolitan Toronto. It was a report by the consulting firm Pannell Kerr Forster, which outlined the negative impact of the commercial concentration tax.

This report was issued prior to the passage of Bill 46, which is what it was called under the Nixon days and the Peterson days. The Liberal government completely ignored the report's findings. Pannell Kerr's report concluded that the tax would be discriminatory relative to the hotel sector, would jeopardize the economic viability of the hotel sector, and more importantly, would result in lost tourism visitation, lost tourism expenditures, lost taxation and lost employment.

The report also noted that the commercial concentration tax "could not have occurred at a worse time in the history of the hotel industry, as current hotel occupancy has suffered a severe decline. It is evident that the industry is not price-elastic, that prices cannot be increased to pass on the burden. Most importantly, the competitive position of the greater Toronto area hotels in the North American market will be eroded still further."

That was among many of the reports that were tabled prior to the passage of the commercial concentration tax. The bill was bad then and the fact that it is now being repealed is at least a sign of some hope. The fact that this government has come and added an 8% sales tax on all parking where there are parking lots is just a further insult to it all. Why not at least find some way in which you're going to save people who are trying to do business, who are coming into our communities? But no, not so.

Certainly, when the commercial concentration tax came through it generated something in the order of -- I'm trying to get the exact number of millions of dollars -- $113 million. It generated far more than that. It generated ill will. It hurt the industry. It hurt the greater Toronto area. It was one of those things where government didn't listen.

1930

I don't know how you do it. I'm not going to go on at length, as I would like to, because we've made an agreement in the House to do a few other things this evening, and we will let them by, but what really has to happen is that there has to be far more public input to the way this process works here in the Legislature. As MPPs, we no longer have any say when we're in opposition. We can speak on it after the government has announced it and given first reading. We can comment on it, we can plead, we can hope, we can try. The fact of the matter is that we have not succeeded in persuading this government to do anything different from the way it wants to do things.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Shame, shame.

Mr Cousens: The government is rigid, as the member from Simcoe north says. They are just consistent in doing things their own way.

The tragedy now is that there's an increasingly foul mood and spirit among people who are realizing that the political system isn't working. It isn't working in this place. Certainly, in opposition we have little impact. I see the members on the back benches unquestioningly, it seems, voting for bills, and then they just happen. I really wish there was a way in which we could revise the way this House works to make sure that every one of us had some input and some impact on the way in which business is going to be done.

We're dealing now with Bill 84. I realize there is nothing more we can do. It's good to see it removed. I support that initiative. I wish the Liberals had listened before, but they didn't. At least we're seeing it removed. The fact that this government will continue to derive, I don't know how many millions of dollars -- maybe the parliamentary assistant could tell us how much money will be gained through the 8% sales tax on parking. That would be an interesting thing to do, a quid pro quo: What are we getting for getting rid of the commercial concentration tax? I suppose there isn't as much money there, but there is certainly a tremendous amount of revenue that comes out of parking.

Who is the winner tonight? No real winners. The only message that I have, and I've heard it more and more in the halls of Queen's Park and elsewhere is: "Survive to '95. Wait till the New Democrats have to come up for next election and then when they're turfed there can be a sorting out of the tremendous problems they're creating." They've removed this tax but they've added another tax, and then you've got the whole crazy mess of everything else in there. Have you ever tried to unscramble an egg? That's what we're going to have to do two years from now, unscramble the mess that's been created by this government.

Anyway, we will support the aspect of this bill that says get rid of the commercial concentration tax. I voted against, and our caucus has voted against all the other tax initiatives this government has brought out. They could have found other ways of balancing the books. They could have found other ways of raising money than by raising taxes.

Mr Stockwell: I just want to make a couple of comments on the commercial concentration tax. I'm happy to see the separation in the bill from the parliamentary assistant. It was, I think, well pointed out earlier in this debate that it was, if not deceitful, a little bit dishonest to go forward with the way the bill was, as Bill 29 stood, with all the amendments and attachments to that particular piece of legislation.

As far as the commercial concentration tax is concerned, I doubt you'll find many members in the Metropolitan Toronto area who would oppose the reduction of the commercial concentration tax, but I would like to speak quickly about the replacement of that tax and ask you, as members in opposition, to think carefully when you implement these or your further taxes.

When you implement a tax on insurance on cars, you're ultimately saying that this is a guaranteed tax, or insurance on homes is a guaranteed tax. There's nothing that anyone can do to avoid paying those taxes. By law in this province, you must carry insurance on your car. If you must carry insurance on the car, you obviously, then, must pay the taxes on that insurance. That to me is a very difficult thing to make people do. It's not like buying things or making a purchase of any kind. If you decide not to make the purchase or you determine it isn't in your best interest at this time to make a purchase, you can avoid the tax. That isn't the case with the car insurance.

You have to have car insurance. You've got to own car insurance to run your car on the road. You've simply replaced that tax with one that is going to be far more lucrative. I believe that the estimates you've made on the revenues produced by that tax are going to be understated. I think they're going to be higher than you suggested in your budget. I wanted to get that on the record, as well as the home ownership tax as far as the insurance on your house is concerned.

There's something very discouraging to me to think that because of your tax some people will reduce their insured value or the insured contents on their home. Make no mistake: That could very well happen. People have so much money to spend and when you slap a tax on insurance on their home, the option for a person is either not to pay the tax, which of course then you'll go out and get, or they'll reduce the insured value of their home. If they have a fire and they've got to replace that house, the insurance will be reduced because of the tax you levy. I don't understand why you can't accept this argument. It's a very straightforward, logical argument.

Do you think people today are getting raises at their workplace? Lots of them are getting reductions in their pay packet. With reductions in pay packets, they have to make cuts in their own household expenses. When we're talking cuts, what you're doing is increasing the cost of owning a home, by having the insurance. Either they've got to cut there, by reducing the amount they're insuring their property for, or they're going to have to make a cut some place else.

It's double jeopardy, because we're talking about ourselves, for instance. We're taking a 5.5% reduction in pay. It's double jeopardy for these people who work in the public sector. They're getting a 5.5% reduction in pay, or 5% as part of the social contract, and the tax you slap on is going to increase the cost of their home owner insurance, so the gap widens.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): For us too.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, for us too; I'm not disagreeing with that. But the gap widens. We may be the lucky ones who earn more than the average income in this province. A lot of people make the average income in this province, which is $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 a year.

Before you go breaking your arms patting yourselves on the back, telling yourselves what a fabulous bunch of people you are because you removed the commercial concentration tax and the tire tax, why don't you examine the new taxes that you've introduced, taxes that no one can avoid paying, much like taxing diapers, for heaven's sake? When the GST came in and threw tax on diapers, that was absolutely offensive. Now you're going to put taxes on car insurance, which you have no choice but to buy, and on home ownership insurance, which you have no choice but to buy as well.

I don't know if you should go, as the parliamentary assistant was today, and the government was when it announced the budget, applauding yourselves at great length. Before you go applauding yourselves about removing a couple of taxes that would generate you $155 million and replacing them with two taxes that are going to generate you a heck of a lot more than $155 million, if I had my druthers and -- I think I can safely say this for the vast majority of people in the province of Ontario -- if the people of Ontario had their druthers, they would much rather you kept the tire tax and kept the commercial concentration tax and not tax car insurance and not tax home owner insurance, because as far as I'm concerned that tax is going to generate a heck of a lot more money and impact a lot more people than the two taxes you removed.

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

Mr Sutherland: I want to thank the members who have participated in the debate. Let me just make a couple of comments.

First of all, the opposition has accused us of being sneaky in terms of how legislation was being brought forward. I want to dispute that claim. All pieces of legislation get debated in here. There's nothing anybody can sneak by in a piece of legislation.

We also hear from the opposition that it's concerned because we put all these items together. Earlier, when we were dealing with Bill 32, the member for Markham kept complaining because the legislation had not been brought forward at an appropriate time. By putting them together, this allows us to deal with pieces of legislation related to the budget in a very timely fashion and deal with many aspects at once. I think opposition members would want to support this efficient way of trying to get legislation passed, and ensuring that the government and members of the Legislature can examine more pieces of legislation in a more timely manner.

No one on this side denies the fact that there were tax increases in the budget, okay? We all understand the difficult financial situation. People realize that there had to be tax increases. Those taxes are doing several things. Those taxes are helping to reduce the deficit. Those taxes are helping to pay for those essential services: health care, education. Those taxes are helping to pay for capital investment in this province, so that we can have future economic renewal.

Removal of the capital or the corporate --

1940

Mr Mahoney: Commercial.

Mr Sutherland: -- commercial concentration tax -- thank you -- is I think a very, very good move by this government. As I stated earlier in my opening remarks, it might have been appropriate in 1989. It's certainly not appropriate now.

The member for Mississauga West in his comments talked about its being a user fee and those who receive the benefits pay for it. We know the revenue from the commercial concentration tax, like the tire tax, was supposed to be designated for a certain purpose, but it went into the consolidated revenue fund, so people could not see specifically and tangibly that the money from the commercial concentration tax or the tire tax went directly for the purpose it was supposed to go for, and that is a problem in terms of how taxes are implemented.

I just want to conclude by saying I do think this is a good piece of legislation because we're getting rid of the commercial concentration tax. No one is trying to deny that there are other taxes that were brought forward in the budget and everyone understands that people have to pay them, but overall this is a good piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend certain Acts to eliminate the Commercial Concentration Tax and reduce certain expenditures as referred to in the 1993 Budget.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I call the third order.

Acting Table Clerk (Mr Doug Arnott): Third order, third reading, Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, Mrs Cunningham.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Will you move your motion, please.

Mr Dadamo: I move third reading of Bill 124.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: No, not yet.

Mr Dadamo: Not yet?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'll do that, George. I move to discharge Bill 124 from third reading and discharge it to the committee of the whole.

The Deputy Speaker: Mrs Gigantes has moved that the order for third reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, be discharged and the bill be referred to the committee of the whole House. Shall the motion carry? Carried.

House in committee of the whole.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Consideration of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Any comments or amendments to Bill 124? The honourable parliamentary assistant.

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Chair, I intend to move one amendment to Bill 124 at the appropriate time during the clause-by-clause consideration of this bill, that being section 2 of the bill.

The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have any amendments prior to section 2?

Shall section 1 carry as presented in the bill? Agreed.

The parliamentary assistant, amendments to section 2.

Mr Dadamo: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "1994" in the second line and substituting "1995."

Bill 124 is the result of a great deal of consultation and study. It is an important safety measure, and the honourable member for London North and the standing committee on resources development should be commended for their work on it.

This government announced a new bicycle policy in July 1992, confirming our recognition of cycling as an integral means of transportation, not merely a form of recreation. Promoting the bicycle's environmental, economic and physical benefits makes sense for people of all ages in Ontario. But we believe that encouraging use of bicycles for transportation demands that we also work to improve the safety of all cyclists.

The government is working to enhance safety in three ways: We promote safer operating practices by both cyclists and drivers; we design improved bicycle facilities when we plan our roads; and we work to prevent head injuries when accidents do occur by encouraging the use of helmets.

Head injuries are responsible for 75% of bicycle fatalities, but experience with similar safety measures, such as seatbelts, has taught us that the most effective way to promote the use of helmets is through a combination of public education and legislation.

As a result of the committee's discussions with a wide range of interest groups, its recommendations for Bill 124 now call for implementation in the fall of 1995. This two-year lead time will provide us with a valuable opportunity to raise awareness and educate cyclists about the benefits of wearing a helmet.

We now have both the time and the momentum to implement this measure effectively. We intend to follow the recommendations of the standing committee to make a smooth transition to legislated use of helmets and we plan to form partnerships with other ministries and with the private sector to raise awareness and to make this legislation work.

The ministry's bicycle safety campaign in the spring is an ideal opportunity to focus our efforts on the benefits of bicycle helmets. It is very encouraging to note that, as a result of the public discussion of this issue and the increased awareness it has created, we see more and more cyclists wearing helmets.

On behalf of the Minister of Transportation, I would like to congratulate the committee and the member for London North on leading this measure.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): This matter is a very important one because it touches the lives of a lot of people, lives in the most direct sense of the word in that in fact it could potentially save the lives of people. It could potentially save a lot of injuries. So, without question, the initiative that is before the House at this time is a very important one.

Because it is a very important one, I must say I'm very, very disappointed, and so are many people out there who have been awaiting a serious debate on this matter for some time, that this bill has been called at this time, 8 o'clock in the evening before the House recesses on July 28, when normally most people are on holidays and are enjoying life in the way I guess they should in July.

I do feel that the seriousness of this matter under debate would have warranted a serious debate, and it is most unfortunate that we are given a very, very short time, because we're supposed to adjourn at 8:30, and I understand there's even another matter that still needs to be discussed tonight.

I nevertheless do want to put a few comments on the record. I should say at the outset that because this is a very serious matter, we have reflected on it. This has been out in the public mind for some time. The members in my caucus have different opinions on this matter. Frankly, even I myself have seen a growth, in my opinion, on this matter.

I don't think it is a black-and-white issue. There are very strong arguments on both sides of this issue, and I will put on the record some of these arguments that I have heard from my constituents and from people from across the province on both sides of this matter. I will put these on the record tonight, and I think at least they deserve to be mentioned in this House.

I should say that if there had been a proper debate and a proper procedure in this House, because this is a private member's bill, we would have given every member of our caucus an opportunity to vote the way he or she feels is the proper thing to do at this time. Since we are in such a short period, I will simply put on the record my own views and the views of those who take a different conclusion than the one I'm taking tonight.

1950

Those who disagree with this measure that is being put forward are doing this out of a very strong sense of commitment to cycling, and they feel very strongly. I've had a meeting in my own riding with representatives of the Ottawa area cycling community, and we had a debate on this matter with representatives of the medical community as well. The representatives of the cycling community in the Ottawa area feel very strongly that this measure could, and they feel that it will, reduce the use of bicycling. They feel that with the reduced number of people who will be using the bicycle, we will also see an increase in heart disease. We will see all the negative effects of not using the bicycle.

They are referring in particular to the example of Australia, where apparently this kind of bill was passed. According to the reports they are presenting, it led to a decrease in the use of bicycling. I think we're all agreed that this is the last thing we want to see happen in this province.

I think there's agreement across the spectrum that we all want to strengthen and encourage the use of bicycles, one, because of the environmental reasons -- after all, it's the least polluting vehicle that we know -- and secondly, it has a tremendous usefulness for the health, the wellbeing, the physical fitness of those who use the bicycle.

The argument is being put forward by quite a few very well thought and very well spoken representatives. Avery Burdett, for example, the president of the Ottawa area cycling community, makes that argument very, very strongly and says, "We are certainly encouraging the voluntary use of bicycles, but we feel that if we make this mandatory, it will lead to a decrease in the use of bicycles."

Secondly, the point that he's making on behalf of the group he represents and on behalf of others -- frankly, I'm sure as all the members have, I've received letters from London, from Mr Ketelaars and others who feel very strongly that the government, and by the way, whichever government it would be, would be getting away with what appears to be a safety measure and avoiding the necessary infrastructure to encourage the use of bicycles, like special bicycle paths, bicycle education in terms of how to ride a bicycle properly, how to follow the rules of the road.

The parliamentary assistant has made reference to certain policies which the government has put in place or plans to put in place with regard to education and how to promote further the use of bicycles. Frankly, on the basis of the past record of this government, I'm very doubtful that we can look with confidence towards the implementation of a very strong and determined push towards the increased use of bicycles in this province.

I sympathize with the criticism that has been expressed to me by constituents from the Ottawa area, specifically from Nepean, but also from other people from across the province. I sympathize with them when they say that this might be just a means by the government to avoid the real issue, the real issue being, what are we doing to provide the facilities for bicycling, to make sure that the bicycle becomes an ever more popular means of transportation in this province?

I say to the government that on the government's behalf, the parliamentary assistant spoke today and said that they are committed to further strengthening the use of bicycles in this province. I would say to him that we in the opposition will be monitoring extremely carefully and very closely as to whether in fact those promises will be fulfilled.

The parliamentary assistant is moving an amendment to say that this bill, if it is passed, will come into effect only in two years and that in the interim they will be promoting further measures that the public has been asking for during the committee hearings. I appreciate that, and I accept that at face value, but at face value knowing the record so far of this government. Frankly, I understand the scepticism that has been expressed by representatives of the bicycling community.

I should also say that I have had others who have written to me, and I know they've written to the minister as well, who take very strong objection to the fact that here's the government again, I guess Big Daddy or Big Brother or Big Sister, forcing people to take certain actions and interfering, as it were, in their freedoms, that more and more government is taking away, as it were, civil liberties and civil rights of the people. Frankly, again, these people feel very strongly about this, and to some extent I sympathize with that.

I really feel that governments should try as much as possible to stay out of the lives of people, but realistically speaking, it is not possible. We know that some rules and regulations and some laws are necessary, and in the end this particular bill may be one of them. I will be coming to that point as to why in the end I do agree that at this particular point in time we should pass this legislation.

However, I again want to put on the record the very strong reservations and the very strong objections that some members of my caucus and many members of the public have with regard to making the use of bicycle helmets mandatory. They agree that it is a good thing to do. They agree that we should encourage the use of bicycle helmets. In fact, again, as the parliamentary assistant has said, we have observed an increase in the use of bicycle helmets. I do congratulate the member for London North on that matter. By introducing that bill she has increased the awareness of people about the need and the usefulness of bicycle helmets in this province.

I can tell you that in my own riding -- I live in Barrhaven, which is a relatively young community where there are a lot of children -- in the three years that I've lived there, I have personally noticed the increase in the use of bicycle helmets by the children and by the adults. I think that's great, that's good, and if that has been an effect of the bill being discussed and debated over the last two and a half years, I think that's good.

Now, however, we're coming to the decision whether it should in fact become a bill and should move to that final stage. Because of the way the government has operated, we're now forced to vote on this bill. Frankly, people who have approached me felt that they have not been properly heard. They feel that they have been given very limited opportunity to express their views to the members of this House, and they feel their appearance, a long time ago, before the committee was very minimal. They had hoped that the government itself would be introducing legislation that would again provide an opportunity for the public to make representation and to be properly heard.

Again, I want to put on the record these reservations that have been expressed to me very strongly and very forcefully on behalf of members of the public.

2000

I should say that even before I was appointed the Liberal critic for Transportation I felt that this matter deserved a serious discussion and reflection in my riding. As I indicated, at the end of last year, when there was already a possibility that this law might be passed at the end of 1992, I held a forum in my riding. I invited representatives of the bicycling community and representatives of the medical community, and we discussed this matter.

Second, I did a survey in my riding in March, and one of the questions I asked the people was whether they supported the mandatory use of bicycle helmets. To be frank, I was surprised at the results. It would have been my preferred position, for me personally, to continue the education efforts, to encourage very strongly, the way we've been doing, the use of bicycle helmets but, as much as possible, to stay away from bringing in another kind of legislation. However, I must say that when I consulted my constituents they gave, in a very clear majority, a yes to the question, "Do you want bicycle helmets to be mandatory?"

For the information of the House and for the information of the public, it is only a survey in my own riding, and obviously the results may be different in other ridings, but I think it would interest the members of this House that in a telephone survey -- in fact, I had two types of surveys: I had one that was done by telephone and another one that was by writing in -- the overall results in the telephone survey were that approximately 77% of the people we phoned felt they supported either very much or somewhat to make bicycle helmets mandatory.

The Second Deputy Chair: I'd like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with an amendment that moves the date from 1994 to 1995.

Mr Daigeler: That's precisely why I'm putting these comments on the record: first, because this is the first opportunity we have to speak on this bill and, second, I think the results of the survey and the results of the letters we've received very much impact on the possible implementation period of this particular bill.

As I indicated, 77% of the respondents agreed either very much or somewhat with the idea of making bicycle helmets mandatory. I should say that the women were even more in favour than the men; there was a clear distinction between males and females. Among males it was about 70%, still a majority in favour. Among females, among women, it was 85% in favour.

On the other hand, we did have approximately 18% of the people very strongly opposed to this particular initiative, and some of the questions and some of the concerns they have raised are precisely the ones I have already put on the record. As I indicated, as this matter is of great importance to a great many people, I think it is very important to hear directly what some of these people had to say.

For example, one of the people in the written survey who wrote in about this particular bill said the following: "Bicycle helmets may reduce the severity of head injuries, but they do nothing to reduce the severity of other injuries, particularly spine. On the other hand, they give the wearer a false sense of security. What is needed is not a reduction of injuries but a reduction of accidents by forcing bicyclists to obey the rules of the road, but the police consistently turn a blind eye, even to the most hair-rising eccentricities of some of these acrobats." This is from people who are strongly opposed to this particular initiative.

One of the other comments these people made, and I think we would be well advised to take them seriously, is as follows: "Next the government will be telling us we must wear boots or hats in the winter so we don't catch cold."

Obviously, there's a very strong feeling among a lot of people that we have too much regulation and that this particular measure will add to all the government regulations and bills we already have on the record.

The Second Deputy Chair: I want to remind the member that we're dealing with a change of date from 1994 to 1995.

Mr Daigeler: That's quite correct. I'm quite aware of this, and that's precisely why I want to make sure the public is well aware of what is involved in lengthening the debate for what it will take --

Interjections.

Mr Daigeler: Mr Chairman, as I indicated at the beginning of these remarks, I have had calls from the public who were very, very upset that there's no debate on this bill, and I think we owe it not to the members of this House but to the members of the public to put on the record some of the serious concerns they have about this bill. Even though I personally will be supporting this bill, I think the members of the public who have a different view about this matter deserve to be heard and deserve not to be shoved aside by this government or by anyone else.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You never even came to committee.

Mr Daigeler: If the members on the government side would be prepared to listen to what the public has to say, we would be bringing in better legislation.

If I can put on the record, on the other hand, what other people have been saying about this bill, how they feel about this matter and why they think it is worth it to bring in mandatory helmet legislation, one of the comments that was made in the survey is as follows: "Just one accident prevention would make it worthwhile." For me, in the end, that is the argument that is strongest; that even though this is another measure of government interference in people's lives, I think there is an element of safety and, as I said at the very beginning, an element of preventing deaths and serious injuries and lifelong harm and sorrow to people. In my view, interference in the private lives of people will be warranted.

Contrary, apparently, to the members opposite, I do recognize, I do appreciate and I do value the opinion of people who have a different view than my own. I do accept them and I do want to put them on the record, and I want to recognize that they deserve to be heard, other than the government apparently wants to do. If the members over there do not want to give the public an opportunity to voice their opinions, they will face the consequences during the next election.

2010

I should say too that other people who have indicated support for this particular legislation also feel that if it cuts down in injuries, obviously it will cut down on hospital costs. Again, I do want to indicate here one of the comments: "For the individual's safety and to cut hospital costs and time away from work for those injured, it does make this legislation worthwhile." Another comment from the public was, "Head injuries cost a great deal to rehabilitate, and in young children frequent biking injuries are leaving severe damage."

This is a point that was being made to all members of this House, in particular by the Head Injury Association of Ontario. They've made very strong representation during the presentations of the committee. They have made very strong representation that on the basis of the accidents they have seen, bicycle helmets would in fact reduce the injuries and therefore prevent serious harm to the families.

Now, as I indicated, one of the other responses from the public reads as follows: "Broken limbs can be fixed, but broken skulls?" This point is very well taken --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On a point of order: I notice the Chair keeps bringing up the date. Are we in committee of the whole talking about a date change?

The Second Deputy Chair: The committee of the whole is speaking about Mr Dadamo's amendment changing the date from 1994 to 1995. The member for Nepean has the floor, and I want to remind him that we are dealing with the date.

Mr Daigeler: As I indicated, this matter is of great importance and deserves to be discussed at least at some length to give one opportunity for the public to be heard through the representatives in this House.

Now, I do understand that we have had a number of debates and discussions during this day and I do want to leave some opportunity for the other members to speak on this matter as well. However, I feel very strongly that this matter is a very serious one and some of the concerns that have been expressed very forcefully by members of the public on both sides of the issue needed to be put on the record.

As I indicated, I have received, and so have the other members of the House, strong representations from various groups, including, for example, the Toronto Cycling Association, who in the beginning were opposed to this bill. However, on consideration, they have changed their minds and they are now supporting this legislation.

Therefore, and in view of the survey results, in view of the comments that I have received from the members of my riding, from the constituents of my riding and from representatives of the public at large, I am personally prepared to support this bill.

I am putting the government on notice that we will be watching and we will be observing, and so will the public, extremely carefully and with great scrutiny as to what you will be doing over the next two years when this bill will then come into effect -- as it's obvious it's going to be passed here -- on October 1, 1995.

I certainly hope that at that time the bicycling community will applaud you not just for this particular bill, but for all the other efforts that you have put into place to promote the use of bicycles in this province.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment to section 2 carry? Agreed.

Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 3 of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, be reported to the House? Agreed.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Ms Gigantes has moved that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I seek consent to go to third reading on Bill 124.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Agreed.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

Mrs Cunningham moved third reading of Bill 124, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act / Loi portant modification du Code de la route.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does Mrs Cunningham have some opening remarks?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's with a great deal of pride that I speak in favour of the legislation this evening and forward my appreciation to members of this Legislative Assembly, to members of the standing committee on resources development who looked at this bill, to members of the staff -- and I'm going to name four of them because they've put tremendous efforts into this legislation: Mike Weir, David Edgar, Heather Clarke and the research clerk, Anne Anderson -- and I think above all to the Premier of Ontario, to the former Minister of Health and to the Minister of Transportation, because they have in fact encouraged this legislation from the very beginning.

It was first introduced three years ago, but this particular piece of legislation was introduced in June 1991. For all of us who've been involved from time to time in the process I think it's been a very rewarding one for this Legislative Assembly. The report that was produced by hardworking members of the committee and many, many representatives of the different government agencies and departments and ministries was a report under standing order 108 on bicycle helmets. If members of the public are watching this debate, I would encourage them to read it.

Most of the opposition to this legislation is as a result of persons not reading this report, not having the opportunity, as many of us did, to listen to the experts as they came to us and gave us advice on the most controversial issues related to this legislation with regard to coverage -- who should be covered, exemptions, where coverage should apply; enforcement -- what the penalty ought to be, enforcement practices in North America and other parts of the world; helmets -- the standards that we ought to look for, the manufacturing; and the financial impact on cyclists and government.

I think the most important issue for the members of the committee and this Legislative Assembly and all of us in the next two years will be the education awareness programs that the ministry has given its support for. That means, in these very tough times, that this is an important piece of legislation. The resources that are necessary from the government mean more dollars for educating the public. We hope the private sector will continue to be involved, and even to a greater degree, because we do need that kind of support.

We have specific recommendations in the report. I'll just speak briefly.

"The committee recommends that the Ministry of Transportation contact the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, advise them of the intent of Bill 124, and request that they encourage municipalities to review their transportation and recreation policies with a view to increasing bicycle safety on municipal properties such as parks and bicycle paths."

It was already mentioned by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, to whom I am grateful for his remarks and his encouragement, with regard to this government's bicycle policy and its encouragement to the municipalities to become more involved in safe cycling by improving and adding to bicycle pathways and bicycle laneways, because we know that this helmet alone cannot in fact help to prevent serious head injuries.

2020

It's not just the helmet. We know it's extremely important or this legislation wouldn't be before this Legislative Assembly after more than three years of public debate, nor would we be asking that this be enforced some two years down the road -- in fact, more than two years -- so that people have time to be educated, so that they have time to plan their finances so that they can purchase helmets, so that the manufacturers in this province hopefully will get involved in manufacturing so that there will be more jobs. There are all kinds of implications to this legislation.

We have six recommendations. Another one, number 2, supports the development of enforcement guidelines. The intent of this bill is not that we levy a fine; it is that we give a warning and that persons who don't have helmets when they ought to after 1995 be given the opportunity to go out and purchase those helmets.

The third recommendation is that the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology promote the development of an Ontario-based manufacturing industry for bicycle helmets, and manufacturers should be urged to produce helmets that meet the CSA standard.

I'm proud to present to the Legislative Assembly -- and for those of us who know that we didn't have a manufacturer, it looks like we may have one. It's called the Buddy Helmet, Peel Coalition for Injury Prevention. I think this is a result of hard work, and we have to actually thank the media for the reports that they've been providing in the last six or eight months. It's not something that most of us would do on most occasions. But you know, it's not really a very happy event that's usually being reported.

Three years ago, the only people who got any media were people who were opposed to this legislation, for whatever their reasons were, usually because they didn't want legislation. Most of us don't want it. We've had three years to wear our helmets. We have less than 5% compliance. The government had to move forward. If people who don't want legislation had promoted the use of helmets and had made certain in their own communities that people wore them in the last three years, perhaps we wouldn't have needed it. They still have three years. Let them get their work done.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): That's not fair.

Mrs Cunningham: The member for Nepean says that's not fair. I think it is fair. I think as children lose their lives and serious injuries occur on a daily basis, it's more than fair. I would say that I actually thank the member for Nepean for his enthusiastic, lengthy support of the legislation this afternoon.

Number 4, the committee welcomes the initiatives of the private sector, communities and government. The private sector has been extremely helpful -- and drug companies, the medical associations, professional organizations -- in the promotion of the wearing of cycling helmets and they continue to put advertisements out to help parents buy helmets more cheaply. I think that it's extremely important. The cost of helmets has come down some $20 or $30 in the last couple of years, I'm advised. So we want those kinds of initiatives.

We also want the government to explore alternative opportunities for increasing the affordability of bicycle helmets through the use of special tax incentives.

I'm sure that members of this Legislative Assembly understand how thoroughly we looked at the complaints and the concerns about this legislation.

Recommendation number 5: "The committee recommends that the Ministry of Transportation immediately take the lead role in developing the funding and implementation of an education and awareness campaign to support the use of bicycle helmets."

This is all work that will be done with the government and the private sector, school boards, health organizations, the Kiwanis clubs and others.

The last one: "The committee recommends that the Ministry of Transportation should take a lead role in implementing Bill 124 and monitoring compliance both on and off the highway."

There's ongoing work involved with this legislation and I'm very proud of the process and in fact the non-partisan way in which all of us, I think, have tried to handle an important piece of legislation. I think most of us wish that it was unnecessary.

But in fact the statistics are these: Every year more than 15,000 Ontario children need medical treatment as a result of bicycle accidents. Approximately 1,500 are severely injured, and at least 15 children die. Those are very sad statistics. I guess really the need for the legislation is self-explanatory.

I would like to go forward and thank the Toronto City Cycling Committee and specifically Barbara Wentworth; the Hospital for Sick Children and Kiwanis injury prevention program that had done so much more work before any of us got involved; the Ontario Head Injury Association, which works with the government on an ongoing basis in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation with regard to head injuries.

I'd like to thank a parent. She's a very special person. Just two years ago this month her daughter, who was a student of law, passed away as a result of a head injury associated with an accident on her bicycle. Trish Woodworth is with us this evening. She's made this her personal goal in memory of her daughter. All of us ought to know we're talking about real people when we talk about this legislation. I thank her personally, and I would like to say I think she has a lot of courage.

For people who are against this legislation, all they need to do is speak to the families of children and adults whose lives have been changed for ever.

I hope this bill will be helpful to this government and to the Minister of Health, because in today's health care system, acute care costs can range from $1,500 to $2,000 per day. In fact, those are real numbers. A patient requires usually six weeks of acute care at least if in any form of a coma, and we're looking at $63,000 to $84,000 just for those six weeks. Insurance companies have advised us that the care of a head-injured patient usually ranges between $2 million to $4 million over a lifetime, and that's government money when in fact insurance companies aren't involved.

We've looked at all of the issues. We've done our very best to meet the concerns of our critics. I think we're giving them more time to get to us and share their concerns further. I'm sure that will be the case.

It's been a pleasure to be part of this process. It's with pride that I worked with my colleagues here. I guess my great hope would be that lives will be saved; that we won't have to look at newspaper articles and letters from parents that remind us, from neurosurgeons, from real people; smiling faces of little children who won't smile the same way again because in fact, as this mother said, and I think I'll end with this -- this is in Victoria Children's Hospital -- "Doctors say he will live but they aren't sure of the extent of brain damage." My closing remarks: "Jordan wasn't wearing his bicycle helmet. His mother said it was a struggle to get him to wear it."

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): To the member for London North, if you were allowed the appropriate time that was left and the member from the Liberal Party wouldn't have taken it up, you probably could have started the education process immediately, which would have helped the two-year lag time.

I've been very open and honest with the member about this process and through the committee process and have been very clear about the concerns that have been expressed in my own community. It was my understanding that on Canada AM this morning you also indicated the concern that was reflected in Chatham of those who opposed the legislation.

I have my own beliefs. I have two small children. They are not allowed on their bikes without a helmet. That is a parental order, I guess they must refer to it as. They know the rules that are implemented there by my household. They are not allowed on their bikes without their helmets.

My community has very clearly expressed to you and to other members that it is in support of the voluntary use of the helmet and not the mandatory use of the bicycle helmet. But I can only make sure that I express the concerns of my community, which has been very loud and very solid on this issue. They're asking me to vote opposed to the legislation and the mandatory use of it. I, as the member who represents their concerns, will do so.

2030

To the member for London North, who knows I've been very actively involved with the head injury association, with Ray Rempel -- as a matter of fact, I started the association up in my own community. But I believe there is a process we have to go through, and as an elected member who represents those constituents of the town of Wallaceburg, the city of Chatham and the rural community I represent, I must apologize to the member opposite; I will be voting no on the legislation.

Mr Daigeler: Frankly, I find it outrageous that the members of the government side should try to prevent representatives of the public from putting on the record the views of the public. As I indicated at the beginning of my comments, there are serious concerns on both sides of the issue, and I think we owe it to representatives of the public to be given an opportunity to hear those comments in this House.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): If he's feeling guilty for something, this isn't the place for it.

Mr Daigeler: This is the place for the public to be heard, for the member who is commenting from the other side.

I would like to indicate to the member for London North that she's done well. She has pursued a very important matter to the end, and I congratulate her.

On the other hand, I find it very unfortunate that she chose to criticize those who disagree with her and put the blame on those people who disagree with her position for the public not wearing bicycle helmets. This is the responsibility of all of us, and I know these people who are opposed to the mandatory use of bicycle helmets have done more than their share to encourage the voluntary use of helmets, and it's most unfair to blame those who are against this particular legislation and representatives of the public in my riding and across the province and from her own riding for a lack of voluntary use.

So while I congratulate the member for London North, I was very disappointed that she chose to attack those who had a different view on this matter. I support her view; however, I also respect and I also want heard those who have a different opinion, on any other matter that's before this House.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I too want to commend the member for London North for moving ahead in such a strong and analytical way with this bill. The work she has done has enhanced the work all of us as members do and is a fine reflection on this House.

I want to add to the thanks she has given another letter of thanks, if you like, to the Ontario Head Injury Association, which has proceeded in a very positive way to locate manufacturers of helmets that are available at reasonable prices that indeed will help to avoid some of the tragedies we've faced.

I think this is a good piece of legislation. The time lines will assist in helping people to adjust to a new system, just as time lines on the introduction of seatbelts assisted people in adjusting to that kind of new scenario and a new way of life.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I seek consent to have the vote taken on third reading.

Mrs Cunningham: Can I just --

The Acting Speaker: We have to have responses first.

Mrs Cunningham: I will make it brief. I hadn't planned on making these 20-second comments, but I feel the need to do so, given the criticism I've received from my colleagues.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We can accommodate one more participant with questions or comments. Okay, no further comments. The member for London North has two minutes in response.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm sorry, but I do feel the need to put this on the record. I think all the members of the Legislative Assembly know we only make good decisions through hard study and hard work and response to criticism, and I have to say that the committee listened very carefully, as I did myself, to the criticism we received over this legislation.

It's extremely important for the member for Nepean to understand that I at no time have criticised those who have tried to help us in their constructive way. I said I was extremely disappointed that persons in Ontario hadn't worked a little harder to get compliance. All of us could have worked harder to see that more children, more adults, wear helmets. If I left the wrong impression, I would like to withdraw it at this time.

I think it's extremely important to know that Mr Henk Ketelaars from London is one of the most vocal opponents of this legislation, and I'd like to say before this House that we're friends; we've become friends because of it. We respect each other's opinion, and we continue to work together to make this legislation more appropriate for everybody with regard to his concerns.

There are other members, but to the member from Chatham, I respect his point of view. He doesn't feel he can vote in favour of this legislation, and I respect his point of view. I respect the tremendous contribution he made to the committee by raising questions on behalf of his constituents, and he's given me the opportunity at this time to say that I'd like to thank Mr Ray Rempel from the Ontario Head Injury Association and especially his son Jeremy, who is a young man who has recovered from a head injury and has set a wonderful example for all of us with his courage and his perseverance.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Cunningham has moved third reading of Bill 124. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

I do now resolve that the bill do pass and be entitled as in the motion.

It being now past 8:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 2037.