Journal des débats 1988-juin-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Farnan: On June 16, the board of directors of Cambridge Memorial Hospital gave a unanimous vote of confidence to the administrator of CMH and, at the same time, the board expressed its willingness to co-operate with the Ministry of Health in establishing and implementing a balanced budget.

The board has taken a conciliatory, co-operative position. To this end, subject to the approval of the Ministry of Health, it has requested that the Ontario Hospital Association appoint a team of advisers to assist the board. The board is requesting the opportunity to be partners with the ministry in achieving its goals.

A petition organized by the Cambridge Reporter in support of the Cambridge Memorial Hospital has already received almost 10,000 mail-back returns. In addition, the Cambridge Academy of Medicine, the nursing staff of CMH and the Cambridge Ministerial Association have all taken public positions in support of the Cambridge hospital.

I urge the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) to recognize that the delivery of our health care services is one that requires a partnership based on co-operation and mutual respect. As the representative for Cambridge, I am requesting the minister to demonstrate these attributes in seeking a resolution.

The people of Cambridge, indeed the people of Ontario, are awaiting the minister’s response. The manner and content of the minister’s response will set the tone for the future delivery of health care in Ontario.

COUNSELLING SERVICE

Mrs. Cunningham: Last Friday in London, demonstrators gathered on the doorstep of the constituency office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to protest the possible closing of Changing Ways, the counselling agency for men who beat their spouses.

In 1986, this government made a commitment to end family violence. The province is currently spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising campaigns to end spousal abuse, but it is not financing the programs which treat the individuals responsible for these crimes. The life or death of Changing Ways now rests with the United Way, whose intent from the beginning was to assist with startup funding and not to assume too large a responsibility. Provided temporary funds are received from United Way, Changing Ways will be at least in the precarious position of having to rely on temporary funds just to stay afloat.

Considering the vast amounts of money this government is pouring into spousal abuse campaigns, it is appalling that the fate of Changing Ways goes virtually ignored.

I am greatly concerned that the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Correctional Services are prepared to let a program like Changing Ways die when it has proven to be so vital to the rehabilitation of wife abusers and in the prevention of this crime. Battered women and children will be the big losers if Changing Ways closes at the end of June.

GIOVANNI CABOTO DAY

Mr. Leone: Proclamation of Giovanni Caboto Day:

Whereas, Giovanni Caboto was a skilled navigator who was admired and revered as an expert mariner and ingenious craftsman of maps and globes; and

Whereas, this world renowned Italian adventurer with a crew of 18 men in the ship, Matthew, landed on the eastern coast of Canada on the morning of June 24, 1497; and

Whereas, Caboto’s tenacity and perseverance culminated in the discovery of our continent and ultimately Canada; and

Whereas, the daring exploits and deeds of this famous explorer are of great historical significance not only to Canadians but to the people throughout the world,

Therefore, on behalf of the government of Ontario, we are pleased to recognize June 24, 1988 as Giovanni Caboto Day and commend the observance of this historically relevant occasion to the people of this province.

I take the opportunity also to thank and acknowledge the presence of the Honourable Romeo Ricciuti, who came from Italy, a member of parliament; the Consul General, Dr. Lajolo; Manlio D’Ambrosio, president of the National Congress of Italian Canadians; and people of the Italian community who are here to acknowledge this great day.

ACID RAIN

Mrs. Grier: In November 1987, the Provincial Auditor revealed his concern that the Ministry of the Environment had chosen not to verify the monitoring data submitted by Ontario’s four largest contributors of acid rain emissions under the Countdown Acid Rain program.

In February 1988, the standing committee on public accounts reviewed the auditor’s findings with officials of the ministry. Ministry officials indicated that once the ministry “had learned of the auditor’s intention to report this finding, it recognized that an independent monitoring system would be required.” That is an interesting way to phrase it. It perhaps means that if the auditor had not been going to report his findings, nothing would have changed at the Ministry of the Environment.

In February, the ministry said that since November, 1987 it had been doing independent testing and would continue to do so. It is surprising, therefore, to receive a summary and analysis of the fourth progress report of Ontario’s four major sources of sulphur dioxide and find absolutely no mention in it of the independent verification of the industry’s submissions. This is a progress report to January 31, 1988.

Fortunately, the public accounts committee had the foresight to request the ministry provide a comprehensive report describing the monitoring that has been occurring since November 1987.

I look forward with interest to that documentation. Let’s see the actual data from the Ministry of the Environment. The people of Ontario no longer want to take the polluters word for it that Countdown Acid Rain is working.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: This is the Legislature’s day to spend some time on transportation issues and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) is bringing in three bills. The Highway Traffic Amendment Act is under review, the Ontario Highway Transport Board Amendment Act and the Truck Transportation Act.

Once per year we will spend some time on transportation in the Legislature, but every day the people in Ontario are having to fight the traffic problems that exist in coming in and out of Metropolitan Toronto.

It would really be good if this government would begin to take seriously the problems that exist on the Don Valley Parkway, Spadina, Highway 401 and on the Gardiner Expressway. Why is it this government does not begin to put some of the money back that people are giving to the government?

This government has increased the cost of a car by increasing the Ontario retail sales tax by one per cent. This government is collecting more money now than ever before, than any other government in Ontario, on gasoline taxes, yet is not putting the money back into the construction of roads or into transit systems to help the commuters who are coming in and out of Metropolitan Toronto.

1340

Why does this government not begin to take seriously the need for better transportation services around Metropolitan Toronto? Why does it not begin to make this an issue that is of importance to people in government? It is to the commuters. Anyone who is fighting this whole transportation system every day, like those of us who live outside of Metropolitan Toronto in the greater metropolitan area, expects to have more than we are getting.

TEACHING PROFESSION

Mr. Owen: Teachers at both elementary and secondary school levels have expressed concern to me about the effect of the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal on their profession. All of us have heard of the concerns about the effect of the trade deal on farmers, on factory workers and on energy consumers, but what about teachers? The average salary of a teacher in Ontario runs around $42,000 a year.

Let’s look at teachers in the United States. The average salary for a teacher in South Dakota is $18,100, but that is the lowest state. The average salary in the United States in 1986 was $24,800 for elementary school teachers and $26,100 for secondary school teachers. That means there existed a spread of over $16,000 a year, on an average, between teachers’ salaries here and in the United States.

We have all heard the debate about the trade deal leading to a level playing field. How can we maintain such higher salaries and still remain competitive? Taxes pay the teachers both here and there. If our industries must pay out for salaries which are so much higher, then how can they produce goods as cheaply? The discussion is worth while. We should look at all the angles.

However, Canadians and Americans are different. We have different priorities. The people of Ontario regard education and teachers as most important. We would never want to see our quality of education put in jeopardy. Trade deal or no trade deal, Ontario will want the best for its children.

FIESTA WEEK

Mr. Breaugh: I am sure all members would want to know that this week is Fiesta Week in Oshawa. It is the oldest multicultural festival in Ontario; it is in its 27th year. Yesterday they had a great parade and a great concert at the Civic Auditorium.

For those members who enjoy multiculturalism at its finest, we ask them to come to Oshawa all week long. We will feed them, we will entertain them and we will give them an opportunity to enjoy what has made Oshawa such a great community, and that is the strength that comes from each and every one of our citizens recognizing his own cultural identity, his own cultural roots and being so proud of that and very anxious to display all of that to all of our citizens.

Members are welcome to come. Let them bring a hearty appetite and an open mind and they will have a great time in Oshawa all week long.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION / INDEMNISATION DES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today I will be introducing for first reading a bill to make major changes to the workers’ compensation system, changes which respond to the long-standing concerns of injured workers and employers alike.

The bill will provide fairer compensation for workers who suffer from permanent disability as a result of workplace injury or illness. It will emphasize the goal of helping injured workers return to the workforce earlier and more successfully. It will oblige employers to reinstate injured workers in their jobs. It will impose new obligations on the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide injured workers with timely access to vocational rehabilitation services.

Le projet de loi prévoit des indemnisations plus équitables aux travailleurs souffrant d’invalidité permanente entraînée par une blessure ou une maladie liées au travail. Le projet de loi contribuera grandement à atteindre l’objectif visé, qui est d’aider les travailleurs blessés à retourner sur le marché du travail dans un laps de temps plus court et avec plus de succès. Il obligera les employeurs à réintégrer les travailleurs dans leur fonction. Il imposera de nouvelles obligations à la Commission des accidents du travail afin d’offrir aux travailleurs accidentés des services de réadaptation professionnels.

As it now stands, the system of workers’ compensation in this province is not keeping up with a major purpose for which it was originally established, and that is to restore the financial position of injured workers as close as possible to that which existed prior to their injury. For too many injured workers, the level of pension benefits has been inadequate to cover lost income.

The workers’ compensation system is also failing to make sufficient headway towards a goal to which society must attach increasing importance, that is, to help injured workers to return to work and to earn a living on their own. Thousands of injured workers with an unfulfilled desire to return to work offer proof of that.

The time has come to ensure fairness in workers’ compensation. The time has come to provide greater opportunity for injured workers to return to active employment. The time has come to act.

Honourable members are aware that the issues of fair compensation and opportunity for employment have been the subjects of considerable study in recent years. The government’s recent task force on vocational rehabilitation called for better access to vocational rehabilitation and early intervention by the Workers’ Compensation Board to make sure injured workers receive timely and more effective rehabilitation services.

As well, over the past 10 years, several studies, a white paper and an extensive examination by a standing committee of this Legislature have called for a dual-award system, a system which separately compensates injured workers for economic and noneconomic losses suffered as a result of an occupational injury.

The issue has been studied thoroughly. We have sought people’s views. Now we must make changes that are required to restore fairness and to increase opportunity for workers who have suffered workplace injuries. I would like at this point to apprise members of specific improvements in the workers’ compensation system which will result from the bill I will be introducing today.

First, the bill will put into place a dual-award system for workers with permanent disabilities suffered in the workplace. This reform will bring fairness and certainty to workers’ compensation in Ontario. Under the old system, compensation bore no particular relationship to the loss of earnings experienced by the injured worker. The new system will correct that situation. It will compensate workers for the economic losses they suffer as a result of a workplace injury. It will also explicitly recognize, for the very first time, the noneconomic losses associated with permanent injuries.

The amount of money workers receive for noneconomic losses will vary with the degree of disability and their age when the injury is suffered, up to a maximum of $65,000. Workers with a noneconomic award greater than $10,000 will have the choice of a lump-sum payment or a comparable lifetime pension. At the same time. they will be awarded benefits based on their lost earning power. Workers will be compensated for their loss of earning capacity through regular payments set at 90 per cent of their projected economic losses. Like all WCB payments, these will be tied to the consumer price index.

The level of benefits will be set within a year of the injury and reviewed twice, two years after the original assessment and then three years later. In addition, workers will be entitled to apply for a review if their physical condition unexpectedly deteriorates.

The new workers’ compensation system will also compensate for the loss in capacity to save for retirement. Workers receiving compensation for lost earnings will be entitled to a retirement pension from the board at the age of 65 to replace their disability payments. To finance the retirement pension benefit, the WCB will contribute an extra 10 per cent of the value of a disability claimant’s compensation for lost earnings to a separate retirement pension fund.

The new approach of tying compensation much more closely to economic losses means we will finally be able to throw away the meat chart as the basis for determining compensation awards. Finally, people who have been permanently disabled are going to be treated as human beings, and that is simple justice.

I should also emphasize that the individual financial implications of this change will vary, depending on the impact the injury has on a worker’s ability to earn a living. Some workers who are injured in the future will receive more money than they would under the old system; some will receive less. But all of them will receive what they need to make up for their loss of earning power and all will receive benefits that recognize the noneconomic losses resulting from their injuries.

1350

During the past decade, Quebec, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and the Yukon have put a dual-award system into place. Quite simply, it is the fairest system for all concerned and the one that lends itself to most efficient management.

The bill also protects lifetime, inflation-indexed pensions for the approximately 116,000 workers who currently receive compensation under the old system for permanent partial disability. But we recognize that roughly 20,000 people currently receive pensions which fall short of their actual loss of earning power.

For this group of injured workers, the legislation will provide for supplementary payments equal to the full monthly pension payable under section 3 of the Old Age Security Act. These payments will be adjusted monthly for inflation and reviewed on the same basis as those provided under the new system. These men and women provide, I believe, the most eloquent testimony of the pressing need to reform workers’ compensation in this province. The need for reform becomes more pressing for them with every passing day.

There is also considerable urgency in dealing with the second major area this bill addresses; that is, the need to redirect the emphasis of the workers’ compensation system to the goal of helping injured workers return to the workforce.

We want to make sure that an injury at the workplace does not mean permanent exile from the workplace. Under the old system, the opportunity for the injured worker to return to his or her job was, in many cases, a matter of chance. The new system will make it a matter of priority.

The new reinstatement obligation on employers will apply for injured workers who have at least one year of continuous service in the job they performed prior to their injury. The obligation will remain in force for up to two years after the injury takes place.

Workers who are unable to perform the job they held before suffering the injury will be entitled to an offer from their employer of the first suitable job that becomes available. An employer’s failure to meet this obligation will result in financial penalties equal to 90 per cent of the worker’s pre-injury earnings for a year. This provision will apply to all businesses except those with fewer than 20 employees and industries such as construction, where work patterns make it impractical

The bill will require employers to contribute to injured workers’ health care, life insurance and pension plans for up to one year after the injury, provided that the employee maintains his or her share of the contributions. These contributions will be at the same levels as they were before the injury. In this way, the relationship between employers and employees will be maintained after the injury -- an important step in positioning the injured worker to be able to return to work.

The WCB will be required to make contact with injured workers within 45 days of their injury and provide prompt rehabilitation services where appropriate. Injured workers who have not returned to employment within six months of an injury will be entitled to a formal evaluation of their need for vocational rehabilitation and to subsequent appropriate services.

The bill also deals with the need to revise the ceiling on financial compensation for injured workers. Under the old legislation, the maximum gross earnings upon which benefits are calculated and assessments determined is $35,100 per year, or approximately 140 per cent of the average industrial wage. The annual earnings of about 470,000 workers in Ontario are greater than that.

The new legislation will raise the ceiling to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage, which would currently come to approximately $44,000 per year. The increase will take place in two steps. During the January following the proclamation of the amendments the ceiling will be raised to $40,000 per year; one year after that it will be increased to 175 per cent of the average industrial wage.

L’impact financier général qu’auront ces réformes n’engendrera pas de nouveaux revenus. Elles permettront de redistribuer l’argent à l’intérieur du système d’indemnisation du travailleur afin de compenser les pertes d’éventuels gains et nous aidera à concentrer nos efforts sur la réadaptation.

There remain many other significant issues related to workers’ compensation in this province, issues which require discussion and consultation as a basis of further reform.

For that reason, the Ministry of Labour will publish a green paper next year. The paper will address such issues as the adjudicative process, procedures within and around the Workers’ Compensation Board, the implication of the workers’ compensation system for small businesses and the methods of recognizing and adjudicating industrial disease compensation claims.

Our goal is clear. It is to provide fairer compensation and fairer certainty for employees and employers alike. The bill I will be introducing later today is a major step towards that goal.

RESPONSES

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: The announcement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) today could probably justifiably be called big promises and little justice. Just over three years ago, the minority Liberal government promised injured workers and their families that it would reform the unfair, unjust, discriminatory, arbitrary and bureaucratic workers’ compensation system.

Thirty-seven months and a Minister of Labour later, the large Liberal majority has given birth in the swamp to a legislative mouse. The changes announced today are much less than is being claimed on their behalf by the Liberals’ second Minister of Labour and chief apologist for the Workers’ Compensation Board.

Even an initial reading of today’s announcement indicates the changes are fundamentally flawed in key areas. The whole legislative reform package has been designed to cost exactly the same as the current system. This means that any economic benefit under the new system comes from reduction elsewhere in the system. Principally, today’s package will give more to younger workers at the expense of older workers and retirees. This is unacceptable.

The notorious meat chart, probably the most dehumanizing, degrading and offensive aspect of the entire existing system, is not being done away with, as the government claims. It has only been renamed as an impairment rating and will determine the amount of noneconomic benefits for which an injured worker is eligible.

The provisions for reintegration are weak, discriminatory and fraudulent. They do not apply to construction workers, who account for a disproportionate number of disabling injuries.

Because the employer’s obligation extends for a maximum of two years after an injury, many difficult cases, which often take more than two years to stabilize, will not be covered. An employer who refuses to comply can buy out his obligation for less than the injured worker’s annual pay. I suggest, in back injuries and some others, that that is exactly what will happen with some of the major concerns.

Disputes over reintegration will be decided unilaterally by the WCB and will not be appealable to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal. The minister is promoting yet another green paper which will address the adjudicative processes and procedures within and around the WCB. That is the last thing on earth we need, another time delay in terms of the long delays that are there now.

I and my New Democratic Party colleagues will be highlighting these and other failings in the proposed legislation in the days to come, but we promise this government that it is in for a major battle in the Legislature and across the province if it thinks it can get away with this kind of ripoff of injured workers and their families.

Mr. Harris: I want to respond initially to the statement that is made today by the Minister of Labour. I want to share some of the concerns of my colleagues of the New Democratic Party and I want to reiterate a few others.

I guess this report reminds me a little of this government’s approach to rent review and to other types of social programs it has brought in. They have all the right buzzwords. They say they are doing away with the meat chart. As has been pointed out by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), it is still there. It has been replaced with the appropriate buzzword and a new name. I guess “impairment rating” is what it is called now.

1400

Aside from that fact, I think the dual-loss part of it, perhaps with some refinement, some hearings, some fine-tuning or major tuning, can be brought into the 20th century, as it should be. Change in that area is something that has certainly been supported by employers, employees and unions alike.

But in the second part, where we deal with rehabilitation, there are a couple of pronouncements that say that within six months something has to happen. There is nothing in the statement today that tells how this is going to happen. I have not had a chance to review all the legislation, but I suggest there is nothing in the legislation on this whole end of rehab that says it cannot be done now.

In effect, I hear some pronouncements from the ministry saying: “We are going to improve the service. The way we are going to improve it is that we will have a mandatory hearing.” I do not have all those dates in front of me, but after 45 days somebody has to contact the worker. In other words, if somebody has got lost in the system, a contact will have to be made. The next point, I guess, is that within six months something has to be recommended in the way of rehab. Employers, injured workers, unions, all of those with concerns about the Workers’ Compensation Board system, have been saying for a number of years, in study after study initiated in the late 1970s and the early 1980s, that rehab is not working.

But the minister has not said anything today, nor in my view is he putting anything into legislation, that says it is going to work. I think if he were serious about it, he would make it work. He would put more dollars into it. He would put more resources into it. He would do what he says he is going to do.

All he has done today is to say, “We are going to do this.” I do not understand why he does not do it. There is nothing in the existing legislation that says he cannot do it. There is nothing in the existing legislation that says the Workers’ Compensation Board cannot do it. There is nothing today, in regard to what employers or workers are asking for, that says it should not be done. I think I concur up to this point with my colleagues to my right -- positionally, perhaps not philosophically.

The minister has also not addressed any of the serious problems. There is nothing to address the very serious leakage that has been identified in the workers’ compensation system, the unfunded liability of some $6 billion. Every major study has identified problems with some severely disabled workers who cannot return to their jobs and are getting less than they deserve, we agree with that; however, I think it is also fair to point out that pensions have been awarded routinely to people who return to their jobs and who are being overcompensated some 80 per cent, they say, on those pensions; most studies identify that.

All the minister is talking about is putting more money into the system there. We do not see anything he has talked about that is going to improve rehabilitation, other than a couple of --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired. That completes the allotted time for ministerial statements and responses. Oral questions.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, we would like to stand down our leadoff questions. We are awaiting the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

An hon. member: Here he comes.

An hon. member: Here he is.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They need only summon.

Mr. Breaugh: It is about time. You are a little slow. We had to snap twice.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr. Morin-Strom: My question is to the Premier. While saying he is opposed to the Mulroney free trade deal, the Premier is now unilaterally opening up the $3-billion Ontario trucking industry to a potential American invasion. The Mulroney-Reagan trade deal exempts transportation services, but the Liberals’ Bill 88 sets out to deregulate the Ontario trucking industry and create a wide-open market for the American trucking firms.

Surely this is a case where the Premier should be asserting provincial jurisdiction instead of handing over a key sector of the economy on a silver platter. Why has the Premier opted for full deregulation, for full free trade, for full Americanization of this important industry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not believe the honourable member’s analysis of the situation is correct. This is a discussion that has gone on for some long period of time in this province, as my honourable friend will know. It inserts reciprocity. It also deregulates in Ontario and, we believe, will bring down the price of shipping, which my honourable friend knows is so expensive here.

There have been extensive consultations for the last several years on this particular matter, and I think my honourable friend will agree that the majority of the people who are involved in transportation or who use that as an essential component of their manufacturing or resource operations think this is a good thing and in the national interest. It does not give any privileges to Americans that we would not enjoy reciprocally, and we still reserve the power to license.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In a case of Ontario having the right of jurisdiction, the Premier keeps trucking down the free trade road. In its headlong rush for deregulation, this government continues to give the Americans everything. One of northern Ontario’s largest trucking firms puts it this way:

“Manitoulin Transport is not in favour of Bill 88, as we think it spells higher rates and poorer service to the majority of shippers and receivers in northern Ontario...Rates will increase to small towns and villages and service will decrease.”

Bill 88 gives us the worst of both worlds; we will have less service and higher rates and our industry will be run by the Americans. Why will the Premier not stand up for this important Ontario industry, for the workers in it and for the communities served by it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not share the analysis put forward in the House by my friend opposite. I think the contrary of that is the case: I think that as a result of this we will see more competition and we will see prices go down. As the member knows, it has been a highly regulated industry and some people have taken advantage of that situation to increase their own profits. One of the things we have to do, regardless of the trade agreement, is make sure we are competitive internationally, and this is part of our program to so do.

Mr. Pouliot: While the Premier talks about reciprocity, the facts point in another direction. For instance, while American companies will have unlimited access to the Ontario market, Ontario truckers will not have unlimited access to the United States. In fact, 43 states have a sort of regulatory system which makes it extremely difficult, in most instances, for an outsider to operate in the United States.

The Ontario Trucking Association, with its 800 members, is prepared to accept Bill 88 if there is a reciprocity clause -- it is right on top of this kind of legislation -- that would give Ontario truckers the same access to the United States as we are giving American truckers to Ontario. Will the Premier commit to accepting an amendment to Bill 88 to protect the interests of the very people he pretends to defend?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point the honourable member makes, but after wide consultation we believe we have sufficient protection in this legislation. We do not believe we are throwing open our trucking industry to foreign domination. If that was the case, we would not be doing it.

We believe this will allow our transportation sector to be far more competitive, and obviously reciprocity is an important part of that. I know some of the objections raised, but there has been extensive consultation on this, as my honourable friend knows, and we think it is going to be very much in our provincial interest to make sure we are competitive in all sectors.

1410

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. I would like to know how the minister, in his announcement in the House today, can call this so-called legislative reform package a legislative reform package when it really is, to use his own words, “revenue neutral” and will take away benefits from some workers to benefit others. Can the minister deny this?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would say that this package is certainly the most substantial reform of the workers’ compensation system since this House considered Bill 101 in 1984.

Let me tell the member that we were not out to find ways of spending more money or saving money. What we were out to do in designing the report was to create a package that was far fairer to injured workers. That is why we are raising the ceiling on insurable earnings. It simply was unconscionable to say to a worker who earns $45,000, for example, that for his purposes, if he is injured in the workplace, we will deem him to be earning $35,000.

That is why we concentrated so heavily on early reintegration into the workplace, helping the worker get back to work. The obligation to re-employ is there. The obligation to provide a vocational rehabilitation assessment is there. A new dual-award system is there, which will use the resources that the board derives from its rates and its assessments against every business in this province more effectively.

Yes, I say to my friend the member for Hamilton East, there are certain workers who, under the new system, will get smaller pensions; but those are in situations where the worker has been injured, has returned to work, keeps earning what he earned before and really does not need a pension.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister admits that he is simply juggling the money that is there and that there are workers who are going to lose under this. Does the minister not agree that what he has really done in this announcement is not got rid of the notorious, so-called meat chart but just switched it over to an impairment rating system?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No, that is not the case at all. I appreciate that my friend the member for Hamilton East has had only today to have an opportunity to look at the bill, but his suggestion actually is not correct.

Let me point out, because it is important to make this point, that no worker who is currently receiving a pension will have that pension reduced. No worker whatever will have his pension reduced. A good number of workers, some 20,000 workers who are currently receiving permanent partial disability pensions, are undercompensated. The bill does provide additional compensation through supplementary payments for that community of injured workers.

Under the new system, the compensation for the real loss in earning capacity will not be based on a meat chart or some clinical assessment rating; it is going to be based on the impact of that injury on that worker in that workplace. The pension that the worker gets will be designed to replace that earning capacity; in other words, to put the injured worker back in the place he would have been had it not been for the injury.

I think that is a just system. I think that is a system that has long been needed in this province, and I am glad we are introducing a bill today that will give it to us.

Mr. Mackenzie: How can the minister talk about enhanced provisions for reintegration when it does not apply to construction workers, when two years is the maximum -- and he knows the difficulty in establishing some of the cases -- and when an employer who refuses to comply can simply buy out his obligation for less than the injured worker’s annual pay?

How can the minister call this an improved reintegration package? And why the further green paper study? It was eight years ago in this House that we had our first study, and we have gone through innumerable studies since on the procedures and processes at the board. Why yet another green paper?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Those, as well, are important questions. I would like first of all to deal with the situation regarding construction workers and why the statute specifically excludes construction workers from the provisions with respect to the obligation to re-employ. I think my friend the member for Hamilton East already knows the answer, but it is important to make sure everyone in this House knows the answer.

The fact is that the largest part of the construction industry, the unionized construction worker, does not have the same sort of normal employment relationship that most workers in this province experience. He or she works through a hiring hall. For one month, he or she might be working for one employer; then that job ends and that worker goes back to the hiring hall, and for six months he is working in another place and on and on. The very structure of construction and of the construction industry does not really provide a context to deal with reinstatement.

I should also like to say with regard to construction workers that these new provisions which replace the real earning loss a worker suffers in the workplace will benefit construction workers more than any other group in the entire province. It is the construction worker who perhaps lost a limb or the sight of an eye who got clinically rated and got a pension of, say, 10 or 15 per cent; that construction worker could not go back to the job because of the nature of the work and he got a pension that did not compensate him. This new package will provide the real compensation that that worker experiences --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Harris: I wonder if the Minister of Labour can confirm some of the estimates we have been given today, that exempting construction work and like industries -- we have not had an identification of what else might be involved specifically -- and all those with 20 or fewer employees will eliminate upwards of 80 per cent of the injured workers currently in that rehabilitation type of situation. I wonder if the minister could confirm that or tell us what his estimate is.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I think the member for Nipissing is directing his question towards the obligation in the bill for employers to re-employ. I should tell him that this is a powerful obligation. Not very many jurisdictions have incorporated this obligation. The notable exception is the province of Quebec, where the system is working quite well.

I have already explained to the member for Hamilton East why we have excluded construction workers: it is the nature of that industry. We have also excluded small businesses for one very simple reason. If the member reads the statute, he will see that the employer has to hold that job open; that is pretty powerful stuff in a statute. You have to keep that position open for the injured worker, so you are very anxious to help with the rehabilitation in order to get that worker back to do what he or she really wants to do, and that is to get back to work.

We have exempted small businesses, businesses with 20 or fewer employees, because we felt, in our own estimation, it was too much to ask small businesses, by and large, to hold a position open for up to two years for a worker who suffered an injury in the workplace. But we think the vast majority of workers will be covered by this, and the vast majority of injured workers will be the beneficiaries of it. It is going to get them back to their jobs far more quickly than under the current act.

Mr. Harris: The question was about some estimates this morning indicating that the figure, on the current experience, is 80 per cent. I find it very difficult to believe that the Minister of Labour would not know exactly what the breakdown is of the current experience factor. My question was, could he confirm the 80 per cent? If he thinks it is not 80 per cent, can he tell us what it is and the figures that is based upon?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It is very difficult to estimate with any certitude how many workers will be able to take advantage of this reinstatement provision.

Mr. Harris: We’re talking about right now; how many are there?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Nipissing is mixing, with all due respect, apples and oranges. The re-employment provisions, I tell my friend, are separate and distinct, very distinct, from the rehabilitation provisions. I can tell him with as much as 90 per cent accuracy, I think, that there are currently 116,000 permanent partial disability pensioners; 116,000 people in the system.

Mr. Harris: Where do they come from?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Many of them obviously are back at work receiving their pensions. Our estimates suggest that we will be expanding very substantially -- but I cannot give him a percentage -- in the area of vocational rehabilitation, which, I remind him, is separate and distinct from the re-employment provisions.

1420

Mr. Harris: I will have to assume that the 80 per cent is probably pretty close. Instead of the wishy-washy stuff, I think the minister would have denied it or at least given the other figures if it were not close.

Given that and given that the legislation he brought in today provides no incentive to the employers for getting people back to work through rehabilitation, can the minister then tell us where the bulk of the problem is going to be in those industries and, including the other companies, can he tell us how much he is allocating through this legislation for “quick and effective rehabilitation” over and above what is being spent now?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Once again, the member for Nipissing is concentrating on rehabilitation provisions. I am glad he is, because I think --

Mr. Harris: It’s the most important part.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: He says it is the most important part. I would tend to agree that it is a very important element of the bill.

Let me just tell him that as far as the employer is concerned, with the statutory obligation on the Workers’ Compensation Board to provide a rehabilitation assessment, that will bring the employer into the process. Our view is that that will put the injured worker himself, the board itself and the employer together to design an effective rehabilitation package that really does help the injured worker get back to work.

The member for Nipissing asks how much additional will be spent on rehabilitation, but he knows it is the Workers’ Compensation Board which will be setting that budget. In our discussions with the board, the estimate is that substantially more will be spent as a result of this initiative. I tell him quite frankly that it is too early to estimate in terms of percentage or dollars exactly how much more.

MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WOMEN’S ISSUES

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Premier. He should be aware that the federal-provincial-territorial conference of ministers responsible for the status of women ran from June 7 through June 9. This annual meeting brings together provincial ministers involved with the status of women to co-ordinate strategies and exchange ideas.

His minister responsible for women’s issues (Mr. Sorbara) knew about this conference six months in advance, yet Ontario was the only province not represented at this important forum, which included such agenda items as the national child care strategy and how ministers of labour could be more sensitive to women’s issues.

Was the Premier aware that his minister responsible for women’s issues was absent from this very important conference, where Ontario was the only province unrepresented?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe I was; yes.

Mr. Jackson: The minister’s absence at the federal-provincial conference might be excusable and might even be an isolated incident, if that were to be the Premier’s response. However, since this minister assumed responsibility for the women’s issues portfolio about nine months ago, he has missed all six meetings of his own advisory group, the Ontario Advisory Council on Women’s Issues, despite having received two written invitations and four open invitations for the balance of those meetings.

It seems that the minister has not been attending federal meetings, nor has he been attending provincial-level meetings, not even meetings of his own advisory council. Was the Premier aware that his minister responsible for women’s issues was not attending these important meetings?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No; I do not follow his daily schedule.

Mr. Jackson: Had someone from the Premier’s government been attending meetings of concern to the women of this province, he might have learned that his own advisory group on women’s issues has been without a president for the last nine months and that the advisory council has been allowed to dwindle from 15 to only 7 members.

The Premier would also be aware that it is customary in this province, when any agency, board or commission is under sunset review, that the terms or expired terms of office are usually extended to ensure that the agency, board or commission can continue to operate during that period of time. Yet his minister responsible for women’s issues, the Premier’s voice for women in this province --

Mr. Speaker: The question would be?

Mr. Jackson: -- has not been attending those federal or provincial conferences or even ensuring the success of the advisory council.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Jackson: Can the Premier still stand in this House today, with this information, and indicate that the minister responsible for women’s issues has his complete and total confidence?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to my honourable friend is, absolutely yes. My honour-able friend does not understand this government’s approach to women’s issues. It is part of every single thing we do in this government, I say with some pride.

Mr. Jackson: Your own minister stood in this House and chastised the federal government. You don’t even attend the meetings.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend still suffers from that sort of Tory myopia of tokenism; he thinks that just by going to a meeting he is accomplishing something, and that is not our view.

We have an exemplary group of women in our cabinet, in very powerful and important positions, making decisions on all aspects of public policy. Our sensitivity for women’s issues and the women’s movement reaches into all aspects of public policy. Yes, there is one official spokesman, but the reality is, there are 30 official cabinet spokesmen for women’s issues in this province and there are 94 caucus members who speak on this. I understand my honourable friend’s not understanding that, but I can tell him this province has changed, whether he knows it or not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT PROGRAM

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that the northern health travel grant program was established to help individuals who need to seek specialized care to travel to urban centres where that care is available. It has had some success; however, an interesting situation is developing.

When individuals in northern Ontario now complete the application form for a northern health travel grant, it has to be signed by the referring doctor and then by the specialist doctor. People are being required to pay user fees of $10, $12 and $15 to the referring doctor and then to the specialist doctor in order to have this form completed. I wonder, does the minister approve of this practice? Is this practice one that is sanctioned by the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, the government launched a northern health travel grant program in December 1985. The program has been tremendously successful, and since that time there have been some modifications to the program. It is one that is constantly under review and it is one that I think has improved access to needed medical services for the people of northern Ontario.

Mr. Hampton: I will repeat the question so that whoever does write the answers will get it right this time. We all know how the northern health travel grant came into being. It was part of the accord between the government and this party. It was something that was pressed for for a great deal of time. We do not need that answer.

People are now being forced to pay $10 and $15 user fees to the referring physician and to the receiving physician in order to get the travel grant. What we want to know is, does the Ministry of Health sanction that kind of user fee?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, insured services and any adjunct to insured services are considered to fall under Bill 94 if there is an additional charge. There are some legitimate administrative and uninsured services. I would be pleased to investigate the member’s question to determine whether or not the filling out of these forms is considered an adjunct to an insured service.

1430

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mrs. Marland: I was shocked that the Minister of the Environment did not come into this House today and make a statement regarding the discovery of thousands of decaying car batteries and drums containing possible toxic waste on a housing construction site in Pickering. The site at Brock Road and Highway 2 has been closed temporarily to protect the workers.

I would like to know what the Ministry of the Environment is doing to protect future home owners whose children will be playing in this lead-contaminated soil.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member knows, when we have found lead, we have undertaken whatever activities are necessary to protect the people in that particular area. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) is working in conjunction with the Ministry of the Environment to ensure not only that those who are involved in the construction of any project are protected but, of course, that the people who might inhabit any particular area in future are protected. Our ministry, along with the Ministry of Labour, is undertaking a very extensive investigation of this matter at this time and we will take whatever action is necessary.

Mrs. Marland: It is very interesting to hear the minister say that, because when we called the ministry this morning, its staff had no idea what was happening at the site. The municipality was under the wrong impression that the Ministry of the Environment had everything under control when, in fact, it does not. No one seems to know what is happening. These properties have already been sold to future home owners. The site is not only dangerous to those workers, it is dangerous to the future home owners and it is dangerous to the people working close by in the Pickering municipal offices. Most of all, it is dangerous to the environment.

I am wondering if this ministry is going to launch an investigation. I am wondering if it is going to provide some interim protection for those home owners who have sold their present homes in order to move into these homes that are now to be constructed. Of course, with the delay, they will not be able to move in on time, if at all.

Will the minister determine the extent of the pollution and how this former toxic waste site came to be sold for housing in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, we always undertake these kinds of investigations when matters are brought to our attention or when we are doing our particular investigations ourselves. I know that in the past the member’s government allowed many practices that I would not want to see happening in 1988 if we were involved in the disposal of wastes in this province.

When we get into a situation where I hear people complain sometimes about the length of time it takes for us to process these matters, when I hear people complain about the fact that the Ministry of the Environment is too stringent, I point to the kind of examples that the member brings to the attention of this House, examples of the way things were done in the past. We want to avoid the repetition of that through the practices that we undertake at the present time in the approval of sites and the manner in which we dispose of wastes in this province. Of course, I am aware of this matter, which has come to my attention --

Mr. Cousens: He’s not answering the question, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Perhaps the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), as the expert, has an answer for this question. I think most members of the House would recognize that I have, in fact --

Mr. Cousens: Garbage mouth.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

Mrs. Grier: I too have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On Thursday the standing committee on public accounts tabled an interim report dealing with the Provincial Auditor’s comments on the Ministry of the Environment, and as the minister was, unfortunately, unavoidably absent, I would like to read him the recommendation with respect to the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement:

“The committee wishes to emphasize that environmental protection cannot be allowed to await implementation of MISA. The committee recommends that the ministry vigorously use all instruments currently available to it so as to achieve the earliest possible reduction in the pollution of Ontario’s waters. The committee also wishes to note its concern about the delays which have been experienced in implementing MISA, and recommends that the ministry continue to give this initiative the highest priority.”

Can the minister tell the House whether he too is concerned about the delays in the implementation of MISA and, if so, what he intends to do about them?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I find it most interesting that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who herself served as a municipal politician with some distinction not all that long ago, previous to her election to this House, would not be aware of the criticism that is forthcoming to the Minister of the Environment from municipalities across this province. They indicate that, in fact, we are moving too quickly in the implementation of the MISA program.

Some of the people who sit on these boards, who represent the municipalities through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario are, in fact, members of the New Democratic Party. I recall having representations made to me in Perth, Ontario, where they were extremely critical of the speed at which we were moving and the fact that we would not leave enough reactive time to the measures that we were presenting to them.

It is a very extensive program. I wish it could be implemented overnight. I wish I simply had to snap my fingers and we had it in effect. We are moving rapidly. I think what the member will see, as each of the sectors comes on line, is the experience of the last one will be of assistance in moving the others forward more quickly. We want to do it right. I think we could have rushed forward with it and not done as good a job as I sincerely believe the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore and others in the House would like to see.

If the member asks, would I like things to be perfectly clean in Ontario tomorrow -- and I am not belittling the suggestions she makes -- the answer is yes --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Supplementary.

Mrs. Grier: MISA, as the minister well knows, covers 10 sectors. One of them is municipalities. There have undoubtedly been delays and the municipalities have contributed to the delays. But I do not want to address that in my supplementary; I want to remind the minister of the nine other industrial sectors.

In June 1986, when he released MISA, he said they would all be covered by monitoring regulations by mid-1988. In the fall of 1987, he updated that timetable and he said that all the industrial monitoring regulations except for iron, steel and metal casting would be released by June 1988.

All that we have seen so far is one monitoring regulation, that for the petroleum sector. We have nine days left in June, 1988. Are we going to see the six other regulations meeting the target the minister set for them --

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mrs. Grier: -- or is there going to be a revised timetable that pushes MISA into the next century?

Mr. Speaker: Minister. I believe the question has been asked very well.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can assure the member that MISA will not be pushed into the next century. I think that is something that I can reasonably say to the member. I am glad she was kind enough to leave me that much leeway.

I do want to say that I think, as we have that first one in place, the honourable member will see the others flow much more quickly. The experience we gain in terms of the reaction between the bureaucracy and the members of the environmental groups and, on the other hand, the industries themselves, indicates that the kind of interaction that has taken place in the first one will prove to be very valuable in implementing the other parts of the MISA program.

I think the member will be pleased when she sees the kind of progress that we see in this year of 1988. I always wish it were much more rapid than it is, but we get criticized very often if we do not listen to the representations made by environmental groups on the one hand or industry on the other hand, or if we have our people in the Ministry of the Environment subject these proposals to very detailed scrutiny. Because we have given a greater amount of time to the legitimate response of those questions, it has taken a little longer than we would like, but I think the final product will be much superior than it otherwise might be.

VAUGHAN GLEN HOSPITAL

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In April 1987, the ministry supported Bloorview Children’s Hospital purchasing the property and buildings of Vaughan Glen Hospital. The parents of the multihandicapped children at Vaughan Glen were assured by the board that the hospital would continue to operate as before. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Health increased the operating budget of Vaughan Glen Hospital. Yet in September 1987, her ministry supported the phasing out of the facility.

Is the minister in favour of, or is she against, keeping Vaughan Glen Hospital open?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The plan is for Vaughan Glen Hospital to be phased out over a period of five years and for the residents of that hospital and the families to be located in appropriate facilities.

1440

Mr. Eves: This is another example of the Ministry of Health’s mismanagement and poor planning. When her ministry decided to buy Vaughan Glen, absolutely no kind of cost analysis was done by her ministry. This is something she and her ministry have continually harped that they should be doing at other hospitals in the province.

Once her ministry purchased the hospital, it became clear to its officials that renovations were necessary. The member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) and the minister’s colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) have concerns that these beds must be maintained, especially in the light of the fact that there is already a serious shortage of chronic care beds in York region.

Would it not make sense to consider renovating or rebuilding Vaughan Glen Hospital as opposed to closing 120 chronic care beds in York region, where they are drastically needed, I might add?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is very important to note that in fact at this time the residents of Vaughan Glen require special care. In many cases, they will require other appropriate institutionalized facilities and in some cases, hopefully, will be able to be moved out into appropriate community settings.

The chronic beds which are part of Vaughan Glen’s facilities are filled by patients and residents, of whom very few -- I think fewer than 30 per cent -- actually are from York region. We have announced, as the member knows, chronic care facilities across this province. The intention is to replace the beds in this facility in appropriate locations and to make sure that the residents, along with their families, receive sensitive advice and assistance to make sure that the placements of those individuals are in appropriate facilities and that they are well cared for.

The Vaughan Glen facility is not one that would lend itself to renovation and it was deemed appropriate that this facility should not continue beyond five years.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. McGuinty: I have a question for the Minister of Health whom, on behalf of my colleagues, I welcome back from what I am sure was a very productive trip abroad.

The hospitals in the Ottawa region face a unique situation because for years they have served many thousands of patients from Quebec. Recently, the number of patients from Quebec using Ontario hospitals has declined, creating an impact on the budgets of the Ottawa-Carleton hospitals. Can the minister tell the Legislature what will be done to resolve this problem?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, I met with the chairmen of the Ottawa hospitals and discussed this very issue not long ago. In some of the hospitals, when those institutions were built, up to 30 per cent of capacity was designated and made available for Quebec residents. As the Quebec patients have been declining -- a new hospital has been opened in Gatineau -- the impact on the hospitals has been significant. Over the past few years, the ministry has acknowledged this and we are working co-operatively with the hospitals to resolve this issue, because it has an impact on the budgets.

It does point out, however, that since this capacity was originally intended for non-Ontario residents, it is important that the hospitals in the Ottawa area work with the district health councils to determine the future use of this capacity and work closely with the ministry to ensure appropriate funding before capacity is expanded.

Mr. McGuinty: I have a supplementary question for the minister. It is specifically about the Riverside Hospital of Ottawa, located in the heart of Ottawa South. Can the minister tell the Legislature what is being done to resolve the deficit situation without affecting the provision of essential services at the Riverside Hospital?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the member. I know about his concern and the concern of all members in this House, not only those from Ottawa. I repeat that we will maintain essential services in all communities across this province.

I met recently with the chairman of the board of the Riverside Hospital. We had a very good meeting and pledged to work co-operatively. It is interesting to note that in the Ottawa area as a result of the shortfall of Quebec revenues -- the ministry has acknowledged this -- in this year alone, some $4 million in one-time payments to the hospitals has acknowledged the shortfall in those revenues.

We do see the need to resolve this in the longer term and are encouraging the hospitals in Ottawa to work co-operatively with the ministry, which they want to do, and with the district health councils, as we make sure that we can respond to the future needs of the residents of the Ottawa area.

LONG-TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE

Miss Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada and an insurance policy that it offers to employers concerning long-term disability payments. Under the policy, Sun Life continues to pay monthly benefits to employees who qualify for LTD medically, which is normal.

However, Sun Life also deducts from those benefits the estimated amount of money the employee would receive if he or she were in receipt also of Canada pension plan benefits. Therefore, even if the employee has only applied for CPP total disability and is not receiving it, Sun Life is still deducting an arbitrary amount to reflect the CPP payments from its own payments to the individual.

Can the minister explain to the House what right Sun Life has to offer and use this type of policy?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, I cannot. I appreciate the member raising this matter. The way she describes it, certainly if the person in receipt of the payments is having a deduction based on money that he or she is not receiving, it appears on the surface to be unfair. I would be glad to look into it and report to the honourable member.

Miss Martel: Sun Life was good enough to advise us that most insurance companies in fact are offering this type of policy in regard to long-term disability, so it appears that the problem is fairly widespread. I can give the minister the example of a Mrs. St. Louis in my riding who was awarded long-term disability benefits from Sun Life in May of this year.

Although she has applied for CPP, she is not in receipt of it and has no idea how long it will take. However, in the meantime, Sun Life is deducting $485 a month from its payments to her, so that she will not have an overpayment when and if she does receive CPP payments.

Once again, when the minister is checking into this, will he guarantee that he will look at not only Sun Life but also a number of other insurance companies to see if this policy is indeed widespread?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Yes, and I will report to the honourable member in the House when I can.

ONTARIO LOTTERY CORP.

Mr. McLean: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. When he was commenting last week on the firing of Norman Morris, president of the Ontario Lottery Corp., and the recent problem with the Instant-win tickets, he said: “I don’t believe it was just this particular matter -- there have been some others.”

Will the minister outline the other problems that exist in the Ontario Lottery Corp. that led to the firing of Mr. Morris, and the changes he is contemplating that he feels Mr. Morris was not competent to manage and implement?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I believe if the member had been at the interview in which those comments were made, he would have been made aware that there are presently discussions going on between Mr. Morris and his solicitor, and they will be speaking with the government in regard to future discussions. I do not feel that it would be wise for me to pursue the matter further.

Mr. McLean: I asked the question about the other reasons, and the minister does not care to comment on any other reasons. I do not think the members here need an X-ray machine to see through the minister’s answer. The minister’s reluctance to provide the House with specific details of the other problems he has alluded to is simply unacceptable.

Does the minister not realize that by refusing to provide specifics on these other matters to which he has alluded, he has created uncertainty about the administration of the Ontario Lottery Corp., has made a case against Mr. Morris on nothing more than innuendoes and is allowing an important public corporation to hide the reasons why it dismissed its senior official?

Hon. Mr. O’Neil: I can assure the member that the Ontario Lottery Corp. will have ongoing discussions. Many of these matters are being looked at, and I can assure the member that the public should have full and complete confidence in the way we intend to run the Ontario Lottery Corp.

RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES

Mr. Owen: I have a question to the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. A number of people who live in retirement communities in my area tell me that one of the reasons they live there is because they appreciate the type of environment that is available to them and other seniors. They say they like to have their grandchildren visit, but they also like to see them leave.

They have expressed some concern to me that they have had some indication made to them that it may not be possible in the future to enforce the availability of this type of community to their age group. I am asking the minister today, is there some way in which we can ensure an age restriction through the Human Rights Code to assist these people to have the lifestyle they feel they have earned?

1450

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I thank the member for Simcoe Centre for the question. It is quite clear in the code that it is permissible to discriminate on the basis of age if one is 65 years of age and over. The code recognizes that seniors have some special needs and requirements, so for those 65 years of age and over it is clear and quite permissible to discriminate on the basis of that age.

Mr. Owen: Is there any way then that the minister could consider this restriction being lowered to those in their early 60s, or even in their late 50s, to accommodate these people who, for health or other reasons, have seen fit to go into this type of community for the amenities which it affords?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The particular, specific question the member has raised is before the Ontario Human Rights Commission right now. There are several rental and condominium facilities across the province that currently have, the restriction of 55 years of age and over. There is a complaint before the human rights commission, and therefore I am unable to give the member a specific answer on that today, but the commission is dealing with that. There is the possibility, under certain circumstances, that the commission could rule that was permissible. As I say, it is dealing with that.

I might also point out, and the member may recall, that I indicated in the House that we have appointed a board of inquiry to deal with the issue of adult-only condominiums. That board of inquiry is meeting currently, and I will be able to report on that. I hope those two things will be of help to him. I cannot give the member the answer today, because the commission is dealing with both of those matters as we speak, but I should be of assistance to his constituents as I get those two answers out of the commission.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and concerns the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This act is supposed to ensure the protection of personal information about individuals held by government ministries and agencies. If the government is serious about the protection-of-privacy act, can the Chairman of Management Board explain why it is still possible to go to the Ministry of Transportation, pay a $5 fee, fill out a simple application and then receive the name and the address for any plated motor vehicle in Ontario? Why is that still possible in view of the fact that it can disclose a lot of information that individuals otherwise want to be kept private?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There are other reasons, I suppose, for people to be able to get access to a piece of information with respect to that registered private information in the public forum. I have not discussed that particular issue with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), but on the raising of this question with me, I am quite prepared to speak to him.

Mr. Hampton: I am grateful to hear the minister’s willingness to speak to the Minister of Transportation. This may be long overdue, though, because this problem, the fact that this kind of information is widely available, has gone on for two years. In fact, we have reason to believe that it is being used improperly.

We checked with the Ministry of Transportation people, and they told us that you need to give only simplistic reasons in order to have access to this information. There is agreement out there that a lot of this information is being used improperly. In fact, if somebody wanted to, it is all too easy to fill out the form and find out the name and address of a young woman, and once you have the name and address, you have the phone number. You can also use this system to effectively follow and watch someone.

Mr. Speaker: Your question please.

Mr. Hampton: When can we expect some changes in this system, since the government was aware of this problem two years ago? When can we expect some changes which in fact meet with the intentions and spirit of the privacy act?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The particular policy falls within the mandate of the Ministry of Transportation, as the honourable gentleman knows. I realize that some of his colleagues, raised this on another occasion. I will take it up with the Minister of Transportation and advise, as much as I can, with respect to his deliberations.

The honourable gentleman also knows, I think, that it is important from other perspectives to be able to find out the information attached to particular licence plates. I know there is a very delicate balancing of public interest with respect to this particular question.

I will talk to the Minister of Transportation and see if he has considered dealing with the policy, which is clearly within his mandate and not that of the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet.

HOME CARE

Mr. McCague: I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have many letters from constituents expressing their appreciation of the homemaking service of the Canadian Red Cross Society. This one in particular said: “For many months, indeed since July 1986, we have had help in our home from a homemaker. This has enabled us to continue living here in dignity and with no dependence on others, either family or friends.”

These people are both 90 years old and, as much as they are grateful for the help they have had and are receiving and wish to continue, they are concerned about the wages paid to the workers, who merit much more than minimum wage. What is the minister’s response to my constituents?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member may be aware of the fact that just last week we released an interministerial report with respect to homemakers’ wages and the rates we pay to agencies, for training and the whole package. It clearly indicates the same concern the member has raised.

I have indicated to both my critics that the Ministry of Health and ourselves, because we are the two major users of homemakers, are working right now on a response to that report. I am hoping that within a month or so we will be able to come up with something. Whether we will be able to do everything it asks, I am not sure, but we are working on it.

Mr. McCague: That is an interesting answer. The honourable member will know that this government is noted for reports, reports, reports and a long time for action.

It has been pointed out in other letters I have that the wages paid are not really more than those monthly cheques received by welfare recipients. I think people are genuinely concerned about not only the service being dropped, but the fact that, at very little over minimum wage, the Red Cross may not be able to hire people.

I would urge the minister to speed up the process. When does he think he might have an answer for these very concerned people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Responding to the honourable member’s opening editorial comment, I would remind him that the integrated homemaker program, which this government introduced two years ago, previously sat on the shelf for about five years, not introduced at all. That part of the program alone is going to cost $40 million this fiscal year. That is brand-new money put into the system, money that was not even there at all.

The honourable member, as a former Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, would know that the Ministry of Health’s homemaker program is even larger than that. I do not have an exact figure, but it is higher even than that again. There are a great many government resources in that program right now.

We concur with the member’s opening statement that this does allow older people in our society to stay in their own homes or with their families for longer than they otherwise would do. It is something we want to support. We will move as quickly as possible. We do not want to see this program, in any way whatsoever, lose the impact it has been able to gain over the last few years, and of course it has been there for many years before that in another form.

1500

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that, under the Employment Standards Act, employees can have their holidays cancelled by employers, even if it means a monetary penalty if they have made arrangements for reservations, and there is no recourse for the employee? If the minister is aware of that, is he prepared to change the law to make the employer at least responsible for any costs incurred by the employee as a result of the cancellation or postponement of the vacation?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The provisions under the Employment Standards Act deal with the private workforce and the holidays for the private workforce in two separate ways. For some industries, work on a public holiday is simply at the option of the worker, and the worker can refuse to work on those public holidays. For others in the workforce, if they are required to work on public holidays, there are specific provisions in respect of pay.

I think the member for Algoma is referring to something else, though, and that is the right of the employer to require employees to work after they have established holidays. My understanding of the act is that there is no specific provision prohibiting the employer from doing that, and certainly no provisions within the act that require compensation. I would want to look into that further before giving an absolute and definitive answer in that regard.

Mr. Wildman: My question was, would the minister change the law? Actually, I am going to be introducing a private member’s bill today that will make employers responsible for any losses experienced by the employee when the employee is forced by the employer to cancel or change vacation plans after having received permission to take vacation at that time. Would the minister consider supporting my private member’s bill?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I would say that it sounds like an interesting bill. I cannot tell the member right at this moment that I would be prepared to support it. I do want to say to him though, that we are in the process of examining all aspects of the Employment Standards Act with a view, some time down the road, to introducing a comprehensive series of amendments to that act.

Certainly what he suggests sounds fair and equitable on the surface: that an employee should not lose the cost of a vacation as a result of the requirement to work when he or she has had permission to go on a holiday. That sounds reasonable and sensible, and perhaps after the member has introduced his bill, we will examine it more closely and see whether that bill is an appropriate candidate for inclusion in our package of amendments.

HAZARDOUS WASTES

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing on a question that was raised earlier by the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) regarding a problem with new houses being built at Brock Road and Kingston Road in Scarborough, a matter of very serious concern to anyone who potentially would be living on those lots with the environmental problems of lead poisoning. Already it is a concern.

The Minister of the Environment has sidestepped the issue and would not answer the question by our Environment critic. I would like to ask the Minister of Housing, inasmuch as this a very serious concern to new home buyers and inasmuch as it is a housing problem, what is her ministry doing, when it comes to environmental concerns of this type, to make sure that the home buyer is protected and the environment is secure? Inasmuch as the Minister of the Environment is doing nothing, what is this minister prepared to do to help protect those people going into that area?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It seems to me that the Minister of the Environment is doing his job, which is making sure that everything that gets done in this province is subjected, appropriately, to the kind of environmental review that is supposed to happen. I assure the member that is exactly what will happen in this case.

Mr. Cousens: I am just astounded, and I have to thank the member from Mississauga South for her concern and for her compassion for those people moving into that area, because it is obvious that this minister does not care. I have to tell members there has to be a concern and there should be one, and I want to ask the minister a question. Why does the Ministry of Housing not take concern over all those areas that affect new home buyers? It affects the Ministry of the Environment, it affects the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Why does this minister not take a lead role to help protect the new home buyers, rather than just sit back there and say that someone else is doing it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I think it should be apparent to the honourable member that concern with the quality of housing and with the lives of the people of this province is not the responsibility of any one ministry.

The Ministry of the Environment appropriately takes on the responsibility of making sure that any environmental concerns that are raised with regard to housing or any other issue will indeed be dealt with, as I know they will and as the minister has said they will.

It seems to me that the Ontario New Home Warranty Program under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has done an extremely good job in dealing with the problems of new home owners and the problems associated with building new homes.

The concerns the member shares with me are very real, but various parts of government take responsibility for them and I think that is the appropriate way for them to work.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for oral questions and responses.

I see the member for Markham standing for some reason.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to withdraw the unparliamentary remark I made earlier in the House to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). I apologize for that. That is not something I like to do.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Tatham: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retire prior to 31 May, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than the present 7 or 10 years.

“This proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

It is signed by myself and 55 others.

ST. CLAIR COLLEGE OF APPLIED ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition regarding the layoffs and cutbacks at our community college, St. Clair College, signed by approximately 400 students at St. Clair College.

COUNSELLING SERVICE

Mrs. Cunningham: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We are appalled that Changing Ways (London) Inc., the only agency in London which provides specific counselling solely to men who batter women, is facing a funding crisis.”

I have signed the petition and will turn it over to the House for the record.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs. Cunningham: I have one other petition.

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

“We urge the Ontario Legislature not to pass legislation that would pass responsibility for regulating Sunday and holiday retail hours to the municipalities in Ontario. Rather, the Ontario government should revise its current legislation in order to uphold more strongly a common pause day across the province. We believe that a common day for family and worship activities is essential to the wellbeing of Ontario.”

This is from the First Christian Reformed Church on Talbot Street in London, Ontario. There are over 300 signatures, and I have added my signature to the document.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Harris: I have a petition signed by 2,432 persons from across Ontario which reads in part:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“The Ontario budget contains excessive tax increases, which are a direct attack on the middle class. I object, and I demand that you repeal them.”

In another part it reads:

“Bob Nixon, you’ve gone too far.”

I too have signed this petition.

Mr. Speaker: Have you checked that number personally?

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee’s Second Report, 1988 and, pursuant to standing order 32(b), requested that it be placed on the Orders and Notices paper for consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have a brief statement?

Mr. Fleet: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek your largess in defining “brief.”

Mr. Speaker: Generally, we consider one, two or three minutes brief.

1510

Mr. Fleet: I will live within the outer limits of that admonition.

It is said that the Emperor Caligula preferred to write his laws in very small letters and then hang them up on high pillars, the more effectively to ensnare the people. Today in Ontario those very small letters are thousands of regulations, rules and policy directives, and they are hidden on modern-day pillars: namely, the desks and shelves in government offices all over the province. If we are to have government without walls and without barriers, we need reform.

This report makes 44 recommendations for reform and has the support of members from all parties. It is the most thorough parliamentary review of regulation-making in Ontario in at least 20 years, and possibly since the Regulations Act was created over 40 years ago. These reforms are based on the principles of fairness, accessibility and accountability to provide greater public participation in the government, greater access by the public to government decisions and more effective parliamentary scrutiny.

Briefly, I will touch on the most significant recommendations, which involve changes in the Regulations Act and standing orders: (1) a requirement for 30 days’ advance notice, written in plain language, of most draft government regulations; (2) a regulation registry at each ministry so that interested parties are sure to receive such notice; (3) a disallowance power in the Legislature to repeal improper regulations; (4) an expanded legislative scrutiny committee for both legislation and regulations to ensure parliamentary accountability; (5) an expanded definition of the word “regulation” to include policy directives of a legislative nature; (6) a modernization of the Regulations Act, as well as the form of regulations; and (7) a citizens’ code of regulatory fairness.

This report deals with fundamental issues about how both the government and the Legislature should pass laws. Accordingly, pursuant to standing order 32(d), the committee has requested a comprehensive government response to the report within 120 days. In addition, the committee seeks a prompt but brief debate so that all members will be better acquainted with the details of the report. I urge all members to support and the government to act on these recommendations.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ward moved first reading of Bill 160, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Wildman moved first reading of Bill 161, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Wildman: The purpose of the bill, as I indicated during question period, is to make employers responsible for any losses experienced by the employee when the employee is forced by the employer to cancel or change vacation plans after having received permission to take vacation at that time from the employer, and I would hope it would not have to await an overall amendment of the Employment Standards Act.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 162, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not have any additional comments. I simply reiterate the comments that I made during ministers’ statements on the importance of this reform package.

DEFERRAL OF VOTES

Hon. Mr. Conway: Before calling the first order, which will be the 30th order, this afternoon, I would like to seek unanimous consent for an agreement that we have discussed earlier in these deliberations, that any divisions arising out of this afternoon’s business in the House or in committee will be deferred until 5:45.

Mr. Speaker: The request has been made by the government House leader that votes be deferred until 5:45.

Agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) may have some further comments.

Mr. Harris: I will be brief. I had hoped we could have finished this last day. Perhaps had I not been as wordy as I was in one area of the bill where I had not planned to be, I could have concluded, the minister could have had the concluding remarks and we could have finished. I accept responsibility for being wordier than I thought I was going to be, and I think we can finish this particular bill today.

I do not want that unanimity of purpose over timing to suggest that I have had second thoughts over the weekend about the bill itself. In fact, over the weekend --

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Well, there were a couple of other comments I wanted to get on the record, and I will do that. I know the minister probably has a big party with the injured workers, who want to congratulate him today.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: No parties today.

Mr. Harris: I did not think they would want to congratulate him either.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I said, “No parties,” but that’s all.

Mr. Harris: I want to say that I met on the weekend with a couple by the name of Bruce and Sheila Bowes. I want to use a specific example, and I am sure other businesses in my community will not object to that, because I did stop in and talk to them on this very matter. In my view, theirs is typical of a small retail store. There are many smaller, there are many larger, but theirs falls in between. Actually, there are three stores in one -- Man’s World, The Big and Tall Shop, and Compliments for Ladies. It is an excellent store, and one will find stores of very high quality service such as this in other communities across this province.

The reason it is representative and the reason I want to talk about it, and I alluded to it on Thursday, is the reality of what I think is this confrontation situation that is being set up between small store owners and their employees.

In this business, the two owners are in the store. They are actively involved. They not only manage and are involved in purchasing; they are involved in the store and on the floor, as are a number of their family members -- daughters, sons-in-law and whatnot -- so it is a family business. Then there are other employees who, while not related and who certainly do not have a vested family interest in the business, work for wages. But it all operates like a family. I think most stores of this type and size do. In a word, in my view, they are very typical.

They do not want Sunday shopping. They do not think the minister’s legislation is going to work to prevent employees from having to work on Sundays. None of those employees are of the feeling that they are going to feel like that family if they say to the owner: “Look, we are not working Sundays. You guys do it.”

1520

It is my view that while I am talking about one particular example, it is very representative of all small retail operations. They are not asking for legislation, and I guess I find this very ironic, to protect them from Bill 113. The ironic part is, what is the reason for Bill 114? It is to protect the workers from our Bill 113. The logical answer to that is to scrap Bill 113.

For the life of me I really cannot understand his thinking that we can buy the argument that this is protection. Protection from what? Protection from the government. We have to protect people from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). I find it a very ironic sales pitch for this bill that the reason the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has to bring in the bill is to protect employees from the Solicitor General.

That part of it bothers me more than any of the technicalities. You can argue about whether it is effective, whether it is meaningful, whether this arbitration process is going to work. In our view, it will not. In our view, it is mechanically like their rent control legislation. It will not work. In my view, it is a lot like socialism. It does not work. It has a lofty ideal. You can put down your principles and on paper it all looks great: Everybody will share equally and it will all be wonderful. But it does not work.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Is this a leadership speech?

Mr. Harris: No, I guess not.

This is one of those bills that has a lofty principle. Would it not be nice if all the workers and all the employees could agree? Then if they do not, there is this arbitration; there is this step and there is that step. The bottom line of it is that this will work to a certain degree, I guess, in the large union shops, because they have already lost the benefits, in my view, of friendly familiarity and family co-operation. As workers, they do not have the disadvantages of that taking advantage of them. That is one of the reasons unions have evolved.

But in the types of businesses we are talking about -- and the majority of the people who are involved in retail sales fall into this category -- in my view, this bill is meaningless and really does not have any place on the books of the laws of Ontario.

In summation, we will oppose this piece of legislation. Obviously, we are not in favour of Bill 113, as we have indicated. We do not think Bill 114 makes Bill 113 any more palatable to us. It does not get at the principles. It tries to attack one of the symptoms of the problems of Bill 113. In our view, this bill may even cause far more problems than it solves by leading to an expectation, with all the headlines and all the press releases they are so good at, of retail workers out there saying, “This is great; we do not have to work on Sunday,” without facing up to the reality that somebody has to work on Sunday, and in the little stores, who is that going to be?

I say to the minister that we really do think the bill is a charade. We think it is designed to help sell Bill 113, and other than making a statement of intent of trying to solve a problem, we do not think this piece of legislation is particularly worth while. We remain opposed to the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: If I remember well, shall we continue the entente you had the last time around not to have questions and comments? Is that still agreed to by all parties?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Then do other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, does the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am really delighted to be able to wrap up this debate on Bill 114, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, to afford what I consider to be a very important protection to retail workers who may be called upon, in the absence of the bill, to work on a holiday as defined in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

As we wind up this debate on Bill 114, we really are finally wrapping up the debate on the amendments to the regulation of Sunday shopping and retailing on public holidays, including Sundays.

As I have listened to the remarks not only on Bill 114 but on Bill 113 as well, I have a sense that this is a rather important moment, because there has been a very substantial degree of debate, not only in this House -- my goodness; how long did we go on with debate on second reading of Bill 113 here? -- but all around the province.

I suspect that in 80 per cent of the households of this province, people have been talking about Sunday shopping. I would suggest that the message of the reality of what the government is doing with its amendments is finally getting out there. I think finally the people are realizing that the suggestions that we are going to have wide-open Sunday shopping are simply not true, that incorporating a local option within Bill 113 will not lead to a world where all the stores are open on Sunday.

The reason, by and large, is that the people do not want it. By and large, the people in this province have decided they will set aside this day.

Virtually every other sector is not regulated at all in respect of Sunday. Manufacturers are not prohibited from manufacturing on Sundays, yet most of our operations, certainly smaller ones, are not open. My own riding has hundreds and hundreds of small manufacturers. There is no provincial law which says they cannot manufacture on Sunday, yet they do not.

There is no law preventing wholesalers from operating their businesses on Sundays but, by and large, they do not, because it is the preference of the community. There is no provincial law or no local option which says you cannot work on a construction site on Sunday, yet the community has said, “Well, our preference is that work not happen on Sunday.”

Similarly, when these new, effective amendments that the Solicitor General and I have put in place for two very important pieces of legislation come into place, by and large, that is the way the community will respond, with their local preferences.

I think of the service sector as well. I, as a lawyer, and architects: Nothing prohibits them from working on Sunday. If you believe the official opposition and the third party, you would think we had better bring in a bill pretty soon prohibiting lawyers and doctors and architects from working on Sunday. Yet we do not have it and, by and large, the province, in those sectors, is quieter.

When we look at Bill 114, I hear the opposition parties saying again and again that our bills are really all about Sunday work and that what we are doing is creating an environment where everyone will be working on Sunday rather than resting. The fact is that there are all sorts of people who work on Sundays now, and our bills will not lead to a dramatic expansion of work on Sundays.

When my friend the member for Nipissing picks up the Monday morning paper, he must know there were people putting that paper together on Sunday so he could read the news Monday morning. When people go to a hockey match on Sunday, there are people there running that building and making sure the facilities are there so that hockey match can take place. When the hydro goes out on Sunday, there are Ontario Hydro workers there to make sure the interruption is as brief as possible. When you go to visit a relative in a hospital on Sunday, there are people working in that hospital.

1530

People are working on Sundays. When you call the police, they are there on Sundays. Indeed, when you go to shop, whether it be at a tourist outlet or at a gas station on your way up to the cottage or wherever, people are working on Sundays.

What did we say in conjunction with amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act? We said simply that we want to afford to the retail workers of this province a measure of protection so that we can move towards a world where Sunday work in the retail sector is voluntary.

I hear on the one hand from the New Democratic Party a suggestion that there are really no rights in this bill, and on the other hand from the Conservative Party that there are too many rights, I think it said. They said how in the world can that work, with the small retailer not able to have his employees there?

I would like to advise this House, by way of a simple example, how Bill 114 really will work. I hope the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) is listening because I am saddened to think that his party would not afford the retail workers of this province his support in passing this legislation.

Let me give an example, a retail worker who is working, let us say, in a local drug store that employs 15 people. The employer, the owner of that drug store, can say to two of his employees: “Look, your hours up to this point have been Monday to Friday, nine to five. We’ve decided that we’re going to open up Thursday nights till midnight, and instead of working Friday, Thursday, Wednesday, etc., all through the week nine to five, we’re going to cut off some hours and have you work the late shift on Thursday night.”

That is a pretty straightforward example. Under the Employment Standards Act, if the employer says that, the worker either has to say, “OK, I’ll do that,” or suffer the possibility of losing his job. If the worker says, “Listen, I don’t want to have anything to do with Thursday night work,” the employer can say: “I’m sorry, but those are your new hours. You’ve got to work Thursday night now.

Mr. Pouliot: You’re saying they could get fired.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am saying to my friend the member for Lake Nipigon that if the worker disagrees with that new schedule, he could get fired. What we have done here is say that same regime is not going to apply to Sunday. If the employer says, “Now look, from now on you’re going to work five hours on Sunday afternoon,” the employee can say: “Hold on a second. I don’t want to work on Sunday and the law gives me the right to negotiate that with you, to set out some parameters. Until we have had a context in which to negotiate that, through the assistance of mediators in the employment standards branch, and through a referee if necessary, I do not have to comply with that.”

That is what the act says, plainly and simply, that an employee can refuse what he considers to be an unreasonable assignment of Sunday work. Until that is negotiated and worked out, the employee, the retail worker, does not have to report and he cannot be fired or jigged around by his employer. He simply can say, “No, I have a right now under Ontario law, under Bill 114, to say no to that assignment of Sunday work.”

Sure, there has to be a point where the issue is worked out, but at least the worker has an opportunity to bargain with his employer to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable in the circumstances.

My friend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has left the House. I guess he did not want to hear this. He was very concerned about this debate, but I guess he does not want to vote on the wrapup of it; perhaps he is back in the west lobby. I say to him that this bill is also designed to work for those small employers who have small workforces.

Generally, those small employers work these things out anyway, but it would be inappropriate to say that we should not give those same sort of bargaining rights to workers in small enterprises. We think they will work them out. We think employers, retailers, will be able to accommodate their workforces so that Sunday work becomes, by and large, voluntary in the retail sector.

And now here comes the member for Nipissing to participate in the last few moments of this debate.

I say to all members of this House that Bill 114 gives the retail workers of this province the opportunity to say no. It gives them the bargaining power they need in order to work out a reasonable system for Sunday work. My expectation is that, by and large, we will not have an expansion of retailing in this province so long as the people of the province generally say they are not interested in it.

When we introduced this initiative, and at every step along the way, we have said we will afford protection to retail workers so that, by and large, in that sector, work on Sunday would be voluntary, would be as a result of choice, would be as a result of negotiation.

What we have done with Bill 114 is to deliver on that commitment. I am delighted to have participated in and to have wrapped up this debate on second reading of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Sorbara has moved second reading of Bill 114.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, we will defer this vote until 5:45 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: As per the entente, this vote will be stacked at 5:45 p.m.

Vote stacked.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Today, I would like to introduce for second reading Bill 86 containing amendments to the Highway Traffic Act.

This legislation is part of a package of three bills that will significantly alter the regulation of commercial trucking in Ontario. It is no coincidence that Bill 86 is the first of these bills to be introduced. Its position on today’s agenda reflects the emphasis this government places on safety.

The primary concern of the government of Ontario is that all commercial vehicles on this province’s roads and highways be driven and maintained at the highest possible standards. We are determined that highway safety will not suffer in any way from increased competition under the new regulations.

Among the safety initiatives included in the National Safety Code are the single-driver licence concept, commercial vehicle inspection and maintenance standards, daily vehicle trip inspections, hours of work regulations for drivers, and finally, the commercial vehicle operator’s registration, more commonly known as CVOR.

CVOR will give us the mechanism to track the performance of commercial vehicle operators, and if necessary, to take sanctions against any operator who accumulates too many safety and operating infractions. The government is firmly committed to maintaining a safe highway environment for all users, and the measures called for in Bill 86 will help us fulfil that goal.

I would like to take a moment, if I may, to thank the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) and the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) for assisting in bringing this very important safety bill before us today.

1540

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to speak on behalf of our party on Bill 86, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

This is a bill that does have the intent of improving highway safety. Certainly, we do not want to do anything to hold up this piece of legislation. That is why we are not only supporting this bill, but in fact have asked that the minister develop appropriate amendments to see that this bill is separated from the other deregulatory bills, Bill 87 and Bill 88, which we will be debating shortly.

We have some serious objections to those bills and we are going to be demanding that those bills go into committee so that public hearings can be held. However, there is certainly no intent and no desire on our part to hold up the passage of this bill. I think that with some minor amendments in terms of some references back and forth between this bill and the other bills, we could see this bill pass through third reading in the next couple of days, before this month is over. As a result, we could see as soon as possible a bill that does improve highway safety in Ontario.

This is a bill that implements the highway safety code standards that have been agreed to on a national basis. These are initiatives that have been pushed very strongly as well by the trucking industry, which recognizes its responsibility to provide the public with safe operation. Certainly, it feels it is as much at risk on the road from unsafe driving practices as the general public is.

I will just express a few concerns on this bill in terms of the intent of a commercial vehicle operator registration system that will take effect once Bill 86 passes. I have heard some concern from the Ontario Trucking Association, and in particular from some smaller trucking operators, that the implications of assessing all driving offences from individual drivers against companies potentially puts a company’s operation at risk, when in fact the company may have no control whatsoever over many of these offences in terms of individual drivers, and may not be related to safety at all.

I suggest that to protect the system from falling into the heavy hands of the ministry at some point in the future, the Ministry of Transportation should be issuing a policy statement that outlines the intent of the commercial vehicle operator registration system.

Perhaps we should be looking at the possibility that CVOR offences should be divided into two categories, one where safety is seriously impaired, and the other where safety is not a primary factor, and only those categories of information dealing with key safety factors should be available to other institutions such as banks where, for example, this information may be required in deciding on the granting of loans.

With those reservations, which perhaps the minister can address before we complete this second reading, I again express support for this bill which does strengthen the safety regulations across Ontario and brings them into line with federal safety regulations.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the minister’s statement? If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate? The member for Lanark-Renfrew.

[Applause]

Mr. Wiseman: I thank my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

I would like to say that our party also intends to support Bill 86. As was said before, I think we are all for anything that improves the safety of trucking in this province.

However, there are a few areas I would like the minister to clarify. I know, after talking to him and some of the staff, that perhaps this will fall into the regulations, but I would like to have it on the record so we would know the intent is there, that there are going to be some changes in the regulations to cover some of the areas I will mention.

The federal government, as we know at the present time, has a regulation of 10 hours of work or 15 hours of total duty, and then the person must rest. There are certain times of the year and certain commodities the trucker will be trucking across the country, such as cattle from western Canada, when at the end of those 10 or 15 hours, whatever the case may be, there will not be proper facilities to attend to those cattle, to water them, feed them and so on, but 100 miles down the road or so there probably would be.

It is one thing for the trucker to have his time to sleep, but those cattle are a commodity that are perishable if they are not looked after in the right manner. There are a lot of other seasonal goods for which a trucker may have to be given a certificate of exemption in those cases. I understand the ministry is looking favourably at a certificate exempting certain drivers, providing their records are good, to accommodate that.

I had a trucker, a driver in my area, approach me. He owns about eight trucks, He said, “Doug, can you sleep in the daytime and drive all night?” I said, “I’m afraid I am not a very good night driver.” He said, “The way this is at the present time, it would probably mean that the first day I would be driving in the daytime, and if I followed the federal regulations, I would be sleeping most of the day tomorrow and driving all night. I am a much safer driver if I get up at five o’clock in the morning, in the daylight, drive maybe 15 hours and then get a decent night’s sleep when everybody else is accustomed to sleeping; that is, at night.” They gave another example of the time limits, if we held to them.

I think a little common sense has to come into this, just so whoever enforces this in the future knows that there was an intent -- I think there always is with legislation -- that a person should use a little common sense. If they came to Mississauga and their time for driving was up and their home base was, say, Scarborough, an hour’s drive away, should they stay overnight in Mississauga? I know some of the members would like that, probably to get the added revenue from them, but it does not make a lot of sense to me, as a businessman, for them to stay over in Mississauga, when an hour more will get them to their home base, if it happens to be Scarborough.

I would like the minister to mention what his intentions are as far as regulations to protect people like that are concerned. I see the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) in here. I am sure he would agree that cattle or other commodities have to be moved because they are perishable, and maybe the people cannot stop at the end of a particular 10-hour shift. Before I leave that part, what they asked me on that was whether the 10 hours of driving and 5 for loading or checking out the rig could be a total of 15 hours, as long as that was done in daylight hours.

They did say something. Anyone driving on Highway 401 or any of the other major arteries at night, as I often do driving back to my home in Lanark, knows that it would reduce the number of trucks on there at night. Last week going home, there must have been a convoy of about 15 in a row driving down both sides of the road, both the lanes. You could not get by. You were locked into a position of trying to pass, and it took many miles to do it. Some of those might be off the road if the drivers were able to sleep the night hours.

While I am on my feet, I would like the minister to give me a rundown on what happens with the commercial vehicle operator’s registration and how that applies to a rented or a leased vehicle. I read that over and it was not quite clear to me. I would like to get clarification on how the minister sees that working. That is on page 2, midway down, I believe.

1550

On page 5, clause 15g(b), where the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations that would put a charge on the reissue to someone who had lost his licence. I would like to know whether the minister has any idea of what that charge might be. Is it just a minimum charge or is he going to impose a penalty in regard to the charge?

I guess the minister is not going to proclaim Bill 86 prior to Bill 87 and Bill 88, so that perhaps going into committee and making the necessary changes, where it mentions Bill 87 and Bill 88, will not have to be done at this time.

When the minister gets a chance to respond, I hope he will comment on a few of the things I have brought forward.

Mr. Lupusella: I am pleased to join in the debate on the Truck Transportation Act. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), I have had the pleasant duty of participating in many meetings and consultations leading to the reintroduction of this bill.

As many members will know, the Truck Transportation Act has been before this Legislature in one form or another for some 12 years. The history of trucking regulation goes back some time. Indeed, the rules governing the trucking industry have been with us for more than 60 years. That is when the Public Commercial Vehicles Act was first written.

In 1927, the prevailing wish was to protect the rail industry from competition from the new mode of transportation, the truck. Trucks threatened to cut into the market share of the railroad. Much has changed. For one thing, trucks have grown to be the dominant method of transporting goods in Canada. Trucks carry almost 60 per cent of what Canada exports, about $30 billion worth.

According to the Ontario Trucking Association, the trucking industry directly employs almost 75,000 people. Indirectly, the number may be much higher. The Truck Transportation Act aims to improve that for manufacturers, for shippers and, most important, for Canadian workers and consumers. The Truck Transportation Act will make trucking an attractive and more convenient method of transportation. The TTA will lower the cost of moving goods in Ontario and widen the choices available to people who want to ship their goods.

Just as important, it will provide an opportunity for those who want to get into the trucking industry. Right now, if one wants to enter the trucking business, one must clear a number of regulatory hurdles. One must be prepared to fight sometimes lengthy and costly legal fights. For instance, I heard of one case where a company had to pay $5 million in legal fees just to establish the right to carry on a business.

That is the old system. What the Truck Transportation Act attempts to do is to clear away the obstacles to doing business in Ontario. It says that if you want to enter the trucking business in this province, you must show only that you are fit to do the job, that you have safe equipment and a safe record and that you are insured.

I want to stress the safety aspect of Bill 88 because there have been a number of stories written about truck safety. While it is a vitally important issue, it seems that safety stories make for quick and easy news. Stories about truck horrors almost write themselves. As such, we have been reading a lot of these stories in recent days.

Let this fact, however, not diminish our obligation to ensure a safer environment for all users of the roads and highways of Ontario.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, he is speaking on the wrong bill.

Mr. Lupusella: I am talking about the three bills in general, with particular reference to this particular bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please ignore the comments.

Mr. Lupusella: It is we who have the duty to enact the laws which will create such an environment. For that reason, Bill 88 accompanies Bill 86, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. Let there be no doubt; it is impossible to reform the economic regulation of trucking without strengthening safety regulations at the same time, so we have attended to the safety aspects of trucking. In that regard, we have learned lessons from the United States, where they changed their regulatory environment without regard to the impact of these reforms on safety.

I want to address another issue before ending. In recent days, employers have been terrorizing their employees, threatening them with the loss of their jobs if Bill 88 is passed. Nothing could be more false. I find it terribly offensive in the 1980s that employers would resort to this form of blackmail. They have asked their employees to sign their names to form letters, which would in turn be mailed to the Minister of Transportation at the expense of the trucking company.

It is one thing for an employer to mislead his employees, as is clearly the case here. It is nothing short of terrorism for this to happen. It is quite another thing, however, for employers to conceal from their employees this one essential fact: Under the Truck Transportation Act, an employee or group of employees could, if they wished, enter the trucking industry themselves. They could buy their own vehicle and set up their own small business provided they met the conditions on safety and insurance. This is especially important to northern Ontario, where there are unique challenges posed by distances and population distribution.

I think it should be clearly on the record that an employee, far from being threatened by this legislation, has a range of opportunities open to him or her. That surely must be the aim of this Legislature. Through legislation such as the Truck Transportation Act, we are creating opportunity and chances for all Ontarians.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the general support from the member for Sault Ste. Marie and the member for Lanark-Renfrew, and I certainly appreciate my colleague’s substantial contribution to the debate.

There were minor references made to whether amendments to Bill 86 were necessary. I can tell my friend that I am advised by the thoughtful people who are paid to advise us on these matters that they are not necessary, as it is our intention to proclaim all three bills at the same time and to avoid all of the detailed legislative changes.

Mr. Pouliot: Are you going to hold it up?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: No, we are not going to hold it up. With hours of operation, which was one significant issue of concern to the member for Lanark-Renfrew, the details of the limits of hours can be dealt with further within the regulations. I will take it upon myself to offer to the member that we will do that. We have talked to the Minister of Agriculture and Food on more than one occasion and, in fact, I understand the problems of hauling livestock and other commodities but particularly farm products and livestock. We will take it upon ourselves to go into that for the member.

1600

Certainly, we would proceed with this legislation as with any other legislation, with common sense being the bottom line. I think we have assured the member throughout the debate this time, and previously on similar matters, that this is the manner in which we have approached it.

The leased vehicles that the member was questioning will be dealt with as if the lessee in fact owns the vehicle. I think that will solve the concern the member legitimately raised with that matter. Beyond that, I have nothing further.

I again want to reiterate my thanks to the critics and the House leaders of the other two parties for recognizing the need to bring forward this very important legislation and demonstrate that we share a common concern in resolving truck safety and truck driver safety on our provincial highways and roads.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I can just ask the minister if he would comment on my inquiry on page 5 where --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There are usually no comments and questions after the minister’s final statement.

Mr. Wiseman: OK. I thought he might have forgotten it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 87, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: This legislation complements the other two bills in our package of trucking reforms because it gives the Ontario Highway Transport Board the power to hold hearings to review the performance of truck operators. One of the other functions of the reformed OHTB will be hear challenges to the public-interest test that forms part of Bill 88, the Truck Transportation Act. This does not apply under Bill 87. As such, it plays a major role in our complete package of reforms to the commercial trucking industry.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to speak very briefly to Bill 87, An Act to amend the Ontario Highway Transport Board Act. This bill is complementary to Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation, the government’s major deregulation bill, a bill which is a severe threat to an Ontario industry, which proposes to turn over that industry to the major American truckers and which threatens thousands of jobs across this province.

All of us have heard the serious expressions of concern from the trucking industry, from the member firms of the Ontario Trucking Association and from communities across this province, particularly in some of the more rural areas and in northern Ontario.

We, as a party, cannot support this initiative. I will go into considerable detail in the debate on the main bill, Bill 88. This bill, which supports the implementation of changes to the Ontario Highway Transport Board, in order to facilitate the operation of a deregulated trucking environment, should not proceed. We have to oppose this, as we will at greater length in expressing our opposition to Bill 88. I will await the debate on Bill 88 to get into the substantive argument on the whole issue of trucking deregulation.

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should mention this on Bill 88, but if I am out of order, perhaps you would direct me to Bill 88 instead of Bill 87.

There is a problem here, as I see it. A lot of the truckers, some of the smaller ones, have purchased public commercial vehicle licences and paid a lot of money for them. It runs something like buying a market share for a milk quota; the banks will lend you money on that. A lot of the truckers have gone to the bank and, I understand, borrowed money to make the purchase.

I understand that in the United States, when they went to their deregulating bills, they saw fit to look at the carriers’ books and give them 20 per cent reductions over a five-year period so it was not a hardship for them. I understand too, from some information that was given to me, that our Minister of Transportation favours that sort of move. I would like him, if he would, to comment on whether, under this bill, he intends to pay those people who will suffer hardship when this legislation goes through.

I will have a lot more to say on the larger bill, Bill 88, with some of my concerns and the concerns of our party. I will be bringing in some amendments when it goes to third reading, but perhaps the minister would comment. If I should be mentioning this on Bill 88, so be it.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member for Sault Ste. Marie was absolutely correct. His comments are more pertinent to Bill 88, which we will be discussing soon.

With respect to the comments made by the member for Lanark-Renfrew, as he is aware, it has been 18 to 24 or so months since the question of the values of the operating authorities was last mentioned, but I did tell him then, and I reiterate for the House today, that we did write on behalf of the truckers to our Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and to the federal Minister of Finance, but the issue of in some way writing down or devaluing for tax benefits has not been resolved at either our level or by the response from the federal Minister of Finance.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved second reading of Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: To complete the package of trucking reforms I have been presenting today, I would like to introduce for second reading Bill 88, the Truck Transportation Act. This act will replace the existing Public Commercial Vehicles Act and provide for easier access to the industry by qualified applicants.

1610

Entry will no longer be contingent upon a test of public necessity and convenience, but will be based instead on the fitness of the applicant. Proof of insurance and an acceptable safety record will be among the criteria.

The result will be an industry which is more in tune with the demands of today’s marketplace, an industry which will contribute to Ontario’s economic competitiveness. Regulatory reform will stimulate increased innovation, flexibility and creativity in the trucking industry. Lower transportation costs, a wider range of service options for shippers and the potential for more local involvement in the trucking industry in all of Ontario and, in particular, in northern Ontario, where there are special needs, will be among the spinoff benefits of the new regulatory environment.

As anyone who has driven on our highways can attest, trucking is becoming an increasingly important mode of transportation for this province’s business and industrial sector. In 1987 alone, commercial vehicle registration grew by more than five per cent and is certainly projected to increase at a similar rate in the future.

With trucks playing such a vital role in our economy, the government of Ontario has a duty to make sure the regulations under which they operate are responsive to the needs of shippers, operators and the consumer.

The three bills I have presented today represent considerable discussion among all parties with an interest in trucking and trucking reform. Since I became Minister of Transportation in 1985, I have had the opportunity to meet with all major groups affected by this legislation, including the users of trucking services and the trucking industry itself. Both have played important roles in shaping the direction of trucking reform initiatives.

It should also be noted that Ontario is not acting in isolation in its efforts to reform trucking regulations. The federal government, along with many of the other provinces and territories, is also working towards establishing a new regulatory climate for commercial trucking. Changes to the extraprovincial legislation were implemented by the federal government on January 1, 1988, thereby creating a situation where Ontario must administer two different systems.

It is vital, therefore, that these legislative proposals proceed, both on their own merits and as part of a broader effort to achieve uniformity across Canada. The sooner these reforms are in place, the sooner both shippers and entrepreneurs in the trucking industry will reap the benefits of a more flexible regulatory environment.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I am pleased to have the opportunity to represent our party as Transportation critic and address this most important piece of legislation, ironically entitled An Act to regulate Truck Transportation; ironic because this in fact does not regulate truck transportation, it deregulates truck transportation, opening up the industry to severe penetration, particularly from the large American carriers, totally without restriction and totally without any assurances that Canadian or Ontario firms would have equal access back into the American markets.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is one who states that he is opposed to the Mulroney free trade deal but, at the same time, in this bill, the Premier and the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) are now opening up an industry worth well over $3 billion a year, the Ontario trucking industry, to potential American invasion.

The Mulroney-Reagan trade deal does not apply to transportation services, but this Bill 88, An Act to regulate Truck Transportation, sets out to deregulate the Ontario trucking industry and create a totally open market, particularly for those large, American-based carriers.

The bill’s key proposal is to replace the present entry test into the Ontario trucking business from an examination of the need for additional services to an examination of the fitness of the applicant. I do not think anyone can question the fitness of the big, American-based carriers. That makes their licensing an automatic procedure.

This change will allow those huge American trucking firms to get licences with no restrictions here in Ontario. In such a cut-throat market, all but the largest of Canadian companies will be squeezed out. Surely, this is a case where the Premier and the Minister of Transportation should be asserting provincial jurisdiction instead of handing a key sector of our economy to the Americans.

New Democrats oppose this trucking deregulation because it will mean higher rates and less service, as well as American domination of the Ontario trucking industry. As one of northern Ontario’s largest trucking firms puts it in a letter written in May, 1988: “Manitoulin Transport is not in favour of Bill 88, as we think it spells higher rates and poorer service to the majority of shippers and receivers in northern Ontario...It is our opinion that more competition will do two things: affect rates and services. Rates will increase to small towns and villages, and service will decrease.”

Of great concern to all motorists, deregulation will result in less highway safety. The 900-member Ontario Trucking Association points out in its position paper on new trucking reform legislation from earlier this year: “There is a direct relationship between economic regulation and highway safety. Faced with increased competitive pressures and declining profitability, some carriers will be forced to give less-than-adequate consideration to those factors which ensure public safety.” This paper goes on, using experience from Quebec, Australia and California, to make a very strong case for the need to regulate safety practices.

Deregulation will in fact drive many companies out of business. The experience of deregulation in the United States brought about by the 1980 Motor Carrier Act is instructive. Large companies took advantage of the increased competition to expand, as did specialized carriers. Medium-sized companies got squeezed out or taken over. The industry did not prosper. Over 350 companies have gone out of business. In 1982, only 20 per cent of the members of the American Trucking Association made a profit, and in the same year, there was a record number of bankruptcies.

Without regulation, the laws of the market are seen for what they are -- laws of the jungle. Only the strongest survive. That a company may be providing a necessary service is no longer a consideration. Deregulation will reduce jobs, wages and working conditions. Again looking at the US example, there have been over 100,000 jobs lost since deregulation. Hundreds of thousands of other truckers have seen their wages, benefits and working conditions rolled back. Unions have been hard hit not only by the demands for concessions but also by increased activity of nonunion companies. Deregulation is really a union-busting scenario.

While this government proclaims its opposition to the free trade agreement because of the threat to jobs in this province, it is proceeding unilaterally with free trade on trucking, opening up this market and the jobs that we have here now to American carriers and American workers.

It is a fact that deregulation will hurt small and isolated communities. In a market situation, companies will compete over the lucrative markets and transportation runs connecting the large population centres. Isolated communities will get much less service. For instance, under the present criteria for getting a trucking licence of establishing “public necessity and convenience,” transport companies are often asked to operate in less-populated areas. This provides services to rural areas in northern Ontario by trucking companies that want to be licensed to operate on the more heavily travelled routes. This is the kind of service we have to ensure continues, and there is no guarantee under this legislation that such would be the case. Deregulation, in fact, will end this practice and leave all small and isolated communities totally vulnerable.

We also must consider the fact that deregulation will not result in lower prices. Experience in different fields shows that deregulation usually results in lower prices on the major runs in the short term as the companies compete for markets. However, it does not take long for the process of monopolization to occur. Companies get taken over, merge or are driven out of business. As a handful of powerful companies emerge to dominate, the prices always rise.

1620

While Bill 88 opens up the Ontario trucking market to Americans, Ontario truckers will not have the same access to the United States. Forty-three states, including the huge markets of California and all the northeastern states except the state of New Jersey, maintain systems of regulatory control over trucking within their borders that make it extremely difficult for Ontario truckers to obtain operating licences. This applies to every state bordering Ontario.

The Ontario Trucking Association, which has in the past agreed with our opposition to deregulation, has proposed a reciprocity clause to Bill 88 that would give licences only to American trucking firms from states that do give reciprocal access to our Canadian or Ontario companies.

The ministry, in the past or in recent communications, has said such a provision would be unconstitutional. However, the trucking association has gone to lawyers expert in the field and has a legal opinion that says that such a clause, in fact, would be constitutional.

When it comes to defending Ontario and working people, this government is not taking the interests of Ontario to heart and, in fact, is proposing and implementing free trade in this very important industry with the deregulation of Ontario trucking.

I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House some of the comments that have been made by trucking firms in their constituencies.

I have a statement from the vice-president of Glengarry Transport Ltd. in Alexandria, Ontario: “Bill 88 contains a section which will hand over the Ontario truck market to US carriers, while Ontario carriers remain effectively closed out of US intrastate markets. This must be changed or it will be the death knell for a large number of Ontario carriers and the jobs that go with them.”

Perhaps the Liberal member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) should listen to a statement from the president of Meyers Transport Ltd. in that city: “Over the past 60 years, my family has invested heavily in operating authorities in much the same way farmers would buy milk quotas. These authorities represented our pensions. It is what we worked for. Bill 88 will make these authorities worthless.”

The member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) might want to take a look at what the president of MacKinnon Transport Co., located in that city, has to say about this bill: “If we are going to compete with the United States, we should play by the same rules.”

Perhaps the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) should take a look at what the executive vice-president of Cronkwright Transport Ltd. in Simcoe, Ontario, has to say: “Give us equal opportunity with the Americans and we will compete. Neither the free trade deal nor Bill 88 accomplishes this.”

The president of Cooke Cartage and Storage Ltd. in Barrie, Ontario, says: “With all the people they’ve got at Queen’s Park, I can’t believe they can’t find a way to deal with the foreign carrier question. They do it in other industries.”

The president of Canada Transport Ltd. in Belleville, Ontario -- a city represented by a Liberal minister of the crown, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. O’Neil) -- says: “What with the Canadian tax structure, federal deregulation and now Bill 88, Ontario trucking companies will be giving serious consideration to setting up shop in the US.” This may well be the alternative. We may have to see our Ontario companies establishing in the US in order to be competitive under this legislation.

We have the president of D and M Transport Ltd., Downsview, Ontario, saying, “It is incredible, but under Bill 88, a licence for truck operating rights can never be denied, even if it is found that the granting of that licence would be adverse to the public interest.”

Here is a comment from the vice-president of Al’s Cartage in Kitchener, Ontario, another riding represented by a Liberal member. These members should be listening to what their own constituents and their own companies are saying. Howard Frolich, vice-president of Al’s Cartage says: “The government wants to change the rules of the trucking game. That’s fine, as long as the rules are fair. My family has spent 52 years building this business. I am concerned that Bill 88 is not fair.”

I will go on with another. We have all kinds of examples here of trucking firms which are very upset with this legislation and the implications it has for their operations. The president of Van De Hogen Cartage Ltd., a firm located in Windsor, Ontario, says: “Apparently, the Ontario government says that amending Bill 88 to incorporate a reciprocity clause that would treat US carriers in Ontario the same way we are treated in the United States is unconstitutional. I thought the Constitution was supposed to protect Canadians.”

Finally, I have a comment from the president of a trucking company from northern Ontario, McKevitt Trucking Ltd. in Thunder Bay, a community which has two Liberal members, one of whom is the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod): “The big shipper might benefit somewhat from deregulation, but the small shipper and the small carrier, especially in rural and remote regions of the province, will be hurt by this legislation.”

I have a letter written to me by a trucking firm in my home town, Soo Van and Storage. The letter is from its president, Fred Goodine, and he says: “With this scenario, if we have to compete with the major United States carriers on top of this, there will be a lot of carriers such as ourselves that will not survive. We will have to cut our operations back here in the north, and it is going to cause a lot of unemployment.

“We will have a very difficult time competing with the American carriers when they can come into Ontario and do business against us, considering the fact that they can buy their trucks cheaper, their fuel cheaper and their labour to load cheaper. This will give them the advantage, and it will be impossible for carriers such as ourselves to compete on an equal basis.”

This is a particularly serious issue right across northern Ontario, and I would like to read from letters I have received from several other carriers in other regions of the north.

This is from Denis Gratton Transport Ltd. in Chelmsford, Ontario, adjacent to Sudbury: “I am sending this letter in order to voice my opposition to Bill 88. We are a PCV carrier which hauls within the province of Ontario, and I am concerned about the way that Mr. Fulton is trying to railroad Bill 88 through the provincial Legislature. How can a government be so against a Canada-USA free trade agreement, yet be ready to free-trade our complete trucking industry to the USA markets?

“Ontario has always been well-regulated in the past, allowing us to operate together on an equal market with Canadian trucking. Now we are told that our PCV act is outdated and we must change. Not only are they planning to open it to everyone in Ontario, but also to the US truckers seeking Ontario interprovincial trucking operating rights, while Ontario carriers will continue to be closed to the US interstate trucking markets.

“What about small towns in rural regions of the province? Mr. Fulton says that deregulation will benefit small towns and rural regions of the north, yet the US example shows that small towns and rural communities can expect to pay higher prices for poorer service under deregulation.

“The next point of Bill 88 is to push for safety on our highways. Safety and deregulation are definitely not linked together. Again, the US experience provides a shocking example of deterioration of highway safety following deregulation.

“Bill 88, I maintain, is a disaster for Ontario. Bill 88 is going to create a situation of one-sided free trade in trucking, favouring the Americans. Ontario will be handing over its operation rights without receiving anything in return. I cannot see how anyone in the north or the south of Ontario could begin to think that it is a benefit to anyone.

I have a major submission from Manitoulin Transport, a firm whose head office is in Gore Bay, Ontario, which has gone into this issue in considerable detail. I know the minister is aware of their concerns and the threat that this legislation provides to their operation and other operations like theirs.

1630

Just to quote briefly, they start off: “Deregulation: even the term is confusing. Trucking regulation or deregulation are really only referring to what is involved in getting a truck licence to transport goods for compensation.

“‘Regulation’ refers to the test of public necessity and convenience wherein, in Ontario, the applicant must prove a need for the new service and, in support, bring shippers and receivers before the Ontario Highway Transport Board to answer questions concerning existing service.

“‘Deregulation,’ on the other hand, as in Bill 88, means virtually anyone can get a licence to transport for compensation. In fact, there is not even a provision in the proposed act to deny an applicant, even if the granting of that applicant’s licence is shown to be adverse to the public interest.”

Manitoulin Transport goes on to express that it is opposed to this bill and the threat it provides to its operation. They go on to say: “We are scared. If our company has its back to the wall, we will have no alternative but to sell. We provide employment for over 375 people in northern Ontario, more than half of which will be jobs lost for northern Ontario residents.”

Certainly, when one looks at the issue of jobs here, one can just look at a report such as the one put out by the Royal Bank of Canada on the impact of deregulation on Canada’s trucking industry. Just reading from the highlights of the report, its conclusions include the following:

First, “Cross-border trucking competition is expected to intensify, requiring business repositioning by Canadian cross-border trucking companies.” Second, “Deregulation is also expected to put a lid on wage increases in the industry and foster the use of owner-operators,” a practice which in fact will eliminate many, many union jobs in the province.

I have a letter here from the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers, which says: “The existing trucking industry is highly competitive, and to allow large American carriers into the marketplace with huge financial bases will virtually wipe out many small and medium-sized Ontario-based carriers, resulting in a serious loss of jobs in the industry.

“Further, after the shake-out has occurred, prices will surely increase, as there will be less carriers in the business and hence less competition. The government has stated publicly that it would not support the free trade deal if it would result in a loss of jobs in Ontario. Surely the government should now take the same stand on deregulation legislation as on the free trade deal, because it has such serious effects from this legislation.”

Surely this government has to recognize the potential job losses and the potential restriction in wage levels in this province and the fact that much of our business is very likely to go to the major American carriers. In fact, the touted reason for this legislation, the hope that there will be greater competition in the Ontario marketplace, is likely to result in the reverse, with a consolidation of firms into a few giant transport companies, exactly the consequences that we have seen from federal deregulation in the airline industry.

I think those of us who come from smaller communities, like those in northern Ontario, know that the result of that has been reduced service, not as good service as we had previously from the carriers that were serving those communities.

We also have concerns being expressed by suppliers to the truck transportation industry. One of the big concerns is that most of the trucks that are going to be carrying the business here in Ontario in the future not only will be American trucking companies but also will be using trucks that are purchased in the United States.

In fact, it has been suggested that Ontario truckers who want to stay in competition are going to have to set up bases in the US so that they can purchase their trucks at a lower cost and, potentially, get better tax breaks in terms of depreciation by purchasing those vehicles in the US, again taking business away from Canadian suppliers.

I have a letter here from a major supplier of heavy trucks, Sherway Ford Truck Sales, here in Toronto. The executive vice-president, A. D. Patterson, states as follows:

“As a supplier of truck chassis and equipment to the transport industry, we are vitally concerned as to the content of Bill 88 in its proposed form. Our business employs 146 people. We wish to go on record that the passage of Bill 88 will, over a period of time, lessen the opportunity we have in doing business within our Ontario transport industry.

“Surely, if American states do not reciprocate, the bill should be amended, restricting those states that will not honour our entry. To do otherwise is tantamount to blackmail. The hue and cry made by David Peterson and the Liberal government over the proposed free trade act is indicative of skewed thinking when relating to Bill 88. How can you support Bill 88 and decry the free trade act?”

We have had resolutions passed by a number of communities in the province, in particular some in northern Ontario, from city councils expressing opposition to this bill. But still we have a government that refuses to listen and make the kinds of major changes this bill requires in order to ensure that this industry remains an Ontario industry.

This bill has been addressed by committees of this Legislature in the past. I, as a member of the select committee on economic affairs, have had the opportunity of hearing from the trucking association submissions regarding free trade. They have expressed their serious concerns about the implications of free trade for the trucking industry in Ontario.

From a presentation to Ontario’s select committee on economic affairs, the Ontario Trucking Association summarizes its implications of free trade for the trucking industry as follows:

“1. Canadian carriers have limited potential to expand into US markets, whereas US carriers are well placed to achieve a high level of penetration of Canadian and Ontario trucking markets.”

In other words, we are going to be the losers even in a fair battle, which the government is not even proposing here. In fact, this battle is less than fair and we will be very serious losers in this industry.

“2. An agreement already exists between Canada and the United States to prevent, in principle, a major shift in trucking services between the two countries. It recognizes Canada’s vulnerability, but its practical application is uncertain.”

In fact, there was an agreement reached between the two governments several years ago, which is an auto-pact-type agreement, which ensured that Canadian content would be maintained in the industry, but it will be thrown out with this bill.

“3. The Ontario highway transportation board has concluded that if a shift in trucking services occurs, it will work strongly to the detriment of Ontario-based trucking industry.

“4. Free trade in trucking services would have potentially large negative economic and fiscal impacts. Job losses in Ontario alone could be in the thousands, losses in local purchases of goods and services in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and reductions in taxation revenues of substantial proportions.”

These in fact are the same consequences as deregulation brought within the United States.

One particularly interesting submission came from John Sanderson, vice-president, public affairs, CP Express and Transportation Ltd. I will just read briefly some of the evidence he provided before our committee of the Legislature on the potential impact of deregulation in the province.

He said: “We developed a position of concern about the future, about our own company, about the trucking industry and about the industry that is our customer base, particularly the customers located in Ontario. We do deal from coast to coast and we have operations in all 10 provinces. The observations I make are based on many years of experience in dealing with international trade as seen through the eyes of the motor carrier.”

1640

He goes on to say: “We see that the most likely trend under free trade would be to use that infrastructure to deliver goods to Canada and to effect the closure of branch plants and transfer both manufacturing and jobs to the United States.

“To expand the US-based distribution system to serve the Canadian market would require only an expansion of the existing US-to-Canada transport channels, using large carriers to funnel shipments into major distribution points in Canada. Given open entry to Canada by and for US motor carriers and given the US policy to export US-based services and goods to Canada, it seems that US-based carriers would deliver these shipments directly to Canada.”

He goes on to say, “...it will more likely mean a reduction in manufacturing activity in Canada and particularly in Ontario.”

Finally, “Currently, the federal and provincial governments are examining deregulation across both provincial and international boundaries and, should free trade and trucking be implemented without any controls, it seems very likely to us that US-based carriers will move to carry the majority of US-Canada trade at the expense of Canadian-based carriers.”

It would appear that “Keep on trucking” is the message of the Ontario Premier (Mr. Peterson) to Canadian-owned highway transport operators in our country’s richest and fastest-growing province. All the Premier is saying is, “If you can survive the US competition I am about to let into Ontario, no holds barred, then really we do not care about the consequences in terms of Ontario jobs or Ontario industry and the services that will be provided to shippers and consumers in Ontario.” If the Canadian trucking industry is consumed in the process, so be it as far as the Premier is concerned.

I suggest this bill is so seriously flawed that in fact it will not be able to be improved or made adequate through amendment and that the government should go back to the drawing-board, go back and hold extensive consultations with the industry, look at what the consequences have been from deregulation in the United States and other administrations and come back with a totally rewritten and revised bill.

Our party will be opposing this piece of legislation and will be acting in committee to ensure that the interested parties in this province are given adequate public representation and that their interests can be heard at that time.

Mr. Wiseman: I would like to make some comments on Bill 88 and some of the positions our party would like to see taken.

First of all, I would like to say that much of the bill was brought forward by my colleague the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) when he was Minister of Transportation and Communications and Jim Snow, when he was Minister of Transportation and Communications. They had been working on it for some time.

As a businessman, looking at some of what I feel are flaws in the way we are going, first of all, I would like to say that when it goes to third reading, I will be bringing forth a reciprocity amendment. I know the minister has had two or three legal opinions, but the truckers have had a legal opinion by someone from Gowling and Henderson, a law firm which is well known to this government.

They have hired him to look after a ticklish situation in the Hamilton area, and I think he is well known to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), being one of his partners in that law firm. I think his writings and findings on whether it was constitutionally sound to come in with a reciprocity resolution or amendment are good. I hope to have that ready to present when we go into third reading.

As a businessman, I look at some of the things that are where a trucker in Ontario is coming from and what he is trying to compete with. I know the Ontario Trucking Association is not afraid of competition. In my businesses I am not afraid of competition, but I like to know that I am starting from the same level as the competitors are, the same playing field. Some things that have come across my desk in the last little while show in the comparisons that they are not.

Some of these one might tend to say are frivolous or have no backing, but when a firm like Price Waterhouse comes out with a statement as to where our truckers in Ontario stand versus the ones in the United States, I think we should all stand back and have a look at just where they are coming from, whether they are playing from a level field or what disadvantage they have.

When we look at the Price Waterhouse report, we can see the examples they have given; for instance, in the case of Ontario tax against truckers, it is at the rate of 15.5 per cent. Then we look at some of the states where we do a lot of business and we see Michigan at 2.35 per cent. New Jersey, by the way, is at 9.2 per cent, keeping in mind we are at 15.5 per cent. Then if we take off the federal assistance that is given in the United States, it reduces New Jersey to just under six per cent, 5.94 per cent.

There is quite a difference right there and quite a disadvantage to our truckers. That goes right down: Pennsylvania 9.5 per cent; New Jersey, as I mentioned, 9 per cent; Ohio 9.2 per cent; Illinois and Michigan 2.35 per cent, keeping in mind that, with the federal assistance, these states only pay about 66 per cent of that tax.

When we look at our sister province, that we are competing with, perhaps more than any other province, Quebec is at 5.9 per cent, just about 10 per cent advantage over our Ontario truckers. Then we come down a little further and look at what some of the owners of transports in my area, and others, have been saying that they can write off in the United States.

They can purchase a tractor and write off the largest amount of it in three years. For instance, the first year they can write off a third; the second year they can get it up to 78 per cent, and the third year 93 per cent of the cost of that tractor. The fourth year, of course, there is just a seven per cent write-off.

In Ontario we have a 13-year write-off. One who, like myself, pays a lot of income tax knows that if you can write that off in four years rather than 13, there is quite a saving there for the companies as well. Then you buy more.

1650

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: If you don’t pay any tax, how are we supposed to pay for all these programs you want?

Mr. Wiseman: You do not want to do it on the backs of the truckers, John.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) will address his remarks through the chair, of course.

Mr. Wiseman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then we look at trailers in the United States. They can write off the big, long trailers we see out there in six years. They have 20 per cent in the first year; 52 per cent write off by the end of the second; 71.2 per cent at the end of the third; at the end of the fourth year, 82.7 per cent; 94.2 per cent at the end of five; and, of course, there is only 5.8 per cent left in the sixth year. But come over to Ontario again and we see that we have 13 years in which we must write it off, the same as we could for the tractor. The same disadvantages to the businessman, the owner of the transport, apply.

If we look at fuel, fuel is 76 cents a gallon more in Ontario than it is south of the border. If we look at the cost of the trucks, they tell me that the cost of the truck is 12 per cent less in the United States than it is in Ontario, another real disadvantage to anyone trying to do business in Ontario, especially in the trucking industry.

The sales tax was bad enough at seven per cent, and now it is up to eight percent. During the early part of the 1980s, our Treasurer of the day, to help this industry, reduced the sales tax on heavy trucks. Now we see it up to eight per cent. At the same time the minister is bringing this in, his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) is adding a little more burden on the owners of transports and the hiring of people.

The other part I mentioned on Bill 87 is that in the United States, when they deregulated, a person who had purchased a public commercial vehicle licence, similar, as I mentioned before -- and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is here -- to when you purchase a milk quota, the banks will lend you money on that. They lent money to some of these truckers to purchase PCV licences or to enlarge their territories.

That is still on the books in a lot of cases. It is not written off. I know the minister said they have known this was coming and probably were writing it off, but it takes time to write it off. In the case of the trailers and the trucks, it takes 13 years, so you cannot move that fast to write off a debt like that. If the banks were to call those loans because maybe now they do not have the collateral to back them up, those licences are no longer worth what they were when they had the protection of the PCV Act. That is another real disadvantage.

I have here as well a copy of a letter that was sent to my colleague the member for Simcoe West. It was sent originally to the minister. The member and the former minister got a letter from Gerald Hall of RR 2 Stayner, Ontario, and I will just read it. He says:

“I have recently learned that you have introduced” -- this is to the minister – “a bill which would deregulate interprovincial trucking in Ontario. I am deeply concerned about this, and have been an employee of a trucking company for over 20 years. I am employed by Glengarry Transport Ltd. of Alexandria” -- l am sure the Speaker is familiar with that, as I am and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), who is from the area --

An hon. member: Where is Noble?

Mr. Wiseman: He is busy in committee.

“From what I can see,” he goes on, “Bill 88 will do wonders for the people employed in the American trucking industry, but it will do nothing for me and the people I work with. I would like to ask you why, if the Premier is opposed to free trade, are you trying to bring about free trade in the trucking industry? No matter which way you cut it, what you are doing is free trade.

“I can accept free trade so long as it is fair and that everybody is playing from the same rules. I urge you to pay attention to the Ontario Trucking Association and to change your deregulation bill by including a reciprocity clause or a Canadian-content clause, as suggested by the OTA.

“I look forward to your response to this letter.”

I have other letters in my office. I was not going to read them into the record, but my colleague had to go to another meeting and I thought I would do that for him.

As I said before, our party will be bringing forth some amendments when we go into third reading. I want to let the minister know that the reciprocity one is coming, and hopefully we will be able to draft it in a way that will be acceptable.

In summing up, if all the members of the House would keep in mind where we are coming from on this: what a disadvantage it is in some areas to our Ontario truckers, and the tax in the states we deal with in the United States is just about a third of what it is in Ontario.

When you look at the write-offs -- four years in one case and six years in the other, versus 13 years -- we all know what that means, bottom line, when you are in business. We know that fuel to operate your vehicles is a lot more expensive in this province. We also know that the trucks are cheaper south of the border, by 12 per cent, and we know that there is no state tax on trucks down there.

I am sure that all members, particularly those who have had to put out a profit-and-loss statement once in a while and who have had to look after hiring and keeping staff, not laying them off, will be interested in a couple of examples of what has happened because of this.

I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of people from eastern Ontario, including the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), know Taggart Service Ltd. Taggart Service’s head office happens to be in the great county of Lanark, in Perth, but it has now purchased three firms in the United States coming out of Syracuse. Many of the reasons for going over there that Mr. Joe Perkins, the owner, has told me about were to purchase and get the concessions that they have over there but we do not have here.

I understand that Canadian Pacific has purchased a firm just below Detroit and is doing the same thing. My fear there is that not only may we lose some jobs in trucking, dispatching and so on, but we could lose a lot of the key personnel if it happens to move its head offices to south of the border. We all know what that would do to jobs, and we are all interested in jobs, whether they be for the truckers or at the executive level at the top.

I know some of these things do not fall within the minister’s jurisdiction, but they certainly fall within the jurisdictions of the Treasurer and the federal Minister of Finance. Things like, if our Treasurer of the day, when we were the government back in the early 1980s, could see fit to take off the sales tax and make some of these other adjustments, I am sure this minister can do the same. Certainly the government over there has the majority to do what it wants if it has the will to do it.

1700

I would like the Minister of Transportation to talk to his federal counterpart, to encourage the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Wilson, to look at the write-offs. But we should not be casting everything off to the feds. We have some areas here that we can work on.

Truckers are like other businessmen. They do not mind competition but, by golly, they want to know that they are playing from a level field and they are not so disadvantaged that they will go under. I think a lot of the shippers who have been writing to me would be served as well by having a strong and healthy transportation group out there to service us.

We want to see down the road that these people do not go under, because we all know that sometimes people will put out some loss leaders for a while, but once they capture the market, their price will go up and the people in Ontario will certainly pay for that.

M. Pouliot : Cela me fait plaisir, même si je ne suis pas la critique du Nouveau Parti démocratique ni un adjoint parlementaire, de dire quelques mots en ce qui concerne le projet de loi 88. Peut-être me permettrez-vous aussi de toucher brièvement aux projets de loi connexes, plus précisément les projets de loi 86 et 87.

There really is nothing in this legislation that will benefit Ontarians. In fact, we have a fairly good transportation system across the province. This is in large part thanks to a system of regulation that has been with us pretty well since Confederation. For sure, it is not by accident that we have a regulation system regarding transportation in Ontario. It was put there mainly to protect the less fortunate -- for instance, the people who live in small and remote communities, where the factors regulating the marketplace are not equal.

The basic premise of these bills -- and I am referring here to the bills associated with what is in essence deregulation. The minister can choose to play with words and have his assistants Websterize and Oxfordize and try to sell us a bill of goods -- is that the proper English expression? -- and call it reregulation, but reregulation is not even a reasonable facsimile of what the wording addresses here. What the minister is talking about here is a change from stem to stern in trucking regulations in Ontario.

Monsieur le Président, avec le respect qui vous est dû, avant de continuer mes commentaires, j’aimerais attirer votre attention sur l’article 24(b) du Règlement, qui demande tout simplement, parce que certains semblent l’avoir oublié, qu’on n’interrompe pas celui qui a été reconnu par le Président de l’Assemblée. Si vous voulez le rappeler à vos camarades, à vos copains...

Le vice-président : Allez-y, continuez avec votre pensée.

Mr. Pouliot: We do realize, being the party that we are, at the avant-garde of changes, that a lot needs to be changed in a fast-moving world to bring the existing bill or to give them more representation to make them more functional.

It is obvious that the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) has chosen to overreact, but it is really not surprising. After all, we are in the midst of a campaign that tends to recognize that the marketplace always chooses better. Between the Liberals and the Conservatives they have a sort of accord or an entente.

Mr. Sterling: What?

Mr. Pouliot: And I am not going too far. It says that the least public direction is preferable, that if you leave it to the people in the marketplace, inevitably they will make the system better.

It is not so. Let me quote the words of Paul Steven Dempsey, appearing before the public utilities commission of the state of California. It is very recent: February 17, 1988. Professor Dempsey is not just anybody. Dr. Dempsey is a professor of law and director of the transportation law program, University of Denver college of law, University of Georgia, George Washington University, McGill University. I mean, this is instant credibility, which is more than I can say for the Minister of Transportation, with the highest of respect, who has chosen to flip-flop, change the bill, change the numbers, introduce them, go back to his aides, commit a multitude of sins and bring them back; but they are the same. He is making things worse. Why does he do this?

These people, the Ontario Trucking Association, have not made a habit of supporting the philosophy, the social conscience of the New Democratic Party; in fact, quite the contrary. They have from time to time made political contributions to elect members who do not adhere to our philosophy -- members of the Liberal Party, members of the Conservative Party. There are 800 members in the Ontario Trucking Association, and they are telling the minister what Professor Dempsey said before the public utilities commission of the state of California.

Now, we all recall that the state of California, the largest state in the union of the United States, went through the process of deregulation. The executive summary says, and I quote: “Federal deregulation of interstate transportation began in the late 1970s. The empirical results of airline, bus, railroad and motorcar deregulation are strikingly similar.”

This is food for thought. What he is saying is, “You want the marketplace to play a larger role; but once you deregulate, because of mergers, because of takeovers, it creates cartels and monopolies.” He chooses the word “empirical.”

This is what happens. The marketplace does not get better. It begins to suffer. Look what is happening in terms of the airlines. It has deregulated. Air Canada has taken over Austin Airways. We do not have more service in northern Ontario; we have less. The marketplace is down south. The less fortunate are left carrying the guilt. That is what is happening. We do not have more airlines.

1710

Does the minister see any Nordair planes? No, he does not. They are called “Canadian.” There are fewer and fewer people. The minister is allowing that and he will allow the same thing for trucking when we cannot compete with the United States.

It has been tried in California and in excess of 100,000 workers in the very important trucking industry lost their jobs, and 350 small carriers, since deregulation -- I am talking about the small entrepreneur who wants to benefit. He wants to make a buck, too. It is a normal reaction. He is not very rich, but he has dreams and he wishes to expand, a normal reaction. Let us pull the rug out from under him. He can compete with the big guys. It is not the smaller guys who did it to him. It is the big guys. They took him over. When they did so, this lowered the standard of living of many people. Because of the fear of being taken over, people were compelled to make concessions in their collective agreements.

At the beginning, we did give our acquiescence in principle to Bill 86 which deals with safety. The ministry hardly has enough officers, enough people in the field to monitor compliance when it comes to safety. This bill proposes to make safety better, to make it safer. But in this kind of dog-eat-dog world where people exist hand to mouth or, should I say, trip-to-trip, one of the first aspects that will be compromised will be safety.

The tires will get a little balder. People will play little games to get around the legislation and they will drive longer hours so they can make ends meet because it is much more competitive. They will overload. Safety will suffer. How will the minister monitor compliance? He will not be able to. Those are the real facts of life. The rig can roll a few more miles until catastrophe and calamity strike.

Over the past three years, the several times I have been on my feet, I did not for one second suggest that the minister has blood on his hands. Although it has been said to me, I never said that. I talked about the conditions in northwestern Ontario, the kind of impasse and dilemma that is faced by the people there, and then I listened the very next day to the proposal from the Minister of Transportation to pave the soft shoulders in southern Ontario, a very agonizing dilemma. We were more concerned up north about the section between the soft shoulders. Time and time again, we have met with refusal.

Professor Dempsey goes on to say under economic efficiency, “Carrier productivity gains predicted to result from deregulation have not materialized.”

I have mentioned why it did not materialize. I have offered the rationale for why perfect competition does not exist in the industries. You need not be a mathematical genius who has graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology like the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) to understand that. It works well on paper, but in the real world it does not quite work that way. Deals are made.

The minister and his colleagues have been against free trade, and yet they come up with deregulation of the trucking industry. I have some problem in terms of consistency to understand where they are coming from.

The regional expansion issue in northern Ontario has been something we live with on a daily basis. Time and time again, be it under supply or almost any legislation that is put forward in this House, you hear the northern representatives of our party saying, “Look, things don’t quite operate the way they do in southern Ontario.”

What we fear is that under the proposed deregulation bill, a multitude of sins, mainly sins of omission, will be committed up north. We fear that when the deals are made in the larger centres, we will not have more competition but in fact less service up north, and it will become the sort of attitude that will charge what the market will bear.

When you remove the elements of competition from the free enterprise system, you end up with cartels and monopolies. It is happening in the airline industry. We were promised the world there too. The government’s deregulation does not address that. In fact, we have a reverse-onus situation. One no longer has to satisfy the very basic elements of public necessity; the government has thrown that away.

Instead, it is saying: “If you can roll, if you satisfy us with the insurance, let’s roll it. Public necessity no longer exists.” It is the world upside down. We have lived well with regulations. We agree that some changes have to be made. But it is not the Treasurer, it is the Minister of Transportation. With the highest of respect, he has gone much too far.

I do not know what kind of influence the minister is under, but I would kindly remind him that there was no rush for this legislation. My colleagues and I are reasonable, always willing to put our best foot forward collectively with the government to help with positive amendments that will work in the real world, because no one knows better than the New Democrats about the real world, about the social conscience that should be behind every piece of legislation.

[Laughter]

Mr. Pouliot: I do not think this is a laughing matter.

I believe in this minister. I really believe he meant well for the people of the north. Today, I am disappointed, knowing the minister’s ability to come up with proper legislation. Of course, I did not expect the world, but I expected the people would be helped as opposed to being penalized.

We will be sending this legislation to committee, at which time, again and again, the New Democratic Party under its critics -- I am not the critic and I just availed myself of the opportunity to say a few words -- will be presenting some positive amendments.

Mr. Sterling: It is a refreshing change to participate in a debate on a Liberal initiative that will actually result in less, rather than more, regulation, that will stimulate, rather than stifle, competition and that could potentially make our economy more, rather than less, productive. While I refer to it as a Liberal initiative, I am certain we in this chamber all recognize the fact that this is actually a former Progressive Conservative initiative, one that was created by our former colleague, the honourable James Snow, through his consultation with representatives from the shipping and trucking industries.

1720

I referred to a refreshing change because the record and policies of this administration clearly demonstrate that it has yet to learn the difference between constructive participation and destructive interference in the competitive marketplace. In the past, this government has shown itself all too eager to add to the regulatory burden of our economy.

It has established an incomprehensible and unworkable system of regulating residential rents in our province. It has created a whole new regulatory regime and bureaucracy to reduce competition in the auto insurance field. It has imposed a sweeping pay equity policy on the private sector without first even testing it on its own domain.

It has reduced the competitiveness of the provincial economy by instituting one of the largest tax grabs in the history of our province. I am sure we can all recall the recent budget of the Treasurer and the many tax increases that accompanied it.

It is opposed to the free trade agreement, an agreement which, as the Economic Council of Canada as well as the province’s own Treasury officials have pointed out, offers considerable scope for productivity enhancement. It has pursued inflationary fiscal policies, allowed spending restraints to erode and added substantially to the size of the public service.

In sum, while this government talks a good line on the need to make our economy more competitive and productive, its own regulatory and fiscal policies are such that they make those objectives all the more difficult to achieve.

The government then appears to be at cross purposes with itself. In so far as these initiatives signal that the government has finally accepted that deregulation provides an effective means of improving competitiveness, they are most welcome.

I would like to digress for one moment and remind the House that when I had the privilege of serving as Provincial Secretary for Justice, I was responsible for regulatory reform. It was a concept whereby our government had a constant vigil on government regulation. This government has not demonstrated that same concern over regulation. I am therefore pleased to see the government attempting, on this issue, to follow our lead.

All members will appreciate that these measures will make Ontario’s regulations more consistent, in both spirit and substance, with reforms implemented by the federal government and other provincial governments. All members will also appreciate that the impact of these reforms will reach well beyond Ontario’s trucking industry and affect producers, shippers and consumers in all other sectors of the Ontario economy, particularly our manufacturers.

Those of us who have followed this issue will know that the distribution and transportation charges represent a very large portion of the cost of getting a product to market. It is also well known that truck transportation is a primary means of shipping in Ontario. The Canadian Manufacturers’ Association has estimated that about 65 per cent of manufactured goods for the domestic and export markets are shipped by truck.

Further, the Ontario Road Builders’ Association has told us that about 100 million tonnes of freight are shipped across our roads each year and that goods exported from Ontario by truck are valued at over $36 billion annually. In fact, fully 25 per cent of all truckers in Canada operate in Ontario and carry 30 per cent of the total Canadian truck freight.

These facts alone make it clear just how important it is that our producers, and especially our manufacturers, who employ over a million people in this province and account for three quarters of our production, have access to cost-efficient trucking. By easing entry into the trucking industry, deregulation will lead to increased competition on both price and service and lead to greater innovation. This will mean that our manufacturers will benefit from a more flexible system, which could potentially reduce their costs and consequently improve the competitiveness of their products.

Deregulation would also mean that producers in this province would be able to take best advantage of our road and highway infrastructure, in which the people of Ontario have invested billions of dollars. Deregulation would also result in the creation of more opportunities for people who want to enter the trucking industry. Further, it will enable the trucking industry to better respond to new developments and demands, such as the adoption of just-in-time inventory processes.

I would suggest that lower costs, more competition and better service are three good reasons for supporting deregulation in this sector. I would also suggest that deregulation is even more necessary now that we are moving into a period of more liberalized trade in which our manufacturers will have to take advantage of every opportunity to boost their productivity.

We cannot afford to burden our producers in the intensely competitive 1980s and 1990s with a system of regulating truck transportation that has its roots in the 1920s. The Americans have already deregulated the trucking industry and shippers have realized an average saving of 20 per cent off the tariff since 1980. If we want our producers to remain competitive, we have to be prepared to provide them with similar savings through regulatory reform.

We must also realize that the present regulatory structure is unenforceable. The public necessity and convenience clause has long since outlived its usefulness. We are also cognizant of the fact that we cannot under any circumstances sacrifice safety merely to save dollars.

Not only is there a need for safety; there is also a need for fairness with respect to our trucking industry. It must be allowed equal access to the US markets and be able to compete on an equal footing. A reciprocity clause that ensures equal opportunity and participation for both sides is a matter that should be given serious consideration.

In conclusion, this House is frequently awash with the economic buzzwords of the decade -- productivity, competitiveness, technology transfer, world class -- and with laments about our poor record on productivity growth. We now have the opportunity to help increase the competitiveness of our manufacturers by increasing competition in our trucking industry. Our party is therefore in favour of this legislation, as it is an opportunity that cannot be ignored.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: My desk looks like a chicken coop with tracks all over it, but I will attempt to recognize as much as I possibly can the thoughtful input put forward by a number of members today.

I certainly welcome the initiative of the member for Sault Ste. Marie to have extensive review, as I expect we will, in the standing committee on resources development.

I want to make a quick comment because of his constant referral to the federal trade act with respect to our trucking legislation. The Truck Transportation Act is not related to the FTA, the free trade agreement. The TTA is designed to improve flexibility and services in our Ontario trucking industry. With or without free trade, the benefits to the Ontario economy from the TTA are desirable. The free trade agreement does not include any transportation issues. The existing border restrictions under customs and immigration will not change.

1730

Ontario trucking licences have always been available to any applicant without discrimination and, as a result, the major US-owned trucking companies already operate in this province as part of the Ontario trucking industry. I welcome the member’s support for our fitness test and wanted to comment that most of the Americans wanting to be in business here are already here.

That has been indicated as well by a thoughtful executive of the Ontario Trucking Association, with whom we have met from time to time. In fact, they do not see any great fear of an influx from the Americans to further expand their operations in Ontario.

The member made reference to one particular company in the north, Manitoulin Transport, but neglected to indicate the other support that comes from northern Ontario, from companies like Trans-Provincial Freight Carriers, which is very enthusiastically supportive of the bills; from the owner-operators’ association from the north; from the city of Sudbury by resolution and from the city of New Liskeard by resolution; and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, there are others.

As we stated earlier, our commercial vehicle operator’s registration will enhance safety. I would like to point out to the member that having a northern licence does not obligate one, in fact, to provide that kind of service.

With respect to the statistics introduced to relate to the United States experience, mainly based in 1980 when the recession was at its peak and interest rates were at their highest, members will recall that in the 1978 and 1980 process the Americans did not implement, and are only now implementing, safety regulations to support their reregulation. It was stated that it will reduce jobs, when it is true, from the figures we have and have made available, that there is a net increase in employment throughout the overall industry.

With respect to the question of reciprocity, there are legal opinions, and our legal opinions say it is unconstitutional. It is just as difficult for an American to gain entry, and it must be made known here that it is just as difficult for an American to gain certain authorities within the United States as the member is suggesting our people go through here, so that there is equal treatment under law, and that is the principle I think we need to maintain.

To suggest that Ontario will be invaded by US drivers interprovincially is wrong; it is forbidden by the federal customs and immigration laws. The public interest test can allow the Ontario Highway Transport Board to recommend limits on fleets under new applications, and I would like to remind the member for Sault Ste. Marie that in excess of 1,100 Canadian operators are currently operating, I am sure most successfully, within the United States.

He is suggesting that we are attempting to railroad this legislation through the House. In fact, some members -- and I think the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) -- would recall that these bills or bills in various forms have been before us for 12 years. It has taken that long to get them this far.

There is widespread support for this legislation, on all three bills: as previously mentioned the Canadian Manufacturers’ Association, boards of trade from across the province, the Ontario Shippers’ Coalition and a few others. I would like to take the opportunity to read some of them into Hansard:

“Shippers comprise every mine, every factory, every mill and every store in every community of Ontario. Not only that, but shippers own and operate well over 50 per cent of the trucks on our highways. The health of those businesses is dependent upon getting competitive transportation.” That is a letter from David Long, president of the Canadian Industrial Transportation League.

“Distribution costs make up a sizeable component of our total operating costs and, hence, legislation impacting on this area of our business is monitored very closely. With the above in mind, we urge you to push aggressively for the quick passage of Bill 88.” That was sent from the Diversey Wyandotte Inc. chemical company.

Further, SKF Canada writes:

“Our distribution network for Canada is centred in Ontario, hence our very real concern that there should be any further delay with respect to the Ontario truck transportation bill, 88.

“The services that the trucking industry provides and their attendant cost must be freed to respond to forces within the marketplace. Bill 88 will open up competition. SKF relies heavily on the motor carrier. Lower distribution costs will give us a competitive edge. Ontario must not fall behind. The federal government has already moved Bill C-119.”

That is signed by the president of SKF Canada Ltd.

Coles Books writes: “It is now time to act. Your government has shown the necessary leadership in recognizing that today’s economic environment necessitates a more streamlined, efficient and competitive transportation network.”

From Pathex International in Don Mills: “We recommend the passage of Bill 88, resulting in improved competition, improved job security and benefit to the whole province of Ontario.”

From a manufacturing company in Dundas: “Our customers from coast to coast in Canada have benefited as we have passed along the transportation savings that have developed in the preliminary deregulation phase, so I urge you to press on and pass Bill 88.”

From Rubbermaid in Mississauga, “It is imperative that Bill 88 be proclaimed before the current government session ends.”

There are many others, from Procter and Gamble, Willington Body, Watson, Bowman, Acme, Snap-on Tools; and one last one in particular:

“The bill provides more competitive transportation costs and service, resulting in lower operating costs. The bill provides job protection for our employees. The federal government has passed Bill C-119 to deregulate truck transportation between the provinces, and the other provinces, notably Quebec, are passing legislation to enable other provinces to take advantage of this. Ontario will fall behind. Our cost of doing business is very reliant on competitive trucking to our inbound freight.”

That is from Noranda, from Manitouwadge.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: They employ people in that area.

My colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew recognized, as I would do, the efforts by my predecessor, the member for Simcoe West, who is sitting opposite, and the former member for Oakville, Mr. Snow, to bring forward this legislation.

Since, however, he introduced a letter from a gentleman in Stayner, I did want to mention that in fact the very opposite is true. The gentleman in Stayner, through this legislation, would be one of the very people we would be able to attract into this business.

He mentioned a number of issues, which I would refer to as taxing matters, that have been and will continue to be addressed. However, the overall costs of operating have to be taken into consideration, and our 1987 studies show that, in fact, Canadian and Ontarian operators can operate at 10 per cent less than their competition. But I do appreciate the other thoughtful comments that the member for Lanark-Renfrew made.

I will attempt to wrap it up and will have to address at committee some of the other issues raised here.

I welcome the input from the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling). His very thoughtful comments are generally supportive of what we are doing. I think he helped get to the nub of the issue, which is addressing the costs of transportation to everyone in this province and the volumes that are on our highways. He addressed the needs of a million employees employed in the transportation industry, who are paramount in what we are attempting to do and cannot be ignored. Whether you own the company, drive the truck or maintain the truck, you have an interest in the industry.

The ease of entry, as he stated, is really what is at stake. You can get into the business more easily, but it is going to be a lot tougher for you to stay in the business. It will be more competitive, so Ontarians will benefit. There will be more opportunities for business, and that means more jobs. There will be substantially more opportunities for safety, and that will mean lives saved on our highways. We recognize, as the member for Carleton indicated, the changing marketplace, the just-in-time delivery demands placed on shippers and carriers.

Finally, it is time, in Ontario, to bring the 1920s legislation into 1988.

1740

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fulton has moved second reading of Bill 88.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek a consent. There seems to have been a slight confusion as we dealt with the previous item, the second reading of Bill 87. I would like to seek unanimous consent to revisit the question, “Shall Bill 87 be read a second time?” If we could have unanimous consent to revisit that, we might clarify a certain matter.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the vote on second reading of Bill 87 be withdrawn and redone?

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: I will put the question. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Fulton’s motion for second reading of Bill 87 carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote stacked.

ENVIRONMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Ms. Hart moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bradley, second reading of Bill 148, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting the Environment.

Ms. Hart: Bill 148, entitled the Environment Statute Law Amendment Act, amends the Environmental Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act.

As the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) advised the House on June 2, the new bill includes amendments which will streamline and clarify hearing procedures and strengthen the decision-making authority of the Environmental Assessment Board. As well, several of the amendments will be aimed at a more efficient use of staff and its time. The ministry’s powers of entry and inspection will also be made more precise, in the light of developing jurisprudence under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is of particular importance to our enforcement procedures, to make sure that they are strong as well as fair.

I am going to be moving four groups of amendments to the bill; two are intended to clarify the definition of the terms used.

First is a single amendment to the definition of “person” in the Environmental Protection Act. This will be amended to ensure that regional municipalities are entitled to the same protection as other municipalities under section 9 of the act, the spills bill.

Second is a set of amendments to add the defined term “waters” to the bill. This will eliminate constant repetition of the words “well,” “lake,” “river,” “pond,” “stream” and “reservoir,” which are the types of waters protected under the Ontario Water Resources Act.

Third is the inclusion of section 35 of the Environmental Protection Act in the new provisions allowing the Environmental Assessment Board to make decisions. Section 35 deals with bylaws of municipalities which affect waste disposal sites. Now, the decision on whether to override those bylaws is up to the minister. The motion will transfer that power to the Environmental Assessment Board.

Fourth is a set of amendments to sections 56 and 57 of the bill. Those sections contain the powers of entry and inspection to be inserted into the Ontario Water Resources Act but which were originally developed for the Environmental Protection Act. My motions will customize those provisions to better fit the wording of the Ontario Water Resources Act.

We look forward to the co-operation of all parties to ensure continued improvement in our protection of the environment.

On motion by Mrs. Grier, the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mr. Conway: There was agreement that certain divisions be taken at or about 5:45 p.m. Looking at the clock, I notice it is now 5:45 p.m., and I would be happy to have those divisions.

Mr. Speaker: There are a number of motions before the House.

1800

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mrs. Smith’s motion for second reading of Bill 113, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Hošek, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, Lipsett, Lupusella;

Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J.B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, E.J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D.S., Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Pollock, Pouliot, Reville, Sterling, Swart, Wildman, Wiseman.

Ayes 78; nays 28.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Sorbara’s motion for second reading of Bill 114, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

1806

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Fulton’s motion for second reading of Bill 87, which was agreed on the following vote:

Ayes

Adams, Beer, Black, Bossy, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Curling, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Harris, Hošek, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, Lipsett, Lupusella;

Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, Matrundola, McCague, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLean, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas. Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Owen, Pelissero, Poirier, Pollock, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Sterling, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wilson, Wiseman, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D.S., Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Pouliot, Reville, Swart, Wildman.

Ayes 88; nays 15.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Fulton’s motion for second reading of Bill 88, which was agreed to on the same vote.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

20 juin 1988