role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

January 21, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L090 - Wed 21 Jan 1987 / Mer 21 jan 1987

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LAYOFFS

WILD TURKEY HUNT

NORTHERN REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTRE

DRUG BENEFITS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

NOTICE FROM NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAPER MILL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TECHNOLOGY FUND

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TECHNOLOGY FUND

PAPER MILL

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

TECHNOLOGY FUND

NORTHERN REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTRE

ACID RAIN

CONTROL OF SMOKING

LIQUOR LICENCE

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

PETITIONS

NONSMOKERS' PROTECTION LEGISLATION

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

SUNDAY TRADING

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MIGRAINE FOUNDATION ACT

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT (CONTINUED)

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT (CONTINUED)

ONTARIO HIGHWAY TRANSPORT BOARD AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Speaker: Before I call for routine proceedings, I must thank the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) for bringing to my attention that, according to Hansard, I had undertaken to review the transcript of the exchange between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) which took place during question period on December 16, 1986.

I have reviewed the transcript for that day and find that the minister said he had heard "nonsensical so-called facts." The member replied, "You cannot dispute one fact, nor have you tried." The minister then replied, "When they are reviewed, they turn out not to be the facts."

On hearing the point of order of the member for Bellwoods, I first concluded that I had "heard a dispute of facts." After reviewing the transcript, I have confirmed my first impression, and I think it is safe to say that what took place that day was a dispute as to facts and not a valid point of order.

Mr. Martel: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is my ruling.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and now I seek your guidance.

Mr. Shymko: Are you challenging the Speaker?

Mr. Martel: I would not challenge my friend the Speaker. I am trying to solicit his assistance with the problem I am having. What is at stake here is that an entire study was done by the government. Every time one gets up and presents facts that are documented, this cavalier approach is presented that it is not a fact.

I told my friend exactly what you were going to say to us today, Mr. Speaker, that you could not decide what is the fact and what is not the fact. There should be an open and public inquiry to find out what the facts really are. They should not be hidden away the way those birds have hidden them.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Sudbury East contain himself.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LAYOFFS

Mr. Brandt: I was informed yesterday that Fiberglas Canada is laying off 160 employees from its plant in Sarnia. This move is going to have a devastating effect on my community. To put it into perspective, it is the equivalent of 5,600 jobs being lost in Metropolitan Toronto, the equivalent to three and a half Goodyear plants closing simultaneously.

This most recent layoff comes after layoffs at the Ethyl Canada plant in Corunna, the Polysar plant and other major employers in my area. The unemployment rate for the county of Lambton has reached 10.2 per cent, and in the city of Sarnia it is much higher.

As part of the stated plan of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to decentralize government operations as a means to bolster regional economics, he has transferred 650 jobs to Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury and, most recently, 325 jobs to North Bay. We in Sarnia need the same type of government assistance. We have done what we can do locally to improve our economy, but it is not enough. We need provincial help. Therefore, I urge the Premier today to consider moving a government ministry or a portion of a ministry to Sarnia-Lambton to assist us in the diversification and the restructuring of our local economy.

I have sent a letter to the Premier asking him to meet with a delegation from Sarnia to discuss this vital matter. Thank you very much.

WILD TURKEY HUNT

Mr. Laughren: Some time ago, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) announced there would be a wild turkey hunt in the province this spring. There will be two sessions, from May 4 to May 9 and from May 11 to May 16. Attached to his announcement were some tips for being a safe hunter. I know a lot of hunters will not get the sheet that is put out by the minister, so I would like to repeat it now for those who are watching:

"1. Do not stalk wild turkeys. Call them to you. Stalking is almost always unsuccessful and may lead you to another hunter.

"2. Do not call like a gobbler (a male turkey). Another hunter may mistake you for one. Imitate the call of a hen turkey.

"3. Wear total camouflage clothing and camouflage hands and face. Do not wear red, white or blue. These colours may be mistaken for a gobbler's head.

"4. Keep still, and do not make sudden movements. A quick movement could alert the bird to your presence or draw fire from another hunter.

"5. Make absolutely certain your target is a gobbler."

NORTHERN REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Gordon: I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) the mounting concern in the Sudbury region about the pressure that is being brought to bear by a powerful federal minister to move the Correctional Services northern treatment centre to another location in the north.

The minister knows full well that one of the reasons he made a commitment to the Sudbury region was that it met the criteria as laid down by his ministry. We have the psychiatric services that are necessary and the other ancillary services that would be required for any type of a northern treatment centre. It is well known that the city of Sudbury has put forward some 12 sites and is prepared to make those sites available cost-free for the ministry. It would not have to put up any money.

I remind the minister that more than 9,000 people are currently unemployed in our region. I ask the minister to make an official announcement as soon as possible to end the idle rumour and speculation that is gripping the Sudbury region. It is nonproductive, and I know he would not want to bring this project along with this type of unnecessary rumour. I ask him to act now.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: For many years, it has been the tradition that many Canada pension disability recipients have had their federal amounts topped up by family benefits here in Ontario and by a benefit package, including the drug card, for those whose incomes are very inadequate.

Recently, the federal government recognized how inadequate those federal rates were and increased its rates from a maximum of $455 to $635 a month. That amount now exceeds the amount this province will pay a disabled person on family benefits; that amount is only $605. This means people who are near or at the maximum of the Canada pension plan who used to receive drug cards will no longer be eligible for those drug cards or the supplementary assistance in Ontario.

I want to know why the ministry, even though I made it aware of this in December, has decided not to move to protect these individuals and how much it is saving and how many people are affected by this policy. Our party suggests to the government that the best policy would be to guarantee that every person on CPP disability in this province be issued a drug card and not be further disabled because of the unfortunate miserliness of this government.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: Today has been dedicated as Weedless Wednesday, the final day of National Nonsmoking Week, when smokers try to break their habit for one day. This effort is supported by all health care agencies in our country. While I commend the attempt to quit this addiction, I must at the same time condemn the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and the Liberal government for doing absolutely nothing to help these individuals. There are no ministry-funded programs to assist people to kick the habit; yet tobacco is shortening the lives of our citizens. Today 35 people will die prematurely because of firsthand and secondhand smoke.

I have brought forward Bill 71, which attempts to control smoking in public and in the workplace. It may encourage smokers to quit, as smoking areas will be restricted to protect nonsmokers in the work place and public places. This afternoon I will introduce a petition that will include 14,000 more names for Bill 71. No other private member's bill has been supported by as many members of the public as has Bill 71.

This government, for reasons unexplained, chooses to ignore Bill 71. It is being unfair to our children and to future generations of Ontarians. I urge it to call Bill 71 at the earliest possible date.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: Noted writer June Callwood, in commenting on Ken Dryden's report about youth unemployment, says: "The government changed, the economy began to heal, priorities shifted. What had been a high-profile, dramatic initiative born of white-water politics during a period of acute youth unemployment turned into a placid millpond surrounded by sleepy civil servants making `ribit' sounds in the twilight."

There were two recommendations made by Mr. Dryden; first, that the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara) and other ministers should report to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) within six months with a strategy for full employment and, second, that the same minister should report to the Premier within six months with a strategy for an education-training system.

The minister and the government chose to ignore both of those recommendations and the minister apparently has chosen to sit in the middle of the millpond "making `ribit' sounds in the twilight."

NOTICE FROM NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to draw the members' attention to a piece of mail received by an 80-year-old senior citizen in my riding. It says:

"Dear Friend:

"What do you want for yourself? For your children? For your province?

"Help turn your concerns into action. Get involved with Ontario's political party that fights for you. The only party that is on your side and puts your interests first -- the Ontario New Democratic Party."

The letter goes on at some length. "You can count on the New Democrats to fight for you and your family, to fight for your children's futures.

"Tell me what your priorities are; give us the dollars to do it."

It is signed "Bob Rae, MPP, Leader, Ontario New Democrats." It is addressed to one Christopher Andrewes, Rural Route 3, Beamsville, Ontario, who is of course my father.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Maybe he made a previous donation.

Mr. Rae: Would he rather have had a letter from the National Citizens Coalition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Statements by the ministry? None? Oral questions, the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Gillies: No statements, no ministers. Where is the Premier (Mr. Peterson)?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Just before the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) launches himself, I expect the Premier, the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and lots of others to be here in a moment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAPER MILL

Mr. Grossman: In the presence of only nine ministers of the cabinet, I have a question for the Treasurer, one of the few who is diligent about attendance in the House. Yesterday, in response to our questions and the media's questions about the Kimberly-Clark situation, the Treasurer said a new trade battle was feared if they decided to assist Kimberly-Clark. Can he substantiate that suggestion this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Following the exchange in the House, I was asked by one of the members of the press gallery if that was a matter for consideration. I said it was, that I thought it was of secondary consideration but it was a matter we had to consider. As the honourable member has seen, this was reported as a major matter. I would say it is important, but it is not nearly as major as maintaining employment, maintaining our levels of pollution abatement and seeing that the taxpayers are properly represented in those important aspects.

Mr. Grossman: As the Treasurer seeks to devise reasons for not helping the people in Terrace Bay, once again he has shown the total negligence and sloppiness of his government when it comes to trade issues and international sensitivity on trade issues. Is the Treasurer aware that during the past five years, 10 mills in northern Ontario have received assistance of more than $125 million from the government of Ontario and the federal government?

With all that direct assistance, there is not one single indication from the American government to the Canadian government or to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology or to any of the Treasurer's own civil servants that the $125-million program caused one single concern with regard to trade issues and unfair subsidization by the Americans.

Given that record, how could he be so careless as to put up this straw man?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know the member is correct when he talks about the payments made to the mills, which had nothing to do with pollution abatement per se but were for upgrading the manufacturing process. As far as that goes, I did not raise the matter of any trade difficulties myself, but when asked, I acknowledged that it was something we were concerned about and I can assure him that we are. In the days when the former government was using public funds to upgrade the mills to maintain employment and the capability to compete, these trade problems had not surfaced to the point they have now.

The member may not realize how significant they are, but I can assure him they are and they are matters that have to be taken into consideration.

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer has misunderstood, shall we say, many points. First, trade issues were a problem during that time. The softwood lumber issue was front and centre in 1983. The then Minister of Natural Resources went to Washington four times to fight it off successfully, which this government has not done. Trade issues were front and centre in 1983.

Second, the Treasurer is simply uninformed and wrong when he says pollution abatement was not part of that program. In point of fact, as the minister responsible for the program, I participated with my colleague the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller) in negotiating 10 agreements with 10 companies, about 30 per cent of the funds for which were precisely for pollution abatement. He is totally misinformed in this entire area.

Finally, we checked with the International Trade Commission and found there are no pending applications or questions in the area of pulp and paper.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Why, in an attempt to find a reason for not helping the people in Terrace Bay, would the Treasurer have been so careless on this sensitive trade issue to raise the totally unjustified scare tactic of US retaliation?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I suggest that the honourable member is imputing motives which are frankly incorrect. It is the furthest thing from my mind to throw up any sort of barrier towards a situation that will achieve the aims we have been talking about in the past two question periods.

We want employment to be maintained and enlarged, and we want the environmental standards that have been established in Ontario substantially maintained and brought into effect. We believe we can do this in the best interests of the development of our resources, maintaining the jobs and strengthening our position vis-à-vis the environment, by following the leadership of our excellent minister in this case, which has been outstanding and in the best interests of all the people.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: The fact is, the Treasurer carelessly throws around trade fears, not understanding that they significantly damage our position in the United States.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order New question. To which minister?

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, and he has certainly had a lot of time to think of the answers since he has not been here for many days. Has the minister asked the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for money to assist Kimberly-Clark in the cleanup, and if so, how much?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since the Leader of the Opposition raised such a kerfuffle yesterday about whether the Minister of the Environment was present. I think members of this House would want to know that the Minister of the Environment was in Ottawa yesterday, attending an emergency meeting of environment ministers on acid rain and other items. If I had not been in attendance at that meeting, the person who would be standing in this House today demanding why I was not defending Ontario's interests at that meeting would be none other than the Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a response?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I certainly have a response. I hope the response is not too pink for the Leader of the Opposition, who has been referred to in that fashion by some of his former supporters.

I can assure the honourable member who now has an interest in this issue that many discussions have taken place concerning this matter. I have accepted input from a number of areas and encouraged input from other areas. The Treasurer is one of the people in whom I have a good deal of confidence for advice and counsel. He is one person whose opinions I always value on these matters. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that among those I have consulted has been my good friend and longtime member of this House, the Treasurer.

Mr. Grossman: We want to know whether the minister has as much clout with the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as Abe Schwartz has.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: No; it is not a question. The answer is obvious.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question?

Mr. Grossman: Last September the minister apparently succeeded in getting a commitment from the Treasurer for $85 million for the smelter cleanup program involving Inco and Falconbridge as well as a couple of other companies, this all in the name of acid rain which he was discussing in Ottawa yesterday. If the minister was able to get an $85-million commitment from the Treasurer to fight acid rain and give up to $85 million to Inco, Falconbridge and some other company, is he prepared to do precisely the same to fight water pollution to save the jobs in Terrace Bay?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I should explain to the honourable member who may not be aware of this that this was discussed at the environment ministers' conference at which I was in attendance all day yesterday and into the evening.

Mr. Gillies: Except when the minister opened the courthouse.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am sorry. I have already said that. That was the meeting I did not attend on Monday because I was in the House to answer questions Monday and the Leader of the Opposition was not here.

Because the Leader of the Opposition follows environmental issues very closely, I know he will be aware that when that issue was discussed with Mr.

McMillan some time ago -- and it was an excellent meeting with the federal minister -- there was a provision that in 1988, when the final report in process was finished, when the smelters came forward -- in this case Inco, Falconbridge and the Algoma sintering plant -- with their specific plans for meeting the acid rain regulation requirements, if they could justify in a presentation to the federal and provincial governments the need for such funds to be provided at that time, we would provide those funds based on that need and based on a criteria that would be established.

We are talking of some time away yet, and some very close justification.

On many occasions over the past few weeks, I have indicated both in this House and outside the House that we have been considering a number of options, such as financial and environmental, to come forward with the best control order that we believe is necessary to clean up the environment in the area.

Mr. Grossman: The fact is that the minister has a commitment. He announced it, as he is very good at doing. I want to quote what he said on August 3: "We are putting our money where our mouth is in the battle against acid rain." That was his statement after he received a commitment from his Treasurer to provide up to $85 million to fight acid rain and to assist those large companies in cleaning up their operations. Has the minister been able to get an equivalent commitment to date from his Treasurer that the money will be available if the appropriate circumstances are met at Kimberly-Clark? Does he have the commitment or not?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition has pointed out on many occasions that he has had the opportunity to sit on this side of the House for a number of years. Being involved in cabinet discussions, he would know that cabinet discussions are confidential, except in a general sense. The member would know that this was a program, to show the difference between the two, and that the federal government had put forward, as part of its program, a $150-million program to be matched by the provinces for the purposes of meeting acid rain commitments.

I have explained in great detail to the Leader of the Opposition, who has suddenly become interested in environmental issues. Apparently, they are no longer yuppie issues just for the Toronto people, as he said when he was in Sarnia. They are now issues that mean something else.

Mr. Davis: What the minister means is that he cannot get any money out of the Treasurer. He cannot get any money for education, and he cannot get any money for the environment.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I will ask only that the members of the House evaluate that when they see the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interjections are out of order.

Mr. Rae: My question is of the Premier. Can he explain the events of the past 10 days with respect to the Kimberly-Clark mill? First, can he explain why a meeting was announced in Terrace Bay to announce a control order on Wednesday? That meeting was then summarily and suddenly cancelled. Can he explain why the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) was mysteriously and suddenly taken off the case? He disappeared from the House for two days last week, and the Premier then set up a subcommittee of deputy ministers to deal with the issue, rather than the Minister of the Environment.

Can the Premier explain precisely what has happened and why, as of today, the workers in Terrace Bay and Longlac still do not know what is going on and what the position of the government is with respect to their jobs and with respect to the end of pollution from the Kimberly-Clark mill?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member may be confused. I do not think anyone else is confused here. The minister is firmly in charge of the situation. There is no question about that. We have a difficult situation on which the government has undertaken negotiation. I cannot enlighten the member any further in that regard.

Discussions are ongoing at a multiplicity of levels. The member knows the difficulty. We have a serious environmental question. We also have a serious problem with respect to the down-sizing of that mill, and we are anxious to protect the jobs and to clean up the pollution. We are working on both problems, and it should not be that difficult to understand it.

Mr. Rae: The reason it is difficult to understand, in terms of the basic ability of the government to deal with a very real problem, is that the control order expired in October 1986. It did not expire by surprise or overnight. It was in place for five years, and it was due to expire. We are now in a situation where the government has had to delay, has had to extend, has sent conflicting signals; the bureaucracy was originally contradicted by the minister and then the minister was contradicted in turn by his deputy minister and by the Premier. That is precisely what has happened.

Can the Premier tell us why has there been this kind of confusion, this kind of mismanagement and this kind of bungling of a basic issue and a basic problem? The government should have known about it for years. It should have been settled well before the expiry of the control order back in October. Why has that not been done?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As the member usually responds, some of these things should have been solved before. He may be right, he may be wrong; but this is a complicated situation. I think the confusion in this matter comes from the advice he is getting from the honourable member who represents that area, who has been on both sides of this issue all along the way. Or perhaps the member is listening to CBC Radio in the morning; perhaps that is the source of his confusion in this whole matter.

The minister is actively in control of this situation. He is working on it. There are ongoing discussions. It is difficult; I am sure the member for York South (Mr. Rae) is the first to recognize that. We hope to have a solution in the not-too-distant future. I am not in the position, and neither is the minister, to tell him the solution to that problem today, but I am familiar, as is the member, with the history of KC and the problems in that area and the jobs that are at stake, as well as the very important commitment this government has to eliminating the pollution.

That minister and this government do not have to stand up and apologize for our stand on the environment, because we are the leading jurisdiction in North America today.

Mr. Rae: The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) and the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) have spoken with clarity and force on this issue. If there is one thing the workers and even the management at Kimberly-Clark know, it is that if there is one member in this House who has returned every phone call, who has been at every single meeting, who has met with every level of that company, it is the member for Lake Nipigon. The Premier should be ashamed of himself for making the kind of statement that he made. That is more than the Premier has done. He is ill one day, and he turns up skating on the Rideau Canal the next day. It is a miraculous transformation.

When is the order going to be made public, and can the Premier give us an assurance, as I asked the Treasurer yesterday and still have not had an answer: is the order going to have a definite time frame attached to it, and is it going to guarantee the jobs of the workers involved at Kimberly-Clark?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Generally, control orders do not have guarantees of jobs in them, to the best of my knowledge. The member wants it both ways. He is standing up in the House and saying he wants all the jobs and he wants to end up with control of the pollution. We do too, and we are working on the situation. The member admits it is a complex issue, as we do, and we are working on the issue.

When it is done, we will make it public and happily share it with him. We will share all the results of what we do. I cannot tell him the date, and I cannot tell him exactly what will be in that control order. I can tell him it is being discussed. We are very serious about the situation, and as soon as we have the answer we will be very happy to share it with him.

Mr. Rae: The minister has been cut off at the knees almost as badly as in any case we have seen in the House.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions concerning the decision of the Divisional Court of Ontario with respect to the case of young Michael Bates. I am sure the minister is aware of the case and has read the judgement of the court.

Can the minister tell us whether he feels a trifle uncomfortable that one of the arguments used by the court in arriving at its decision that the classification structure used by the insurance companies is reasonable was, first, that the classification system was approved by the superintendent of insurance and, second, that the superintendent of insurance, who is responsible for the rates charged drivers insured by the Facility Association, uses the same system with respect to discrimination on the grounds of age, sex and marital status?

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Rae: Does the minister not agree that he cut off the Ontario Human Rights Commission case at the knees precisely because his own superintendent of insurance was involved in the same kind of discriminatory classification?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not agree with that at all. We have a situation, as I am sure the leader of the third party knows, where it is only drivers under 25, single and male, who are affected by that classification. Once they are over 25, there is no discrimination based on their age, sex or marital status. This young man felt his human rights were being violated. He went to the courts and the courts said no, his human rights were not being violated. Notwithstanding that, we are still addressing that problem.

Mr. Rae: I think the minister has misread the decision. What the court said was that the exceptions provided for in the Human Rights Code could be used by the companies as justification.

Does the minister think it is fair and reasonable that a young driver such as Michael Bates, who now is 24 -- at the time he brought the case he was 20 years old -- with a clear record, no accidents, should be paying two, three, four and five times as much as somebody else simply because he is younger, male and single? Does the minister think that is fair and right in Ontario in 1987?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I do not. As a matter of fact, I have instructed the insurance industry to start compiling actuarial data, as of January 1, 1985, based on driving experience and driving records. They anticipate it will take up to three years to get that statistical base. Once we have it, we will implement a rating system based on that.

Mr. Swart: His assistant says it will take three more years in addition to the two years already. Why does the minister need that kind of a wait? He must realize that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, under their successfully operated, driver-owned, public nonprofit insurance plans have applied the same rates for good young male drivers as drivers of any age and done that over many decades. In spite of that, they have rates for adult drivers which are 20 per cent on the average below what the people are paying in this province.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Swart: Given that the Supreme Court said about this system that there may be doubts that the current system need be continued but it is the only game in town, does the minister not think it is time we had a new game here such as the plans of the western provinces and stop the ripoff of young drivers and everybody else?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) will be delighted to hear that the recent report of the Manitoba insurance industry shows a loss this year in excess of $10 million. I should also say about that $10 million that there are only 600,000 drivers in all of Manitoba. In Ontario, we have in excess of six million. If we use the same figure, if we had a system like Manitoba's the people of Ontario would have lost in excess of $100 million this year.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Pope: My question is for the Treasurer. I think he owes this House an explanation. I refer him to page 23 of the Instant Hansard of yesterday. When my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) asked a question about the status of the Exploracom grant, the Treasurer stood in his place and said the following, "The public financing for Exploracom will depend upon the ability of Exploracom to raise the funds necessary to match and guarantee the continuing funding of the program in the future, but that matter is under review."

Given that he admitted outside the Legislature yesterday that a decision had been made a week ago to cut bait and run on yet another mismanaged, ill-conceived Liberal Party fiasco, can he explain his disgraceful conduct in that answer in the Legislature yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Obviously, I do not like the honourable member's adjectives and reject them out of hand. The member must be aware that the matter was being determined while the questions were being asked yesterday. I would have hoped I could have said at that time that Exploracom had been informed the government was not going forward with financing of the program, for reasons that had been made clear, actually, in the exchange of questions with the member for Brantford.

His questions indicated he was aware at that stage, as were we, that the principal computer firms were not going to be participating, and that in fact the concept of no further funding for Exploracom beyond the original investment -- the idea that it was not going to be possible and that it appeared to me as Treasurer that additional funding would be required. The letter had not gone at that time. The letter has gone and presumably has been received by Exploracom now.

My last statement to the member for Brantford in answer to his question was that no money would be proceeding under those circumstances. There was nothing misleading. I can assure the member there was no intention to mislead.

Mr. Pope: The regrettable consequences of this whole matter are that the Treasurer has been drawn, I think unfortunately and unfairly, into the whole atmosphere of disinformation that surrounded Wyda and Graham Software and that we saw with respect to Exploracom. The Treasurer knows full well that he was aware, by the time the member for Brantford placed the supplementary with enough specifics -- he hesitated before his first answer yesterday -- that we were aware that the employees had already been told the project was not going ahead. It was only then in answer to the supplementary question that he fessed up and said it was not going ahead.

I want to know why, and I think the members of this Legislature deserve an explanation for the fact that, between the main question and the supplementary question, the Treasurer changed the information he was prepared to give to the Legislature and amplified it even further outside the Legislature when he said the decision had been made a week ago.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member for Brantford and even the honourable member who is questioning now had every and ample opportunity to ask additional questions about the matter. The information I provided to the member for Brantford was that no money was going to be flowed, none was and none will be under those circumstances. The press gallery outside very properly picked up on the question that had been asked and in particular picked up on its answer, which seemed to leave the opposition members sound asleep, as the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) is when he is here.

They picked up on it and had me respond more fully about the fact I had already given to the House, that the matter was under discussion. The letter had not gone to Exploracom at that time.

The hesitation the member noticed was an appropriate one because the letter had not gone and I felt it unfair to bring forward that information before Exploracom had been properly informed of the decision of the government.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. He has imbibed on the insurance companies' rhetoric for so long that he has no idea what the facts are with regard to public auto insurance. He ought to know they made $70 million during the past five years. Last year they lost $10 million. They have had a net gain of $60 million, according to the auditor for the province, during the past six years. Rate increases during that time have gone up by only 18 per cent in total.

I would like to bring to the minister the case of Direct Towing. Tony Salamone of Sherman Avenue North, Hamilton, owns Direct Towing, which has had its insurance rate for five trucks go up from $7,000 in 1985 to $12,000 in 1986 and to $37,000 in January 1987, even though it has had only four claims, averaging $1,700, during the five years it has been in operation.

Given that the property and casualty insurance companies had higher profits in 1986 than ever before, does the minister not think it is time to intervene and prevent those kinds of increases? What does he propose to do to deal with this kind of gouging by the insurance companies?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold is coming up with the patent question he keeps asking almost daily, certainly weekly, which is exactly the same issue. We are looking into that area. We have a great many people working on the problem. We will resolve the problem those people are having.

Mr. Swart: That is only one of the tens of thousands of problems being brought to the attention of the Ministry of Financial Institutions.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr. Swart: Our staff have repeatedly tried to get through on the ministry's insurance line without success. When they did get through and said they wanted to launch a complaint, it was explained that as many as 600 others a day were doing the same thing. Another call to another receptionist produced the figure of 350. Does the minister not realize his private system has broken down, that Band-Aids are no good, that people are being hurt badly and there is urgency? We need a public system like Manitoba's. They have fewer complaints in one year than the ministry gets in one day.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would like to repeat one statement I made earlier. Before I commit this government and the people of Ontario to a cost factor that will be far in excess of $100 million, I want to make sure that we examine it, that it is the best system for the people of Ontario and that it will serve their needs. Unless we can do that, we are not going to proceed.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: I have a question for the author of the Exploracom mess, the Premier. I would like to ask the Premier about the comments the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) made yesterday to reporters outside the House when he said the government had decided, after external reviews, that the Exploracom project would have a private financing problem, that the revenue projections of Exploracom were not realistic and that the government believed that, once operating, the project would not be able to sustain itself without further injections of government money.

In view of all those facts, can the Premier please clear up the mystery and tell this House why on earth he made a public commitment of $17.5 million to this project almost a year ago when every study undertaken by the ministry since has shown it is not viable?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It could very well have been viable. It was an excellent concept and, in my opinion, still remains an excellent concept. The issue was that the financing was not forthcoming. Surely that is not difficult to understand. The commitment was made in principle, depending on certain things happening. Unfortunately, those things did not happen, and we made a decision in the circumstances. How can the member argue for any other prudent course of action?

Mr. Gillies: Does the Premier not realize that by precipitately making this commitment to the project -- without proper scrutiny, in my belief -- and by now withdrawing support for the project, he has certainly put the province in a position to be sued? I wonder whether the Premier could share with the House what legal advice he has sought on this matter and concerning press reports this morning that Mr. Schwartz and/or his employees may sue the province? Are the taxpayers of this province going to end up liable for those expenditures already undertaken by Exploracom?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot predict the future with clarity. I do not know what is going to happen in the circumstances. There will be a variety of people with a variety of different views with respect to their own interests.

We had a look at this situation in what we considered to be the best interests of the taxpayers. I regret very much what has happened, because I think that in the proper circumstances it would have been a good project for the community. However, as the member may or may not know, occasionally in government one has to make difficult decisions. We are prepared to make those decisions, and I think we have done the appropriate thing.

PAPER MILL

Mrs. Grier: In his reply to the member for York South (Mr. Rae), when he was being questioned about Kimberly-Clark. the Premier seemed to make something of the fact that he would happily make public the control order when it was decided upon. I should hope so. Control orders are public documents.

Last October the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) issued a press release announcing the extension of the control order and saying this extension would permit an accounting firm hired by the ministry to complete a financial audit of the company. I would like to know whether the Premier will be as happy to release the audit that was done at Kimberly-Clark.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It would be more helpful if I referred the question to the Minister of the Environment so that the member can engage in one of her daily conversations.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am always happy to answer the questions of my friend the member for Lakeshore.

As she will know, in a very significant way, much of the material that was contained in a general sense in what was actually a financial analysis done by a forensic auditor, to use the correct terminology, has been made public. It has revealed that the company has lost, on the operation in Terrace Bay at least, a significant amount of money; on the Canadian scene, it is in a profit position; and on the international scene, it is in a profit position. It is valuable that this information has come forward.

The member may or may not agree with this, but there may be some very specific information in it that is of a proprietary nature that might not be revealed, but I do not have a problem with that in terms of my own personal assessment of it. As well, it is something the company may or may not wish to reveal in terms of all the intricacies of the audit itself; but certainly in a very general sense I can confirm for the member that the information that has been flowing publicly is accurate.

Mrs. Grier: It is very nice of the minister to confirm that the information is accurate. Quite frankly, I would like to have a look at the information for myself. Having received a press release from the minister in October that he was going to do an audit, all members of this House can be forgiven for assuming this audit was also going to be public.

Will the minister confirm that one of the conditions upon which the audit was done was a condition by the company that it not be made public? How can he justify issuing a press release to say he is doing a public audit if it is not a public audit?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I wish I had the press release in front of me. The member could show it to me.

She is going to send the press release over. This may take a minute, Mr. Speaker. I would like to review it, because I know the member is not one who would ever present inaccurate information in this House. I have never found that to be the case, but I would just like to have an opportunity to read that.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the minister would respond.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Yes, I can comply.

It says: "After the completion of the audit, expected at the end of November, the ministry will decide on the type and scope of environmental requirements that are appropriate...Those requirements will be determined with full public participation."

I do not think it says there is a public audit. It says, "Those requirements will be determined with full public participation." It has been very helpful information. I know the member was not trying to suggest anything aside. I trust her in that regard to the utmost.

Mr. Foulds: More than we can trust the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I trust everyone in this House, even the member for Port Arthur.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Callahan: There are a number of our senior citizens in the west gallery. It brought to my attention the number of excellent senior citizens' clubs we have in Brampton.

I would like to ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs whether the advisory councils are ongoing and whether there will be additions or updates of the previous reports that were prepared for seniors.

Mr. Ashe: Another dumb question.

Mr. Rowe: It is a barn burner. Be careful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable members are wasting a considerable amount of time.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: Now that we have the attention of the members opposite, I am delighted to respond to the member for Brampton that the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens, which has been in existence for about a dozen years, will go through the sunset process.

My personal recommendation to the Premier will be that the advisory council continue to exist, because it provides to the government, through me, very good information and advice on a variety of timely themes for seniors.

Mr. Brandt: Here it comes.

Mr. Callahan: It appears the opposition is not interested in hearing anything about seniors.

I would like to indicate that in Brampton, I am advised by a seniors' club, the New Horizons Club, a considerable number of the seniors of this province are located in northern Ontario. I would like to inquire whether the advisory council has visited there and what the results have been, if it has.

Hon. Mr. Van Horne: Prior to the calendar year 1986, it was not the practice of the advisory council to travel extensively; rather, most of the meetings it held were here in Toronto. I should point out that the membership of the committee is province-wide and we have representation from northern, eastern and southwestern Ontario and also from the Metro area.

However, during this past year, I determined it would be wise to see them travel a bit, for the simple reason that I had assigned them a series of tasks. For example, I wanted them to investigate transportation needs for seniors. I wanted to have them report to me on ways of assisting people who might have an Alzheimer's patient within their family. I wanted them to report on the theme of elder abuse.

We did reach out a bit, and this past year the council travelled to the Kitchener-Waterloo region and to the Kirkland Lake region about four months ago.

TECHNOLOGY FUND

Mr. Gillies: My question is to the Premier about the Premier's Council. Since its much ballyhooed announcement last year, the technology council has made one premature major announcement, Exploracom, which has since self-destructed, has made one $100,000 grant to a university and has incurred administrative expenses in excess of $100,000. As far as we can tell, this is the sum total of the activity of this council.

On top of all this, will the Premier now confirm to the House that a consulting contract valued at more than $500,000 has been awarded to the Canada Consulting Group and to an American company called Telesis to give him some idea of what to do with his technology council?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is not accurate at all. The honourable member is correct that there are tendered contracts to Telesis, which he knows is a Canadian arm, and to Canada Consulting Group, which is doing a strategic overview of the entire economy of Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier should have done that before he announced it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the honourable member thinks these things are already there, they are not. It is interesting that the people participating on the council are very excited about the prospects and the things that are happening.

We have invited representations for the centres of excellence. There is a great deal of activity among the universities as well as in other areas. It is on track, going extremely well and doing exactly what we wanted to do in assisting the government in its policy-making endeavours and in looking at our strategic opportunities over the long term. I know the member thinks in short-term time frames; this is a 10-year commitment to do something that we think is important with respect to the economy of Ontario.

Mr. Gillies: All of us in this House share a concern about the technological development of our province. It is the Premier's singular lack of success thus far in this area that has us concerned. Will the Premier inform the House why, when his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) made his statement on December 18 updating the members of this House on the progress of the council, he made no mention of a $500,000 consulting contract?

Would the Premier further tell the House why, in response to a question in Orders and Notices by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) asking about contracts going to Canada Consulting Group, his government again gave no information about this $500,000 contract? With the very high-calibre, blue-chip people whom he has put on this council, why on earth is there not enough brainpower there to tell him what do to with it, and why does he have to put out a consulting contract of this magnitude?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend would like to burrow around and throw up something in the air which he hopes will stick somewhere or other, or make some accusations. However, it is absolutely on track. I can tell the member what is happening in other countries of the world and what structural realignments they have made to assist the government in their directions and the economy.

Canada Consulting Group has been working for this government and for other governments for a very long time. Many contracts were signed with the previous government. It was a tendered contract, as he knows. If he looks at it, he will find everything in order. His suggestion that there is something untoward, the aroma that stands up every time he stands up, is completely wrong. I think he will find everything in order, working exactly on track.

I am quite excited about the prospects, as are the members of the council. We said at the beginning that it is a long-term commitment to seek our competitive advantages in this economy, to bolster those areas of strength that we have and to try to think ahead, not backwards. If the member canvasses the individual members of the council, he will find that they are extremely excited about the prospects for it. We will be happy to report to the member along the way, as things happen. I warned him then, and I will say again, not to expect instant results. This thing will take a long time.

NORTHERN REGIONAL TREATMENT CENTRE

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Correctional Services, if we can get his attention. Since the regional municipality of Sudbury and Sudbury itself have offered free land, if need be, the Sudbury Algoma Hospital has the psychiatric services available, the university has social workers available who need jobs and there are 9,000 people unemployed in Sudbury, can the Minister of Correctional Services tell me why, after almost a year of negotiations and a number of announcements about the possibility of a northern treatment centre, he cannot definitively say today that the facility will be going ahead in Sudbury in the next couple of months?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I think the honourable member will realize it is not wise to make announcements until we have the full benefit of reports done by the staff we hire for these purposes. A study is being done by our staff and a report which will review all the issues regarding the site has been promised to me by the end of January. As the member knows, we have been exploring 12 sites in Sudbury for such a facility, and we expect that report at the end of January. I have made a public commitment that we should be able to announce the location of our site by mid-February.

Mr. Laughren: Is the minister telling us it is a certainty that the treatment facility will be located in the Sudbury basin and not in some other community in northern Ontario? Would he tell us why he has not made the announcement with absolute certainty so that a determination of the site can be arrived at, since a municipality in my constituency, Rayside-Balfour, has a site that is available?

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has reminded the minister several times that the former radar base near Falconbridge is available. Why can we not have an announcement immediately?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: An announcement by mid-February is within an appropriate time frame. We were prepared to locate and announce it in June, and the residents of the area totally opposed it. The opposition to the current site we are looking at that was voiced in yesterday's Sudbury Star does not help the negotiations as we attempt to locate the site.

Mr. Martel: That is why we told you to use the radar base. There was no problem. It would cost one buck.

Mr. Speaker: New question. No further supplementaries from the member for Sudbury East.

ACID RAIN

Mr. McGuigan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today the Prime Minister of Canada is entertaining a group from the United States that includes Vice-President George Bush. We understand the question of acid rain will be one of the subjects. Yesterday the minister attended a meeting in Ottawa at which other environment ministers were present. Can he tell us what went on at his meeting that would strengthen the hand of Canada in dealing with this subject?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: A number of issues were discussed at the meeting in Ottawa yesterday, and one of the important ones was acid rain. It is my view that the meeting was very productive. The people involved in the meeting were resolved to see that a full program was in effect in Canada, which would strengthen our hand. I know the federal Minister of the Environment is resolved that this be the case and, along with the provincial ministers, is working hard toward that.

In Canada we have a commitment to a 50 percent reduction in acid rain in eastern Canada. Ontario has played its part by its regulation, reducing by 67 per cent the amount of sulphur dioxide contamination that would be allowed, 60 per cent overall in Ontario.

The Canadian position that can be brought to the attention of our American friends is a relatively strong one, which will be very helpful in negotiations with Mr. Bush or whoever else might be in that delegation.

Mr. McGuigan: A poll released today said that the number one problem on the minds of Canadians in relation to government is the matter of the environment. Would the minister agree that there is a growing opinion in Canada, and in Ontario in particular, that we have to get tough with the US and perhaps take this to the highest court in the land?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: There are two approaches that could be taken in dealing with the American authorities in this regard. The initial reaction to the summit last year was, I think, cautious optimism that some progress might be made. It is my view that on that occasion the Prime Minister attempted to elicit from the President of the United States a commitment to do something constructive about the acid rain problem. The unfortunate thing, in my opinion, is that the US did not live up to its commitment to the Prime Minister of Canada, who had placed this as the number one item on the agenda.

I know that on recent occasions the federal Minister of the Environment mentioned he was extremely disappointed with the progress as far as the administration was concerned. I certainly support the position the federal minister has taken at this time, that having given the American administration a chance, they take a much tougher stance.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Premier. I wish he would get tough with the environment. What is the government's policy with regard to controlling tobacco smoke in the work place and in public places? Does the Premier have any position on that at all? Is he in favour of doing that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As a reformed smoker, I look askance at anybody who smokes now; I cannot understand why anybody would do that. I think the minister announced some of the initiatives the government is undertaking. We are looking at it in its broad range. I am not in a position to share any more information with the honourable member today.

Mr. Sterling: On a number of occasions I have attempted to obtain from ministers their objection to Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, a private member's bill I have put forward to this Legislature. To date, none of the ministers -- the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) -- has objected to Bill 71 at all.

Thirty-five people will die today prematurely because of firsthand and secondhand smoke. Is the Premier's only reason for not calling this bill for third reading, which would take all of 20 minutes of the time of this Legislature, purely a partisan political reason? As Premier, does he not think he should take a leadership role on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not interpret it that way at all. I remind the honourable member that this government has called opposition bills on several occasions. I do not recall that ever being done when the member was part of the administration. Perhaps I am wrong.

Mr. Pope: It was.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It was done once? It was obviously before my time; I do not recall it. That is not the objection; it is not a partisan political concern. I am sure the member's concerns reach members of all parties. It is a serious issue. The question is, what is the best way to attack and approach it, given all the various rights at stake?

LIQUOR LICENCE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Can the minister update the Legislature on the investigation into the acquiring of the liquor licence at a bar in Windsor called the Million Dollar Saloon? It has the obvious, direct involvement of a gentleman by the name of Anthony McCowan, who was convicted in October 1977 of keeping a common bawdyhouse and who was convicted in January 1977 of trafficking in narcotics and sentenced to two years? How is it that an individual who has a criminal record such as this is allowed to get a liquor licence in Ontario and expand the strip bars, which are already a major problem in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: From the information I have I think it was the gentleman's sister who actually applied for the licence. Having said that, the circumstances have been brought to my attention, and I have instructed the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to make a full inquiry into that situation. The chairman has indicated to me that under his mandate he does not have the power to go into some of these things as far as he would like to; we are going to look at that as well.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: How can the minister say that Mr. McCowan does not have direct involvement in the ownership of this bar? All the loans for the $700,000 to purchase have been guaranteed by him and the renovations of the bar are being paid for by him. How can the minister possibly say or believe that Mr. McCowan does not have direct involvement in this facility? Will he intervene directly to make sure this gentleman is not allowed to open up yet another strip bar in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I did not say he did not have an involvement. I said he was not the nominal applicant for the licence. Having found out that there is a potential involvement, and his involvement in it, we are looking into that. We have a situation where I have stated publicly that we are going to look into it.

I have directed the chairman of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to look into the matter. He has indicated to me that he may have some problems under his mandate. If that is the case, then I think his mandate should be changed. We have an obligation to ensure for the people of Ontario that the people who get liquor licences are beyond reproach, are of good character and will serve the public well. That is something we are looking into.

GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

Mr. Warner: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: A government policy announcement of a $45-million program was made today. As the critic, I was not given the opportunity to respond in the House to that announcement. That may be because, to quote the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Sorbara), "the most appropriate place to announce such a program was at the chamber of commerce" rather than in the assembly. Mr. Speaker, can you find some way to give opposition members their rightful opportunity to offer their views of government policy?

Mr. Speaker: I listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. It is not up to the Speaker to inform anyone or to make any comment in this House; it is to try to control some of the comments in this House. This is not a point of privilege. That matter has been brought before me and other Speakers. It has often been suggested by Speakers that it is common courtesy to inform the House before the public is informed. However, it is not up to the Speaker to make that decision. I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

PETITIONS

NONSMOKERS' PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Sterling: I wish to table a petition which reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, support Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, and ask all members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to vote for it in committee and on third reading in the Legislature.

"We urge the government to support this bill by allowing it to pass through all stages of parliament."

This petition is signed by more than 14,000 people and makes to date the sum of about 22,000 people who have signed a petition in favour of Bill 71.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr. Philip: I want to present a petition signed by 10,291 residents of Ontario as follows:

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

"Each year, under the Animals for Research Act, approximately 4,000 unclaimed dogs and cats are released by impounding agencies to research facilities. These pets can be used in any form of teaching, testing and experimentation. Research facilities are exempted from the provisions of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

"Many municipalities and animal welfare organizations believe that animal pounds/shelters should operate as sanctuaries for lost and abandoned pets and are, therefore, opposed to the sections of the act requiring pounds/shelters to surrender pets.

"Therefore, we the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill introduced by Ed Philip, MPP, Etobicoke, entitled

An Act to amend the Animals for Research Act, inasmuch as this bill allows municipalities to decide whether or not to surrender unclaimed pets to research."

There are 10,291 signatures on this petition.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition that reads as follows:

"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 believe in keeping Sunday as a holy day in order that all people grow in holiness -- that is wholeness. For this they need regular time for rest and recreation together. Therefore we are opposed to Sunday openings."

It is signed by 60 residents of the city of Barrie.

I also have a second petition on this subject: The wording is the same. It is signed by 63 residents from the riding of Simcoe Centre.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering whether all the conversations are necessary.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Correctional Services be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $13,308,700; operations program, $237,200,500.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $67,134,400; institutional health program, $4,127,017,000; emergency health services laboratories and drug benefit program, $443,998,500; mental health program, $362,799,100; community and public health program, $522,678,100; health insurance program $2,484,827,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MIGRAINE FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Grossman moved first reading of Bill Pr61,

An Act to revive the Migraine Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

TOWN OF WASAGA BEACH ACT

Mr. McCague moved first reading of Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting the Town of Wasaga Beach.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before I call order 20, there was some misunderstanding about whether we were going to proceed with these bills. I apologize for that, in so far as I am responsible, which I think is 100 per cent.

I am glad we can proceed with the bills of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. There is some thought, unbelievable though this is, that there might be a division. If so, by agreement, we will postpone those until 5:45 p.m. Since this involves three second readings, there is a certain awkwardness that I am sure the clerks at the table will assist us with.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TRUCK TRANSPORTATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 150,

An Act to regulate Truck Transportation.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) adjourned the debate. Do any other members wish to participate? The member for Cornwall.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The procedure after a speech by every member is that other members may respond or ask questions. The member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan) had concluded his remarks. Some of us found his speech so absolutely fascinating and interesting that we wanted an opportunity to question him on some of his words of wisdom. I would like to ask those questions, even if he is not present, so that he may at least have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Speaker: As you know, we are on provisional standing orders and we have never run into anything similar to this on previous occasions. I find it difficult to ask questions of a member when the member is not present.

I am in the hands of the House. In my view, under the circumstances the member can have his two minutes, but of course he cannot expect a response.

Mr. Philip: In view of the Disneyland sort of speech the member for Brampton made, maybe he will respond in some kind of new metaphysics from outside in the corridor or wherever he is.

I simply want to make the point to the member for Brampton that he tried to say he was defending small business by being in favour of this deregulationist bill. I ask the member at least to consider the circumstances surrounding the dump truck operators in 1977-78, when his party, along with ours, urged that there be not more regulation but a complete freeze on dump truck operators' authorities.

At that time, the operators of the small dump truck companies were being completely exploited by the aggregate producers, who would simply say to them: "You overload. break the law and pay the fines. If you do not like it, there are 23 or 25 other dump trucks that are willing to take a chance and haul for the pittance we are willing to offer you and who are willing to have complete disregard for safety in order that we can make a bigger buck."

That is the kind of deregulation he is essentially asking us to pass here. His motherhood comments on small business completely ignore those small businessmen, many of whom have immigrated to this country and have invested a lot of money in trying to be entrepreneurs but who faced that kind of thing in 1977 and 1978, when it was necessary not just to regulate but even to freeze operating authorities.

The very thing he is asking for will be the very thing that will hurt small business the most. I ask the member for Brampton to respond to those comments.

Mr. Gregory: I found that the member for Brampton actually had nothing to say, so I will not respond to it.

Mr. Guindon: It is a pleasure for me as the member for the great riding of Cornwall, coming from the historic part of Ontario, which is eastern Ontario, to participate in this debate on Bill 150,

An Act to regulate Truck Transportation.

I am happy to be able to represent the views of some people in eastern Ontario -- in fact, I think most of them -- and at the same time my own point of view. I have to say at the outset I support Bill 150 in principle and I support the fact that it will go to committee, because I feel there are a few areas where it can be improved.

I am generally opposed to government legislation for business problems. It is obvious that in my position as a member, if business people come to me and ask me for legislation on a business problem, I feel it is my duty to tell them that they should get back to work, compete, do the best they can and they will succeed. It is a little different when a constituent of mine comes to me and says, "Do not pass a law."

That is different. Then I will listen a bit more than I would to other people. If a law is going to hinder people of my riding or people in the trucking business in general, I will take time to listen to them. Many constituents of mine have brought to my attention the problems they would have with dump truck operations.

One constituent came to me not long ago with his wife and his son. His wife is the chief cook and bottlewasher, dispatcher, payroll clerk and accounts payable clerk in the business, while he and his son each drive a truck. They emphatically impressed on me and told me many times that in this business they can work at best only eight months a year. During those eight months, they sometimes work 12, 14 or 16 hours a day. They feel Bill 150 opens up the borders and is very dangerous for their business in eastern Ontario.

If we are going to regulate, deregulate or reregulate truck transportation, we cannot forget the plight of eastern Ontario. The former member for Cornwall was in the Legislature yesterday. He is now on the Ontario Highway Transport Board. He pressed for at least 11 years in this Legislature for the same thing I am going to keep on pressing for, namely, recognition of what the people of eastern Ontario have to fight against.

These truckers speak to me and tell me that all they have is their public commercial vehicle licences to keep themselves viable, to keep themselves in business and to keep their jobs. We have a situation where Quebec refuses reciprocity. It refuses to let our truckers go into Quebec. We cannot go anywhere past the border. In fact, even a heavy crane operator cannot work in Quebec. One needs a special permit. There has been a freeze in Quebec since 1977. They have not expanded PCV licences for transportation of aggregates or asphalt since 1977.

If we are going to support Bill 150, we cannot forget what is going to happen. They were telling me very succinctly that if we pass this bill the way it is we are going to have every turkey who owns a dump truck in Quebec coming to Ontario. They will be acting like Oklahoma bank robbers. They will be scattered everywhere.

I want to make sure this Legislature understands the problem we have in eastern Ontario. In Ottawa, Hawkesbury and Cornwall, truck operators from Quebec are coming into Ontario and taking away our jobs and our business. That is what they are going to be doing and we are going to have to compete with that. It is hard to compete when you are regulated and the competition is not. There is definitely no reason to have to operate with a pair of handcuffs on. That is exactly what they impressed on me.

We hear a lot throughout Canada and in southern Ontario about growing United States protectionism. It is very important, but we in eastern Ontario are more concerned about Quebec protectionism. We have people who come from Quebec. Of course, our doors are open. If the hat fits the former government in what I am going to say, then fine, it is going to have to wear it. However, it also fits this government because our laws leave the doors wide open. Tradesmen from Quebec can come and work in Ontario any time they want. They can compete for jobs and we let them be and do not bother them.

Our tradesmen cannot even go in with their own hammers, nails or screwdrivers to work on jobs in Quebec. They are booted out.

This is for an area that had 14.9 per cent unemployment in December 1986. I am not fooling around with figures; I am serious. There is never anyone in this Legislature who is willing to give eastern Ontario its fair share.

Before we pass this law, we need a guarantee from Quebec that it is going to act on this now. My information is that Quebec is not interested in looking at it for three or four years. The truckers are going to be out of business. We are going to have a lineup of Quebec trucks coming into Ontario and they are going to be cleaning up on the jobs. Whenever there is no construction in Quebec, they are going to be competing in Ontario for the same jobs. They are probably going to want to do it at a discount because they have to keep their trucks going. They have to pay their insurance. They have to pay their bills too. It leaves our people at a disadvantage.

We need a level playing field. We cannot have it without speaking to the Quebec government. Quebec governments of the past 20 years have been acting that way, and it should be changed now. We cannot give them another tool or another advantage on us. It is nice to think we want to be all-Canadian and for all of Canada, yet we come up with and pass another law that is going to put eastern Ontario people and businesses in jeopardy.

I was in touch with some of those people again. They let me know they had received a letter from the minister or the ministry in regard to that latest point, but they are not going to do anything about the Quebec-Ontario problem or the interprovincial problem because they do not want to antagonize Quebec. Somebody is going to have to speak up for eastern Ontario darned soon, and I will be taking up that role. I am going to remind this government every time that I cannot support anything that is going to put the residents in my area at a disadvantage.

In Cornwall, it is important. I have mentioned 14.9 per cent unemployment in the area. That is high enough. There is going to be an overcapacity of trucks in the dump truck field. Truckers are going to be driving into Ontario and bidding on the same jobs. Our people are going to suffer, and we are not going to be better off with it.

Je voudrais expliquer brièvement le point de vue des Ontariens dans l'Est de l'Ontario, toujours dans la région d'où je viens. Je voudrais soulever des objections au projet de lot 150, parce qu'on a déjà assez de problèmes à faire concurrence pour l'ouvrage. On a déjà assez de problèmes avec le chômage. Il faudrait absolument voir à ce qu'on ne passe pas une autre lot qui occasionnera encore plus de chômage et plus de temps durs pour les gens de l'Est de l'Ontario, qui ont travaillé, si fort pour garder leurs emplois et aussi pour garder leurs compagnies.

A moment ago I mentioned a level playing field. In eastern Ontario, we see that a level playing field from the Quebec point of view is for them to own the field, the stands and the stadium, the lights and the two baseball teams. From our point of view, it is nothing but a cliff. To get things straight and put things on the record, it is important that the members of this House realize what is going to happen to an already overtaxed area like eastern Ontario.

Mr. Polsinelli: The member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) makes some valid points dealing with interprovincial trade barriers. While our federal government is busy sleeping in the backrooms of the President of the United States, we should really be more concerned about the barriers that exist in Canada and that impede trade between one province and another.

Does there not come a time when one province, or each of the provinces, should take a step forward in a spirit of good faith and unilaterally do what it can to break down these barriers? At least then we can have some type of free trade in Canada and within Canada.

Mr. Pouliot: Yesterday we heard the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) speak at some length, telling us there were really no problems regarding the bill but that, nevertheless, it would have to go to committee; more meetings were required or advice would have to be sought.

The more we develop the major theme, the more we begin to understand that not all the answers have been given to the assembly and not all the substance has been put forward in terms of addressing the subject matter. It is very important.

My good friend the member for Cornwall has cautioned the minister about the system as we move from Ontario to Quebec into a provincial system and back from Quebec to Ontario. I have a letter dated August 8, 1986. It is addressed to the Honourable John Crosbie, who was the creator of this affair under Bills 18 and 19 at the federal level. I am sure my good friends from the Conservative Party are aware of that.

We have four pages that are nothing short of a litany of legitimate problems that need addressing. They are concerned. They come from Manitoba, the other sister province; we in central Canada, they to the west of us and Quebec to the east of us. It is an amazing document. The more you start to dig into this affair, the more worried you get.

We know the kind of alliance that will prevail when it comes time to vote later on this afternoon on this matter. We will oppose the legislation, but we will look forward to debating clause by clause every one of those issues. We look forward to having the minister and his staff give us the kind of answers we can live with.

Mr. Gregory: I want to commend the member for Cornwall, who certainly was speaking on an issue I touched on yesterday in my remarks. It is a very important problem, one that the minister is going to have to address, because the inequality that has taken place on the eastern borders with the dump truck situation between Ontario and Quebec is a little more than just cross-province reciprocity. There is no lack of reciprocity with transport trucks between Quebec and Ontario but there certainly is with dump truck operations. That is the problem which the member for Cornwall is addressing, and he has every right to do it. I hope the minister was listening; I am sure he was.

Mr. Guindon: The member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli) mentioned that the federal government was asleep or was having meetings on acid rain or whatever. Maybe he did not feel it was not important, or maybe I did not quite understand him. This is a longtime problem. It is a problem for eastern Ontario, and it is not just in transportation. I am here now and talking about transportation, but it is a problem with the egg marketing board, it is a problem with farmers and it is a problem with jobs. It is a problem all the time.

We are good enough to say, "Okay, you can come and work in our province." I am sure members understood that, but I will say it again: "You can come work in Ontario," and this has been going on for years, "take away our jobs and go back home when you do not need them." There are 2,000 to 6,000 Quebeckers working in Ontario. We do not complain. They go as far as the nuclear centres; they are working on nuclear projects. We do not complain. We cannot even go into Quebec; they will not let our workers in there.

It is not all the government's fault, I understand. They are working right now on Bill 119 in Quebec in regard to this problem and trying to alleviate it, but the unions are a little bit stronger in Quebec than perhaps they should be, and they are controlling that part of the legislation. It is in committee right now and they are having problems; it will probably come out all washed up.

They are definitely not going to do anything on interprovincial trucking for another three to four years. During the three to four years, it will take about one year for the Quebeckers to smarten up and find out that they can do jobs in Ontario. They can take away some of our business, and then they will be into it. All they need is a fitness permit and a licence plate. That is all they are going to need. They do not have to go before a board and prove we need the service. It is going to be chaos. A lot of our own people are going to lose their jobs and businesses. That is what I am upset about.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 150,

An Act to regulate Truck Transportation. This bill has not received much public recognition, but I think it is rather revealing in terms of where the Liberal government is taking this province with respect to deregulating industry and with respect to the free trade debate.

Particularly interesting were the comments we just heard from the member for Yorkview. He said the federal government has been asleep at the switch and why should the province not initiate a move for free trade in this industry? Why do we have to wait for the federal government to initiate such a move?

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has been making good press during the past year or so by fighting Brian Mulroney on the free trade initiative, putting on

an act that he was defending the province's position in respect of free trade, while on an issue such as this, which is right at the heart of free trade, when it comes to this specific industry, the province is acting against the interests of the industry, the workers of this province and the consumers of this province, who need to have low-cost, efficient transportation service available to all communities in this province, not just to those areas where the big operators are interested in going.

I have not been heavily involved in this issue during the years, as some of my colleagues have, such as the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), who spoke yesterday. While I do not have some of the experience they do, I did have one very good experience; that was to sit on the select committee on economic affairs, which looked at the free trade issue. The select committee had a major presentation from the Ontario Trucking Association which addressed the issue of free trade and, in particular, the issue of deregulation of the Ontario trucking industry. I want to read the bottom line of that presentation.

It was, "The Ontario Trucking Association, which represents a major provincial transportation service industry, is concerned that free trade in trucking services could jeopardize the future of the Ontario and Canadian trucking industries and have harmful economic effects."

I want to go into their presentation in some detail, so that my arguments are not just arguments I am putting forward but arguments coming forward from people who have experience in the industry. We had the opportunity as a committee to speak with them for several hours and get into, in some depth, the issue of what deregulation had done to the trucking industry in the United States, what it had done in other countries such as Australia, which has lived with it a lot longer than has the United States, and what they anticipated it could mean for the trucking industry in Ontario and Canada as a whole.

I am going to go through some of the implications the Ontario Trucking Association presented to us in its written submission, which summarized some of the consequences of deregulation of that industry and what would happen with a wide-open, free market in trucking. This is right from their submission, from the

section entitled "The Implications of Free Trade for the Trucking Industry."

First: "Canadian carriers will 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 will be the losers in a free trade scenario in a wide-open battle for the trucking industry across our borders.

Second: "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 other words, we already have an auto pact type of agreement.

This has not been discussed heavily but there is an agreement called the Gotlieb-Brock agreement signed by the Canadian and US governments that ensures Canada will attain and maintain a fair share of the trucking between the two countries. We are currently protected in terms of our trucking industry in the same fashion as is our auto industry. I cannot understand why we would want to give that up and move to deregulation and an open market for the trucking industry.

Third: "The Ontario Highway Transportation Board has concluded that if a shift in trucking services occurs, it will work strongly to the detriment of the Ontario-based trucking industry." Why are we contradicting the recommendations of the Ontario Highway Transport Board in terms of the direction in which this government is taking us?

Another point: "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 similar proportions."

This is not a presentation of the Teamsters or some other union. This is a presentation of the Ontario Trucking Association. I am sure there are similar concerns, if not greater concerns, among the workers of this province who are involved in this industry.

Their written submission contains in its conclusion the following comment: "A balance of trucking trade should remain a basic objective in trade negotiations. This will require review of a wide range of regulatory provisions applied on both sides of the border."

I have no problem with the concept of changing the regulations in Ontario. There are undoubtedly many regulations governing the trucking industry that require change. A reregulation of the industry is called for after the years since the original bill was passed. There are problems.

However, this bill does not do that. This bill eliminates regulation of the trucking industry and opens it up to free trade, to a wide-open market, as long as a competitor is capable and passes a fitness test. Certainly, any of the large US carriers are fit to haul traffic and to compete in our market. We are going to be vulnerable and we are going to lose jobs in this province.

Their conclusion includes the following quote:

"There should be no further deregulation of US-Canada trucking. Canada already has open trucking access to the US, but there are many nontariff barriers to expansion. Free trade in trucking would give nothing to Canadian carriers, but would open the doors to US carriers bringing in US-made goods and supported by US services. This would advantage US manufacturers vis-à-vis their Canadian counterparts."

This is exactly diametrically opposed to the position of the current Ontario Liberal government, which is promoting free trade in actual practice in legislation such as this rather than working to ensure that the interests of workers, communities and industries in this province, such as the trucking industry, are protected.

I have a final quote from the written submission by the Ontario Trucking Association:

"The Ontario trucking industry is vulnerable to free trade. Revenues earned by US-Canada traffic flows contribute a very much larger share of the total revenues of Canadian carriers than of US carriers. Free trade discussions should take into account the present agreement signed by Canada and the United States which aims at maintaining some balance in transborder trucking services."

This is the Gotlieb-Brock agreement. I have a copy of that agreement, which was sent by US Trade Representative William Brock to Mr. Gotlieb in 1982. It is the basis for protection of Canadian interest. The key point which makes it an auto pact agreement is point number two in the letter:

"Both sides subscribe to providing full, fair and equitable opportunities among truckers from both countries to compete for the carriage of international traffic. They recognize, however, that there are differences in the policies and economies of the two countries which may affect the competitive opportunities available to motor carriers. If these differences result in a major shift in the balance of trade in trucking services to the injury or detriment of an important segment of the industry, the parties will use the consultative mechanisms provided in

section 5."

In other words, both sides have agreed that there will be a fair distribution of the trucking trade between the two countries and that there is provision for the Canadian government to protect this industry from the potential US domination with which we are threatened by this legislation.

I want to go into some of the detailed discussions we had in the hearings with members of the Ontario Trucking Association and bring forward from their standpoint some of the problems they see with deregulation of the trucking industry and some of the consequences we could well see in Ontario.

One of the concerns they expressed very strongly was that the Macdonald royal commission, which conducted the original study that led to the federal government pursuing its free trade initiative, never took a serious look at the trucking industry and the consequences of deregulating that industry, what free trade in trucking would mean to the economy of Canada. They said they regretted quite a bit the fact that trucking services in particular had not been addressed by the Macdonald royal commission.

I have been using the analogy of free trade and deregulation and trying to make the tie, but it is not only my tie. I will read the comment of Raymond Cope, executive vice-president and general manager of the Ontario Trucking Association, who made the presentation before the select committee on economic affairs. He stated: "We relate free trade to open borders for trucking. That is the linkage we see and that is the issue on which I will focus in a few minutes. It is an important issue that we think could pose big problems for the Ontario trucking industry." Mr. Cope went on to say, "The Ontario trucking industry is very vulnerable to free trade."

He expressed concerns that the revenues on the traffic flows are a much larger share of the business for the Canadian truckers than for the American truckers. Those cross-border revenues, if they were opened up to competition would leave the Canadian truckers much more vulnerable than the American truckers in that competition. Of course, that applies to many other industries in the province as well.

He thought free trade discussions should take into account the agreement already signed by Canada and the US which aims at balancing trans-border trucking services; that is, the Gotlieb-Brock agreement. The trucking industry is a very important industry in this province, and we should not lose sight of that. In the transportation industry in total -- and the latest figures I have are for 1983 -- our gross revenues were $28 billion in Canada. Of that, the largest component was trucking at a total of some $11 billion, which represents 35 to 40 per cent of the transportation industry.

In Canada there are some 9,000 trucking establishments which report to the Statistics Canada surveys. These establishments deploy some 322,000 units of equipment and employ 175,000 persons. However, these figures do not give an indication of the full scope of that industry in the country, because many of the trucks are in the private sector, separate from the trucking industry, and are doing distributions for individual companies such as grocery stores and hardware stores, and there are various other companies in other fields that may have their own trucking fleets that are not a part of the trucking industry per se.

Thus, in total, it is estimated that there are some 600,000 units of equipment coast to coast, about 40 per cent of them in Ontario. That brings the total industry's employment probably to in the neighbourhood of 500,000 people in Canada. In Ontario, it is estimated that about 200,000 are involved in the trucking industry. It is a very big business for Ontario and for Canada.

The Ontario Trucking Association made the point very strongly that Canadian carriers have very limited potential to expand into United States markets, while US carriers are in a much better place to pursue opportunities in the Canadian market.

One very interesting point it made was that in the United States deregulation applied to interstate traffic only -- in other words, traffic between states -- but in most states the intrastate markets remain under very rigid regulation. In other words, within New York state the trucking industry on hauls between New York City and Buffalo or Rochester is still regulated.

Why Ontario is moving to open up the Ontario industry, going even further than what has happened in the United States -- opening up not just across the borders but within Ontario, allowing any competitors who can prove themselves fit to carry goods to then be able to carry from one Ontario point to another -- is beyond me. We do not have that opportunity in the United States, and I do not understand why we are doing it here in Ontario. Ontario is in the forefront of the free trade movement when it comes to the trucking industry.

As an example of what may happen to traffic movement in the trucking industry, Mr. Cope used an example of traffic starting, say, in Toronto and going to Detroit, Cincinnati and Atlanta. In this case, you would have haulage among one Canadian and three American points. If you look strictly at the Toronto-Atlanta movement and picture a 48-foot van that is fully loaded, the opportunities for Canadian and American carriers are not very much different on a full load, the full-distance haul. The Ontario Trucking Association says that on that kind of haulage it can compete reasonably well.

However, when it comes to less-than-truckload traffic, which is a significant part of traffic flow, then the advantage really moves to the US. If some of the traffic is going to Atlanta, some to Cincinnati and some to Detroit, then what is being done is called commingling traffic. There are three types of traffic in the US portion: intrastate traffic, say, traffic that may move strictly within Ohio; interstate traffic between two states; and foreign traffic.

US law requires that traffic carried on an intrastate or an interstate basis move on US tax-paid equipment employing US drivers. You must have an operation in which, by law, US equipment and US drivers must be used for the intrastate and interstate traffic. In other words when there is a carrier who wants to drop off certain amounts in each of the three centres -- in this case Detroit, Cincinnati and Atlanta -- if it is a Canadian carrier, once he has dropped off part of his load in each of those intermediate points, he cannot take on additional business.

He has no opportunity to supplement his lessened truckload for the remainder of his route, but an American carrier can. We are at a tremendous competitive disadvantage in that situation.

In terms of the less-than-truckload haulage, most of the major distribution points are in the United States. There are some 40 cities in the United States with populations of a million or more. In Canada, there are only three. Most of the haulage is between the major centres. The less-than-truckload haulage means that it is far better to operate under the US laws where one can go from point to point and supplement the haulage with the additional traffic.

The association's conclusion to situations such as this was that it would be the sensible thing for Canadian carriers on this side of the border to pick up their companies and move them across the border, because the US law regarding equipment and drivers is so straightforward.

Another concern strongly expressed by the Ontario Trucking Association was that governments in Canada should not move to deregulate the industry in advance of any free trade agreement. It did not have an idea about whether a free trade agreement would be achieved from the Mulroney initiative, but it was very concerned that if we were to move in trucking in advance of such an agreement, we could end up with the worst of all possible worlds, that is, free trade in trucking and no movement on the remainder of that agreement. It saw no need to move in advance on the trucking issue.

As well as the presentation from Mr. Cope from the Ontario Trucking Association, John Sanderson, vice-president of CP Express and Transportation Ltd., one of Canada's largest carriers, also had some comments to make about the deregulation of the trucking industry. It was interesting that CP had prepared a brief as well, one which was done for the purpose of market planning within CP and to advise its own employees about what might happen under a free trade arrangement.

Mr. Sanderson says: "From that we developed a position of concern about the future, about our 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.

"In looking at the impact of free trade, or what I would call trade deregulation" -- Mr. Sanderson used the analogy that free trade for the trucking industry is deregulation -- "we see that the most likely trend under free trade would be to use the infrastructure to deliver goods to Canada and to effect the closure of branch plants and transfer both manufacturing and jobs to the United States."

Mr. Sanderson felt it was clear to the trucking industry that the impact of deregulation on the balance that now exists between imports from the US and branch plant manufacturers would be negative on Canada.

He goes on to say: "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 the 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 likely that US-based carriers would deliver these services directly to Canada.

"For a Canadian-based industry, the equivalent opportunity to penetrate US markets is not so readily apparent. First, it does not seem likely that US-controlled branch plants in Canada would be given the opportunity to market in the United States. They do not have that opportunity now in most cases, and it seems to us unlikely that it would be given."

Their conclusion, not only in terms of what will happen to the trucking industry but also of the impact on the whole branch plant structure of manufacturing in southern Ontario, was, "It will more likely mean a reduction in manufacturing activity in Canada and particularly Ontario."

Both of these spokesmen were very negative, not only about the possibility of deregulation but also about what they saw as happening with the branch plant economy, particularly in southern Ontario, and what the US owners of those branch plants would do if Canada as a whole moved towards a free trade agreement eliminating the tariff and nontariff barriers on all industry, not just the trucking industry.

"Currently, the federal and provincial governments are examining deregulation across both provincial and international boundaries and, should free trade in 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 the Canadian-based carriers."

He also stated that unilateral deregulation would be a serious mistake for Ontario, an action on which Bill 150 is intended to proceed.

"It is important that any deregulation of motor carrier services between Canada and the United States be considered carefully in the light of its effect on the flow of trade and with respect to the overall strategy on free trade. It would be most unfortunate for Canada if, following an in-depth debate, it was decided to discontinue discussions only to find a de facto free trade situation had already been implemented from the United States to Canada through trucking deregulation."

In other words, if the Premier in the end vetoes a free trade agreement that is negotiated by the Canadian government, as I think many people in Ontario expect is going to happen, the trucking association said it would be most unfortunate for Canada if in that scenario we already had free trade in trucking anyway. That is exactly where the provincial government is taking us in this situation.

Why on earth do we want to move on free trade in trucking separately from other trade discussions? Not that I think those trade discussions have any value in themselves in terms of what they are pursuing, but it certainly contradicts the position the Ontario government has been pretending to take in its free trade position.

The Premier appears to be giving us a charade. When it comes to an actual case, as in the trucking industry, the Liberals are ready to move even in advance of the federal Conservatives.

I find it interesting as well that the Conservatives are going to support this initiative when we have this comment from their critic for Industry, Trade and Technology. At the hearings we had, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) had this to say on deregulation:

"It appears that in some areas of the United States where deregulation took hold in a very intense way, the larger companies made it part of their modus operandi to move into these jurisdictions, reduce prices very substantially and virtually knock out the competition. Later, they simply came back and the prices increased again to a more normal level after they had, frankly, removed the competitive factor of a local or more regional carrier."

He asked: "Is that a true statement? Did that go on in the United States? Were there a number of trucking casualties as a result of that sort of action on the part of the larger carriers, some which you addressed earlier in your comments about size?"

I quote the answer from the vice-president of CP Trucks, Mr. Sanderson: "I do not think I could have stated it any better than you just did. That was exactly the situation that took place."

He went on: "I happened to be reading this morning a press release from the common carrier conference of the American Trucking Association, and it talks about things such as `the perilous financial plight of the industry as a result of the depressed nonexistent profit conditions caused by pricing actions and fuelled by destructive competition.'"

Those comments were also agreed to by Raymond Cope, head of the Ontario Trucking Association, who brought forward the example of Australia, which is different from the US in the sense that it implemented deregulation a lot sooner and has had deregulation for some 30 years. There the concentration has developed since 1952, at which time the top four companies had only five per cent of the Australian trucking market. Today three companies control 70 percent of that market.

That shows that concentration follows deregulation, so I do not understand what the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) is talking about in terms of my being a protector of big industry. This is going to result in big industry and it is going to force the small guys out of business across northern Ontario as well as in the rest of the province.

Mr. Cope went on: "We are ready for a relaxation of regulations. But what we say is, if you go all the way then the bad experience in jurisdictions such as Australia and more recently the United States is going to happen in Canada. It is not going to do us any good, and why do we want to plunge into it?"

That is my question for the Liberal government and the minister. We have no objection to fixing up some of the problems of the current regulations. There is no doubt they need an overhaul, but let us not replace them with no regulations. Let us look at this in a sound, sensible way so we can protect the interests of the truckers, companies and workers of this province. We do not want to give away the whole industry to a few large carriers.

It is interesting that the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) is here today. I have some questions from him that were presented to the committee. He asked:

"How do we stand on labour rates? I think it is generally accepted that we have slightly lower labour rates. I do not know about the trucking industry, but in the manufacturing industry we have slightly lower labour rates. How would that affect your Canadian companies operating in the United States?"

The answer from Mr. Sanderson was:

"That is a very broad question...But what you have to recognize is that with deregulation in the United States, the number of Teamster members has dropped by something like 50 per cent.

"A lot of the trucking that used to be done by Teamsters and Teamster firms that have gone bankrupt is now being done by nonunion operators at much lower wages, maybe even a third of the level of Teamster wages. There has been a marked effect on union operations in the trucking industry in the US. How these nonunion new entrants in the business, many of which are subsidiaries of large Teamster companies, compare to Canada, is very difficult to say. It is quite a mixture."

That is not a submission from the workers or from unions. That is a submission from trucking industry executives on what will be the consequences for wage levels and the shutting down of union firms in favour of the same companies starting up new nonunion firms. The effects of deregulation in the US have been to concentrate the trucking industry to about eight giants, at the expense of 400 to 500 middle-sized firms with 1,000 to 2,000 employees each.

The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) said:

"At the expense, as you also pointed out very clearly in answer to a question, of wages, union contracts and workers. In other words, they have also carried a good chunk of the cost of deregulation."

The answer from Mr. Sanderson was:

"That is very true. Whether the same result would occur in Canada, your guess is as good as mine, but we think the same factors hold. The reason for the reduction in cost has been the use of longer trucks, a reduction in increases in taxation of the trucking industry and a reduction in wages as carriers move to nonunion organizations."

One of the interesting facts here too in terms of deregulation is that there is no benefit in terms of new business; there is no new business available.

"Deregulation in trucking is somewhat different from that in airlines, say, because no new freight is created by deregulating trucking even if the price drops."

If the price on an airline dropped to $100 on a discount fare, it may attract someone to take a trip who may not otherwise, but in terms of the haulage of material, there is so much that has to be hauled and is going to be hauled no matter what the price level is. The wide-open market ends up being a cut-throat business, forcing others out of the business until there are only a few giant firms left.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of sovereignty. Again, loss of sovereignty is implicit in this type of action. Loss of sovereignty is not a priority for the federal government. It is not a priority of Brian Mulroney in his negotiations with the US. The Ontario government is making very clear in this kind of action that sovereignty is not a concern to it either.

This point was made to the representatives of the trucking industry: "It seems to me this is a case where you could make a legitimate argument that the deregulation we would have to bring about as part of the competitive procedure in Canada would mean we would have to accept a lessening, if you like, of our sovereignty." They responded, "I think that is very true."

The industry here expresses concern not only about the concentration but also that concentration is very likely to go into the hands of the large US companies. The US freight carriers are much larger than the Canadian ones. The question to them was whether the big carriers in Canada would be, as currently, CP, CN, Kingsway and TNT, or whether instead they would become Yellow Freight, Roadway, Consolidated Freightways and Ryder PIE. That is a very big question for the Canadian industry.

I could go on for another hour probably.

Mr. Pouliot: No, you will not.

Mr. Morin-Strom: My colleague the critic is saying I should wrap this up as quickly as possible.

Mr. Foulds: No; go. This is deregulated speaking time.

Mr. Morin-Strom: The comments throughout the presentation of the Ontario Trucking Association reiterated time and again the nonsense of moving to deregulate the Ontario trucking industry and to deregulate the trucking trade between Canada and the US. Instead, we should be ensuring that we can protect Ontario industry and the jobs of Ontario workers.

We should be pursuing more strongly arrangements like the Gotlieb-Brock agreement and ensuring that agreement has enforceability provisions, which there were concerns about. That agreement stated that in principle the US and Canada agreed to a fair share of the trade in trucking between the two countries.

In that regard, spokesmen were asked to comment on the possibility of an auto pact type of agreement with the US. While they saw some difficulties in negotiating because of the complexity of the industry and the numbers of firms which is quite different from the auto industry where you have several major ones, Mr. Cope said, "I have not yet seen a blueprint for it that would make an easier answer, but it is not beyond the wit of man to produce a plan that could be as successful as the auto pact." Mr. Sanderson of CP Trucks supported Mr. Cope with a simple, "I support that statement."

I suggest the Ontario government go back to the drawing board on this legislation, reassess its approach to the Ontario trucking industry and look at the opportunities we have to protect the viability of truckers in Ontario. I am not just talking about the major companies that belong to the Ontario Trucking Association I am also talking about the small operators across Ontario that do not have equal opportunity to compete on trucking routes and that will have even less of an opportunity to compete once we get more large carriers from the US competing in our market and forcing the little guys out of business, as has happened in the US.

We should take to heart the advice we have received. I do not see any justification whatsoever for proceeding with this bill. I hope it is defeated this afternoon.

Mr. McGuigan: I am glad the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) brought up my questioning when we had members of the trucking association in. I am still puzzled by the contradictory aspects of that. They said we were going to drive the Canadians out because we are so vulnerable, yet we use the same trucks and the same tires. The only thing that is any different is the fuel and there is a regulation that in crossing the border into Canada you cannot bring in a lot of cheap US fuel. As a matter of fact, the biggest truck maker in North America is International Harvester, which makes trucks in Chatham; those are used in Canada and in the US.

I cannot see where this vulnerability business comes in. The member has not backed up his statements to point out the reasons that we might be more vulnerable.

Mr. Morin-Strom: How about nonunion workers at lower wages?

Mr. McGuigan: I cannot follow the reasoning when he says it is going to result in fewer unionized drivers, yet at the same time he says we are going to end up with three or four huge conglomerate companies. Surely those huge conglomerate companies are the legitimate and most successful targets of unionization.

We are not doing anything to do away with the Labour Relations Act. I do not think it should be the business of any act to impinge upon labour relations, either for them or against them. A union has to stand upon its own merits and its own feet. It seems to me that if this is going to lead to a lot of large companies, then we have the ideal situation where the union can prevail. I am afraid the member for Sault Ste. Marie has not used arguments that are very convincing.

Mr. Philip: I have some questions stimulated by the last comments and questions of my friend and former boss the member for Kent-Elgin.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The questions should be asked of the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Philip: Does the member for Sault Ste. Marie not see quite an analagous situation between the trucking industry, which is an essential service, and farming? If this Liberal government believes in deregulation of the trucking industry, an essential service, the logical conclusion is that its next step will be the deregulation of farming; namely, the abolition of marketing boards. How can you have regulation of one essential industry but deregulation of another? Would that make sense?

Is the member for Sault Ste. Marie not aware that the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, when faced with a deregulation of trucking motion, defeated it on the very grounds that it would be inconsistent for a farmer such as the member for Kent-Elgin to favour deregulation of the trucking industry while at the same time advocating marketing boards for his own industry?

Mr. Pouliot: I was also the recipient of most apropos comments from my colleague and neighbour in the House the member for Sault Ste. Marie. He is very much aware, as were his predecessors -- we have had nine or 10 speakers and everyone has talked about deregulation; no one has challenged that terminology. For the benefit of the member for Sault Ste. Marie, this is from an address by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) and is dated November 20: "Hence these reform proposals will steer clear of the virtual deregulation which occurred in the United States some six years ago."

He knows the kind of mess that was encountered by our southern neighbour. The minister is telling us these bills have nothing to with deregulation and yet everything gives us a meticulous definition of what he wishes deregulation to be. It is really appalling and shocking. It seems to be a contradiction unless one ties it in with a philosophy or ideology that characterizes all in that party, and then one will wish to deregulate other areas such as financial institutions and the telephone system. I find it a little astounding.

I hope the minister will be given the opportunity in the days ahead to be clear and to shed some clarification on what is becoming a can of worms of the highest order. We want to understand but we find it difficult to believe.

Mr. Gregory: I listened with interest to the past number of speakers. Although I was not here all the time, I listened to the member who gave the speech. I am always amazed at the hysterics that occur to my left. We are talking about a bill that is truly reregulation. It is not deregulation and nobody is claiming it to be that. We are simply changing the procedures by which one person or group of persons gets into the business.

I heard one of the speakers talking about the trucking industry as an essential service. It might well be in the broadest possible terms or definition of "essential service." However, you do not classify the trucking industry as an essential service in the same way you do a doctor, a hospital and things such as that.

Mr. Foulds: Tell that to the people in Armstrong.

Mr. Gregory: Go ahead.

Mr. Foulds: Tell that to the people in northern Ontario who depend for their food on the trucking industry.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, would it be out of order if I told the member who recently spoke that he has the brains of a jackass?

The Acting Speaker: I would not accept that. Please continue.

Mr. Gregory: Then I will have to retract. The hysterics that go on in this chamber are quite amazing. The fact is that the trucking industry is a very necessary service, but it is a business the same as any other business. It cannot be classed as an essential service in the same way --

Mr. Foulds: So is the medical profession a business like any other business.

Mr. Gregory: There seems to be no logic. The people over there seem to be motivated totally by the wishes of the union. They do not care whether we are improving the bill or not. I hope the minister did not pay too much attention to the last few remarks from those people.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In regard to the comment of the last speaker, the member for Mississauga East, my only comment is that I did not know dinosaurs laid eggs.

In regard to the comments of the member for Kent-Elgin on competitive position, there are reasons the business goes to the big operators in a wide-open market system for trucking. It has to do with financial strength, the ability to absorb losses in the short run, bring the prices down and force the competition out of the business. That is what happened in the US. A few big companies, about eight very large firms, forced the rest of the companies out of the market.

At the same time, in terms of price competition, on the cost side there are ways of getting around the issue of wage levels. One of the things that happened was that they phased out their union firms and started up new subsidiaries that were nonunion and included a lot of contracting