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

April 28, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L054 - Thu 28 Apr 1988 / Jeu 28 avr 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PENSION FUNDS

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

PENSION FUNDS

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

AFTERNOON SITTING

ESTIMATES

BUDGET DEBATE

WORKER MEMORIAL DAY / JOUR DES ACCIDENTÉS DU TRAVAIL

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAYWORKS ’88

SCHOOL FUNDING

HUMAN RIGHTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SCHOOL FUNDING

HELP CENTRES

WASTE MANAGEMENT

ORAL QUESTIONS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

SCHOOL FUNDING

HOSPITAL FUNDING

1987 CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD

OFFICE OF THE WORKER ADVISER

COMMUNITY SAFETY

INTERNATIONAL BANKING CENTRES

CONSTRUCTION SAFETY

HOUSING APPROVALS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

MANUFACTURING MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MUNICIPAL ZONING BYLAWS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

INSTITUTIONAL CARE WORKERS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARINGS

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved resolution 17:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that the scope and recommendations of the Task Force on Inflation Protection for Employment Pension Plans failed to meet the concerns of workers and most particularly retirees whose pensions have already been eroded by inflation but who will get nothing from these proposals, this Legislature strongly urges the government of Ontario to: introduce legislation to require indexation of all pensions with the same indexing formula applicable to current plan members, current pensioners and those entitled to a deferred pension; place an immediate moratorium on the use of contribution holidays which are, in fact, just another means of surplus withdrawals.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I am sure that after all the goodwill that has been developed in the Legislature in the last couple of weeks, members of the government party will be more than willing to support this resolution. But just in case they have not been fully convinced, I do have some comments that I think will simply be overwhelming. Anyone with good sense will be compelled to vote yes in favour of this resolution when we get around to voting on it at about noon today.

Mr. Black: We will consider it on its merits.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Considered on its merits; yes, I am sure it will be.

I certainly do not pretend to be an expert at all in the area of pensions. I do not even fully understand our own pension plan here in the Legislature. However, I probably have paid a little more attention to it in recent years -- the longer you are here, the more attention you pay -- than I did when I was first elected.

I think it is fair to say that for most members of the Legislature, pensions are basically taken for granted. We have decent incomes, we have a very good pension plan and, in many cases, as evidenced by the material that was filed in the Legislature under the conflict-of-interest guidelines and now legislation, it is very clear that many members of the Legislature, and in particular members of the executive council whose returns we have seen at this point, have a lot of personal wealth as well.

So in that respect, from a personal point of view, I guess it is understandable that members of the Legislature might take the issue of pensions for granted rather than understanding that there are many people in our province and in our communities who really are suffering because of inadequate incomes and attempting to live on very low fixed incomes.

I remember back in 1958 when my grandfather died. He had worked about 40 years in the auto industry, most of those years at the Ford Motor Co. He died before his retirement but close to his retirement and my grandmother got not one cent from that pension plan. That was back in 1958, and she was forced to survive on $75 a month from the old age pension plan at that time, and that was it. She still had her home; she still had to pay her property taxes; she still had to buy food and all the other necessities of life, but she had to try to survive on $75 a month. None of her medical expenses were covered initially.

She had no prescription plan -- certainly none of that. She had $75 a month income and that was it.

I would be the first to agree that things have come a long way since 1958. I know that no members of the Legislature would ever want to go back to those horrible times when our elderly in this province and in Canada lived primarily in a state of very low incomes and inability to enjoy their retiring years.

However, today there are still three million working people in Ontario who have absolutely no pension plan at all at the place they work. Sixty per cent of the workers in this province have no pension plan and the breakout for women is even worse: 70 per cent of working women have no pension plan. Even the lucky ones who work at companies with pension plans can expect a massive erosion of their income. For example, a pension worth $1,000 per month today will be worth about $450 15 years from now.

Promises from this government, from the Liberal government, from the Peterson government that the principle of inflation protection was accepted and that only the details of implementation needed to be worked out were very effective during the election campaign.

I reread in the last few days the debate that took place on Bill 170, the amendments to the Pension Benefits Act. I read the June 24 and June 25 Hansards from last year. In that debate, my former colleague Ross McClellan moved an amendment that would provide for inflation protection at a rate of 100 per cent. The member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Kwinter), the Minister of Financial Institutions at the time, stated, as did the then Progressive Conservative critic, Mr.

Ashe, that they both accepted the principle of inflation protection but that we had to wait for the Friedland Task Force on Inflation Protection for Employment Pension Plans to make its report, but that no one should be concerned because the government of the day supported the principle of inflation protection.

We went through an election with the Liberals promising inflation protection. I well remember a debate that took place, sponsored by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, in Windsor during the election. I debated with the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), and this issue was raised by many of the members of the public who were at the meeting. The member for Windsor-Sandwich said, on behalf of the Liberal Party: “Not to worry. The government is committed to inflation protection. Mr. Cooke has no reason to be concerned. Workers in this province will soon see inflation protection, as soon as the Friedland task force reports. All you have to do is wait for that task force.”

Now the task force has reported and it has suggested a formula that is so weak that no one will experience the full benefits for 30 to 40 years. No one will experience the full benefits of this package until well into the next century. The member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon), the present Minister for Financial Institutions, has not given a formal response, but his comments in the press after the report had been filed were that he basically embraced and endorsed the Friedland recommendations.

Just in case members do not know what the Friedland recommendations are, the recommendations on inflation protection are as follows:

That they would ask for or guarantee 75 per cent of the increases in the consumer price index minus one per cent for future contributions only. Therefore, if inflation were five per cent, the worker would get inflation protection of 75 per cent of that or 3.75 per cent minus one per cent. So an inflation rate of five per cent would produce protection of only 2.75 per cent and that would only be on future contributions.

A further recommendation says that inflation protection could be provided retroactively at a rate of 75 per cent of the increases in the consumer price index minus two per cent. That would produce 1.75 per cent, but it is completely voluntary. There will be no enforcement on retroactivity whatsoever.

I am going to get back to that a bit when I quote some of the sections of the Friedland report which prove very clearly that, in fact, we cannot rely on companies to do this voluntarily. If we could, we would not have to be looking at legislation. It would already have been done.

Page 258 of the report refers to the effects of inflation:

“A person retiring in 1965 with an initial employment pension of, say, $100 a month would have seen its value decline by 1985 to $26 a month in 1965 terms. Even someone retiring as recently as 1980 with a $100 benefit would have seen the real value decline to $63 by 1985.”

Clearly inflation is hurting very much the people who are already retired, and the Friedland recommendations would do absolutely nothing to correct this situation.

Page 259 of the report says:

“The defined-benefit plan has one major drawback, however. Without some form of inflation protection, there can be an inequitable redistribution of resources away from pensioners to the plan sponsors, who, in many cases, use these funds to upgrade the benefits of the active workers. Pensioners suffer by not having their pensions increase with inflation; yet the fund used to provide these benefits continues to grow at a speed that varies with the rate of inflation. It is not acceptable for pensioners to carry an unfair share of the burden imposed by inflation.”

In other words, they are saying that the people who are currently retired and who contributed to the pension plans see their contributions increasing in that pension plan, but they reap none of the benefits, none of the benefits whatsoever.

Page 260 of the report states:

“In

chapter 3 we examined whether plan sponsors have been dealing with this potential inequality by granting increases that go some way to meeting inflationary increases. There has been very little automatic inflation protection in the private sector -- well under 10 per cent of the plans. Indexation in the public sector is much more common. Although many employers grant voluntary, or, as they are called, ‘ad hoc’ increases, the extent of indexation is quite low compared to the rate of inflation.

One major survey showed that the increases granted over the past 10 years by the median company were under 30 per cent of the inflation rate. There is great unevenness in granting ad hoc adjustments. Larger companies granted them more often than smaller companies, while Canadian companies granted them more often than Canadian subsidiaries of US-based companies.”

Clearly, the only way that workers are going to experience protection of their pension plans from inflation is if this government and this Legislature have the courage, the conviction and the guts to bring in legislation. It will not be done voluntarily by the private sector.

I have one final quote at this point. It states on page 261 of the report:

“The higher the inflation formula, the greater the cost.” That obviously makes sense. “As we saw in

chapter 8, a 100 per cent inflation formula without caps would result in very high potential costs. This would lead in many cases to the discontinuance of plans or the passing on of the cost to employees through lower salaries or reduced benefits in the future.”

I read that because obviously what Friedland is saying in that excerpt is that pension plans are negotiated and, if those pension plans go up in cost through negotiations, then the unions that are negotiating those contracts have to accept lower salaries. We have always said that. We have always said that pensions are deferred wages.

Madam Speaker, if you accept the principle that pensions are deferred wages, then obviously that money belongs not to the company or the plan’s sponsor, that money belongs to the members of the pension plan. That means that a whole bunch of other assumptions has to be accepted and that means that surpluses should be used to protect the members against inflation and not be used in some other way by surplus withdrawals or contribution holidays.

The Friedland report accepts the fact that inflation is a real and significant burden on the retirees. Some people have argued that retirees need less and therefore they do not need 100 per cent inflation protection. But clearly, on page 123 of the Friedland report, it states that there is absolutely no evidence that would show that retirees need less than you or I might. The report points out that the life expectancy is increasing and there are obviously more retirees and will be more retirees. Without protection, these people will be left on fixed incomes, very vulnerable to inflation.

It is worth repeating that someone who retired in 1980 with a monthly pension of $1,000 saw its worth diminished to $634 by 1985. At the same time, property taxes went away up and the property tax grant from this government has only gone up $100 in the last 10 years, so it has hardly kept up with inflation. It is no wonder that many people who are working in our companies and factories across this province do not take early retirement. With all the questions about possible protection and their vulnerability to inflation and being stuck on fixed incomes, they cannot afford to take early retirement or even take retirement when their benefits would be at a maximum.

Retirees in this province and elsewhere in Canada fought hard in world wars to keep this nation free for you and me and it seems rather cruel that governments today are not prepared to protect those same people who fought for us and built this nation and built this province so that they can have a decent retirement. It is not because there has not been a demonstrated need. We know there is a demonstrated need; the Friedland report makes that very clear, and members who have talked to their constituents know there is a need.

Members will remember when the committee of the Legislature was studying Bill 170, which was the amendment to the Pension Benefits Act, it talked about the issue of inflation protection. The auto companies went before that committee and said that if they had to pay inflation protection, they would go broke. It was just not possible and it should not even be considered. It was only a matter of months after that they negotiated at the bargaining table with the Canadian Auto Workers and they have now some inflation protection and they upgraded pensions over a six-year plan for people who were already retired.

So the arguments that some of the most profitable companies in our province and in our country and in the world cannot afford inflation protection is absolute nonsense.

I encourage members of the Legislature to look at the Friedland report, and especially the comments on Sweden, Germany, France and the United Kingdom where they have taken a totally different approach to pensions. They understand that inflation protection and income for the retirees of their nations is absolutely essential and well deserved. These countries have accepted the principle of inflation protection. They have a much better public pension plan system as well.

I would like now to turn my attention briefly to the second aspect of my resolution which is obviously very much related to inflation protection, and that is the one of contribution holidays. The basic principle enunciated in the Friedland report through the quotes I have read is that the moneys in the pension plans are, in fact, deferred wages. If they are deferred wages, then that means the contributions as well as the money earned on those contributions, the surpluses, belong to the employees.

If a better pension plan can be obtained through negotiations or through the imposition of legislation, then clearly the money is there through the surpluses. If a pension is a deferred wage, then clearly the money belongs to the members of the pension plan. This includes, as I have said, the pension surpluses.

Government seemed to accept this principle when it froze the surplus withdrawals a couple of years ago. However, contribution holidays are still allowed. It is crazy to think that there is a difference between a contribution holiday and a surplus withdrawal. The end effect is exactly the same.

The Treasurer has said that new federal legislation prohibits him from allowing surpluses to grow and that, in fact, the surplus can only be two years’ worth of benefits. I understand that there are new federal regulations coming in, but it is clear also that those surpluses can be diminished in two ways: by contribution holidays where the employer takes the money and does with it what he wants, or by improving the pensions of the retirees.

If we accept the principle that those surpluses belong to the employees and the members of the pension plan, then there is no bloody way that money should go back to the employer. That money should be used to improve the pensions of the retirees, the future retirees or both.

The Treasurer indicated, when we talked about the hospital situation where the Ontario Hospital Association is withdrawing $80 million, that there was absolutely nothing he could do. Let me point out that the average pension for someone who retired in 1986 and worked for the hospitals in this province is $436 a month or $5,232 a year. Surely to God, rather than allowing the Ontario Hospital Association to pull out $80 million, that $80 million should have been used to improve the pensions of those people who are on very low incomes in our province and who were very lowly paid when they were working in the hospital system.

The Ontario Hospital Association justifies the contribution holiday by saying that it is going to use this money for computerized axial tomography scanners and other high-tech equipment. I do not think the members of pension plans in our province should have to pay for that type of equipment. If, in fact, that is needed in our province and our province’s hospitals, then that cost should be shared by all of us. That is what medicare is all about. That is what socialized medicine is all about. We share the cost of our health care system equally. We should not be putting that burden simply on the hospital workers of this province.

I have a very short period of time left. I have a list of companies I had wanted to run through that in the past have just simply withdrawn their surpluses. So that members understand, during the period of time between April 1, 1986, and November 30, 1986, $42,435,000 was withdrawn from pension plans in this province.

I ask the members of the Legislature to look at what is happening with contribution holidays and what has happened in the past with surplus withdrawals and understand that if we do not make decisions now to freeze the contribution holidays, there are not going to be surpluses in the pension plans to be able to pay for inflation protection or to improve pensions for our retirees in this province.

We have a long way to go. The government has the data in front of it and I encourage it to move quickly. We, as members of the Legislature, can send a message to the Treasurer and the government that we care about our retirees in this province and that we want protection for those employees now.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to have the opportunity to add a few comments to the resolution the member has put forward today. I want to say that I share the member’s concern. I share the thrust of the concern he expressed in his comments today. Indeed, there are a number of people in Ontario today who have worked hard, who have paid their dues, who have done all they could do and more to build a foundation for this province, for the prosperity that those of us who have come after have had the opportunity to enjoy, and there are some problems there. But I cannot support the resolution and I want to tell members why I cannot support the resolution.

The principle, we agree with. There are some inequities out there for some people, particularly those the first part of the resolution talks about, those retirees who have been retired for some period of time and who have no indexing of their pension plans. Inflation over that period of time has eroded those private pension plans to the point where they are certainly not doing what they were intended to do when those employees were working.

But this resolution does not address the inequities of those who had no pension plan during those years. In fact, it penalizes those employers, those small companies -- some of them large, but many of them small companies -- which at a time when private pension plans were not the norm, said: “Yes, we want to provide a pension plan for our employees. Yes, we are going to set this up and we are going to assist employees. We are going to make contributions ourselves.”

What this resolution does is say to those companies and those enlightened employers: “Due to unforeseen circumstances that your retired employees really did not have a way of foreseeing, and obviously you did not have a way of foreseeing, we’re going to punish you. We’re going to make you pay.” Those employers who had no pension plans through that period of time and who did not provide for any retirement for their employees will get it double-barrelled. You will say, “Well, they didn’t have it then, they weren’t enlightened then and it doesn’t cost them anything now.”

There is something wrong with that rationale. It is like a lot of principles. You write something down in theory and you take a box and say: “These people have a problem here. We’re all sympathetic to that problem, so here’s a solution. We’ll simply index everybody’s pension back.” Then you have to look at who is going to pay for this.

This resolution says to those enlightened employers, “You’re going to have to pay again. To those of you who did not care about your employees back in that period of time” -- for whatever reason; perhaps the employees did not want a pension plan either; let us be honest about it – “to those employers, nothing.”

If there is a problem and if it is caused by circumstances that those employees of the day who are now retired and have been retired for some period of time could not foresee, and if government is concerned about those individuals, then government should do something about it. We should not go back to those employers who were the most enlightened of their day and say retroactively: “We’re going to penalize you. You’re going to have to fund this.” If there is a problem, and there is with a number of our retirees, then surely government has a role to play.

Whenever I throw it back to government, people say to me: “Well, aren’t you the guy who wants a balanced budget? Aren’t you the guy who didn’t want any tax increases?” Yes, I am.

So how do you take care of retired senior citizens whom, in many cases through no fault of their own, inflation has caught up with? You take care of them by doing away with a lot of the universality we have. You take the pension cheque my father gets. He is now 72 or 73. I hope you are watching today, father. You take the pension cheque he is getting -- not the pension cheque, I am sorry, but the automatic stuff you get by virtue of your age, and you say: “Mr. Harris, you did very well under the system that was in place and you have quite a bit of money.

You’re not a rich man, but you have plenty of money, enough to afford your house and your boat and your cars, and you don’t need this extra money.”

Mr. Laughren: That is 100 per cent taxation. That is expropriation.

Mr. Harris: So you take that money away from my father and you give it to those who need it. You look at things like the tax credit and you give it to people who need it. Indeed, those senior citizens who now are having problems -- if you look at how we distribute the funds, we could be giving them far more than what we are giving them if we would quit sending the automatic benefits to the likes of my father, Harold Ballard and indeed many who are retiring these days who have done very well by the system.

I think there is a problem. I compliment the member for his resolution which allows some debate and focuses attention on that problem. The fact that I am not supporting the resolution does not diminish my admiration for the member for bringing it forward.

Mr. Wildman: You? Admiration?

Mr. Harris: My admiration for the member for bringing it forward. I congratulate him and I share his concern. I guess I differ as to where the solution should lie. As I see it, this resolution goes after the wrong people to correct the problem and I do not think two wrongs necessarily are going to make a right.

I also want to talk briefly on the moratorium on the use of contribution holidays which the member says is another means of surplus withdrawals. Again, what we are talking about here -- the pension plan and the companies I want to defend, if you like, are the most enlightened. They are the ones that have sat down and negotiated a pension plan and how much money is in the pension plan is totally irrelevant. They have negotiated a fixed benefit, such as 75 per cent of the average of your best five years or the average of your three years; I am speaking on behalf of them.

Those are defined pension plans, most of them negotiated -- not all of them, though, but many of them -- by very enlightened companies that have recognized that pensions are important and that life after work, after you have contributed to a company for a number of years, is important. They have provided that benefit to their employees either through individual agreements or through contracts, so the idea of surplus withdrawals is really not relevant there. That company must provide that defined-benefit plan. If there is a shortfall, that company must put the money in.

If we ban surplus withdrawals for those companies, we can be sure they will never, ever put enough in. They will never have enough in. It is like telling an apartment owner he can never convert to a condominium and then you are shocked when he builds a condominium which he can convert to an apartment. What do you expect the guy to do? You say that if he builds an apartment building he can never convert it to a condominium and you are shocked that there are only 400 apartment units built in Toronto. Everybody is building condominiums. Why not? It is because of the stupid legislation that is there.

Governments do not seem to look beyond how they are attacking the problem when they attack symptoms instead of the problem. We have a great deal of sympathy for those who are retired and are having problems and we think government has a role to play, but we do not think this resolution, while it attacks the problem and identifies it, gives the proper solution.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I too commend the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) for the sensitivity and thoughtfulness he brings to this issue. It is a very difficult debate because it is a very complex matter we are looking at. As evidence of the complexity, I just hold up in front of the members the report of Messrs. Friedland, Jackson and Pilkey, which is four volumes. It brought a lot of work to the issue, a lot of thoughtful commentary and thoughtful recommendations, but if nothing else, the members can see that it is not a simple matter.

One key fact I think all members should keep in mind as we go through this discussion is that only 37 per cent of existing employees are covered by a private pension plan.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That’s what I said.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I know the member said this but I want to reaffirm it. Fully 63 per cent are not covered by any form of private pension plan, and indeed on retirement have to rely on the Canada pension plan, old age security, guaranteed annual income system programs and so on.

I also want to give the members some background history on how we got to this debate and where the debate stands in the Ontario Legislature. Bill 170, which was

An Act to revise the Pension Benefits Act, was proclaimed in force on January 1, 1988. It was a major reform in the entire area of private pension programs for all of Canada. It was based on a national consensus built up over the period of four years and agreed upon by the 10 provinces and the federal government.

In fact, on second reading, this government deviated from the national consensus in one significant respect. The Liberal government inserted a provision in the new Pension Benefits Act that required a specific

section which will require the formula for mandatory indexation to be set out in the act.

In other words, quite clearly this government committed to mandatory indexation. The formula remained to be developed -- or the formulae, plural. Indeed, I can tell the members the government then proceeded to commission Professor Martin Friedland, Sydney Jackson and Cliff Pilkey of the Ontario Federation of Labour to define an affordable and effective formula for pension indexation. Those are the key words, “affordable” and “effective.”

Out of that review, study and public hearings came this report we have before us. Now, the report in many ways produced a Solomon-like solution. The proposal recommended was that prospective indexation be mandatory. In other words, future pensioners shall have indexation at a rate of 75 per cent of the increases in the consumer price index, minus one per cent. The Friedland commission argued that retroactive protection for existing retirees would cost between 200 and 300 per cent more than simple prospective or future pension indexation. Indeed, the cost of payroll for retroactive indexation goes up to as high as 18 per cent of payroll, an exorbitant amount in the view of Mr. Friedland.

The problems with the retroactivity my friend would like to see, which I think we are all sympathetic to, is threefold. One, the retroactive indexation that would be given to existing retirees requires a subsidization from existing employees. In other words, employees who are now paying into the pension plan would have to pay more and employers would have to pay more to ensure indexation for those people who have already retired. I say we really have to consider what sort of load we want to put on the existing employees and employers at this point.

I suggest another thing we have to consider is that only 37 per cent of the employees in the province are covered by pension plans. Clearly, when we load an additional cost on to the existing plan sponsors, a cost that may go up to as high as 18 per cent of payroll, we have to consider the competitive disadvantage we impose on those companies that are offering pension plans at this time. Those companies that do not offer pension plans clearly become more competitive and do not have the cost disadvantage imposed upon them.

Again, in the same sense, we have to consider the increased cost as a deterrent to the creation of new pension plans. Clearly, plan sponsors or prospective plan sponsors will look at the legislation and say to themselves that the cost of establishing a defined-benefit pension plan with full indexation, prospectively and retroactively for future retirees and existing retirees, is so high that they are not going to go into it. They may follow the model of the group registered retirement savings plan. They may use the defined contribution plan that is not indexed, another form of pension plan I will go into.

But the cost will really deter them from establishing pension plans and I think everyone would agree that we want the private sector to establish plans, that we want to encourage it, and cost is clearly a factor when they make that decision.

Just briefly, I want to outline some of the aspects of pension plans for the members’ assistance in considering the debate. The real incentive to establishing a private pension plan is the Income Tax Act of Canada. The Income Tax Act says that an employer can move income into a pension plan on a tax-free basis. It is a means of deferring the payment of tax and you can move it into that plan and keep it out of the taxable income.

None the less, the Department of National Revenue, under the Income Tax Act, sets rules as to what you must do when a surplus arises. It says you can do three things as a plan sponsor: one, you can enrich benefits; two, if the surplus gets to the level of two years’ contributions, then you have to take it out; or, three, you have to take a contribution holiday. When the surplus gets to the level of two years’ maximum contribution, the plan sponsor has to do one of three things, or the plans deregister and the employer has to pay tax on all of the money which was put into the pension plan.

There is a decision which the plan sponsor has to make. Clearly, this government has banned surplus withdrawals and temporarily banned plan windups.

It is important for the members to understand that the employer or plan sponsor is then left with two alternatives. Before examining those alternatives, I would just like to briefly comment as to where surplus arises. Surplus does not arise because there is a fixed number of dollars in the plan, and when it is withdrawn or a contribution holiday is taken, it is not a theft.

Surplus arises simply because an actuary says, “In order to meet all your future obligations as a pension plan sponsor, we believe the future interest rate will be seven per cent, and based on that seven per cent, these are the reserves you require.” The money in the pension plan may well exceed those reserves or may well be below those reserves. Change that actuarial assumption by one per cent and a surplus of hundreds of millions of dollars can be turned into a deficit.

The whole point is that if we ban contribution holidays, we are going to discourage conservative actuarial assumptions which lead to adequately funded pension plans, and that may lead to failure of the pension plan or no pension plan.

They are difficult decisions from a regulatory point of view, from a social policy point of view and from a business point of view, but there are a number of reasons why the contribution holiday cannot be banned.

The problem with attempting to ban them is that the surplus cannot be identified and the extent of the contribution holiday cannot be identified. My friend suggests that the surplus is the workers’ money. I suggest to him that he is quite incorrect. The surplus arises because of actuarial assumptions as to future requirements. It is not money that is necessarily in the pension plan; it is money that may have to go into the pension plan at some future date. By and large, that money comes from an employer’s deferral of wage payments to the employee. I will agree with that.

However, I would suggest to my friends that they have failed to consider the most important aspect of the surplus, and that is that it is created by rules requiring conservative funding of plans for the safety of the workers.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Bette Stephenson lives on.

Mr. Mackenzie: My colleague has stolen my line; the Bette Stephenson clone from York Mills has just been giving us a lot of nonsense in this particular debate.

Let me tell you right off the bat that the history of this particular resolution which my colleague has moved in the House goes back way before the legislation this government brought in 1985 and 1988 in terms of the Pension Benefits Act. I might also say that it was the pressure of the accord with the New Democratic Party that made that one of the key and first items this government had to deal with, and it did deal with three specific recommendations that were useful for workers. It did not deal with the indexing or with the surplus funds. That was farmed out to a committee, and as the member well knows, there was no unanimity in terms of that committee.

I might also say that pension plans did not come about because employees were trying to shift money to save taxes. Pension plans came about in this province because a lot of workers realized that without some kind of decent retirement income, they were going to be up against it and, at worst, wards of the state. That was not their intent. It seems to me that the member is trying to say, as I thought the Tory spokesman was on this issue, that we should not deal, because we might penalize all of those who do not have pension plans. I think we should be assisting and giving credit to those who have had the guts to negotiate and work for a pension plan.

When I said workers did not try to escape taxes by establishing pension plans, they tried to protect their standard of living, I am sure all members in this House have done a little bit of research on this particular item and will know that $100 of pension for somebody who retired in 1971 is worth less than $30 today; and there are a lot of pensioners around who have been retired that long. When you take a look at the value of their pension, you understand the concerns they have with meeting the tax bills and so on.

Somebody who retired in 1976 has a pension that is today worth less than $46 for every $100 worth of pension. For somebody who retired in 1981, that $100 worth of pension is worth in the low $70s to him today. This was the problem that was facing workers in the province of Ontario, and most of the private pension plans that we have came about as a result of union contracts and negotiations by the workers.

Once again, while I will acknowledge there may be a few benevolent employers, the vast majority of them did not march into private pension plans willingly; they did it because they were forced to through negotiations, and that is the case in almost every major plant that is organized in this particular province.

Those employees are hurting today. I have one letter in front of me sent to me by Lou Henderson, retired steelworker and president of the retirees in the United Steelworkers of America local in Hamilton, who is making the point of what it is costing his members -- the fact that they are not able to meet their bills. He gives four examples which he says are four of the better examples: one employee, 10 years retired now, whose pension income is $405 a month; another one, 18 years -- this is his private plan -- has $343; another, 15 years since retirement, $375; and another, 10 years, at $377.

He uses them only as examples. With that, in the arguments they made with us, were what they are paying and how difficult it is to get along today on that kind of income.

We are really talking about whether or not people are going to live at a decent level once they reach retirement age. I think we should also understand that because this was the basis of most of the private plans starting, I do not think the argument that the money is not theirs when there is a surplus in those plans holds water.

If you have sat down and negotiated union contracts, you will know very well that when you look at the cents per hour, that is one part of a package when you are negotiating. When you look at vacations, that is another part, and there is always a price on it -- half a cent, a cent, a cent and a half -- depending on what you are trying to achieve in terms of the vacation package. When you take a look at the benefits, whether it is health, the drug coverage, there is also a price, so many cents per hour on it. When you take a look at pensions there is a price, so many cents per hour on it, depending on just what kind of level you want to achieve.

In the process of negotiations you have to balance out what your membership wants, whether you have a plant with younger workers who may not put quite as high a priority on pensions, whether you have more older workers or whether they have finally understood, young or old, the importance of a pension when they reach retirement age.

The package that you finally negotiate in those contracts takes into account the price of each of these components. If the package says that five cents have to go into the pension program this year to boost the level and do what you want, that is five cents that, if you had not negotiated that pension package, would have gone into the wage package, or if not into the wage package, into better vacations or maybe hearing or better dental coverage or you name it. So it is a matter of deferred wages.

I guess my annoyance with some of the members of this House -- I should not say some of the new members who may not have been through it, but some of the current cabinet ministers in the front bench here sat on that select committee on pensions in 1979-80 and I sat on it. We could not reach agreement on indexing then. We argued for it. We argued for an Ontario plan because there are so many workers who are not covered. It is true only 37 per cent of the Ontario workers are in private plans, but we could not convince members to take that route.

Frankly, I think substantial improvements in the Canada pension plan are what we should really be doing, and I think this province should be taking the lead in that, because that covers everybody and there is a hell of a lot more sense to it.

But inasmuch as we could not do that, first we had to take a look at whether we could get this government to go for a private plan. When we could not achieve that, then we asked, can we get improvements at least for those workers who have already done the fighting in terms of the private plans that do exist?

In that committee, as I have said in this House before, there was unanimity, not on the indexing -- I think we were the only people who would support that, although I think there was some support from some of the Liberal members of that committee; at that time they were in opposition also -- but there was unanimity, and I do not think I can be challenged on this, that the surpluses in those plans should be used to improve the benefits or have some form of indexing of the private plans that existed. We were all in agreement on that; even the Tories, and the Liberals as well.

I cannot understand what has happened in the past three, four or five years. All of a sudden, that money is no longer deferred wages, that surplus no longer belongs to the employees and it should belong to the company or the company should have the right to take it out. Even there, the government is obviously uneasy, because it has put a moratorium on it. It knows there is a powerful argument, and maybe one or two of them -- hopefully, their consciences prick them a bit -- understand that they were arguing that money did belong to workers not too long ago.

It seems to me that to allow the companies to take that money out of the plans; or what I think is even more insidious in some ways to allow companies instead, because they have been thwarted or blocked by the freeze that is on that surplus money in private pension plans, to take a contribution holiday: I do not know how anybody in this House can get up and with a straight face say that is not just an under-the-table theft of that kind of money. To me, it is fundamentally dishonest to make the argument that it is OK to take a contribution holiday. It is exactly the same thing.

We are still allowing that, even though we put a freeze on directly taking the money out; and it is the same doggone thing. We are not using the good investment, that I will acknowledge has gone into these plans and has earned the surplus funds -- and there is a lot of surplus money, over $10 billion in plans in Ontario -- to form part of the basic cost of improving those plans, or starting at least on an indexing formula. To me, that does not make any sense whatsoever.

It is one of the things that I think eventually government is going to answer for; either that or it is going to clearly polarize the two points of view in this House. First, that money does belong to workers and should be used for that purpose, and I think that is a better purpose than allowing the companies to take it out; or the government argument or the Tory argument: “No, you cannot. You have a defined benefit plan and it really belongs to the companies.”

I hate to think that is the route we are going, because it means it is going to take an even longer time to win this battle for ordinary people in the province of Ontario.

I think the resolution put before this House by my colleague is a good step. We have done this kind of thing before in a resolution my leader put before this House as well on pensions. I hope the members would reconsider and consider supporting this, and supporting it with more conviction than they have supported some of the positions we have taken in past discussions, all the way back to 1979 or 1980 in committees of this House, and start working towards putting this kind of move into place.

If not, then I challenge every government member in this House to take a look at a public pension plan in Ontario, a provincial pension plan that can deal with and cover all the people in the province of Ontario. That is a final resort, I guess, but this would usually just be a stall. That is why I hate to suggest it, but it is certainly the obvious one: that the province of Ontario take the bit in its teeth and take the lead in saying, “It is time we made major reforms to the Canada pension plan and we are prepared to say that at the next first ministers’ conference.”

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Sterling: How much is left?

The Acting Speaker: Eight minutes. The member for Carleton.

Mr. Sterling: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the member supports it, I will buy him a turkey.

Mr. Sterling: If he buys two or three, I might.

I would like to indicate some support for some of the ideas contained in this resolution. I think when we are talking about pension plans and major overhauls of the philosophy behind pension plans, we have to be somewhat cautious in the approach. In talking about the benefits side we are dealing with one part of the equation or the problem and not dealing with a number of the other parts of the problem. I think that is not something we can support in its entirety.

There are some real problems that are out there with regard to pension plans, surpluses in pension plans and those kinds of things. I guess the whole idea of indexing -- if I may draw some kind of analogy to the situation we have in terms of a benefit plan that we have in this province which has resulted in tremendous problems and I am talking about our workers’ compensation scheme.

In our workers’ compensation scheme, we started back 10 or 20 years ago -- not started, but we continued to pay in premiums based on the assumption that you had a system that was going to pay out benefits under a certain set of circumstances and rules. Then, in our wisdom in this Legislature, what we have done now is we have set forward a different set of rules under which someone who is injured on the job and is entitled to compensation receives compensation.

As a result of not marrying the two together, not marrying the contributions which employers pay towards workers’ compensation premiums, not marrying that to the benefits which we are now paying, we have as a result a $6 billion deficit in the workers’ compensation fund. If certain things happened in our economy whereby the economy cooled off substantially, there are some pretty horrendous stories as to how fast that deficit could build to even as much as $20 billion in a very short period of time, like a year.

We have an example of a situation whereby we went in with certain rules. We changed the rules mid-stream and now we have a serious problem with workers’ compensation. We have small businesses, for instance, under our workers’ compensation, which are paying over 100 per cent what they were paying three years ago. In other words, their premiums have doubled in the past two or three years. Those are companies that do not even have a bad worker-accident record. I mean they are totally meeting their obligation with regard to safety in the workplace, yet their premiums have doubled. Even with doubling them, it is not enough to make the workers’ compensation fund actuarially sound.

We have a situation of changing the rules and getting into problems. One of the problems with indexing of course is that you cannot, with a great deal of clarity, find out what is happening in the future. I have some empathy with the theory of indexing in terms of legislation and talking into the future, but in reaching back and indexing plans whereby workers and employers have not paid in adequately to a pension plan in order to have that luxury of indexing, I think invites some problems.

In essence then, if we do that, what we would be doing is really living off the backs of our children in terms of them having to cover for us not paying our fair share of the premiums to cover a benefit which we may receive in the future. I do not think that is good planning. I think what we should do, if we see that there is a deficiency with regard to pension plans, is to look to our governments to solve that problem. We should not look to the private industries who have entered into this particular arrangement to solve the problem. I think that is a government function to solve a problem.

If there is a class of workers who are not receiving enough in order to live, then it is our obligation as legislators to see that those people get a fair share in order to be able to properly live in our society.

It has been mentioned by I think virtually every speaker, that only one third of our workers are covered by pension plans. I think that the philosophy of the party that I represent is that, first of all, we are very much concerned with the people who are unable to take care of themselves, who have not had a union to look out for them, who have not had an employer who has looked out for them, who have not had the luxury of being paid a large wage while they were working.

Therefore, first of all, our efforts are to see that the government takes care of those people and making sure that there is a minimum standard of living that people in our province can enjoy. While we have some real empathy towards the thrust and the drive that the member has put forward, we do see a significant number of problems in implementing what this resolution says.

With that, I would like to say to the member that we in our caucus would be quite willing to work towards plans which will deal with the surplus problem. We do not think this is a solution to the surplus problem. We think -- or I feel, I should not speak for my whole caucus with regard to the surplus funds --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You never have in the past. Why would you now?

Mr. Laughren: You are the leading edge of the wedge.

Mr. Sterling: Being at the leading edge of the wedge, I think that if we are to do something with surplus funds, then perhaps we should be doing something for all workers in the province with those surplus funds and not just those who are involved in a particular plan.

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Eves moved resolution 18:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should designate the entire riding of Parry Sound, specifically the district of Parry Sound, as being part of northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries, agencies, boards and commissions.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that for his windup.

Mr. Eves: Thank you. In all probability, I will reserve at least five minutes at the end.

This is a resolution identical in wording to one in the last parliament which I introduced on June 25, 1987, and which, I might add to members present, especially for new members, was unanimously passed by all members of this Legislature representing all three political parties. In fact, it has been subsequently endorsed by the Liberal candidate in the September 10, 1987, election and by the previous Liberal candidates before that one in the 1985 and 1981 elections. It also has been endorsed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on several different occasions.

It has been endorsed by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines in his previous incarnation.

Mr. Laughren: Why hasn’t it happened then?

Mr. Eves: That is a very good question. Why has it not happened then?

I was here about a year ago, rising on exactly the same resolution and I will reiterate some of the points that I made at that time. Some things have changed a little bit. Instead of spending a budget of some $35 billion, the province’s budget this year, just announced last week as a matter of fact by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), is some $38 billion. Yet the government of Ontario still has not seen fit to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all its ministries.

I might point out, especially to some of the newer members of the Legislature, that there are indeed 10 ministries in the Ontario government that do regard the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. This is not just an issue that has arisen in the last few years. Before 1977 or late 1976, it was not an issue at all, because there was no Ministry of Northern Affairs -- or Northern Development as it is now called -- in Ontario.

When that ministry was formed, the first minister, Mr. Bernier, decided to include Parry Sound -- and I mean all of the riding of Parry Sound -- in his ministry. One by one, different ministries, presumably on the strength and commitment of the individual minister involved, have brought various ministries on stream.

We now have the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the Ministry of Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Revenue, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Housing, as well as the Ministry of Northern Development, all regarding the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario.

This did not happen all at once. They gradually came on stream one at a time. We have the Ministry of Education in a peculiar situation. I was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education for a period of time when Bette Stephenson was the minister. She decided she was going to include the district of Parry Sound, which this government has continued in the same light, in northern Ontario for the purposes of six out of nine funding factors for the north.

I guess for the purposes of the Ministry of Education we are two thirds in northern Ontario and one third in southern Ontario, if that has any logic to it at all. I am not quite sure it does. I did not agree with the minister then and I do not agree with the minister now. I guess two thirds of a loaf is better than none, but we would like the rest of the loaf.

The Ministry of Health poses a lot of problems in not recognizing the district as part of northern Ontario. It is a particular hardship to individual constituents as opposed to hospitals or institutions, although they feel the crunch as well.

The northern health travel grant program, which was announced by the predecessor of the current Minister of Health, I believe on December 1, 1985, if my memory serves me correctly, was announced in this House and the district of Parry Sound was not included. At that time, the distance one had to travel to a medical centre to be reimbursed was 300 kilometres.

I raised the issue almost immediately, I believe some 13 days later on December 13, 1985, with the then minister, the present Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston). He pointed out that this was a new program and that they would like to try it the way it was instituted for a year and see how things came about.

When I raised that very same issue with the Premier in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development, as he was the Minister of Northern Development and Mines at the time as well as being the Premier, he indicated that nothing was sacrosanct and that they would indeed look at including the district of Parry Sound when they refined the program.

About a year later, the program was refined, but much to my displeasure, although they lowered the distance from 300 kilometres to 250 kilometres, they still did not include the district of Parry Sound in the northern health travel grant program. Just about every single part of the district of Parry Sound is more than 250 kilometres from Toronto, for example, I know that quite well because I live in the town of Parry Sound, which is in the southwest corner of the riding, and it is slightly in excess of 250 kilometres for me to go home every week.

We have constituents, mainly cancer patients but other constituents as well with particular health problems, who travel to Princess Margaret and other hospitals and centres in southern Ontario on a regular basis for treatment. A lot of them cannot afford the travel cost out of their own pocket. Currently, they have to rely upon friends, relatives, neighbours, or in a great many cases service clubs, to provide transportation through way of volunteers.

There is a program the government has introduced, and I support that program fully, to help people in these situations, but we really feel that the people in the district of Parry Sound should be entitled to share in that program as well.

We have the odd situation in that Parry Sound riding is primarily the district of Parry Sound plus everything in the district of Nipissing lying east of North Bay, which includes all of Algonquin Park as well. There are many constituents in my riding who, although they are in the district of Parry Sound, particularly those along the south shore of Lake Nipissing, are farther north than many of my constituents in the district of Nipissing.

The people who live in the district of Nipissing part of my riding are in northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries, but the people who live farther north in the district of Parry Sound part of the riding are not in northern Ontario; they are in southern Ontario. I do not know what sort of logic that makes. It does not make any to me.

When I raised this matter with the Premier in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development -- I believe it was February 12, 1987 -- he indicated that the case I made was a rational one, to use his words, and he could not argue with me about it and that he would pursue his cabinet colleagues with renewed vigour, as he put it, after the February 1987 estimates to try to persuade them to develop some rationale for all government ministries.

Also, the Minister of Northern Development, the member for Cochrane North, has spoken at two of the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities meetings -- which Parry Sound hosted I might add; I believe it was in February 1986. The member for Cochrane North was then the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. He was the guest speaker at the final wrapup meeting of FONOM and he committed himself to including the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries.

He supported a resolution that was passed by FONOM at that meeting; a resolution not so dissimilar, I might add, to another FONOM resolution passed -- I believe it was April 27, 28 or 29, 1977 -- some 10 years earlier to get Parry Sound into northern Ontario in the first place when the new Ministry of Northern Affairs was first formed.

Parry Sound municipalities have always been members of FONOM, the Federation of Northern Ontario Municipalities. They have always fully participated in FONOM. I think geographically and demographically there is no doubt that the people who live in the district of Parry Sound regard themselves as northerners, not as residents of central or southern Ontario.

I know the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black) will remember that at one time, when redistribution hearings were going on, it was suggested that the district of Parry Sound and the regional municipality of Muskoka be combined in one riding, similar to the federal riding, which would be known as Parry Sound-Muskoka. I am sure the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay would prefer Muskoka-Parry Sound.

However, there were over 52 delegations, many of whom were individuals not municipal governments, that appeared at those hearings in Barrie and argued very strenuously that the district of Parry Sound had a different character. It is a territorial district; it is not a county and it is not a regional municipality. Territorial districts, I am sure other northern members will know, are peculiar to northern Ontario.

Mr. Black: As was Muskoka.

Mr. Eves: As was Muskoka, but as Muskoka is not now. I am sure my honourable colleague will be ready to admit that it happened many years ago -- he probably knows better than I -- when Muskoka decided to become a regional municipality. I believe 1970 rings a bell in my mind -- somewhere thereabouts, anyway.

Many of the municipalities -- in fact, I would say a majority of them -- in the riding of Parry Sound are unorganized municipalities, which is certainly not the case in Muskoka or other points farther south. That is not unusual in territorial districts and it is not unusual in northern Ontario. There are some 35 organized municipalities in the riding of Parry Sound and well in excess of 50 unorganized municipalities. These people, for sure, regard themselves as northerners. They qualify for many programs ranging from police services under the Solicitor General, ambulance services, fire services, local service boards; all these entities are peculiar to northern Ontario.

As I said, some 10 ministries of government over the last 10 or 11 years have decided to come on stream and recognize the district of Parry Sound as being part of northern Ontario. I really think it is about time the remaining ministries in the government decide to bite the bullet and include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario.

It means dollars and cents; there is no doubt about that. That perhaps is the biggest hangup that each individual minister may have about including the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario. To the Ministry of Education it is probably the most costly, followed by the Ministry of Health.

For the Ministry of Education alone, if the district of Parry Sound were included in northern Ontario and if all nine weighting factors attributed to other school boards in northern Ontario were attributed to the East Parry Sound Board of Education and the West Parry Sound Board of Education, I believe the figures would be something in the neighbourhood of the following: the East Parry Sound Board of Education would receive from $250,000 to $300,000 a year more from the province than it does now, and the West Parry Sound Board of Education would receive in the neighbourhood of $200,000 to $250,000 more in operating funding each and every year from the province than it does now.

The East Parry Sound Board of Education is probably one of the poorest in the province. It has a very low tax base. It has almost no industrial or commercial assessment. It is all residential assessment, much of that seasonal residential assessment as well, I might add, and it receives over 75 per cent funding from Ontario.

Members can compare that, for example, with some school boards in the Metropolitan Toronto area that receive almost none of their moneys from Ontario. We can readily see how dependent a board of education like the East Parry Sound Board of Education and its local ratepayers, taxpayers and constituents are on provincial government funding and what an impact another $250,000 or $300,000 a year would have on the educational process in the East Parry Sound board area.

West Parry Sound is a little bit more fortunate, although I am sure many residents there would disagree from time to time. They receive approximately 50 per cent of their funding from Ontario. There again, when we are talking about another $250,000 a year to those two boards of education, we are talking about a significant impact on the educational system in the East and West Parry Sound boards.

Another ministry that would have a big impact is the Ministry of Transportation. We currently do not get a chance to share in the transportation and road budgets of the Ministry of Northern Development because MTC regards the district of Parry Sound as being part of southern Ontario.

There are many programs that many constituents of ours would like to see through the Ministry of Natural Resources which would probably not cost the government anything, or would cost it next to nothing to have implemented. but with, for example timber policies, aggregate policies and simple things like hunting and fishing, in all those policies the district of Parry Sound is now treated as part of southern Ontario as opposed to part of northern Ontario.

When my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) was the Minister of Natural Resources -- unfortunately, for too short a period of time -- he had agreed with me and he had bought the argument, I might add to my colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, that Parry Sound should be included in northern Ontario and was in the process of doing the same when, unfortunately for him, he ceased to become the minister. His successor since has not honoured that commitment and has failed to deliver on it, despite the fact that I do not really believe it would cost the Ministry of Natural Resources anything.

As a matter of fact, for a while the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) was one and the same person as the Minister of Energy. While he had his Minister of Energy hat on Parry Sound was part of northern Ontario, but when he had his Minister of Natural Resources hat on Parry Sound was part of southern Ontario.

I suppose there is some logic in there somewhere. It seems to escape me. I will try to grapple with that. However, that is the way the situation is today and has been for some period of time. The Parry Sound District Municipal Association has been extremely active in passing resolutions on this subject in 1985, 1986 and 1987. They have submitted briefs to the government.

I would be remiss if I did not point out to the House that, just recently, the Ministry of Northern Development has asked the Parry Sound District Municipal Association for yet another brief that it would like to receive by the middle of May, and that the cabinet committee on northern development would be prepared to consider such a brief from representatives of the Parry Sound District Municipal Association some time in July.

I do not really see where another brief is needed, There have been many resolutions, briefs and documents submitted to the government over the last three plus years. I think it is really time that we had some commitment with respect to this particular subject.

I will reserve the rest of my time, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Miclash: I would like to respond to the member for Parry Sound, if I may. I am familiar with the district of Parry Sound, as it is very similar to the Kenora riding which I represent. I feel the member for Parry Sound should be heard in terms of his request. As the member has indicated, this request is not a new one and the member has been asking for this status for quite some time now. As a matter of fact, it actually goes back 11 or 12 years. I must ask the member, why has this initiative not been taken during the eight or nine years that it was presented to the previous Conservative government?

As the member is well aware, our government is presently giving very serious consideration to the request in correspondence with the member for Parry Sound. This has been indicated to him a number of times. The effects on grant and program structure and demands are being sought. As I mentioned earlier, this issue is not a new one and a solution was never arrived at during the eight or nine years it was before our former Conservative government.

May I indicate that we are now operating on the Liberal time schedule, our time schedule, and will continue to check out the consequences of such a move on that particular schedule. May I point out that it was not until the fall meeting of 1986 that the Parry Sound District Municipal Association passed a resolution urging the provincial government to include the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario for purposes of all ministries and transfer payments to municipalities reflect this change in 1987. It was in the fall of 1986, not 12 years ago, when the idea was first introduced.

The ministers involved have looked at the requests and continue to take all factors that will affect the decision into account or to arrive at a satisfactory resolution to this issue. May I bring forth some of the ministers’ findings thus far. As indicated by the member, all but the ministries of Health and Education do undertake their program reviews using the criteria of northern allowances for this region of the province.

In the Lawton study recently released, it was indicated that the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) was doing business in Parry Sound, adequately compensated under the present weighting factor, and that the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) is presently reviewing the findings of the study and will be meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins), the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) and the Minister of Education to discuss the inclusion not only of Parry Sound, but in the good Liberal fashion of the townships in the district of Nipissing as well. Those are five townships that are lying in the district of Nipissing.

This meeting is scheduled for May 3, next Tuesday. I am sure the member for Parry Sound will be waiting with anticipation for the results of this meeting. Thus members can see that when we are ready to make sure a move is in all indications a go, we will be talking about a much larger area than just what is requested by the member for Parry Sound.

Again, I go back to my original statement where I suggested that I saw many similarities in the regions of Parry Sound and my riding of Kenora, and the possible need for this area to be a part of the north for programs not already allotted to it. But I cannot support the motion at this time, as the Ministry of Northern Development, along with the others I have indicated earlier, are still in the midst of a study into the proposal. When the results are tabulated, assuming that the recommendations received are favourable for the inclusion of Parry Sound and the five townships I mentioned in the area of Nipissing, I will be in a position to take a more definite stance on this proposal.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Mr. Laughren: I rise to my feet to support the resolution from the member for Parry Sound and to commend him for bringing it forward yet again and for making such compelling arguments in his remarks.

If I could speak directly to the people of Parry Sound this morning, I would say to them that they should be in northern Ontario. The entire district should be part of northern Ontario vis-à-vis all government programs. I say to the people in Parry Sound they have had a chance to be there with the previous government. There has been an opportunity for the present government to classify them as part of northern Ontario. Now they have one other option. This party would classify them as in the Parry Sound district immediately. I say that to the people in Parry Sound. The Tories had 42 years to do it.

The Liberals have had three years to do it. That shows how sincere they are, despite the fact that the Premier himself agreed with the member for Parry Sound, because the member for Parry Sound makes very compelling arguments, I am sure members would agree.

The Minister of Northern Development agrees with the member for Parry Sound, but it does not happen. Therefore, you have to ask yourself, if the Premier wants to have Parry Sound considered part of northern Ontario and the Minister of Northern Development wants Parry Sound to be part of northern Ontario, who does not want it there? Who is holding it up?

Mr. Epp: You.

Mr. Black: The NDP.

Mr. Laughren: This party supports it 100 per cent. We would put Parry Sound in the northern district and we would do it without delay as well.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: It must be the bureaucracy here at Queen’s Park that is resisting this designation of Parry Sound. If it is not the Premier and it is not the minister, it must be the bureaucracy here. The Toronto-based bureaucracy is saying to the people in Parry Sound, “We know what’s best and you’re not going to be designated as part of northern Ontario.”

What other reason could there be? You have the minister on side and you have the Premier on side, and yet it does not happen.

Mr. Black: They will probably do it.

Mr. Laughren: The member says they are going to do it, but the only government member to get up and speak, the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash), a northerner himself -- where is he, by the way? -- gets up and speaks against the designation. I really do not understand that. The Premier agrees, the minister agrees and another northern member disagrees. My goodness, is the Liberal Party in total disarray at the provincial level too?

I do not understand it. As a northern member myself -- and I drive between the constituency of Nickel Belt, which is north and west of Sudbury, to Toronto most weeks rather than fly -- I can tell members that the Parry Sound riding is as much like the constituency I represent as it resembles any riding in the province, I presume.

It consists of small communities, tourism and bad roads, and that is a hallmark of northern Ontario. The maintenance of that highway is terrible. I am not saying that simply designating it as part of northern Ontario will turn that all around, but I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, that is truly a northern riding. Drive through it and try to make the argument that it is not a northern riding. Of course it is. It meets all the criteria for a northern part of this province: small communities, underserviced, poor roads, lack of government attention. That is the story of northern Ontario.

What I say to the member for Parry Sound is, “We want you in northern Ontario.” There is strength in numbers. Perhaps the riding of Renfrew North should also be part of northern Ontario, because the more of us there are the more clout we will have down here. I understand why the member for Parry Sound feels frustrated. His own government did not support him when he wanted his riding to be designated as part of northern Ontario. I understand that, and this government is no different.

That is why I say to the people of Parry Sound: “You’ve tried both the other parties. You’ve had a member on the government side and you’ve had a member in opposition and it hasn’t worked. You’ve had a Liberal government and a Conservative government. It’s time for the people in Parry Sound to make a change.” Not that they are not well represented by the present member for Parry Sound; I am not suggesting that.

I think one of the reasons we feel it is necessary to be designated a northern riding is that there seems to be at least some awareness by government that if you are part of northern Ontario there needs to be more government intervention than there is in southern Ontario. Southern Ontario is a magnet for growth and for development and northern Ontario is not a magnet. Northern Ontario needs a push. It needs incentive for growth and development, and that is one reason I feel so strongly that it should be part of the north.

The health travel grant that the member for Parry Sound referred to is a good example. Why in the world would Parry Sound not be designated as a northern constituency for the purposes of the health travel grant? It meets the requirements for mileage. Yet the government still will not do it.

I thought it would be a matter of months before it happened, until the member for Kenora stood up and gave us the government line. I assume that did not just come from the member for Kenora; I assume that is the government line. I hope that people in Parry Sound are not holding their breath waiting for designation to be part of northern Ontario because I do not think the member for Kenora was freelancing it this morning. That was a very carefully crafted and prepared speech, and well delivered too. What he was saying was: “This is the government line, my friends. Don’t hold your breath in Parry Sound because this government is really no different than the previous government.”

I look at my own constituency and in some ways Nickel Belt is similar to Parry Sound because of its size and because of small communities, resource extraction and so forth, except that Nickel Belt has some very major resource extraction companies and has some major forestry operations, much bigger I think than Parry Sound has. So there is in some ways a stronger economic base in my riding. But we are happy that we are designated as a northern riding, and I have yet to hear one single good argument from this government or the previous government as to why Parry Sound is not designated as a northern Ontario constituency.

I was at that committee meeting where the member for Parry Sound was pushing the Premier to designate Parry Sound as a northern riding and the Premier could not argue against the member for Parry Sound, could not shoot down one of his arguments, as I recall. Members should ask themselves why in the world this is allowed to continue.

I do not know why the previous government did not do it either. I really do not know that, because it goes back not just, as the member for Parry Sound said, for a couple of months when the member for Nipissing was the minister. That was not a fair argument for the member for Parry Sound to make because many years before that there was agitation to have Parry Sound designated as a northern constituency, the whole, entire district to be designated as a northern riding for government purposes. I think there was ample opportunity for the previous government to designate it.

There have now been three years for this government to designate it as a northern riding. There is not a single reason why Parry Sound should not be designated as a northern riding. If the members think that it is really not the north, I invite them to drive up there, drive through the riding and take a look at it. It is very similar to virtually every other northern Ontario area. It is very much the same and it relies a great deal on tourism.

Interjection.

Mr. Laughren: Of course, it is a very beautiful constituency, but that does not mean it is getting its fair share.

Mr. Epp: I’m convinced, but keep talking. I may become unconvinced.

Mr. Laughren: That is what is so strange. Government members tend to nod their heads, ministers tend to nod their heads and say, “Yes, your arguments make a lot of sense,” but nothing ever happens. Members should simply ask themselves this -- and I hope the people in Parry Sound will ask themselves – “Why has there been no action?” Absolutely none. I say to the people in Parry Sound, “You have a right to be designated as a northern Ontario district, and we will continue our fight down here to make sure that happens.”

Mr. Harris: I am delighted to be able to add a few comments to my colleague the member for Parry Sound’s notice of motion, his resolution.

It is interesting that this resolution is back one more time. The fight for northern status started really with the formation of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. That was a commitment that was made in 1977 by the former government, a commitment for the first time in the history of Ontario to take a ministry and give it regional responsibility.

It has been one of the most successful ventures any government has ever undertaken in Canada as far as moving northern Ontario ahead in trying to rectify some of the regional disparities between northern Ontario and southern Ontario is concerned. It has continued over the last three years, and I am always intrigued when I ask the current minister a question about what he is not doing now. He recites a litany of programs, all of which were put in place by the former government, and we are proud every time he does it.

I want to tell members how proud we are of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, now the Ministry of Northern Development, and what it has meant for our communities in northern Ontario in equalizing to some extent some of the costs we bear, which are much higher than in southern Ontario by reason of geography, by reason of climate, by reason of distance or by reason of our smaller size and our lack of economies of scale in the various ministries, It has gone a long way to help.

That brings us to Parry Sound. The member for Parry Sound has indicated again today that it has been a 10-year fight. Being in northern Ontario or southern Ontario really did not matter before the creation of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. Members must understand that it is not a 42-year problem or a 44-year problem or a 45-year problem; it is a problem that Parry Sound identified quickly. The member at that time was one of the most outstanding members of this Legislature, Lorne Maeck, a very good friend of the people of Parry Sound, indeed a very good friend of the people of Nipissing and of northern Ontario. He was a good member.

Lorne Maeck started the fight. He recognized that it was a ministry-by-ministry fight. It really is. The object was to get various ministries to recognize for their program purposes that Parry Sound should be treated like the rest of northern Ontario. As the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has pointed out, the riding of Parry Sound is very similar to many of our northern ridings. In fact, he points out, and I am not ashamed to point out on behalf of Nipissing, that in many ways Parry Sound does not enjoy some of the advantages that Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins, Nickel Belt and Nipissing enjoy, the centres that we enjoy.

In Nickel Belt, the member mentioned the mining and the resource companies. In Nipissing, North Bay has become quite a development centre for the resource industries throughout northern Ontario. Even the town of Sturgeon Falls, with the MacMillan Bloedel plant there, has significantly improved life in west Nipissing, as have the other resource companies there. Parry Sound does not enjoy any of those things which many of the ridings in northern Ontario enjoy.

It makes sense, and Mr. Maeck, through his initial fight, was able to convince some of the ministers and some of the ministries that indeed they should consider Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario for grant purposes. It was significant, as he picked them off, I could say, one at a time.

What has been very significant is that the current member for Parry Sound, when he was elected in 1981, picked up that torch with vigour and carried on that fight. It was not a partisan fight; it was a fight on behalf of his constituents in Parry Sound.

As the member for Nickel Belt pointed out, the current Premier, either from lack of debating skills or lack of any base of logical argument -- I would suggest a little of both -- was unable to argue why Parry Sound ought not to be considered a part of northern Ontario for other ministries besides the 10 that are there now.

It has been a fight. The member for Parry Sound, who has now been here for seven years, has picked up, on average, about a ministry a year, I guess, except that it was all done in the first four years he was here, when the current government was there.

I would have preferred, and I am sure the member for Parry Sound would have preferred, if there had just been a blanket order, if you like, from the Premier to all ministers and ministries, “You shall consider Parry Sound as northern Ontario.” But the ministries have to have some time to adapt, they need funds from the Treasurer or they need to look at reallocation of resources. It has been that kind of fight.

I congratulate the current member for Parry Sound. Never has anybody fought more consistently or longer or harder on behalf of his constituents. What has happened in the past three years is that the member has fought just as hard, in fact perhaps harder, because there has been more resistance there. In the last three years, not one single ministry has come on board and joined in the treatment of Parry Sound as a northern Ontario riding.

Last year he brought forward a resolution that was supported unanimously by all three parties in this chamber. What has changed between last year and this year? Last year I guess everybody thought: “It’s pre-election. If we’re going to knock off old Eves, we’re going to have to support Parry Sound for northern Ontario status. Our Liberal candidate there has to be able to go in the field and argue that indeed we support that.”

Last year, before the election, the government supported the resolution. In the election last year, the Liberal candidate in Parry Sound, I remember very well, said: “Of course, our party supported it last year. That is our party’ s position too.” Now we hear the member for Kenora saying: “Well, the election is over. We have a majority. We don’t care about Parry Sound.”

That is the kind of deceit I talked about in the budget debate. It is the kind of deceit we have seen on free trade. It is the kind of deceit we have seen on Sunday shopping. To bring that into the debate on something that I think all parties should agree on, and did agree on before the election -- that is, the designation of Parry Sound as northern status -- is rather shocking, I find.

I hope that it was just one misguided member’s remarks and that in fact it was not representative of the Liberal caucus. It is not the kind of spirit of generosity and fighting on behalf of northern Ontario that Leo Bernier used to put forth in this House.

I also want to say that I understand there are some problems in the Liberal caucus on this issue. We heard remarks from the member for Kenora. In the last campaign, I was astounded that in the riding of Nipissing the Liberal candidate said, “No, I’m not in favour of the designation of Parry Sound, because that might take away from Nipissing or North Bay.” It is that overparochial attitude that is probably the reason why that candidate is not here today.

I find it shocking that all members of this chamber are not willing to indicate a show of support, to put a hand out to the people of Parry Sound, to reach out and touch someone, other than taking money out of their pockets, which is the only thing that this government is doing, and to reflect for a moment, as we have heard from the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Parry Sound and myself, on the plight of Parry Sound. I urge members to support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Miclash: Madam Speaker --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Kenora has already spoken. You cannot speak again unless on a point of order.

Mr. Miclash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Let me clarify my position. What I wanted to say was that I --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Would you please phrase your comments on a point of order. It must be a point of order dealing with the standing orders.

Mr. Laughren: You’re out of luck, Frank.

Mr. Miclash: Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other honour-able member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Kozyra: It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the resolution. The member for Parry Sound has made a very good case for inclusion --

Mr. Callahan: Wasn’t that what the member for Kenora was saying? He was in favour of it too, wasn’t he?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kozyra: As parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development, over the past five months I have had the opportunity to work with northern development councils. The Parry Sound region is an important partner in the northern development council network. As one of those nine northern development councils, the Parry Sound region has provided valuable advice not only on regional matters but also on issues of government policy dealing with all of northern Ontario.

Let me reiterate the key points that the honourable members speaking before me have made. The Minister of Northern Development supports the resolution. There is a review of the impact from a redefinition that is presently under way. The member for Parry Sound has indicated the beneficial impact it would have on education and health to a region that is deserving of it. I understand the report is coming soon and that also the minister or the Premier will be making a statement on this, clarifying the position.

In conclusion, the issue has been debated for more than a decade. It is time for a decision. The time is now and I will be voting in support.

Mr. Hampton: I want to say right off the bat without any circumlocution or obfuscation that I and the other members of my party from northern Ontario support this resolution, and we support it fully.

I want to commend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Kozyra) for also coming out in support of this resolution, because I think as my friend the member for Nickel Belt has said, it is long, long overdue. Having said that, I also want to review very briefly some of the excuses or some of the rationale offered by the member for Kenora and some of the comments offered by some of the other government back-benchers.

The member for Kenora referred to the fact that there was a Conservative government for quite a long while and it did not press this issue. He got some agreement from some of the government back-benchers, specifically the member for Mississauga West (Mr. Mahoney), whom I heard say, “All you need to do to get this through is to elect a Liberal member.”

If that is the attitude of some of the government back-benchers, it is remarkably and strikingly like the attitude of the government in Ottawa. I know how unpopular that government in Ottawa has become, and I know exactly why it has become that unpopular: because that line of reasoning strikes at the central belief of most Ontarians and most Canadians in fairness in the sense that things ought to be judged on their merit and not on the basis of “Do we win a political angle on this, or do we lose a political angle on this?”

I want to say that kind of attitude, particularly displayed towards northern Ontario communities or districts like Parry Sound that have a lot in common with northern Ontario communities, is not a good one. It is not an attitude that is going to go very far in terms of promotion of this government in northern Ontario.

Mr. Epp: Why don’t you reflect a positiveness out there for the people? Think positively.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hampton: While the member for Kenora was speaking and while the member for Mississauga West was offering his comments, I happened to be reading an interesting

article on what is called practical intelligence. The

article says that one of the first and primary aspects of practical intelligence is not looking for an excuse: “Oh well, they didn’t do it, so we won’t do it.” One of the first aspects of practical intelligence is not to approach problems in that way but rather to sit down and say: “This is the problem. What am I going to do about it?” Yet I heard the member for Kenora and the member for Mississauga West supporting the idea that “The former regime didn’t do anything about it, so why should we do anything about it?”

Mr. Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am the member for Mississauga West who is being referred to, and I do not believe that I have spoken on this matter. The member is putting comments into the record, attributing them to me, that are not legitimate.

Mr. Hampton: I accept the member’s point of order, although I do not know what it was. I do not think that he knows what it was either.

To follow up, it seems that if this government were interested in dealing with the problems of northern Ontario, it would quit trying to use an excuse that the previous regime did not act on it, so it will not either. It would get down to looking at the problem on its merits and saying, “Look, something needs to be done.”

I have to commend the member for Parry Sound for putting forward the issues on their merits. The fact of the matter is that large areas of Parry Sound district are not adequately serviced in terms of doctors, in terms of highways and in terms of other government departments. He is simply asking to be treated in a way that is fair and asking for his constituency to be treated in a way that is fair and asking that it be treated like a lot of other northern Ontario ridings that have similar problems and similar circumstances.

Based on the merits of the case, I think we should all support this resolution. It is a good resolution. It is one that will benefit a part of the province that is, as we would all admit, somewhat underdeveloped and that faces a fair number of disparities in terms of its present and future development.

I urge all the government back-benchers to put aside the excuse that, “The previous government didn’t do it, so why should we?” and deal with the issue as practical, intelligent people would deal with it, looking at the problem on its merits and dealing with the problem on its merits. Let us move ahead and quit referring to yesterday’s excuses and yesterday’s reasons for not doing something.

Mr. Eves: It is my pleasure to wind up this debate, and I am pleased to see that members on all sides of the House are once again supporting this resolution. I might just make a few points, and my colleague the member for Nipissing has made similar ones, especially with respect to some of the comments the member for Kenora made.

It is not true that nothing happened under the previous government on this issue, as the member for Nipissing has rightly pointed out. Between 1977 and 1985, 10 2/3 ministries, if we include the Ministry of Education as being two thirds of a ministry with respect to northern status, have included the district of Parry Sound in northern Ontario and given it northern Ontario status.

I want to read to the House a quote from the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) on this very same resolution, June 25, 1987. He was then the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development, and he said:

“It is actually up to the cabinet. I would like to assure the member for Parry Sound that this has the highest priority before cabinet right now, because of the Premier’s interest in the topic.

“As the member will remember, it was the member for Parry Sound who brought this up in estimates. We are giving it active consideration.”

We are here almost one year later -- 10 months -- and I recently sent him a copy of a resolution passed by the town of Parry Sound on February 16, 1988:

“Whereas the Minister of Northern Development, the Honourable René Fontaine, has indicated on two different occasions that the district of Parry Sound should be considered as part of northern Ontario by all ministers of the provincial government, and

“Whereas the provincial Legislature unanimously agreed with the private member’s bill presented by Mr. Ernie Eves on June 25, 1987, that this should be so, therefore

be it resolved that we ask the Minister of Northern Development to present this resolution to the provincial government at his earliest convenience.”

On March 9, 1988, I wrote to the minister, and the letter is as follows:

“Recently the town of Parry Sound sent you a copy of their resolution 88-59 regarding the still unresolved issue of full northern status for the district of Parry Sound. I enclose a copy for your information.

“As you are aware, gaining full northern status for the entire riding of Parry Sound has been a top priority, not only for the town of Parry Sound, but for all municipalities in the district. You will have received numerous resolutions to this effect from the District of Parry Sound Municipal Association over the past three years.

“As well, my private member’s resolution of June 25, 1987, calling on the government to designate the district of Parry Sound as part of northern Ontario by all ministries received unanimous consent in the Legislature. I have also brought this issue to the government’s attention in the Legislature many times, as well as the Legislature’s committee looking into the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

“As such, I am puzzled by the lack of any action by the government to take steps to grant uniform northern status to Parry Sound district, especially in view of the commitments made by the Premier and yourself to pursue this matter with your cabinet colleagues.

“Ironically, your ministry considers the district as part of northern Ontario and in fact has a northern affairs office in the town of Parry Sound. That the Ministry of Northern Development recognizes the district of Parry Sound economically, geographically and demographically as part of northern Ontario argues strongly for full northern designation by all ministries.”

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Eves: In light of this, I would urge all members of the House to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: Problem?

Mr. Miclash: If I may, I would like to correct the record, Mr. Speaker. Some of the members misunderstood some of my comments made earlier on this morning, and I just wish to indicate my support for the resolution put forth this morning.

Mr. Speaker: The clock will come to 12 in approximately two minutes. The standing orders say that we “shall” place these items at 12 o’clock, I just wonder if the House is agreeable that it is close enough.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry I cannot repeat what some of the members say. If it is agreeable, we will deal with the two matters before the House.

Agreed to.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of Mr. D. S. Cooke’s resolution will please rise and remain standing until your name is called.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), we are taking a division.

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: Your daddy’s got a government job. That’s OK. Daddy’s got a government job. You are sick. You don’t like it, do you? You don’t like the truth. A gutless bunch who gave in and sold out.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: You are mental, absolutely crazy.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville --

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: You’re a gutless bunch.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville, will you contain yourself?

Mr. Laughren: Throw him out.

Mr. Speaker: Will you?

Mr. Runciman: If I hear one more remark over there --

Interjections.

Mr. Runciman: I have no reservations whatsoever. You sold out. That is all there is to it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Leeds-Grenville take his seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Leeds-Grenville take his seat?

Mr. Runciman: I am prepared to restrain myself, Mr. Speaker, if that gutless bunch over there are prepared to restrain themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member take his seat? I will have to ask that Mr. Runciman leave the chamber for the balance of the day.

Mr. Runciman left the chamber.

The House divided on Mr. D. S. Cooke’s motion of resolution 20, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Faman, Hampton, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pouliot, Swart, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Black, Callahan, Carrothers, Cooke, D. R., Cunningham, Daigeler, Dietsch, Elliot, Epp, Fawcett, Fleet, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Keyes, Kozyra, LeBourdais, Lipsett, MacDonald, Mahoney, Matrundola, McCague, McLean, Miclash, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Offer, Owen, Pelissero, Pollock, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, D. W., Sola, Stoner, Sullivan, Tatham, Villeneuve.

Ayes 15; nays 40.

RIDING OF PARRY SOUND

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Eves has moved resolution 25.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:08 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

ESTIMATES

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I have a message from the Lieutenant Governor, signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1989, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed by His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

BUDGET DEBATE

Mr. Mackenzie: I would like to rise both to correct the record and to apologize to the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the House. In the course of my remarks on the budget yesterday, I attributed quotes both to the Treasurer and to the Premier which in fact were quotes of my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and not their quotes. It was done inadvertently, but it was totally incorrect. I want to apologize and set the record straight for that inaccurate attribution.

WORKER MEMORIAL DAY / JOUR DES ACCIDENTÉS DU TRAVAIL

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: May I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for a brief observance of Worker Memorial Day?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Today we are celebrating officially at the provincial level for the first time Worker Memorial Day. Let me begin by saying that the government wholeheartedly supports the initiative of Canada’s labour movement in setting aside April 28 every year, the anniversary of the passage of the Workers’ Compensation Act, as an annual day of mourning and recognition. In keeping with this occasion, flags at this Legislature and at the Ministry of Labour offices are being flown at half-mast throughout the day. I have urged others in the province to do the same.

It is important to put our feelings into words at moments such as this, but words alone are not enough. I suggest that we make this day not only a day of mourning and of recognition for those workers who have suffered fatal injuries, for those workers who have suffered other injuries, including industrial disease in the workplace, to be mourned and to be recognized, but that also we rededicate ourselves.

Let us all here in this House, and in the ranks of labour and management throughout this province, make each April 28 an occasion for renewing our common commitment to the task of making the workplaces of Ontario safer and healthier.

All around the province, workers are joining together in memorial services. They are joining together to remember their brothers and sisters who have suffered from workplace accidents and workplace illnesses. I had an opportunity a few moments ago, just one hour ago, to join workers at Scotia Plaza to remember workers who had been injured and who had died on that site. We remember all too well that only last August 29 two Portuguese workers suffered terrible, shocking deaths as a result of an accident with an elevator. In the name of those two workers and all of the other workers in this province who have suffered industrial accidents and industrial diseases, we make this rededication.

I would like to request the unanimous consent of this House for a moment of silence in recognition of those workers who have died or suffered grievous injury as a result of workplace accidents or illnesses. I do so in the hope that, as we intensify our collective efforts to reduce the toll of occupational accidents and illnesses, each April 28 in coming years will give us less cause to mourn.

Mr. B. Rae: I am very proud as a member of this House to have been able to move the resolution which brought this assembly and Ontario into the family of those who are observing this day as a day of mourning for those who have died and been injured on the job.

I was present at the commemorative ceremony at the Scotia Plaza this afternoon. As I was standing there in the shadow of the greatest towers of financial and economic power in our province, I was reminded of all those who talk about the importance of rewarding people who take risks. It seems to me that the people who take risks most visibly in our society are not those who work inside those towers but the workers who build them.

It is the workers who have built this wonderful province of ours, the loggers, the people who have worked in the bush and whose backs go out when they are 45 or 50. It is the miners who suffer in some cases lifelong disease because of their exposure to substances underground and who take risks because of the catastrophic accidents. It is the men and women who work in our factories, many of which remain unsafe. It is the people who work as policemen. It is the people who work as firemen.

It is the people who work in our hospitals, our nursing homes and our psychiatric institutions, who take a very special kind of risk. It is our farmers and fishermen. It is people in all lines of work who are on the unique front line that exists in our society, the front line of those who take risks because of the jobs they do.

I think it is especially fitting that we would take this day as the one day of the year in this province where we attempt to focus our minds and energy on what is nothing short of a provincial scandal, the number of workers who continue to be injured on the job and the number of workers who die. I am very proud, as I say, to have been responsible in a small way for the fact that the House is taking this day as a day on which we will have these speeches and remember those who have died and been injured.

Our hearts go out to those, and all of us in this place have come into contact through the work we do with those who have had to accept an early accident or accept a tragic death as part of their lives. Our hearts go out to those, but in expressing our sense of solidarity and compassion for those who have died and been injured and their families, we must also do more than that. Just as on Remembrance Day we say the words “never again,” so too on this day we should say the words “never again.”

C’est naturellement avec une certaine fierté que je note que la Chambre a accepté une motion de notre parti sur la question de reconnaître aujourd’hui une réalité du travail: la réalité du risque réel que court la grande majorité de la population qui travaille. Non seulement nous nous souvenons, avec compassion et solidarité, de ceux qui sont morts, de ceux qui ont été blessés au travail, mais nous nous souvenons aussi de leur famille.

Mais il y a plus que le souvenir. Nous avons non seulement le devoir de nous souvenir mais le devoir de lutter pour la justice sociale et pour la sécurité du travail, sécurité qui n’existe pas présentement. Moi, ainsi que les membres de mon caucus et de notre parti, nous nous engageons tous à continuer à lutter pour la justice envers les travailleurs et pour la sécurité des travailleurs. Enfin, nous aurons une province dont nous pourrons tous être fiers.

Mr. Harris: We wish to pause also for a moment today to recognize this day, April 28, as a day of mourning for the Canadian workers who were the unfortunate victims of work-related injury, accident and disease in Ontario. I want to thank the member for York South for bringing forward the concept of this day on a regular, annual basis.

We recognize and honour those dedicated Ontarians, including all those who have emigrated from many other countries to our great province, who have put themselves in danger and at risk in the workplace, whether it be in mining, forestry, factories or the many other industries and occupations, some of which the member for York South mentioned today.

We are mindful that there are some 500,000 people in Ontario who were the victims of work-related accidents in 1987. Some 238 people died as a result of industrial accident or disease flowing from conditions at work last year. We honour and remember these people and all those who have gone before, and their families. As the flags of the province are flown at half-mast today, we mourn with them their losses and their tragedies. We congratulate them on their courage.

Certainly, this day is an opportunity for us to reflect as well on the need for improved occupational health and safety and for greater care in the workplace. It is crucial for the government of Ontario always to be concerned and show initiative in ensuring that the very best, the most advanced health and safety measures are integrated into our industries, our factories and our businesses across Ontario.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party join the other two parties today to show our respect and pay solemn tribute to all those who have sacrificed their health and their lives on the job while providing service to our province and to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: As requested, I ask all members to rise and join with me in a minute’s silence in recognition of the victims of work-related accidents and illnesses.

[The House observed one minute’s silence.]

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAYWORKS ’88

Miss Martel: In light of the sombre proceedings, l must say my statement is not as sombre. I apologize to the members that it follows next in the order of business.

However, congratulations and best wishes are in order for the many talented and devoted people who have organized this year’s Mayworks, the third annual spring festival of working people and the arts, which will be held at various venues in Toronto from April 30 to May 6.

One of this year’s predominant themes is, “No to the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal,” but the festival also features photography, visual arts, plays, poetry, prose readings, music, films and, of course, the May Day parade. The Mayworks festival is one of the few in North America, and the first of its kind in Canada, which brings together trade unionists and artists in a collective expression of working-class experience and values. It will feature workers’ art and personal reflections of labour history.

One of the highlights of Mayworks ‘88, which I would like to commend to all members, is called Shift Change. It is a presentation by the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 303, which will occur on Thursday, May 5. Shift Change features a tour of the Scarborough General Motors plant, an exhibition of photos, paintings and cartoons by members of Local 303, entertainment by Ground Zero Productions in The Free Trade Show and Music in the Workplace by the Ruth Budd quintet. The program promises to be an exciting example of works of art by working people.

I commend Mayworks ‘88 to all members and I encourage all Ontarians to support this excellent endeavour. I am sure all members would like to join in wishing Mayworks ‘88 every success.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Villeneuve: I rise to report that the people of eastern Ontario have once again been seriously deceived by the Liberal government of Ontario. In the budget, the thought of providing for needed economic development in the east was completely forgotten by a government which has lost any concept of proper spending priorities. Our only hope was in the recognition that population growth around Ottawa had created a need for new schools in the area.

In my riding, Kemptville is rapidly becoming a bedroom community for the people working in Ottawa. This has been recognized by the Leeds and Grenville County Board of Education, whose first and second priorities for capital funding were and still are a new elementary school and major renovations to North Grenville District High School. Neither received funding in the minister’s announcement. Following the minister’s recent announcement, I can only add my voice to the disappointment felt by the Leeds and Grenville board and the people in the Kemptville area.

I also want to express disappointment in the case of Ecole Sainte-Thérèse-D’Avila in Marionville. This school rests on the border of three school boards and draws pupils from all three boards. As a result, it is never a top priority and has been ignored again. Surely it should be seen as a special case. When the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) was the Minister of Education, he did his best to ignore this school, and the new minister is no different.

When eastern Ontario receives only 11 per cent of the grants announced and 10 boards receive nothing, we know the government is not meeting its obligations to the people of eastern Ontario.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Velshi: I would like to bring to the attention of members of this Legislature a matter of grave concern and urgency. I refer members to the plight of those individuals presently being held on death row in South Africa, known to most as the Sharpeville Six.

As members will know, these persons are not simply political prisoners but are also innocent victims of an immoral regime. Not one of these persons was found to have been involved in a killing, but rather they were chosen as examples to those who would dare protest the treatment of blacks in South Africa and were sentenced to death by hanging for no more heinous crime than being there at the time.

Protests to the South African government from around the world were effective in bringing about a temporary stay of execution recently, but time is rapidly running out. I urge each and every member of this House to write to the South African Ambassador in Ottawa and the South African President, P. W. Botha, protesting in the strongest possible manner the treatment of these people at the hands of that government, and I urge members to do it now.

Surely this type of racist tyranny went out with the Middle Ages. I pray it will soon be proved to have no place in this or any other state in our modern world.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: A number of years ago, the labour movement launched a major campaign to publicize the need for safer workplaces. The number of deaths and injuries was and still is inexcusable. The legacy of workplace fatalities is being paid for to this day by the widows and children of those killed in industrial, mining and construction accidents.

Getting action to correct unsafe conditions and to deal with the increasing problem of new and old toxic substances was difficult and always involved a fight when it cost money. The labour movement used tough words to launch that campaign: “Stop the slaughter in the workplace.”

Unfortunately, the problem still exists today. I think we have won the battle to establish the legitimacy of the workers’ concerns. My colleague the NDP leader’s motion for a day of mourning, passed by this House, has led to the tribute of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) here today. This tribute is important, but it will mean absolutely nothing if we are not moved to complete the job of providing safer workplaces, a job started by the organized labour movement of Canada.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Wiseman: As this government has shown its complete lack of commitment to eastern Ontario by giving it only 11 per cent of the total money for school boards’ capital spending, I suppose I should not be surprised that vital projects in my riding were ignored.

However, I would like the House to be aware of the plight of the R. Tait McKenzie School in Almonte. This is a school for the trainable retarded that was denied the $94,000 it desperately needed to expand its facilities.

The irony of this situation is that it was forced upon the Lanark County Board of Education by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. In his wisdom, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) had decreed that the residents of Rideau Regional Centre must get out into the community. As a result, the McKenzie school has now three new nonambulatory students, with their wheelchairs, stretcher beds, etc., and nowhere to put them.

It seems the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) do not care and feel no responsibility for their colleague’s decision. We have one arm of government making policy and the other refusing to pay for it. Unfortunately, the ones who are suffering are the students.

These young people have equal rights to quality education. Without proper facilities, this right will be denied them. I urge the Treasurer and the Minister of Education to reconsider their decision.

HELP CENTRES

Mr. Carrothers: During the last session of this Legislature, a number of questions were raised about the funding of employment help centres in Ontario. Particular reference was made to the 50-Plus help centre which is located in my riding.

From conversations I had with the directors of 50-Plus, a number of problems emerged. These were problems also experienced by other help centres in Ontario. It was noted that help centres found the Ministry of Skills Development’s funding levels inadequate and that many centres found it difficult to raise matching funds, as required under program criteria.

Responding to these concerns, the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) has kindly informed me of a number of important changes in the government’s support for help centres. The ministry will continue to support the employment counselling and training referral activities of help centres. These centres will be eligible for up to $90,000 for employment counselling services, a 20 per cent increase in the eligible funding from the previous limit of $75,000.

In addition, the ministry will no longer require that centres show evidence of matching revenues to be eligible for funding. These changes reflect the recommendations of help centres like 50-Plus from Oakville.

I am sure all members of this House will acknowledge that the economic growth we are currently experiencing often requires many employment changes during an individual’s working life. In the case of 50-Plus and Ontario’s help centres, it is evident the ministry is acting responsibly and quickly to help those of us facing these unknown changes in the future.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. McLean: I want to direct this statement to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). His ministry is exceptionally quick off the mark when it comes to closing down municipal landfill sites, but its record in coming up with alternatives leaves much to be desired.

He was quick in shutting down the Pauzé landfill site, which forced six municipalities into the costly process of taking their garbage to Toronto. Then he warned Rama township and Orillia township. Then he came in and closed down those municipalities. They have to ship their garbage now to the city of Orillia.

If the minister keeps this up, we will soon reach the point where there will be more garbage than automobiles on Ontario’s highways. I have told him many times before, but it bears repeating. The time has come to throw his support behind a province-wide p