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

October 1, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HAILEYBURY SCHOOL OF MINES

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): This year, Northern College's Haileybury school of mines is celebrating its 80th birthday. The year marks an important page in the history of the school of mines.

Mining subjects were first introduced in 1912 in conjunction with the Haileybury High School. In 1917, a building known as the Mill was built. The building was equipped by the many mines of northern Ontario for the treatment of gold and silver ores. By 1929, the accommodations had become inadequate, so a modern structure was built and opened by 1931.

The school was closed in 1943 due to the Second World War and low enrolment. In 1944, the provincial government passed legislation to operate the school as the Provincial Technical Institute of Mining. In 1945, the institute was opened with a high-level course of study in mining subjects and considerable new equipment for hands-on work.

In 1967, the mining institute was incorporated into the Northern College of Applied Arts and Technology, which has campuses in Kirkland Lake, Kapuskasing, Moosonee and South Porcupine. Many Timiskaming residents, as well as people from all over the world, have received quality education at the Haileybury school of mines. This has helped to make the school world famous.

During the week of October 1, the school will be officially celebrating its birthday. I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of myself and the province of Ontario to congratulate the faculty and the students, and I wish them all the best for the next 80 years.

RECREATIONAL LAND

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources, and it concerns a policy that will have a detrimental impact on senior citizens and others on fixed incomes.

Minister, you recently announced rent increases for recreational lots on crown land, including recreation camps for fishing and hunting, summer resort leases and cottage leases in provincial parks. Your new formula will result in annual increases of 15% or $100, whichever is greater, until the rent based on market value is achieved over the next five years. In Algonquin and Rondeau provincial parks your new formula will virtually double these fees from the current average of $1,200 to $2,450 by the end of the five-year period.

I find this annual 15% tax grab to be completely unwarranted and unacceptable at a time when the annual rate of inflation is hovering around 3%. Your new formula will have an injurious impact on leaseholders who are senior citizens, as well as many others who are struggling to survive on fixed incomes.

I urge you to reconsider your new formula that will result in annual 15% rent increases for recreation lots and crown land. Instead, you should implement a more moderate policy that truly reflects responses to the troubled economic times facing the people of Ontario.

Your cutbacks in tree planting, cutbacks in the conservation officers, your cutbacks in the fish habitat -- Minister, you're destroying the Ministry of Natural Resources.

GLENN GOULD

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): The 10th anniversary of the death of Glenn Gould at the early age of 50 has been the occasion for tributes and special events. I would like to take this opportunity to add a few remarks in the Ontario Legislature.

Gould was born in Toronto and was an outstanding musician and pianist. His virtuoso

interpretations of Bach are particularly famous for their technique and his distinctive

interpretations.

It was in his character to go his idiosyncratic way. Beneath apparent eccentricity was a consistent wisdom. In 1964, he made a deliberate decision to stop being a concert artist, feeling that performance was better done through recordings. He still maintained himself in the forefront of pianists of his time, evidence of his capacity to continue his horizons and those of his audience. He was evidently ahead of his time, relishing McLuhan's electronic village and using media to communicate his thoughts on music and much more.

He was a creator for television and radio, and in the past two weeks we have been able to hear on CBC radio his documentaries. They clearly show his insight into his surroundings and his vision of Canada as a northern country.

The increasing interest in his life and works, which has been very much helped by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp and by our Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications, which supported the 1992 Glenn Gould Conference, appropriately enough on "Music and Communications in the 21st Century," bears testimony to how much his life and works fit our electronic age.

KIDNEY DIALYSIS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Kidney dialysis patients in the Niagara region and the dedicated staff at Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines are still confronted with the appalling conditions in the kidney dialysis unit at Hotel Dieu, while funds from the Ministry of Health are allocated elsewhere in the province.

To accommodate the close to 100 patients, the unit must operate from 8 am until 11 o'clock at night, six days a week. The facilities are clearly overcrowded and inadequate. The equipment is outdated and the area utilized is far too small.

I had an opportunity, along with the other members from the Niagara region, to tour with Dr Manning and other medical and administrative staff this particular unit at Hotel Dieu. We came to the conclusion that only the dedication and commitment of the staff allows this essential, life-preserving unit to continue to operate.

I've raised the plight of kidney dialysis patients on numerous occasions in the House and elsewhere. I will continue to focus attention on the intolerable situation until the Hotel Dieu Hospital receives its fair share of the Ontario health care budget to meet the genuine and urgent need at Hotel Dieu.

As Jack Leake, one of the patients, said: "The Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines has operated the regional life support program for dialysis in the Niagara Peninsula since 1974. I've written numerous letters to Premier Bob Rae and the Minister of Health. We are now in need of the $49 million to be spent for dialysis, bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy and heart surgery." All they want is their fair share of that allocation.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I read with great interest the Minister of Transportation's statement, reported in the press today, that he's preparing draft legislation to introduce graduated licensing into Ontario.

Considering that I and my fellow caucus member David Turnbull, the member for York Mills, have been lobbying your government through petitions from our constituents and questions in the House to make these changes for more than a year, I suppose I could congratulate you on your quick reaction, but that would be premature. I regret that you've taken as long as you have to admit that there's a problem and that you have taken this long to once again only give lipservice to the idea instead of releasing the draft bill. An inordinate number of new drivers are involved in accidents on Ontario roads, and we must bring changes to make our roads safer for everyone.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Forty-two years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Tilson: Your inaction to date on this legislation has cost lives in Ontario, Mr Minister. If you had introduced graduated licences when this government fell into power over two years ago, you could have saved more than 2,400 lives in Ontario. That's almost four deaths a day caused by inexperienced drivers on the road in situations that could be avoided with tighter legislation.

Some 40% of the deaths on the roads involve inexperienced drivers, Mr Minister. It is time for you to stop saying that you will act on this problem and actually do something. Let's see your draft legislation. Move forward and deal with saving lives in Ontario. Why not encourage your party to set aside its job-killing legislation, such as Bill 40, and focus instead on life-saving legislation, such as graduated licensing?

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): This is Waste Reduction Week all across Ontario, and I would like to take a few moments to inform the House on what is happening in my riding of Cochrane North. Many people believe the north to be a pristine wilderness with an abundance of good, clean drinking water, plenty of fresh air and people living in harmony with their environment. Sadly, this isn't always the case.

Northerners create garbage just like people in southern Ontario. We too are concerned about landfills taking over our land, mill and factory emissions polluting our air, and toxins poisoning our drinking water. We realize that our land has a limited amount of resources. While we must get the maximum utilization of these resources, we also must maintain the balance of nature.

I'm proud to say that many of the towns in my riding are working on the 3Rs principle: reduce, reuse and recycle. Community action groups are educating people on the importance of the 3R program all over Cochrane North. In Smooth Rock Falls, the Minister of the Environment has granted money to supply 100 composters to houses to divert household waste from landfills. Kapuskasing has organized a committee to look into starting the blue box program. Spruce Falls Inc in Kapuskasing is spending $38 million on a water effluent treatment process, to ensure water in the area isn't affected by the paper mill.

The challenges of recycling are even greater in the north than in the large metropolitan areas due to the economies of scale. Nevertheless, the people of Cochrane North are concerned about their environment and are working hard to preserve the land and resources for everyone's use.

MISSISSAUGA YES COMMITTEE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Today at 5:30 in the Sussex Centre in Mississauga, there will be a kickoff rally for the Mississauga Yes committee. I'm proud to tell everyone in this House that the buttons they were wearing yesterday and I'm wearing again today were distributed by that committee. The red and white ribbons that many members of all three parties have been wearing were the brainchild of that committee. It's a campaign that we hope will spread right across Canada.

This summer I had the pleasure of being in Kenora during the Olympics to witness the gold ribbon campaign that was put on in the city of Kenora for Michael Smith. It was very, very effective and I believe this red and white ribbon campaign can be equally effective if it spreads right across Canada. We in the Yes committee in Mississauga will be urging people in our community and indeed everywhere to tie a red and white ribbon on the tree, on the lamppost, on their antenna, on their doorknob, to wave it for Canada and to say Yes.

To show the non-partisan nature in the way our community is working together, Mr Des Morton, the Canadian historian, who is known to everyone in this House, is our honorary chair. Mr Tim Peterson, Mr Dick Clewes and Mrs Jean Foster are the acting chairs representing all three parties. It's truly non-partisan and we all hope to lead Mississauga to a Yes for Canada.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The UN General Assembly has designated October 1 as International Day for the Elderly which is today being observed for the first time throughout the world. Today we join in paying tribute to the many contributions of the elderly to our society. Today we may also reflect on how the needs of seniors are being met by this government. But if Ontario seniors were to grade the NDP on its handling of their needs, the final mark would be quite unacceptably low.

After completely ignoring any reference to seniors in the last throne speech, the NDP proceeded to drastically cut from the Ontario drug benefit program drugs used by seniors, such as Trental and Persantine. The Ontario tax grant, brought in by the PC government to address rising education taxes paid by seniors, will be cut by the NDP which will take $100 million in total from the program. Ontario seniors won't receive any assistance from the NDP Fair Tax Commission while at the same time being hit by hidden tax increases.

The NDP also announced budget cuts to municipally run homes for the aged to the tune of $27 million. Seniors are still waiting for changes to long-term care reforms which appear to be on indefinite hold. Finally, the NDP Health ministry has changed residency criteria for OHIP benefits from four to six months without advising seniors.

On International Day for the Elderly, Bob Rae should remember that seniors deserve to benefit from their years of sacrifice, hard work and many contributions to society. On this day, however, Ontario seniors give the NDP record on their needs an F, which stands for "forgotten." Seniors say, "Bob Rae, if you're going to forget us, you can also forget our support during the next provincial election."

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It's with a lot of pleasure that I have an opportunity to rise in the House today in order to tell members of the Legislature and other people watching of a great initiative that has been undertaken by this government by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Honourable Shelley Martel, and the ministry.

We started working with a concerned group of people who are involved within the mining industry throughout northern Ontario in an organization called Save Our North. About 12 months ago, they challenged this government to move on five initiatives, to move forward on a number of issues in order to make the whole situation in mining a lot easier for mining companies and mining juniors, in order to bring on line the amount of reserves that we need within our resource base to keep the mining industry the key player that it is in our economy.

A number of those things that we have announced in the House we've already moved ahead on, namely, the one-window approach to permitting within the mine system. We're looking at some legislation in order to enable the whole situation on how mining companies interact with government much easier.

We announced on Monday the release of a document on mining incentives for the mining industry. That document, which was prepared through the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines in consultation with the private sector, looks at finding better and smarter ways of utilizing government taxpayers' money to be able to assist the mining sector in order to find which way we can get the biggest bang for our buck.

The paper was released in Timmins on Monday. I would like to quote some of the comments that were made by someone from within the industry about this particular thing:

"'This is a new approach that could work better than flow-through,' said Parry. 'This program rewards successful over unsuccessful and that's a huge advantage. It's rewarding success over activity. It's pretty astute.'"

I want to say that because it was a long time coming, took a lot of work and received good cooperation among all people and between the private sector and the government.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to inform members that we have some very special guests with us today, a visiting delegation which includes two speakers of the provincial assemblies of Pakistan, accompanied by the consul general of Pakistan, and Mr Loftus who was the Speaker of the Wisconsin House for some 10 years. Welcome to our assembly.

We also have, seated in the members' gallery west, Mr Ross Young, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, and Mr Velshi, who is the former member for Don Mills. Both of you are most welcome to our chamber this afternoon. Please welcome them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DESIGN EXCHANGE

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Earlier today, my cabinet colleague Karen Haslam and I announced that the Ontario government is providing $2.5 million to help create a home for the Design Exchange here in Ontario.

This new facility will contain an auditorium for exhibitions, a design shop, a new product centre and a resource centre. It will be located at the Ernst and Young Tower, which includes the former Toronto Stock Exchange building.

Through our support, the Ontario government is recognizing the importance of design as a cornerstone of Ontario's future economic growth. Indeed, design was highlighted in our government's recent industrial policy framework as a key component in moving our economy towards higher value added activities.

This is why Ontario's contribution to the Design Exchange is being funded through our Jobs Ontario Capital fund. Through this $2.3-billion fund, we are investing in important infrastructure projects that will create jobs today and over the long term.

In the case of the Design Exchange, our investment will create over 100 direct and indirect person-years of employment in construction, a sector that has been particularly hard hit by the recession. When the centre becomes fully operational in 1993, it will employ 14 permanent, full-time staff.

Beyond these immediate benefits, we believe that our support for the Design Exchange will prove to be a long-term investment in the province's capabilities to carry out continuous innovation.

Our recent industrial policy aims to encourage innovation in this province. This means we have to work smarter. We have to create goods and services that people truly want to buy, products and services that have design appeal.

Design appeal can mean many different things: clever function, outstanding beauty or economic sense. But most of all, design creates products that satisfy consumer needs. In short, more and more discriminating consumers are demanding well-designed products and services. Good design can help to create these products and services of the future.

There is no question that design adds value. For example, a study by the Industrial Design Society of America showed that every dollar spent on industrial design generated an average of $2,500 in increased sales.

Ontario is not alone in recognizing the importance of design. We fully expect that our federal government and the private sector will join us in supporting the Design Exchange. In addition, the city of Toronto is supporting this project through an innovative agreement of its own. For our part, the Ontario government will continue to work with our design sector to build awareness of Canada's design talents both here at home and abroad.

The challenge now is to build on our success from the past and make excellence in design a recognized quality in all that we produce. The promotion of Canadian design not only represents good public policy, but good business sense. In future, I believe the same will be said of Ontario's investment in building the Design Exchange.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): It is a pleasure for me to join my cabinet colleague Ed Philip in announcing a $2.5-million grant under the Jobs Ontario Capital program to launch the Design Exchange. It is a recognition, both of the economic significance of culture and the integral importance of design to industry, that the two ministries are partners in today's announcement.

The Design Exchange will help create much-needed jobs for architects, industrial designers, software specialists, engineers and artists. Investing in good design not only makes us a more successful society, but it improves our lives and enriches our experience.

The Ministry of Culture and Communications is committed to initiatives that support economic renewal through our cultural industries. This grant from the Jobs Ontario Capital program will help ensure that our talent and ingenuity in design are recognized worldwide for outstanding goods and services.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers? Responses?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to respond to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and just say to him that if he believes this is going to be a significant step forward in the economy of Ontario, he's dead wrong.

My concern is that the government continues to say the Jobs Ontario Capital will create new jobs. The minister knows that the Jobs Ontario Capital fund was created exclusively by cutting back capital in other areas. You've only got to look at the budget. You cut capital in every single area and created a budget of $500 million. There is no new money; statement, end of fact. All it is is a public relations exercise where they've cut the capital, put it into a fund, hired an advertising agency and then gone around making these announcements. You are doing nothing to get the Ontario economy going again.

All the people in the province simply have to look at this page in the budget to show that they are spending exactly the same money on capital this year as last year. The only difference is they cut $500 million out and set up this special fund.

As I said before in the House, the only new job created here is the advertising agency. The government has gone out and hired an advertising agency to try to make itself look good.

You've announced 14 jobs today, and we appreciate that. Yesterday, I think, in the province of Ontario there were well over 500 people who lost their jobs due to layoffs. I have here the record on plant closures. There are four pages here just to the end of August this year of plant closures in the province of Ontario.

The people of Ontario are looking for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology to come forward with some proposals that are going to stop these plant closures rather than spend this time today making an announcement that the Minister of Culture and Communications could have just as easily made herself and to spend his time slowing down these dramatic layoffs.

You talk about capital spending. If we look at what's happened in the construction trades, in August 1992 there were 15% fewer people working in construction than there were a year ago. We see that the unemployment rate in the province of Ontario is at record levels. We see right here in Metropolitan Toronto unemployment higher than in the rest of Canada. We see in the rest of Canada the unemployment rate dropping in August. What's happening in Ontario? It is going up dramatically.

If you will forgive us for calling this a cynical announcement, there is no new money in the Jobs Ontario Capital fund. It is simply repackaging of old money, and we would urge the minister to get on with some real economic renewal programs in the province of Ontario and help get those record numbers of people back to work.

Unfortunately, I understand that perhaps later today we may be hearing that another 400 workers from de Havilland will be laid off. We see the minister today announcing 14 jobs, and we understand that's a step, but during the time he's making this announcement, 400 more people in this province are out of work. It's time to get on with some action by this government to solve this unemployment problem.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): Recognizing the economic limitations of this initiative that my colleague has so aptly pointed out, I want only to say that the concept of a Design Exchange is one that I rather like. I like the idea that we will provide more help to Ontario designers and artists to get their designs into production and marketed. I like the idea that we're going to do that in a way that I hope will benefit Ontario artists and other creative Ontarians, Ontario designers of computer software and medical equipment and Ontario architects and engineers.

Two notes of caution: I hope the minister will ensure that Ontario artists benefit from this initiative, not only designers of readily marketable industrial goods but also Ontario artists. To us, it often seems that the major thrust of this ministry is cutbacks and cancellations and layoffs, and the Art Gallery of Ontario doors are still closed. However, it is nice to see something tangible coming forward, something that will benefit Ontario artists, I hope.

Let's have more of this kind of initiative, more real hands-on help to Ontario organizations and agencies and Ontario artists and promoters of Ontario culture.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I suspect that until the $2.3 billion is used up, we're going to have these announcements. My recollection is $2.5 million; tomorrow we'll spend some more money.

The fact of the matter is that the only investment being done in Ontario is when the government is involved. There is no new investment coming from the outside. As has been mentioned, 100 jobs will be created. The fact is that you're losing 500 a day. You're down 400 today alone, Mr Minister. Your labour legislation, according to estimates, will drive out $8 billion to $10 billion. That's four times the total amount you're going to spend in the entire Jobs Ontario Capital funding; four times that will be going out of this province because of your initiatives.

The fact of the matter is, Mr Minister, that you're overtaxing, you're overregulating, you're overlegislating, you're overgoverning. The fact of the matter is that industry is leaving this province in record numbers. This Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology should be embarrassed by the fact that under his direction we are losing more jobs than at any other time in our history. This is a disgrace.

I say to the minister that if you're going to get going, what you need to do is get this economy going by reducing some of the impediments to business and by getting some investment climate so people will want to come here. You're not going to be able to create the jobs to get the 500 we're losing today with all-government money. At the same time this minister is making these announcements, the Treasurer says we're going to increase taxes. That will do more to drive investment out than any of these announcements.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I suppose the most discouraging part about this announcement is that this is billed as one of the cornerstones in the revitalization to the economic woes of this province.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): No new money.

Mr Stockwell: There is no new money. It is money that's simply being recycled through the budget process. This minister and the Treasurer certainly know that.

What really is discouraging is that the two ministers stand up to make a much-ballyhooed announcement about 14 jobs. Five hundred jobs a day are being lost and two ministers stand here -- we can't find them when important announcements need to be made -- two ministers seem to find the time today to announce 14 jobs.

The people in this province --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, 500 jobs a day; thousands and thousands of people are out of work. The economic cornerstone they're hoping to build on represents a design centre in downtown Toronto that when completed will employ 14 people. That's what the people in this province have to look forward to in the way of leadership and growth from this provincial government.

If these two ministers were to put themselves in those unemployed people's shoes, maybe then they'd understand just how discouraging, just how disappointing this kind of announcement is.

The Speaker: Further responses?

Mr Bradley: I'll respond some more.

The Speaker: That's very kind and generous, but the rules don't permit it. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAYOFFS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I came into the House today wanting to reflect on the fact that the people of this province woke up to more bad economic news today. My question was going to be somewhat different because I wanted to address that sense of desperation that people are feeling and the fact that the morning's news simply added to that sense of desperation.

My first question today will now be to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, whose announcement, the announcement that has just been made, speaks to no comfort for those people who are feeling a sense of desperation. But beyond that, I'm sure the minister must have been aware that as he was coming into the House to make that particular statement, there was news about yet another layoff: 400 workers at de Havilland who are about to be laid off. This is a company that this government has had some very direct involvement in.

Why has this minister come into the House today to make a statement that simply plays on the periphery of the deepest concerns that people have and refuses to make any kind of statement at least acknowledging a further loss of 400 jobs in this province?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): There is, at the present time, a gap in the orders at de Havilland. De Havilland is alive and well, and it was thanks to the policies of this Treasurer and this ministry that we were able to save the company and not have it go down the drain the way the Conservatives and the Liberals would have done if they'd been in power.

Mrs McLeod: My question to the minister relates to the fact that we keep seeing statements by this government trying to tell people in this province that everything is rosy and that everything is fine: Another 14 jobs have just been created and a little bit more money has been shuffled around within the capital budget so there'll be some short-term job creation.

My question to the minister is, when will he and his government start to acknowledge that we have some very fundamental economic problems and that for every 14 jobs they can find to announce in the House there are another 370 jobs being lost every day? When will they acknowledge that fact and when will they acknowledge that their industrial strategy is not creating one single new job?

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable leader of the official opposition is the first to recognize that we have faced the problem of an economic crisis across North America, and indeed a recession around the world. But it would be nice if she would at least recognize that it's more than 14 jobs that were created with this announcement. It is a policy that for the first time there's an industrial policy for this province, which she failed to create, that will create competitiveness, which she failed to create and which her government failed to create.

Let's look at exactly what is happening. The fact is that Ontario continues to attract investment and companies and is successfully competing in the global marketplace.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Nobody takes that crap seriously.

Hon Mr Philip: I know the member for Oriole, with all her noise, doesn't want to hear good news, but I intend to tell it anyway for the sake of the members who would like to hear it. Glassco --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister take his seat, please. Before proceeding, I would ask members that despite the emotional impact of the issues being raised, members would please exercise some restraint and allow people to place questions and allow people to respond to those questions.

Hon Mr Philip: The leader of the official opposition started off this session by saying that she wanted to provide constructive opposition. I haven't heard one constructive idea from those people on how we can rebuild the economy.

Mrs McLeod: Let me assure the honourable member opposite that at any point at which we change seats we will offer the constructive alternatives that will really deal with the economy of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs McLeod: The government House leader talks about copouts. It seems to me it's a copout when the people responsible for providing leadership in economic times keep saying to the opposition, "What would you do?"

If I had not been provoked by the specific comments, what I wanted to come back and say to this minister is, in all seriousness, how can he possibly put so many empty words into the faces of such very desperate people? Surely the minister realizes that the people in this province are without jobs, that they're losing hope daily.

Yesterday I talked to two families in Windsor, where the unemployment rate is 14.3%, and those two families that have had long-time businesses in Windsor told me how close they were to bankruptcy after all these years. They really reflected for me that sense of desperation. In the face of that desperation, all we get from this minister and all we get from this government are announcements and reannouncements of programs that don't actually create any new permanent jobs for people.

In responding to the minister's statement, our critic has very clearly indicated, and we can take the minister

chapter and verse through the budget --

The Speaker: Will the member conclude her supplementary, please?

Mrs McLeod: -- to show that the Jobs Ontario Capital fund that he has reannounced today does not create one new job. It simply moves money from one place to another. I would ask the minister, how can he keep misleading the public by trying to tell them that these programs are actually creating new permanent jobs?

Hon Mr Philip: As I pointed out in estimates to the critic from the Liberal Party, this minister has provided in this year's budget 96% more direct assistance to business to rebuild from the recession than her government did during the last year in which it was in power.

Some $300 million in assistance through our development corporations to small businesses across the province, that's what we're doing, and I say that's doing an awful lot more for rebuilding the economy in this province and for rebuilding businesses and for creating jobs than the doom and gloom she preaches all the time. What is that doing for jobs?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs McLeod: My second question is to the Minister of Labour, because I want to ask this minister about his government's latest misinformation campaign.

The minister released a press release yesterday on amendments to the labour relations proposals, and I have to say that no matter what the press release says, Bill 40 is still not going to address the concerns we hear from people across this province. This bill is still going to jeopardize the ability of employers to survive a labour disruption. It still threatens the delivery of critical services in the province and it still discourages investment and jobs.

I ask the minister why he and his Premier are so convinced that the statement I just made is not true, that this legislation is not going to discourage investment, is not going to cost jobs. Why do they keep refusing to do their own job impact studies? What are they both so afraid of?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to tell the leader of the official opposition that I'm not afraid of anything she's raised. We think that what we're doing is the answer. We don't think this country can go down a low-wage route, which is what she is suggesting. We think there has to be an involvement, in the province of Ontario, with workers as well as business, and that is essential if we're ever going to begin to turn around the kind of economic situation we have.

Mrs McLeod: The government has now tabled all the changes it seems prepared to make to the bill and it is difficult for us to find anything that's truly significant in those changes. We're also only too well aware that it has always been this government's intention to ram this piece of legislation through this House this fall.

I would say to the Minister that I believe the consultations this government conducted were a total sham from start to finish. The minister himself did not bother to attend the committee meetings and listen to what the groups had to say. The government set the date for the passage of the bill even before the hearings themselves began. The committee got to hear from only one in five who wanted to make representations to the committee because of the strict time limits the minister imposed, and now the minister has introduced a package of amendments which are just simply tinkering with the bill.

I ask the minister, how can you deny that these public consultations were simply a sham, that your amendments are merely tinkering and that you had absolutely no intention of making any significant changes to this legislation, that you intend simply to ram the bill through the House?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the choice of words of the leader of the official opposition is unfortunate, and it's adding to some of the problem we have and some of the false campaign that's been spread across this province over what might happen as a result of this legislation.

The business ads she seems to rely on are based on a bill that does not include many of the things the information in those ads is based on. I can also tell her very clearly that I don't think we could have moved any changes, other than withdrawing the bill totally, that would have got one word of congratulations from anybody on that side of the House. Therefore, I think we have to proceed with what we see, as a result of our consultations, as being the proper approach to the situation in Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: The minister of course completely failed to address the question, which was, how do you deny that the consultations were a sham when you and the government House leader had already closed off debate and set a date for passage of this legislation before the hearings even started?

As the minister indicates that he questions whether we would support any changes he might have proposed, let me raise one of the specific changes we believed was responding to the concerns we heard from both business and workers. One of those issues was raised consistently by people who appeared before the legislative committee, and it was the need to protect the rights of workers and employees during organizing drives and strike votes.

If the minister were being fair, I think he would acknowledge that there are many groups and individuals who believe that a mandatory secret ballot for certification is essential to provide a fair and democratic process and to ensure that employees are not coerced or intimidated by a show-of-hands vote. Clearly, these voices have been ignored by the minister. Clearly, this was one of the amendments this government could have brought in if it had been listening.

I would ask the minister whether or not he cares about the business impact, whether or not he cares about the job loss. If he is committed to workers' rights, if he believes in the democratic process, if he has indeed been listening to the concerns that were being raised, why would he not introduce an amendment which would go a long way to protect the rights of workers and allow them to vote freely and without fear for or against a union?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Very frankly, I'm not sure just what credit to give to that comment, given the fact that you've said it was a totally useless exercise in consultation. This minister attended meetings with 330 groups around the province.

Interjection: Handpicked.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Handpicked? The majority were business. We'll tell the business people at those hearings.

The member knows that the minister doesn't usually sit in once you get into the standing committee of the House, although I had no difficulty if I had been requested to do so.

I want to tell you also that in terms of the vote, that's not been the approach in Ontario since the Tories brought this legislation in 40 or 50 years ago, and I don't know why we'd take a step backwards in what we have in the way of labour legislation in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): This is the first time I have ever heard a minister of the crown say that moving to improve the democratic rights of workers is a step backwards. Shame on you. The one opportunity where you had the chance to take a positive step forward, you did not do so.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Harris: My question is also to the Minister of Labour. Minister, yesterday when I asked the Premier about your job-killing legislation, the Premier said, and I now quote from Hansard: "There's no threat to jobs in this legislation; everybody knows it." That was the direct quote from your Premier.

Minister, I don't believe the Premier's statement is correct. Can you produce in this House today one shred of evidence that will back up the Premier's claim that there is no threat to jobs in this legislation? Do you have one shred of evidence, other than the Premier saying so, that will back up the claim and restore some credibility to your Premier's statement of yesterday?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's unfortunate that the leader of the third party puts the working people of this province in such a lower position --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: What he is saying --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Minister of Labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want you to know that I agree with my Premier's position. I think one of the things that's wrong in this province is that in a very tough economic situation we have not decided that one of the important things we have to do is involve the workers themselves in the decisions that affect them and give them some input, some empowerment in making the changes that may need to be made in the province of Ontario. That's exactly what's behind the legislation we have before us now. I think it will mean a real improvement in our ability to compete in this province.

Mr Harris: We've heard you tell Bob White, we've heard Bob White tell Bob Rae, we've heard the three Bobs all tell each other that you believe something to be so. I asked you if you had one shred of evidence from anybody other than one of the three Bobs -- the Billy Bobs -- to support the statement the Premier made.

We know of two impact studies that both claim this legislation will destroy jobs and kill investment in Ontario. One was commissioned by the Liberals back in 1990; you won't even acknowledge that one. The second was done by the internationally renowned firm of Ernst and Young; you continually smear and discredit their study.

Minister, Ernst and Young estimates that 295,000 jobs will be killed by your legislation. Many who came before you at the hearings told you the same thing. You tell us that they're all wrong. Ernst and Young is wrong; all the other independent studies are wrong. Your Premier said yesterday, "There are no threats to jobs in this legislation." I'm asking you one more time: Do you have one shred of evidence, other than you three Bobs chatting among yourselves, that supports that claim?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it really difficult to understand why the leader of the third party would not believe that if we can involve, in a positive and productive way, the workers in this province much more effectively in the decisions that affect them and how we want business, we would have a more productive economy. I think that just goes without saying.

Mr Harris: Both you and the Premier, without one shred of evidence to the contrary, have smeared the one study that's been made public. You refuse to acknowledge the Liberal study, but the Ernst and Young study was an independent one. You call the Ernst and Young study "misleading" and "fearmongering." The Treasurer calls the Ernst and Young study "bogus."

This morning, the public accounts, the blue book, came out. Ministry after ministry list the consulting firm of Ernst and Young in their statements. In fact, Minister, your government paid out nearly $4 million in one year to Ernst and Young just for consulting services; 16 different ministries consulted with Ernst and Young, paying $4 million.

Can you explain to me why Ernst and Young have credibility with 16 different ministries, to the tune of $4 million, as appears in these accounts alone this year, but when they do a study you disagree with, even though you have no study of your own to refute it, somehow or other you dismiss the results as misleading, as bogus, as fearmongering? Can you explain why 16 ministries think their advice is pretty good, but on this study, when you disagree, it's bogus?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The survey -- and it was much more a survey than a study -- itself said it might be coloured by the respondents' opposition to the labour legislation, their desire to see that we didn't proceed with it. So I think there is a real question of credibility.

I can tell you also that the figures that are used, the figures you're now using, are figures that don't stand up, because they're based on a bill that had been changed dramatically months before that survey was finished. It just seems to me that it does not hold water, and I don't know why you continue to say that a study that was not a study but a survey of opinions of business people --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Because it's the only one we've got, Bob. Where's yours?

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- is now the Bible for us in what we do in this province.

Mr Harris: My second question is also to the Minister of Labour. He keeps telling us he represents working men and women across this province; unfortunately, he's representing a shrinking audience, by the tune of 500 every day.

Minister, you and your Premier, whether you three Bobs understand it or not, have absolutely no credibility on this issue of the jobs that are being destroyed and the investment that is being lost with your legislation.

Yesterday you told us you had listened and in fact made changes to the legislation. In fact, when we got a chance to look at them, most objective observers have described your amendments as little more than window dressing. Some of yesterday's amendments actually involve no more than grammatical changes to the French translation of the bill; you've tried to count those to make it look a little better.

Could you tell me this: How have the changes you made addressed in any way the universal concerns that were brought by working men and women all across this province, by card-carrying union members all across this province -- I know not by the union leaders, but by the working men and women who pay their salaries, by the business community, by virtually all sides except the union leaders, the Bob Whites? We know they didn't want secret ballot rights.

Can you explain why not one change was brought forward, if you were truly listening, to a fundamental, democratic right that the vast majority of card-carrying union members in this province wanted: the right to a secret ballot? Why did you not listen to that and bring it forward for certification and strike votes?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If we can get away from the unfortunate and I think nasty character attack on union leaders in this province, I don't think they're as negative as the leader of the third party seems to think; I think most of them are ready to see major changes to try and deal with a tough economic situation. So that, as a matter of fact, is unfortunate.

In any event, I'd like to see the figures the leader of the third party is using in terms of this overwhelming demand by workers for a change in the legislation in terms of a vote that's been in place for 40 or 50 years. I certainly haven't heard it.

Mr Harris: I think you will know that one very reputable polling firm asked card-carrying union members, and I think 86% said they wanted the secret ballot right. Do you have a study done by anybody that shows their independent study was wrong? I ask the minister that again.

You know what you announced yesterday was nothing more than a public relations exercise. We understand that. I guess it was something you felt you had to go through to pretend you were listening. But you did not listen to shop-floor union workers; that is clear: There is no provision for a secret ballot. You didn't listen to business; that is clear: The provisions that most hurt them, you left untouched.

And what did this so-called "consultation process" cost? It cost $200,000 of taxpayer money for public consultations that you totally ignored. Minister, let me ask you this: Why did you waste $200,000 of taxpayer money and all the time and money of the private sector, union and individual presentations before the committee if you knew in advance you weren't going to listen anyway?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are suggestions, including suggestions in the changes -- and I don't intend to go into detail; they'll be discussed in the committee -- that came directly from some of the businesses and from some of the big businesses in this province.

I think it's unfortunate that the kind of categorization once again has been given that we've had from the leader of the third party. I don't think it's accurate, I don't think it holds up, and it certainly doesn't show an understanding of what people want in terms of changes in the province of Ontario.

Mr Harris: By way of supplementary on the other question, the minister asked for evidence. Environics, a reputable polling company, said that 88% of NDP supporters and 89% of union members agree that the choice of union or non-union representation in the workplace should be decided by secret ballot. So you did not listen to 89% of card-carrying union members in this province.

I ask you then again, why did you spend $200,000 on a process which your own NDP committee Chair acknowledged was a sham? Halfway through he said, "There'll be no significant changes made." Now we know that was true, having seen your amendments yesterday. We know you ignored 89% of card-carrying union members, and you don't even have any advance on an impact study of your own to show for the 200,000 taxpayer dollars you spent.

Minister, this game you're playing with Ontario's economic future, with the jobs of our working men and women, with the future jobs for our children and the men and women who are looking for some hope from you, from this government and from this province has gone far enough. Ontario cannot afford your payback to the big union bosses against the objection of business, against the objection of virtually 90% of card-carrying union members.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: I would ask you this, Minister: Before you destroy and kill more jobs and more investment, will you take a positive step we will all applaud -- if you're looking for something positive from the opposition in a suggestion -- and scrap this job-killing legislation dead in its tracks right now?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member should understand that I'm not playing any games -- it's not my particular style -- and I don't intend to. I also find it interesting that you're now objecting to the $200,000 we spent on consultation when one of your arguments all along is that we haven't been willing to consult or haven't consulted. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I think the member should understand that there is a necessity to reach a level of cooperation and understanding between business and labour if we're going to get out of the mess we're in in this province, and that's exactly what we're aiming for.

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer and has to do with the status of this year's finances. The Treasurer will acknowledge that literally from the day he announced the Rae budget my leader and our party have questioned his revenue estimates. I know you don't agree with us. We've asked the Provincial Auditor, as you know, to examine it and give us an independent view on it.

I was interested a few short weeks ago, when you released your first quarter budget report, I think towards August 1, you said, "The 1992 budget remains on target." Treasurer, my question to you is this: I assume the budget is still on target. Can you confirm to the House today that the 1992 budget remains on target?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I am pleased to respond to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on this the second anniversary of the swearing in of this government. The member asks about whether the budget is on target. I am not completely certain as to which components of the budget he is referring to.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you would let me complete my sentence, I will try. If the member is talking about our revenues and expenditures, more details will be provided when we bring down the second-quarter finances about the end of October, but generally speaking, while there are the traditional pressures on our expenditures this year, we are going to work very hard to make sure that we do stay on target with our expenditures as much as we possibly can, and I think we can. On the revenue side, at this point in time there does not seem to be a reason for altering the projections that were in the budget.

To answer the member as directly as I can, yes, at this point in time we are on target. However, as I said, there are considerable expenditure pressures, but we intend to control those.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise it with the Treasurer is that at the time you release your quarterly report, the federal government, as you know, also releases its quarterly report, and there's a fair discrepancy, I think, Treasurer, in your numbers and what the federal government reports.

For example, you estimate that corporate profit revenues, corporate tax revenues, this year will go up by 5%. The federal government says, year to date, they're down by 32%. You estimate that your revenue from personal income tax will grow by a little more than 1%. The federal government says it is down by almost 4%. You say that your provincial sales tax revenue will increase by, I think, if I'm not mistaken, about 5%, and you cannot directly compare it, but the GST revenues are down by 18%.

I realize those are national numbers, Mr Treasurer, but the reason I raised it with the Treasurer was to give the Legislature some idea of this tremendous discrepancy between what the federal government's reporting, albeit national numbers, and what you're reporting. I'd like some assurance, Treasurer, that you have looked at the numbers and on the assurance you gave me earlier, that our revenues indeed are continuing to be spot on.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't use the term "spot on" any more, but I would say that when the federal budget came down in the spring I did comment at that time that I thought the numbers in the federal budget were somewhat optimistic. I believed it then and I believe it now.

We don't have a lot of numbers now that can make direct comparisons to the numbers the member for Scarborough-Agincourt uses. However, I do know that the corporate profits he refers to were up substantially in the first quarter of 1992, albeit from a very, very low base, so I'm not taking a great deal of satisfaction from that number, other than to say that at least it's an increase over 1991, which as we all know was a disastrous year for corporate profits.

I think at this point in time we do appear to be reasonably on target, as accurately as you can be when you're dealing with the billions of dollars. It is my intention in the next week or two to lay before the Legislature an economic outlook which will lay out some of the numbers and some of the revised forecasts for things such as unemployment rate and job creation for 1992. Then that will be followed at the end of the month by the second-quarter finances, which will of course lay out the expenditures and revenues for the first half of the fiscal year.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): My question is to the minister responsible for bringing us Bill 164, the Minister of Financial Institutions. Mr Minister, after your retreat or your holiday in Honey Harbour you were quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying that the insurance companies' premiums would not be increased as a result of your amendments. Prior to that, some time ago, you said that rates would drop by as much as $45.

All the actuarial studies that have been prepared by the insurance companies, particularly the Insurance Bureau of Canada, have said that rates will in fact go up anywhere from 20% to 50%. In the studies by Mercer, which you tabled in the House yesterday -- and which, I might add, you've been hiding for four months from us, because I see the date on it is June -- Mr Mercer also says that rates will increase, that the costs will increase.

Having heard all that, Mr Minister, having heard your contradictions back and forth and the statements of Mercer, are rates going to go up or are they going to go down as a result of Bill 164?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): It's unfortunate that the critic for the third party wasn't here when I made my comments during the debate yesterday, because I addressed specifically that question.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): They were brilliant. I was there; they were brilliant.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: Although obviously the member for Willowdale didn't hear them either, because he couldn't keep quiet long enough.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): We heard them.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: Oh, really? That apology? That wasn't a statement; that was an apology.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Charlton: All of the estimates the member is talking about are exactly that. They are actuarial estimates of the cost of a product that hasn't been implemented yet.

Mr Harnick: Now they're estimates. Yesterday they were figures.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: I note that the member had to correct himself when he talked about premiums and then had to correct himself to refer to costs. The Mercer study shows that the cost of our package will be about 4.5% higher than the cost of the Ontario motorist protection plan, a product which has been significantly overpriced in the marketplace for some time.

We still believe we can implement the new package for no cost. But I said very clearly yesterday during the course of the debate that although I wasn't prepared to see the industry get significant increases in advance, as the Liberals handed them in the last round, we would sit down with the industry and monitor the real cost, the loss cost to the industry, of this product and deal with it accordingly.

Mr Tilson: You know, you're the member who said we're going to have government-run auto insurance -- great promises.

Mr Minister, you've said that rates are not going to increase. That's what you've told us. In fact, some time ago you said that rates were going to decrease; they're going to go down by $45.

I look at Bill 164, and it looks like you're going to give your cabinet a lot more power. It looks like the cabinet is going to authorize the increasing or the decreasing of rates. I don't know what that's going to do to the insurance commission.

My question to the minister is: Do you intend to put forward government controls on what amount insurance companies can increase or decrease their companies' -- are you going to put that sort of control on that you did with respect to rent controls in housing?

Hon Mr Charlton: It is not our intention at this point.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Minister, last week you came to London to hear upwards of 60 submissions from the public regarding the London annexation proposal. You heard concern expressed regarding the protection of valuable environmental land, environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural lands, wetlands, wildlife corridors, heritage sites, valley lands and floodplain lands. You also heard about the need for comprehensive social planning, including affordable housing, social services, child care, health services and impaired transit.

Minister, what are you planning in response to the constructive suggestions you heard in London last week?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I appreciate the question and I appreciate the participation of all the local members last week in the hearings, both in our caucus and in the Conservative caucus, and the member is quite correct: There were a lot of very positive suggestions I believe can be incorporated into the legislation after we complete second reading and have the public hearing process here in Toronto and the clause-by-clause consideration of the legislation.

I agree with the presentations that were made last week that say that we need to strengthen the provisions of developing a social plan, the idea of a rural advisory committee, the idea that we have to improve the protection provided in the legislation for protection of the environment, and also the whole concept of improved compensation for the county and specifically the issue of suburban roads. Those are major issues that I believe we can together address with the people from the county and the city.

Mr Winninger: Concern was further expressed on behalf of the employees of the London Public Utilities Commission that following the elimination of the PUC, jobs, working conditions, benefits and job classifications be preserved.

Minister, what steps will you take to ensure that the terms of employment with the city, including remuneration, seniority, pension, superannuation, benefits, vacation and holiday pay, will be no less favourable than those enjoyed by the employees while in the employ of the London PUC?

Hon Mr Cooke: That commitment was given to the public utilities employees both by the province and by the city of London. We're working on the regulations that will be attached to Bill 75 and I've invited the direct participation of CUPE, along with the city of course, to develop regulations that will provide those protections for the current employees of the public utilities commission.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and it concerns the provision of school capital.

Minister, in going back through questioning in June, I note that on June 10 you indicated it was your hope that by the end of that month you would be in a position to tell the boards what their capital allocation would be for the 1994-95 fiscal year. Subsequently, on June 30, at the end of an announcement on another matter, you stated, "I would also like to tell members that announcements on the 1994-95 capital allocations will follow during the month of July."

I know that today is October 1. Indeed, the Treasurer reaffirmed that a few minutes ago. I would like to ask the Minister of Education when he will be announcing the allocations for school board capital for 1994-95 so that school boards can get on with the planning they need to do. This is already over six months late in its announcement.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I think the member opposite is quite accurate in the description of the comments I had made and my anticipation at the time that I would in fact be in a position to make the announcements before the end of the last sittings of this Parliament. I expect to be in a position very shortly, over the next couple of weeks, to indicate to the House one of two things: either to make the announcements or to indicate a specific time at which the announcements will be made.

I can just say very briefly that over the summer we have been looking at the requests. We have also been trying to look at some other issues that are related to the capital financing, which I know the member is aware of, one of those being the issue of the use of multi-use facilities and the encouragement of some of those initiatives.

Quite frankly, we are at the point now of trying to make a decision as to whether we should proceed with announcing the capital funding for the three years forward, in the same way that we've done before, or whether to take a little bit longer and to contemplate some further changes.

Mr Beer: Frankly, the answer that the minister has given today, like the one that he gave back in June, raises far more questions than it answers.

I have here a letter from the Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board and I've had concerns expressed by, in particular, other growth boards in Peel, Durham, York, Niagara, London and St Catharines, all those areas that are experiencing growth, saying: "We need to know what the allocation will be because we have learned now that we can plan, given that the previous government had said, 'We'll provide you with those capital announcements over a three-year span,' and here we are, still waiting for the 1994-95 announcement."

What the minister appears to have said is that he might make an announcement, he might make an announcement about when he will make an announcement, but the announcement that he might make may not be an announcement about capital but rather an announcement that might tell us something else. Frankly, I don't think that is acceptable to the school boards.

My question then is this. Minister, can you make a commitment, not simply to this House but to the school boards and to the parents of school children in this province, that before the end of October you will make a specific announcement about capital allocation for new school construction and, secondly, that next spring, following the budget, you will in the normal fashion make the announcement for the 1995-96 school capital allocation at that time and not six months later or even longer? Will you make those two commitments today in this House, Minister?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can say to the member opposite that certainly between now and the end of October I'll be in a position to be much clearer about the directions we are pursuing. I want nothing more, quite frankly, than to be able to make the announcement about those allocations.

I understand the pressures that the member has alluded to with respect to some of the growth boards, but we are also looking at that issue in terms of how we can be the most helpful to school boards in that area and along that issue. I have a meeting coming up with the advisory council that is working with me in the refinancing process, and we have this issue on the agenda to discuss.

That meeting is set for October 15, so certainly I expect that between now and the end of October I will have something more precise that I can announce.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. When you announced the formation of a commission on race relations, you stated publicly that it was your opinion that the justice system was rife with systemic racism. Statements such as that slander the reputation of every judge, crown attorney, justice of the peace and police officer who makes up the justice system. I advise you as well that you're also slandering the very people who work for you.

Stephen Lewis at the same time said we actually know very little about race relations in the courts or the laying of charges or the granting of bail or, above all, correctional institutions. How could you come to this conclusion? I'd like to know on what authority you made that conclusion public.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): To be clear, I was asked if I thought there were some systems in place within the traditional justice system in Ontario which might result in some people being treated differently from others.

I do believe that, and I gave as an example the way in which aboriginal people are treated in many northern communities and in some urban areas. We have a history of jailing far more native people than any other percentage of the population. We have had a history of jailing native people for failure to pay fines. We have a history of jailing native people for offences such as drinking.

When I was at the news conference, I suggested that our traditional justice system in Ontario has not been sensitive to native culture. It has not been sensitive to the way that native people have had to adjust to our society. I stand by those comments and I believe it is time that we took a close look at our justice system to see if it is sensitive, if it is aware, if the practices, the processes and the procedures we have in place have kept pace with a changing Ontario.

Mr Harnick: It's interesting to note that now that he has a chance to reflect on what he said, he is speaking with some qualification, and he's not generalizing about the very people who work for him who are owed an apology.

To go on, this commission that you've set up is designed to determine whether there's discrimination in the justice system. In order to present a clear and unbiased judgement of the justice system, is it not incumbent on the government and on you as Attorney General to release the crime statistics that we know exist, but have been hidden, so we know just who is entering the justice system and why?

Hon Mr Hampton: I would be pleased to engage in a debate with the member opposite as to what we understand by systemic discrimination. I want to point out to the member, and I pointed this out quite clearly at the press conference, that we're not engaged in an exercise of fault finding here, and I was very clear about that. We're engaged in a system of looking at the justice system in general in Ontario to see if there are practices, procedures and processes in place --

Mr Harnick: Tell us who was using the justice system. Just give us the statistics.

Hon Mr Hampton: -- that may treat some groups in a different way than others.

Mr Harnick: Then give us the statistics. We don't want your opinions any more.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Hampton: If the member had taken the time to read the terms of reference of the commission, he would understand that the commission will be entitled to engage in academic studies, objectives studies to review information that is available from police forces and other sources and to review, if it wishes, whatever statistics, whatever information may be available, both from present-day and historical data.

SHORELINE MANAGEMENT

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Previously, as a councillor for the township of Hay, I participated in the Ausable Bayfield Conservation Authority proposed shoreline management plan, and now, as a member of the provincial Legislative Assembly, I have continued in that participation.

But over the last number of months, Mr Minister, I have received many questions, concerns, letters etc from residents along the shoreline who have made comments with respect to the shoreline management plan, specifically areas where they feel they're going to be too restrictive on their properties, causing property values to depreciate.

I would like to know if the minister has accepted the shoreline management plan as proposed, or is he still open to questions and comments from citizens like the people from Hay township, Stephen etc?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): I thank the member for Huron for his question. I know this matter is of concern to many Ontarians, not just those in his own riding who own lakefront property. The Ministry of Natural Resources has been working with conservation authorities across Ontario for a period of several years to develop a policy statement establishing standards for mapping out flood and erosion hazards across the province. We are responsible for protecting the environment and minimizing threats to life and property.

I want to assure the member that the policy is in fact in draft form and that we are indeed accepting all comments and questions that land owners and others who are interested in the policy may have, and I'd be happy to receive as many as possible so that we can proceed on the basis of those concerns.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The member for Hamilton West, now the Minister of Colleges and Universities, was a member of the standing committee on social development when it released its report on food banks in April 1990. The member for Hamilton West pontificated at that time, "New Democrats consider that it is . . . an injustice and an insult to scores of thousands of Ontarians who are able to manage their own affairs, that they should be driven . . . to resort to the private charity of food banks . . . ."

The students of the University of Toronto, the students of York University, the students of Ryerson, after scraping together the money for their tuition, are being forced to use food banks on their very own campuses. These students can't find part-time jobs because the New Democratic government can't manage Ontario's economy. Mr Minister, what message do you have for these students who find themselves in such dire distress?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I think all of us understand that it is a very difficult time for many people in our population. Social assistance recipients, for whom we have virtually doubled our social assistance moneys, are still finding it difficult to stretch those dollars and in fact are patronizing food banks. It's not surprising that other people on income support programs have the same problem.

But I want to assure the member that we have tried to expand the availability of funds and programs through the Ontario student assistance program. Last year we added $50 million to OSAP, $20 million the year before. Our dollars already on record are 19% up from what they were last year. Those dollars are helping all those students who have eligibility capacity to access that program on a needs basis. We are doing our best to try to meet those needs.

I've asked the ministry, this very day in fact, to conduct a survey of Ontario's universities and colleges to try to determine what those additional needs are, if there are some, and to look at how many universities are finding students having to resort to those circumstances, so I can get a bit of a handle on that problem. That's a very new phenomenon in Ontario's universities and we want to respond to it as best we can.

Mrs O'Neill: I'm not sure that "as best we can" is going to do the job here. The Toronto Star of September 29 quotes Derek Sweeney, a director of the Daily Bread Food Bank, as saying that food bank officials have tried to discuss this very serious situation with government officials and they've been told that this is recession-based, that the problem will go away when the recession goes away. This is just a very callous response to a very serious situation.

Many of these students, and the minister knows this and made allusions to it, are sole-support mothers who are trying to upgrade their education, better their lives, do something for themselves and their children.

Minister, I'd like you to tell this House what the NDP government has as an action plan. You've told us you're going to gather facts, that you're going to try to determine needs. You know there are needs. These things would not be existing if there were not needs. Food banks would not be on campuses if there weren't real needs. Why do a survey?

I'd like to ask the minister what action plan he has when he gets these results he's seeking and what definite time lines he has to serve the students who are in a shameful and insulting condition on the campuses of this province.

Hon Mr Allen: I think that to call ministry officials' response to this question a callous response is not to take account of the facts that I just recited a few moments ago for the member. In fact, we are working very hard to deal with the issue.

First, we're looking at a significant reorganization of OSAP, and I would have to say that most of the options in that indeed respond to the need of sole-support parents, who you mentioned, for greater support in order to carry their studies through. I quite acknowledge that's an important problem with that particular group. Second, we're trying to find a one-window shopping opportunity for sole-support parents and for persons on social assistance so that they can better access OSAP and not have the runaround they've had under past governments, where they had to go to two different offices and they got two systems overlapping each other.

We're trying to solve those problems for those students, but that every single problem of every single student who has a financial problem of whatever source can be dissolved by the global problem is just simply a proposition that isn't totally tenable.

HIGHWAY BILLBOARDS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister has announced his intention to raise the fees for certain categories of field advertising signs from $45 to $60 in 1993, which represents a 33% increase. Other sign categories could see up to a 113% increase.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The sign issue has been an ongoing impasse, and yes, a dilemma for each and every Minister of Transportation throughout the years. Simply put, some of the signs and their impacts, which the honourable member is so justly prepared to defend, have not come under revision since 1982. That's a full 10 years and yet the cost of administration --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Gouge them. Gouge those taxes.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- vis-à-vis the program has gone on significantly each and every year.

Through normalcy, in order to honour the responsibility of having what you charge people responsible for advertising, a sum of money that comes at least close to the cost of running the program -- well, we're not quite there yet, but we know that these are very difficult times and that people should not be overburdened.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: By way of conclusion, we're also very much aware, very cognizant, that as of yet they're not impossible times.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Curling and Ms McLeod exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business and that Mr Eves and Mr Tilson exchange places in order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is from a number of people in my constituency. It says the following:

"I, the undersigned, hereby register my opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"I believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardship on many families.

"The amendments included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

I would like to indicate my support for this resolution and hope that the government will take it into consideration and follow its direction.

CATHOLIC HOSPITALS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition from about 300 residents of the Kemptville Mountain South/Mountain North Gore area and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario of our concerns in regard to the effects which the widely publicized revision of the Public Health Act will have on our Catholic hospitals. According to the proposals presently tossed around for the revision, hospitals in the future will be run by elected boards. This will seriously affect the philosophy and management style with which Catholic hospitals, especially those owned and run by religious sisters, are operated. We want our hospitals to reflect our faith and our philosophy of life.

"We thank the Legislature of Ontario in advance for addressing this important matter."

I support this and have signed this petition and I submit it to the Clerk of the Legislature.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature for a sound barrier on Highway 401 facing Wright Crescent. This petition is respectfully submitted to the Ontario Legislature, comprising 307 signatures of concerned residents on Wright Crescent, Reed Drive and Reading Street in the riding of Durham West. It is a call to action for the installation of a sound barrier for the

section of Highway 401 facing the homes on Wright Crescent from Westney road easterly for approximately one kilometre on the north side.

I attach my signature to this petition.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"To oppose the building of a second secondary high school in the Kenora school district."

I would like to make a correction on a petition that I presented yesterday regarding the same. Rather than 700 people, there were actually 1,060 signatures on that petition, and to date this petition totals 1,190 signatures.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I have another petition, from the members of the Wesleyan Church in Winchester, Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"To the Ontario Legislature and the Lieutenant Governor re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"We, the undersigned, register our opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of 'legal holiday' in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need of keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 per year -- from the definition of 'legal holiday' and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

It was signed by 26 members of the Wesleyan Church in Winchester.

GAMBLING

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has, in the past, vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos, despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly, along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition signed by 176 members of the staff at the Mississauga Hospital. It reads:

"We wish to state our objection to the proposal made by the Ontario Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, to use hospital pension moneys to invest and to serve as collateral for high-technology and high-risk investments."

It is signed. It says "the names and signatures of hospital employees objecting to the Ontario government's proposal to use our hospital pension money," and I affix my signature thereto.

VIOLENCE

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas there are for sale serial killer trading cards and board games in Ontario,

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

"To ban the sale of serial killer cards and board games in Ontario.

"We feel these items may encourage violence."

This is signed by over 100 constituents of mine, and I have affixed my name to the petition.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Northumberland county, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We, the undersigned, call on the Ontario government to maintain and improve our ambulance service. Ambulance services are vital to our community's health and our way of life. We can't afford a reduction in service."

I have signed this petition.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition.

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

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"That a stop be done about the price-fixing of gasoline by the major oil companies. From May 1, 1992, to the present, the price of gas has been jumping up and down. The price goes up on a Thursday or Friday and drops down on a Tuesday or Wednesday, just to go back up again the next weekend.

"It has gone from 48 cents per litre to as high as 59 cents a litre. If our government is at all interested in saving operating costs as well as jobs in Ontario, they need to have this price-fixing stopped now."

I present this petition, signed by over 200 of my constituents.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I hazard to guess at the number of people who have signed this petition, but in any case I will read it.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

I now affix my signature to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that's signed by about 100 people from around the province, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations;

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from 46 residents of Newbury, Wardsville and the city of London who petition the Legislature of Ontario, to set aside the arbitrator's report in connection with the London-Middlesex annexation, because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, because it awards too extensive an annexation to the city of London and will jeopardize the viability of Middlesex county and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

It's signed by 18 residents of Middlesex county and I have affixed my signature to the petition.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Another petition pertaining to Sunday shopping, addressed to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario "re amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act proposing wide-open Sunday shopping and the elimination of Sunday as a legal holiday:

"We, the undersigned, hereby register opposition in the strongest of terms to Bill 38, which will eliminate Sunday from the definition of a legal holiday in the Retail Business Holidays Act.

"We believe in the need for keeping Sunday as a holiday for family time, quality of life and religious freedom. The elimination of such a day will be detrimental to the fabric of society in Ontario and cause increased hardships on many families.

"The amendment included in Bill 38, dated June 3, 1992, to delete all Sundays except Easter -- 51 of them per year -- from the definition of a legal holiday and reclassify them as working days should be defeated."

This is signed by 24 members of St Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Spencerville, Ontario, and I have signed the petition.

ENVIRONMENTAL TAX

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here, signed by many residents in my riding, many of my constituents, such as Seth Caskey and Claudette Pickett, and they state that they are not in favour of the environmental levy tax and they're against any levy to be put on soda cans. These cans are 100% recyclable and are currently being recycled at a very high rate. To impose any further tax on the can industry will cripple the canning industry and send jobs south of the border.

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Premier Rae of the province of Ontario has forced upon the Ontario Legislature a change in the rules governing the procedures to be followed in the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has removed from members of the opposition the ability to properly debate and discuss legislation and policy in the Legislature by limiting the length of time a member may speak to only 30 minutes; and

"Whereas Premier Rae, who once defended the democratic rights of the opposition and utilized the former rules to full advantage in his former capacity as leader of the official opposition, has now empowered his ministers to determine unilaterally the amount of time to be allocated to debate bills they initiate; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has reduced the number of days that the Legislative Assembly will be in session, thereby ensuring fewer question periods and less access for the news media to provincial cabinet ministers; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has diminished the role of the neutral, elected Speaker by removing from that person the power to determine the question of whether a debate has been sufficient on any matter before the House; and

"Whereas Premier Rae has concentrated power in the Office of the Premier and severely diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are accountable to the people who elect them;

"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Rae to withdraw the rules changes imposed upon the Legislature by his majority government and restore the rules of procedure in effect previous to June 22, 1992."

That is signed by a number of residents of the province of Ontario.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LE TRAVAIL

On motion by Mr Owens, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 82,

an Act to amend the Employment Standards Act and the Workers Compensation Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et la

Loi sur les accidents du travail

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSURANCE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LES ASSURANCES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 164,

An Act to amend the Insurance Act and certain other Acts in respect of Automobile Insurance and other Insurance matters / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances et certaines autres lois en ce qui concerne l'assurance-automobile et d'autres questions d'assurance

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Essex South.

Interjection.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Does the member for Cambridge want to make a contribution at this time? Later on. Okay, I'm sure you will.

Yesterday afternoon, I took some time --

Interjection: Remo, who's their PA?

Mr Mancini: Who is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Financial Institutions? Are we allowed to know?

Interjection: He has to be here.

Mr Mancini: Is the parliamentary assistant here? We know the minister is unfortunately unable to join us.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Somebody should be here.

Mr Mancini: The parliamentary assistant is here. We thank him for his attendance.

Yesterday afternoon, I took a few moments to inform the Legislature and to remind the Legislature and to inform the public how it is that we came to be debating Bill 164. I reminded the Legislature and the general public who were watching of the many promises that had been made by the socialist NDP government.

I reminded us all of how they unceremoniously broke that promise, how that broken promise caused turmoil within the New Democratic Party caucus itself and within the membership of the New Democratic Party, and how it more or less forced the minister's hand, to come up with some piece of legislation that in fact changes the present Ontario motorist protection plan so that they can go around the province and at least be able to say, "We changed the legislation that had been put in place," whether or not the legislation is being changed to the benefit of the people, whether or not these changes reflect in any way the promises that the socialist New Democratic Party made during August and September of 1990 and for at least two decades prior to that.

I'm sorry that my comments were interrupted by the adjournment of the House yesterday at 6 pm. I would have wished to make all of my comments in one period of time, but that was not possible. I promised yesterday that I would talk about the situation as it exists in the province of British Columbia and, if I get time, also the province of Manitoba, because there, past NDP governments have in fact nationalized the insurance industry, have put in place government-owned insurance.

I think it's important for the people of Ontario and for my colleagues in the Legislature to know exactly what that has meant as far as rate increases are concerned to the premiums the ordinary driver in the province of British Columbia has had to pay. In order to be fair, I want to go back to 1979. I want to give a good spectrum of what the rate increases have been like.

In 1979, the rate increases averaged 10% to 12% in British Columbia by the government-owned crown corporation. In 1980 it was a further 10%. In 1981 it was 38%. In 1982 it was 20%. In 1983 it was 6%; 6% again in 1984. It was 2% in 1985. I'd bet $100 that was an election year. In 1987, 4.5%; in 1988, a further 22%; in 1989, 8.5%; in 1990, 4.8%. And in 1991, 4.5% and the GST. That is what the government-owned crown corporation has been able to provide the drivers of the province of British Columbia.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): And it's still cheaper than Ontario.

Mr Mancini: The former minister and the member for Cambridge says, "And still cheaper than Ontario." I hope it would be cheaper than Ontario because anyone who has had a chance to look at any of the information revolving around insurance knows that in a province where there are 10 million people you would have far more accidents and far more people needing benefits than in a province with maybe 25% of that population. And in a region as densely populated as Metro Toronto, with nearly three million people, one would expect a lot of car accidents and a lot of claims on that pool of money.

So the honourable member says it's cheaper in British Columbia, but that's all he has to say. He doesn't want to give an explanation. The 38% increase in 1981 was fine. The 20% increase in 1982 was fine. The 22% increase in 1988 was fine. All's well in the socialist Valhalla of British Columbia.

You know, that's not what those people across the floor told us. They didn't tell us rates would go up; they told us rates would go down. You and your colleagues -- and you were here at the time and you cannot excuse yourself -- stood here; told us rates would go down. You'd buy the industry; you'd run the industry -- rates would go down. Now you say rate increases are all right; it doesn't matter what they are. Well, the honourable member will have his chance.

I want to talk to the general public who are watching. I want to say to them that in addition to these outrageous increases the people in British Columbia were subjected to, the crown corporation has undergone two major labour disruptions, one of three months' duration and one of five months' duration, leading to serious reductions in service to the consumers.

You buy insurance from the government-owned crown corporation in the province of British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. The employees of the crown corporation decide it's necessary, for whatever reasons, to have a strike and therefore they no longer provide services to the customers who have paid already in advance for that service. Unfortunately, as is sometimes the case, a vehicle accident occurs. What is the customer to do? They can't go to the crown corporation for service. They can't threaten to not pay any more of their premiums and go to a different company, because now there's a monopoly.

They can't get anyone to look after their claims. They can't take their car to the body shop to get it fixed because they don't know who's going to pay for it. So what are the customers left to do during a five-month strike? Maybe during the course of these debates the socialist NDP members will have answers to some of these questions.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Should the minister or parliamentary assistant not be present during this discussion and debate?

The Deputy Speaker: He was here a minute ago. He's right here, fine. The member for Essex South.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, we appreciate the attendance of the minister and/or his parliamentary assistant if they wish to attend. If they don't wish to attend, we're going to carry on just the same.

Government-owned insurance leads to political tampering and we had an excellent example of this in the province of Manitoba where they call their insurance corporation the Autopac. I'm told -- and there's documentation here to prove it -- that the NDP government concealed losses incurred by the Autopac until after a provincial election.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): They didn't do that. Did they really? That's outrageous.

Mr Mancini: They did, they concealed the losses. There was gross political interference, and after, they needed a 25% increase to in fact make up for the loss they had suffered. If memory serves me correctly, and I'm sure the NDP members will in fact recall this, prior to one election in Manitoba former Premier Howard Pawley had his crown corporation announce a 28% increase. He then rolled it back, but he got defeated anyway. That is another fundamental reason why giving the monopoly of car insurance to this government or any other government is wrong.

Car insurance premiums should be based on the amount of money needed to pay consumers benefits they deserve, to run the corporation, to make a profit, to pay the employees and to create a pool of capital for reinvestment in this province which we so desperately need. Every day in this chamber over the past 24 months that we've actually been sitting here we have heard from members on all sides of the House as to the economic devastation that is occurring here in this great province under the leadership, I may add, of the socialist NDP government.

Most of us know now that pools of capital are absolutely necessary to restimulate growth in this great province to reinvest in our future and in the future of every small and large community in this great province. Without pools of capital it cannot be done, and without profit it cannot be done.

So you see, Mr Speaker, that when I point out the fact that there's been political interference in these provinces that have government-owned crown corporations providing insurance, I point that out for a very valuable reason. It's obvious that we never want to put ourselves in a position where government's traditional role of helping and protecting the consumer becomes subservient to a political party's desire to get re-elected. That is exactly what has happened and is exactly what would happen here in Ontario.

Herbert G. Grubel, professor of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, has reviewed the operations of the insurance crown corporation of British Columbia and has outlined as part of his study the subsidy and tax loss effects of public monopolies. He documents the following hidden subsidies and other similar benefits which have accrued to the crown corporation, and that goes directly to the heart of the interjection made by the member for Cambridge when he said that even though these increases may have been high and outlandish, the rates were still lower than in the province of Ontario.

That may be true if we do not take into consideration the hidden subsidies given to the crown corporation.

Professor Grubel has pointed out that the receipts of sums collected as traffic fines in Ontario and in most provinces which go into general revenues, thus reducing tax rates, are used in British Columbia to support the crown corporation.

In 1976 a loan of $181.5 million was given to the crown corporation by the government of British Columbia, I say to my colleague the member for Cambridge, to eliminate accumulated past losses. So out of the general treasury, out of tax dollars paid by people who drove or who did not drive, out of tax dollars paid by people young and old, $181 million was taken -- in 1976 dollars, I remind my colleague, not 1992 dollars. We can imagine that could be easily worth $500 million today, maybe $750 million.

They took the money from the taxpayers, gave it to the crown corporation and said, "Here, wipe out your debts." Does the member for Cambridge still think the rates are cheaper in British Columbia?

On top of all of that, the crown corporation in the province of British Columbia fails to meet government requirements for private insurance company reserves, so they're under less legislative burden. "The risk absorbed by the surplus in private industry is, in effect, borne by the government of British Columbia," Professor Grubel states.

"If the ICBC" -- that's the crown corporation in British Columbia -- "were to be privatized as of 1985," not 1992, but as of 1985, "an additional $11 million would have to be raised in order to meet the reserve requirements, thus necessitating a premium increase to cover that amount of shortfall."

So I say to my colleague from Cambridge, does he still believe that rates are cheaper in British Columbia than Ontario? It's obvious that the true social costs of operating the system have been kept under wraps.

Now this crown corporation in British Columbia has another advantage: There are no premium taxes, which are payable in all other provinces in Canada. The facts are, you buy an insurance policy here in the province of Ontario and I believe it's a 3% premium tax. It's right in the bill.

The former Liberal government gave the driving public a break and had eliminated that 3% premium tax -- had eliminated, I stress, that 3% premium tax. The socialists come into power and they put the premium tax back on and then said, "Well, it's the industry that's raising your premiums," while trying to keep it a big secret that they put the tax back on.

In British Columbia they don't have that premium tax. So I say to my friend the member for Cambridge, are the rates still cheaper in British Columbia now, with all this data that you're listening to?

There's one other difference between the private industry in Ontario and some of the other provinces as compared to the industry in British Columbia, in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan: They don't pay any federal income tax. They don't pay anything. No federal income tax.

We have the experience of other provinces. We have experts in the field. When my colleagues across the floor were making these promises, one either has to believe they knew all these facts and deliberately withheld that information from the general public during their extensive propaganda campaign or it leads one to believe they all chose not to take arithmetic when they were going through school, the whole gang of them.

I'm standing here looking at the member for St Andrew-St Patrick, a colleague of ours in this Legislature, and I know she took arithmetic. As a matter of fact, she probably taught arithmetic the old-fashioned way when one and one equalled two.

I know that somebody, I'm not sure who, in the New Democratic Party must have kept this information away from her, because she could not have known all of this and still met the general public and told them, as the member for Cambridge was wont to do, that insurance rates were cheaper in British Columbia than in Ontario, and just by chance forgot to mention all the hidden subsidies. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. I know that information was kept away from her, because I know she's an honourable member and she would not deliberately do that.

Now that they have these facts, I think they might all join the Minister of Financial Institutions in his famous words, "Well, it was all just one happy mistake." There was nothing purposeful in it. They weren't trying to win votes by telling the general public that a government-owned insurance company, a crown corporation, would provide better service at less cost. They were not trying to fool the public.

Mr Stockwell: Sure they were.

Mr Mancini: My colleague from Etobicoke says, "Sure they were." I'm willing to sit and listen to an argument as to why they were, but at the present time, I just can't believe that good people like the member for St Andrew-St Patrick would say those things, having all the facts in front of them. I just can't believe it.

We're at the crossroads here. We're at Bill 164. We know why Bill 164 has been introduced: because of the turmoil within the New Democratic Party caucus, because of the turmoil within the membership of the New Democratic Party.

I was just reading some old clippings.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Oh, no.

Mr Mancini: Yes, I was. Not really old, but in the calendar year 1992. There's a story here from the Hamilton Spectator, and I quote, because I certainly couldn't write headlines like this. There's no way I could write headlines like this. It says, "Ex-Choirboy's Tune Guaranteed to Set Rae's Teeth on Edge." They're referring to Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, who I understand used to be a choirboy.

Mr Ruprecht: What church was that?

Mr Mancini: I'm not sure what church, but he used to be a choirboy. He's telling the truth on the Premier, the cabinet and all the New Democratic Party members who are elected here. He's telling the truth. He's going out and talking about some of his colleagues.

He says of the minister, for example -- I would not say this of the minister, but Peter Kormos, the member for Welland-Thorold, said, "He's learned real quick that if he didn't sing from the right hymn book he wouldn't get to stay in the choir," meaning the cabinet. So it's better to sing from the socialist hymn book whether it's right or wrong, it's better to do that than tell the truth, because you may be asked to exit the cabinet.

Mr Callahan: They wouldn't do that, would they?

Mr Mancini: That's what Peter Kormos says. I wouldn't say it, but that's what Peter Kormos says.

It says here, in the Hamilton Spectator, February 10, 1992, "Kormos Keeps the Faith." You see, Peter Kormos is being honest about it. He knows that government-owned crown insurance wouldn't cost any less. He knows it wouldn't work any better. He knows it's not, generally speaking, in the interests of the people. But it's a socialist idea he believes in. He believes in that socialist economic agenda that you people espoused during the election campaign to be elected. He believed in that. I would not say this about Peter Kormos, but it says here, "Peter Kormos is bitter and disillusioned."

Mr Callahan: Oh, no.

Mr Mancini: That's what it says: He's bitter and he's disillusioned.

I've been spending part of the afternoon throwing figures around and, lest my colleagues opposite believe that I've made these up, I want to explain to them and show them where I've got this information.

The Minister of Financial Institutions, Mr Charlton, has the opportunity to be invited to speak on a number of occasions, and recently Mr Charlton, the Minister of Financial Institutions for the NDP government, was invited to speak -- on a Sunday, I may add -- at the general meeting of the Durham East NPD riding association. I want to tell you what Mr Charlton was quoted as saying, because it's important, highly, highly important.

Interjection.

Mr Mancini: I say to the Minister of Labour, I'll be at that point very soon.

Mr Charlton said, "The economy is getting worse, and there seems to be no relief in sight."

Mr Stockwell: There's insight.

Mr Mancini: And there's a person with optimism for the future, I might add.

Mr Charlton went on to say, "The public auto insurance plan will cost $1.4 billion to implement." That was the low expectation. "We had to consider the impact of spending that kind of money when so many other things needed to be done." Mr Charlton further stated, "But we had to look at the cost of starting the program up, the loss of jobs to start it -- 6,000 full-time jobs -- and the fact that the program would have totally dominated the government's agenda for the next two years."

Those are quotes from the Minister of Financial Institutions who yesterday said: "Well, it was all one big, happy mistake. Please forgive us." One big happy mistake. And after they've done all this backtracking, after they've revealed themselves to the public in a way that I would particularly find embarrassing, then they start threatening the industry.

St Catharines Standard, March 27, 1992: "NDP Issues Warning to Insurance Industry." Boy, they're really pointing their fingers at the insurance industry.

Mr Stockwell: What did they say?

Mr Mancini: "While Premier Bob Rae was widely quoted last September as saying 'The NDP will not revisit the issue of public auto insurance,' Charlton, the Minister of Financial Institutions, said yesterday: 'The Premier was only referring to the current term. Nothing is ever ruled out in perpetuity. Public auto insurance remains close to my heart in many respects,' said Mr Charlton."

Let's understand this. We cannot nationalize the industry today because it may cost them $1.5 billion to $2 billion, money we don't have. We cannot do it today because it's going to cost 6,000 full-time jobs and 8,000 part-time jobs. But the socialist idea is so close to Mr Charlton's heart that some day in the future he would be willing to rob the taxpayers of $2 billion and flush 14,000 jobs down the tube because it's close to his heart.

To all who are listening, that should be warning enough in itself that the NDP will always put its socialist ideology ahead of the people and ahead of anything that seems practical.

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: I want all the members to hear the whole story. It's important that we hear the whole story, Mr Speaker, if you will contain my colleagues in the Legislature only for a moment.

I was curious to find out why this government was so anxious, after having backed down on a major plank that got it elected and said, "No, we're not going to do it," to change the present Ontario motorist protection plan. I assumed there must be a lot of people unhappy with the plan. I assumed wrong.

I have a document dated July 8, 1992, three or four months old. It's on the letterhead of the Insight Canada Research firm, which is a well-known public opinion polling firm used by many newspapers in our province and in some instances used by the government, a very highly reputable firm, and it took a survey. It was asked to take a survey, and I want to give you the results of the survey.

Ontario drivers were asked whether or not they were satisfied with their car insurance policies. Eight in 10 Ontarians, 81%, said they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied. So I'm saying to myself, if there's no general outcry from the public to change the Ontario motorist protection plan, then why are they changing it? It's obvious. They're changing it because they need that political crutch to lean on, to say, "We changed the legislation that the Liberals had introduced," to save some political face. That's the only reason we have Bill 164 in front of us today.

It has nothing to do with the driving public. It has nothing to do with whether or not they want to improve the system. They want to save political face.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you and the members of the assembly and the watching public why I am opposed to Bill 164, why I have asked my colleagues in the official opposition to vote against Bill 164, and we intend to do so. Bill 164 reinforces the anti-business attitude that is in place and that has been in place in this province since September 1990, an anti-business attitude which now permeates the whole government, an anti-business attitude which is forcing honest businesses to leave this province and is discouraging investment from outside of this province from finding a home here.

Bill 164 has put in place what the government calls withdrawal provisions. Is there anybody in this chamber who at one time or another ran a business or worked in some private business? I'm sure the answer is yes. How would you feel if the government of the day told you that if you decide, for whatever reason, to cease doing business in the province of Ontario, you would have to pay a fee and you would not be allowed to come back for three years, and it didn't care what the reason was?

Under Bill 164, insurers seeking to leave Ontario or deciding to discontinue operation could face heavy penalties. Under the proposed bill, insurers must first apply to the Ontario Insurance Commission, run by the NDP, for permission to withdraw from classes of business. If the commission grants permission, a fee will be charged.

If passed, Bill 164 will ban an insurer and its subsidiaries and affiliates from re-entering the market for three years. Not only does this provision contravene the freedom of choice which we hold dear for anyone to remain in business, in this instance insurance companies, but it establishes, in my view, a dangerous precedent and sends a message to business that if you put your money in Ontario, if you put your capital in Ontario, it could be trapped in Ontario; confiscation of capital.

I hopefully assume that this will be proven to be unconstitutional, because no one in his right mind is going to invest in this province if these people pass a precedent-setting law such as the one that I've just described which exists in Bill 164, which says, "You cannot withdraw from business unless we say so, and when we say so, we're going to charge you a fee, but we don't know what the fee is going to be." It could be $100 million; it could be 15 cents. Why would you put your money in this province when it could be trapped and when it could be confiscated from you?

That in itself, this provision alone in Bill 164, is reason enough to ask all of my colleagues and any right-thinking member to vote against Bill 164, but there's more. There's a lot more.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Remo, does that mean you're voting against the --

Mr Mancini: The Tories will have their chance to make their case.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order.

Mr Mancini: Regulatory powers: Bill 164 --

Mr Harnick: We were a little worried; you were waffling.

Mr Mancini: The honourable member --

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. As the honourable members know, the honourable member for Essex South has the floor. There has been a lot of discussion, a lot of interjection. If we could have a little bit of quiet and allow the member the time that he needs to make his case, I think that would be worthwhile.

Mr Mancini: I say to the honourable member for Willowdale, who has proven to be one of the better members in the chamber, that it's always good to have some sense of history before you decide on an important matter. I hope that during the last hour my honourable friend did get some sense of the importance of the history surrounding this piece of legislation.

Bill 164 grants tremendous power to the cabinet. That should be scary to anybody after watching the