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

May 20, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY

TAX INCREASES

CONSERVATION

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

TOURISM INDUSTRY

ECONOMIC POLICY

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

GASOLINE PRICES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

BLIND CHILDREN

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

UNEMPLOYMENT

INCOME TAX

JOB CREATION

UNEMPLOYMENT

ECONOMIC POLICY

GOVERNMENT BORROWING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ASSISTED HOUSING

GAMBLING

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

GAMBLING

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

GAMBLING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RETAIL STORE HOURS

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

EDUCATION FINANCING

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1993

CITY OF LONDON ACT (COVENT GARDEN MARKET CORPORATION),1993

OPTIMIST CLUB OF KITCHENER-WATERLOO ACT, 1993

1993 ONTARIO BUDGET

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1001.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Witmer moved private member's notice of motion number 9:

That, in the opinion of this House,

Recognizing that the Workers' Compensation Board has an $11-billion unfunded liability that is growing at the astonishing rate of $100 million a month; and

Since the average employer's assessment has more than tripled since 1980; and

Since skyrocketing workers' compensation premiums are delivering death blows to many existing businesses and making Ontario less attractive for new business, investment and jobs; and

Since despite this fiscal crisis, the board continues to make questionable decisions, such as the plan to spend $180 million on a new office complex in downtown Toronto; and

Since despite this fiscal crisis, the board continues to expand the scope of coverage into areas such as unpaid student trainees and chronic stress; and

Since the workers' compensation system is seriously failing to address the legitimate needs and aspirations of those it's supposed to help -- injured workers, who experience excessive delays when they file claims; and

Since this crisis at the Workers' Compensation Board is a result of the fact that rather than remaining true to its original conception as a workplace accident insurance plan, the WCB has become a universal system to compensate everyone for everything, in effect, an employer-funded social safety net; and

Since other provinces, such as Manitoba and New Brunswick, have taken effective steps to regain control of their workers' compensation systems;

Therefore, the government of Ontario should take immediate steps to rectify problems with the workers' compensation system in Ontario including an inquiry into the feasibility of privatizing workplace accident and injury insurance. In the interim to control the unfunded liability of the WCB and cost to employers the government should:

1. Impose a moratorium on all new entitlement until there's a plan in place to deal with the unfunded liability; and

2. Follow the lead of New Brunswick and Manitoba and reduce benefit levels and streamline administrative procedures; and

3. Adopt a value-for-money approach to rehabilitation and institute value-for-money audits of the board's operations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes in her opening remarks.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have before you today a resolution dealing with the crisis of the $11-billion unfunded liability at the WCB. It is obvious that there is a choice to be made in this province as far as the future of the WCB is concerned. We either need to change the system dramatically or it will collapse.

We know that there are changes in workers' compensation occurring throughout North America for very obvious reasons, reasons similar to the ones I've already discussed. Costs are escalating at rates well beyond what was envisioned when the programs were established. Employers in this province and elsewhere can no longer support worker benefit systems that they have full responsibility to fund but little input or control.

Eight of the provinces have systems in the red; however, in this province, the province of Ontario, the problem is enormous. It's similar to the $2-billion tax grab yesterday. That was certainly enormous as well and the highest one in the history of this province.

So what is happening in the province of Ontario? What is being done to deal with this problem? As I said before, the unfunded liability has increased to $11 billion. It's growing at a rate of $100 million a month. That is more than $2,800 for every Ontario worker. We have this situation existing despite the fact that there's been a 92% increase in the payroll tax paid by the employer to fund the system over a 12-year period, from 1980 to 1992. Imagine that: a 92% increase in the payroll tax.

During this period, total accident claims have remained relatively constant but the benefits paid out by the WCB have jumped from $965 million to $2.3 billion.

Whereas the typical worker lost 23.4 days in 1980, by 1990 that injured worker was away for 43.8 days. The duration of benefits has doubled. Why?

The burden of retiring the debt is now being shouldered by a smaller and smaller number of employees as businesses in this province are closing, they are relocating or they are downsizing because of this NDP government which is not encouraging investment or job creation in the private sector.

The continuing existence of the WCB system is threatened, and yet this government is doing absolutely nothing. The WCB issued a funding strategy consultation paper to deal with the financial crisis at the WCB when the debt was $10 billion. It has gone up by $1 billion and yet they have made absolutely no decision whatsoever. A task force on service delivery and vocational rehabilitation concluded in a July 1992 report that the WCB does a poor job on claims management. Any of us who have constituency offices know that that's indeed the fact.

It also concluded that it needs to revamp vocational rehabilitation, that it does not listen to its stakeholders and that the financial viability of the system is questionable.

In response, what did the WCB do? They put in place an action plan that consists of 16 planning groups in order to solicit feedback from its employees. The action plan, however, does not address the issue of the cost of the system. In essence, senior management is refusing to acknowledge the very serious problems. There is no sense of urgency at the board or with this government that these problems need to be tackled immediately.

I find it strange that this government has hired Mr Strong to make structural changes at Ontario Hydro in order to get its $34-billion debt under control. Why should tackling the debt problem at the WCB be any less important? Why is the government not taking measures to get the $11-billion unfunded liability under control?

It's incredible: At a time when the future sustainability of the system is very unclear, the board then goes ahead and decides to build a $150-million office tower in downtown Toronto.

I can tell you that while Ontario and this government sit idle, there are other provinces that are taking action to deal with their unfunded liabilities. Manitoba introduced Bill 59; this overhauled their 1960 statute. It does deal with the emerging trends in work-related injuries, coverage and benefit levels. It does provide fair and reasonable benefit programs. It retires the unfunded liability, and it provides competitive assessment rates.

The bill defines "occupational disease" as a disease arising out of the course of employment and requires that the employment be shown to be the dominant cause of the illness for the claim to be compensable. Bill 59 also provides a definition for workplace stress. Under the legislation, compensation will be paid only in cases involving an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

Let's now turn to New Brunswick. They've introduced a plan to reduce annual operating costs by $9 million and reduce the unfunded liability by $35 million. Benefits will be reduced from 90% to 80% of net income, with a freeze on indexation for injured workers now receiving compensation until they reach the 80% level. The definition of "accident" has been reworded to reflect a probable relationship between the work accident and disablement as well as requiring employment to be a dominant factor in the disablement. Stress will be compensable when there is an acute reaction to a traumatic event.

I can also tell you that Newfoundland is contemplating similar changes to make the system more up to date and responsive to the needs of workers and employers today.

However, these are short-term solutions. In the long term, we need to review the merits of privatization and contracting out both the administration and the provision of workers' compensation services. We need to enlist the private sector expertise to develop and implement less expensive and more effective ways to retrain, rehabilitate and respond to the needs of injured workers so that they can re-enter the workforce.

Just before Christmas I learned about a small Ontario businessman who received a 60% increase in his assessment rate. He was now paying more than $300 per month. When he called his private insurance company to find out what it would cost for similar coverage, he found that if he were not bound by WCB premium and law, he could cover each of his employees for both accident and sickness 24 hours per day, seven days a week for $105 per month. Roughly, he would get four times the coverage for one third the cost. I know that there's not consensus on the issue of private insurance. However, I do believe that examples such as this oblige us to at least investigate the potential benefits.

At the same time we need to investigate the possibility of private sector training and retraining as an alternative to the current approach, which isn't serving employers or the workers well at all.

Systems also run amok when the rules are set up by a body with absolutely no accountability for paying the bills. When that body is political as well, the results are even worse. That is wrong, and we need to change that system.

We also need to embrace new directions in terms of philosophy and attitudes about workers' compensation. Workers' compensation was never intended to be a substitute or alternative to unemployment insurance. It was intended to financially compensate and physically rehabilitate injured workers until they got healthy and back to work. It was intended as a no-fault alternative to cut out the high court costs of determining liability and to be a more streamlined, lower-cost option that truly served the needs of injured workers. That's not what it is today.

I would therefore recommend that we take the immediate steps that I have suggested to solve the problems of the workers' compensation system. It's time to get injured workers and employers in this province back on track. It will help get Ontario's economy back on track as well, because at the end of the day we're going to have, instead of more costs and bureaucracy, more people working on the job.

The Acting Speaker: All recognized parties in the Legislature will now have 15 minutes to participate in the debate, after which the honourable member will have two minutes to sum up.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): I'm very, very happy this morning to be able to speak to this, except that we're splitting it up with three of our speakers; I'll have five minutes, which is not nearly enough, and even 15, if I had it all, would not be enough to go into this.

But I would like to remind the member for Waterloo North that the unfunded liability issue is by far not something that just suddenly occurred in the last two and a half years since the New Democrats won the election, to the chagrin of the opposition parties.

I would like to remind you that the Progressive Conservatives, while they were in power -- and this is important; I want everybody in this Legislature to remember this -- from 1980 to 1985, when the Progressive Conservatives were the party in power, the unfunded liability grew from -- now get this -- $800 million to $5.4 billion in five years, and for the Progressive Conservatives have the audacity to sit here today and tell us that we are not organizing the Workers' Compensation Board is absolutely reprehensible.

Then in 1984 the WCB decided to try to work out a funding strategy, because, gee, $800 million to $5.4 billion is a considerable increase, and the business community was not on our doorstep, crying and bemoaning this fact. So they tried to work this out, and again they increased assessment rates.

Then the Liberals won the government, with our help, in 1985, and when they did, they maintained that whole strategy. To their credit, they tried to keep it under control, and still, under the Liberals, the unfunded liability climbed from $5.4 billion, where the Tories left it, to $9.1 billion.

We win the election in 1990, and we are stuck with a $9.1-billion debt in the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board, and now we listen to the self-righteous rhetoric that we get from the other side on this nonsense.

We are controlling this. We talk the action plan. You don't talk action plan in isolation with everything else. You talk action plan because something has to be done. And who are you going to ask as to how it should be done but the very people on the front line who have some idea and some clue as to what to do.

My time is up. I could go on forever, obviously. I just want to say, though, that this is not a new problem, as I have very carefully pointed out. And the unfunded liability, contrary to the resolution, as the member for Waterloo North has claimed, is not increasing and growing at $100 million a month; in fact, it is slowing. In 1991 it increased by $1.3 billion; in 1992, by $680 million or $57 million a month, half of what the member for Waterloo North is claiming. In 1993 it's gone down to $30 million per month, so it is not growing as is being claimed, and it's certainly slower than it was two years ago before we got into power.

I would say that the employers' assessment rates are not skyrocketing. What have they done? They've frozen the assessment rates. And how have they done that? They have done that with employer consultation, extensively. The business community, unfortunately -- and I believe this completely -- could be more forthcoming in finding solutions with the Workers' Compensation Board, and it is consulted widely.

We are extremely open. The Workers' Compensation Board administrators have been extremely open with how it deals with its funding strategy. They've made no bones about it. They are trying to clean it up because, in that sense, Ms Witmer is right: It can't continue the way it is. Yet the basic underlying theme we must remember is that worker safety and worker protection, worker rehab and re-employment are the most important things that this board has to look after, and that is what we are looking for.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'm pleased to join in the debate on this resolution. I think this resolution speaks about a very important aspect dealing with the WCB, and I believe that many people are becoming increasingly concerned, if not alarmed, with what is transpiring around the WCB.

The first thing that will always be brought forward is the current unfunded liability of the WCB. I don't think the previous remarks by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour warm the hearts of many people who might be watching, to say: "My goodness, don't worry. It's only going up $30 million a month." In fact, I think that makes people very cold inside.

What we have to recognize is that the WCB is funded by employers. That is where the WCB looks to get its dollars. When the unfunded liability, the long-term obligations of the WCB, is continually short each and every month, those employers and the many people who still work are increasingly concerned about what that holds for them.

I think it's indeed not very warming that the Ministry of Labour thinks that $30 million in the hole each month is something which one can be proud of. I believe that in fact that causes some real concerns.

Ms Murdock: That isn't what I said.

Mr Offer: The parliamentary assistant gets very concerned.

Another area where people are very concerned is, where is the accountability with the WCB at this point in time? Where is the accountability for the decisions that the WCB seems to be making each and every day? I don't think we have to look very far in the past to see. The WCB has embarked on a new building, a building which is slated to cost $177 million.

That building is to house the WCB: 525,000 square feet. It is to be placed in the city of Toronto at the same time that there is between 25 million and 27 million square feet of available commercial space now in the city of Toronto. People are asking, why is the WCB building a new building when there is so much available? Those concerns are rightly made.

Why does the government become so defensive when people bring forward that issue? Why does the WCB become so defensive, when the tenders on the building of the new headquarters were limited, when only three general contractors were allowed to bid, where others in this province were specifically excluded, where not every subtrade in this province can work on the proposed building? The subtrades, as well as the general contractors, are saying: "Wait a minute. Who's running this show? There's an accountability area here and no right to the WCB or to the government to exclude people from partaking in the building."

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): You are so self-righteous.

Mr Offer: Members say "self-righteous." You're just full of baloney. People have the right to bid and the right to tender, and the WCB has excluded their right to take part, notwithstanding the fact that the building itself is not warranted.

People are saying: "Where is the accountability? Why is the government consistently turning its back on the actions that are being taken by the WCB? This is going to have an effect on business. It is going to have an effect on jobs." People are saying this day in and day out. They are saying to the government, "Do not turn your back on the actions that are being done within the WCB."

You have a responsibility in the 1990s to be accountable for the actions of the WCB. You cannot turn your back when the WCB is looking at potentially entitling the action of stress without any understanding as to what the financial implications will be for the jobs and business in our province. You have no right to turn your back. The government thinks there will not be any financial implications to compensating stress. There are many people out there and many jurisdictions out there that very much disagree with you.

I believe the member's resolution speaks to very important aspects that have to be dealt with at the WCB. Primarily for me, it is an issue of accountability, that the WCB is operating without any aspect of accountability to the government: It is deciding on the building of buildings; it is deciding on the issue of stress. For me, that, in principle, is troubling, because it is the employers, the people, the private sector, the job creators, the job retainers, that will be paying this. They are saying that if the WCB continues in the same way it has, this will have an effect on our ability to maintain jobs.

The government to this point in time, and especially with respect to the comments by the parliamentary assistant, has said, "Let the WCB order its own affairs." Well, that is not good enough any more. Governments must take a role. Governments must be accountable. Governments must rein in the WCB. It is running amok.

People, businesses and jobs are at stake. It is long past time that the government recognize its responsibility and stops saying that $30 million, $50 million in debt each month is good. It isn't. Employers, people, jobs depend on it. Get on with the job.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to rise in support of this important resolution from my colleague the member for Waterloo North.

The essence, the short version, of this resolution is:

"Recognizing that the Workers' Compensation Board has an $11-billion unfunded liability that is growing at the astonishing rate of $100 million a month; and

"Since the average employer's assessment has more than tripled since 1980; and

"Since skyrocketing workers' compensation premiums are delivering death blows to many existing businesses and making Ontario less attractive for new business, investment and jobs," and since despite this fiscal crisis, the board continues to make questionable decisions such as to spend $180 million on a new office complex in downtown Toronto, in essence that's what this resolution we're dealing with here this morning is all about.

The WCB is mired in an extremely serious financial crisis. The last official quote of the unfunded liability was $10.3 billion, but it is growing at a rate of $100 million a month and it will exceed the $11 billion that I had indicated.

That debt represents about $45,000 for each firm currently registered with the WCB. Ontario's employers are facing serious issues, ranging from increasing assessment rates, compensation for stress, the building of a new WCB shrine and the NDP government's move to revamp the workplace accident fund into a universal insurance system.

In 1984, the WCB realized that the yearly assessments charged employers were inadequate to cover accident costs and the board adopted a full-funding strategy to ensure that its assets could match its liabilities at some future date. The funding strategy was to raise assessment rates to levels adequate to cover current and future costs of every year's new accidents and to generate a surplus above this amount sufficient to retire the unfunded liability within 30 years.

So between 1984 and 1989, the WCB strategy to eliminate the unfunded liability was on track. But during 1990, things took a turn for the worse, and the unfunded liability increased more than was anticipated because Bill 162, introduced by the Liberals in 1989, added nearly $1 billion to the board's total liabilities and the recession reduced revenues. The recession led to an 11% decrease in employer assessment in 1990 and 1991.

It should be noted that the WCB gets 75% of its overall revenues from the manufacturing sector and from the construction and natural resource industries, which have all been especially hard hit by this current recession. These three sectors are not expected to regain their 1989 employment levels until at least 1995 at the very earliest.

While all this was happening, total WCB expenditures -- claims costs plus overhead -- increased by 20%.

Our caucus realized that the WCB was in crisis and out of control as far back as before 1991. In fact two of my colleagues, the member for Wellington and the member for Lanark-Renfrew, issued a minority report and their opinion and recommendations of what our party members on the standing committee on resources development -- they reported on the service delivery at the Workers' Compensation Board. Keeping in mind that that was 1991, I think you will agree that the recommendations made for interesting reading.

The two PC caucus members of the committee recommended that:

(1) The Provincial Auditor be immediately commissioned to conduct a value-for-money audit of the Workers' Compensation Board.

(2) Upon completion of the operational review and before any additional resources are allocated to such major activities as claims adjudication, assessment and rehabilitation, the chairman of the WCB should table in the House a detailed cost-benefit analysis of the proposed policy changes. That would include specific justification for any increases in staffing levels.

(3) Before the Minister of Labour allocates additional resources to the office of the worker adviser to establish satellite offices to augment its 13 regional offices that would reduce the considerable WCB workload faced by MPP constituency staff, the minister should table in the House a detailed cost-benefit analysis.

(4) A moratorium on all WCB policy changes until 1993 be established.

(5) Any future changes to the scope of coverage, including workplace stressors and non-causal effect for occupational disease, should be fully and publicly debated in the Legislature.

These are some of the recommendations that were made by my colleagues, and that is why I am supporting this commonsense resolution from my colleague the member for Waterloo North. I want to thank the member for Waterloo North for bringing this important issue to the attention of the Legislature this morning, and I urge all of my colleagues to give her resolution the full support that it richly deserves.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I am certainly pleased to rise today and speak in response to the resolution of the member for Waterloo North. I, like all members in the House, have constituency offices that deal with workers' compensation claims on a daily basis, and we all have an interest in improving the way the system works.

Certainly the member for Sudbury has acknowledged the size of the unfunded liability and has illustrated to the members of the House how that unfunded liability ballooned under the Conservative and the Liberal administrations.

Since we took over office in 1990, there has been only a modest growth in the unfunded liability, largely, I might say, due to the effects of this recession, which has been prolonged by unfavourable policies from the big brothers and sisters of the Conservative Party in Ottawa.

But I disagree with the member for Waterloo North that the solution to the problem faced by the WCB is one of increased privatization. I think it's useful to look back on the historical antecedents of the present Workers' Compensation Board.

Most of us are aware that the board was established in 1914 with the acknowledgement and recognition that industrial accidents have to be treated differently from other accidents because employees are working under the direction and for the benefit of employers.

In order to ensure that there is a fair balance, if you will, between the right of the employer to predictability of premiums, risk distribution and resolution of claims on a no-fault basis -- balanced against that is the right and entitlement of the worker to assured benefits, pension entitlements, without having to resort to costly and time-consuming litigation. So there are benefits on both sides. Over the years since 1914, governments, business and workers have all contributed towards the evolution of the workers' compensation system as we know it today.

Today the WCB, as you know, Mr Speaker, is operated as an arm's-length agency of government. That, I would submit, is probably the best way we have of ensuring a fair balance between the interests of employers, who, as the member for Mississauga North indicated, are assessed for contributions, and the rights of workers to fair and timely compensation for their injuries.

If we were to accept the submission of the member for Waterloo North that the system would improve through privatization, that would take a grand leap of faith. We all know that the workers' compensation system has some problems, and those problems were highlighted by the task force on vocational rehabilitation and service delivery last year.

The Workers' Compensation Board in fact has taken some very strong steps to redress some of the imperfections that were highlighted in the report of the task force. So there is an effort on behalf of the Workers' Compensation Board to rein in that unfunded liability and to take positive steps to improve service delivery and to increase access to vocational rehabilitation, all of which will result in the kind of economies that will bring down the rate of increase in unfunded liability.

To get back to the matter of privatization, a 1990 study sponsored by the Conservative government in Alberta suggests that privatization won't bring down the costs. The study -- which consisted only of employer representatives, I might add -- concluded that workers' compensation compares most favourably to private insurance. The workers' compensation is much cheaper for most small businesses than would be private insurance. In fact some businesses that may be considered high-risk businesses may be written off by the private insurance sector completely.

We also know that in the US, where hundreds of private companies provide compensation to workers, the costs are really quite significant. Of every dollar that's paid by an employer south of the border towards workers' compensation insurance, only 50 cents goes into benefits and pensions to the workers. Under our system, only 15 cents of each assessment dollar goes towards administration, litigation and so on; the other 85 cents goes back to the worker.

I would submit that our workers' compensation system, while acknowledging its defects, is taking some very bold steps towards reining in the unfunded liability, improving service delivery, increasing access to vocational rehabilitation and, for that reason, I won't be supporting the member's resolution.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): One of the things I find most interesting about this debate is that everybody agrees that the Workers' Compensation Board is in a shambles. They do. I even hear members opposite at least recognizing some serious problems with the board, with the administration, with the whole system. The employers will tell you that it's an absolute nightmare.

The rates may currently be frozen, but rumour has it that someone in some office somewhere is working on some new rates, and those new rates, which I understand are going to be announced in the very near future, will be very much like the market value assessment battle that took place throughout Metro, where what we're going to see is that certain sectors are going to get reductions in their rates, but other sectors are going to get substantial increases.

You can just imagine where some of the increases might occur. They might affect our industrial base. They might affect the very people who need --

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): There is no industrial base left.

Mr Mahoney: There isn't much of one, but there is a little bit of an industrial base. They might affect the very people who are hanging on by their fingernails and will survive the next two years till we get a change in the government and a change in the philosophy. It just might affect those particular individuals.

The track I wanted to speak about is, ask your constituency assistants -- I'm sure you have -- what is the one issue they spend the vast majority of their time on. It's workers' compensation claims on behalf of the workers who are trying to get some money, who are trying to survive out there, who have to go through an incredible bureaucracy, who keep getting sent back to the doctor for updates, for more information, and at the end of the day don't get the money.

One of the things that concerned me about the member's resolution was the danger of trying to solve the workers' compensation problems on the backs of the workers being compensated, and you would in effect do that if you simply reduced the benefits. I had some concerns when I was looking at this as to whether or not I was prepared to support it. It's somewhat typically Tory to say, "Let's make the workers pay for the solution to the problem."

But then I thought, "I wonder if the workers would accept reduced benefits if only they could get them." Interesting, because a reduced benefit, when you put that together with the streamlining of the administrative procedures which are referred to in the member's resolution, then maybe the worker would say, "Gee, I'd rather at least get a cheque." You can't buy groceries with promises and with a constituency assistant who's ready to jump out the window because he can't solve the problems on behalf of the injured worker.

They'd like something, so maybe the lead that the member talks about in New Brunswick and Manitoba of reducing the benefits, if it truly went hand in hand with streamlining the procedures, with making this truly what it was designed to be, that is, a benefit facility for the people who are injured on the job --

I think frankly there's enough blame to go around. All of us in this House can share the blame. The members opposite say the unfunded liability has only grown a little bit. Well, in two years it's grown by I guess $2 billion. A billion dollars a year is more than a little bit. I recognize in Queen's Park jargon, in budget talk, that the term "What's a billion?" gets thrown around a little bit. Who really cares about $1 billion?

We're talking about a program growing with an unfunded liability, in essence a debt; not a debt that has to be paid today, but a debt that is accruing at an enormous amount monthly. We hear the parliamentary assistant say $30 million a month, we hear the critic for the Conservatives say $100 million a month. Whichever one it is, it's unacceptable.

I wish that we could take the partisanship out of the debate on workers' compensation, because in every one of our offices you don't put up a sign that says this is an NDP office or this is a Liberal or Conservative office; you put up a sign that says, "This is an MPP's office." You are there to serve all of your constituents regardless of their political affiliation. The reality is, the majority of your constituents and mine are not affiliated with any political party. They just have to get through the day. They have to figure out how they can pay the taxes that every level of government is burdening them with.

So why shouldn't we, collectively as a Legislature -- I asked myself when I looked at this resolution -- support this? The only point that concerned me was the potential to solve it on the backs of the workers, but I've come to the conclusion, having talked to injured workers, having talked to my staff, that those injured workers would support this resolution. Those injured workers would absolutely say that it is time to change workers' compensation.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Who have you been talking to?

Mr Mahoney: I talk to them all the time, trust me.

The problem is that this party philosophically thinks it owns injured workers.

Mrs Witmer: They don't.

Mr Mahoney: Well, that's what they think. They think they own the Workers' Compensation Board. The people own the board, the people who have to pay for it, the people who need the benefits out of it, their families, the public. You can pretend that it's some arm's-length agency, but it's all one taxpayer. That's all there is: one taxpayer. That injured worker absolutely wants to get rehabilitated, wants to get their injury resolved and wants to get back to work.

I frankly think that if you said to an injured worker, "Tell you what: We're going to reduce your benefits by 10%, but we're going to give them to you," that's the difference. "We're not going to make you fight and scrap and yell and scream and cry and wait and borrow money and cash in bonds or RSPs or sell your car to live; we're going to actually make sure the money flows directly to you." I frankly think that the honourable member for Waterloo North intends that to be the case when she talks about reducing benefit levels and streamlining administrative procedures. I could not support a simple reduction if it did not go hand in hand with improving the administration.

Let me briefly talk about this building. The members opposite also get defensive; really quite interesting. How can you justify? In today's economy, last year's economy or the year before's economy, prior to the decision being made -- the decision to build the building was made during this government's tenure, absolutely no question; the facts are irrefutable -- how can you justify? We knew there was a recession. You knew there was a recession.

The board says, "We need special elevators." I don't know; do they go sideways, or do they go up and down in that building the same as other buildings? Maybe there's a trick to them. Maybe they've got back supports on the walls in the elevators to help the injured workers. I really don't know. They need some special offices that they couldn't find in a plethora of empty buildings all over the province. Who said it had to be in downtown Toronto? We could have found it anywhere, in any of our communities, to rent a building at a much more affordable rate.

I have decided I'm going to support this resolution, and hopefully we can all stop the politics and get on with trying to help the injured workers of this province.

Mr Carr: I first of all would like to thank the member for Waterloo North for putting forward this resolution, and also thank my two colleagues, the members for Wellington and Lanark-Renfrew, who would like to take a little bit of time to talk about what they have done in committee regarding this issue.

I have in my hand about 80 replies from businesses of what they think of the WCB. I could probably go an hour and a half talking about what they say some of the problems are, but in the short time, in the few minutes I have here, I won't. But in here there are comments talking about the system and how it's totally out of control. Some of the comments are: "Change the thinking with a sledgehammer," "Get on with it; we're almost bankrupt."

We have put forward the solutions, as we have in all areas. In our minority report on the pre-budget, we put in there things about the WCB. Rather than just criticizing, and "Things are terrible," we offered some solutions in our minority report and in the report done in the resources committee. It's been followed up by the member.

I'll give a couple of examples of why we're out of control. First of all, I don't know if many people realize as we sit here today in this province, we have two cabinet ministers sitting who are collecting WCB pensions in the province of Ontario, two of them are collecting right now. They're okay to sit in the Cadillacs and ride around in the province, but they're collecting WCB pensions in the province of Ontario.

They're okay to work, they're okay to sit in the back of a Cadillac and ride around in the province, but they are, right now, in the province of Ontario, sitting here, able to work perfectly in their jobs -- I would say that they can't do their jobs properly not because of their injuries but because of their competence. But here we are in the province of Ontario with two NDP cabinet ministers who are now collecting WCB pensions, and yet they can work as cabinet ministers. That's what's wrong with the system.

I want to give you another quick example, because I know there are only a couple of seconds left. As the members know, I used to play hockey. I was down in Rochester about two months ago at an oldtimers' hockey game and there was a player there who was injured while playing hockey. I won't mention the town he works for, but he works for one of the communities in the province of Ontario. He was injured playing hockey at night. We paid probably about $2,000, $3,000 to fix his knee. What he did is, he said he limped into work the next day and said that he got hurt on the job, and for eight months he collected WCB.

Of course, he was proud to tell all the players down there in Rochester that this is what he did, and then he asked me what I did as an MPP, and I told him, "We spend about 60% of our day trying to catch crooks like you who are abusing the system."

We have a business community out there right now that is reeling, worse so now after the tax increases. They can't keep up. I'm going to send the member for Sudbury copies of these statements of what was done and what businesses are saying -- absolutely furious with what is happening.

Unlike other political parties where we just criticize and say it's terrible, it's the NDP's fault or it's George Drew's fault or it's Leslie Frost's or it's Peterson's fault, we put together our solutions. The members for Lanark-Renfrew and Wellington put together a report, and as he's going to tell you very shortly, within a minute or so, this government didn't even have the courtesy to reply to them on what they had done. They put solutions together; worked very hard. You might not have agreed with everything, but this government on the other side didn't even have the courtesy to reply to them on it.

I say to the member for Sudbury, when members of this Legislature put together practical solutions, not all of them that you agree with, maybe one or two, you should at least have the courtesy to reply to those people.

I wish I had the opportunity to go through some of the criticisms that are in here that business people sent in. And these aren't big businesses -- most of them are two-, three-, four-, five-people operations, saying our plan is right on. They're saying, "For the first time, we've got politicians who are offering solutions rather than just criticizing." Eighty replies right here that I will send to the member for Sudbury East, and I hope she will take a look at them and see the anger out there in the province of Ontario regarding the WCB.

So we offered some solutions. You might not always agree, but we are trying to be constructive in putting them together, and I think you owe the member for Wellington and the member for Lanark-Renfrew at least the courtesy of replying to the hard work they did in the report.

We've offered some of the solutions. If we don't do something, the ironic thing about this is, as we found out before, all the good intentions in the world won't matter. The people, if we don't deal with the unfunded liability, are going to suffer; not the corporations and the businesses that are going to go out of business and move away. When the unfunded liability gets run up and the cheques start bouncing from WCB for the injured workers, that's what's going to happen. You came in here thinking that all the money in the world, all the good intentions were going to be worth it.

What we found out is, all the good intentions in the world, all the philosophies won't count if you run out of money.

If you don't deal with it now, whether it's two, five years down the road, there's going to be no money for those injured workers. They're the ones who are asking you to do something. We're offering some practical, commonsense solutions. You don't need to take 100% of them, but look at some of the ideas, because ultimately at the end of the day it isn't us that's going to benefit. Well, the two cabinet ministers that are receiving pensions are going to be out of luck too. But the injured workers are going to be the ones who will not be able to receive any money because you've run out of money because nothing was done, and that will be a shame.

Mr Speaker, I will save two minutes. I'd like the member for Lanark-Renfrew to talk about the report and the hard work they did. Hopefully at the end of the day this government is going to listen, because if not, businesses and the injured workers are going to be the ones who are going to suffer.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's a pleasure to rise in response to the resolution from the member for Waterloo North.

In response to the previous two speakers, it seems that they're taking the traditional Conservative and Liberal approach of blaming the victim. In contrast, our government is taking the positive approach towards the WCB and the workers who are injured on the job. The ultimate solution to this whole thing is to eliminate all workplace injuries and disease.

Our priority is prevention. It's in the best interests of both employers and employees to have a safe and healthy work environment. Our focus should be on training and awareness through educational initiatives such as workplace health and safety, certification of these committee members through the workplace hazardous materials information system -- the WHMIS program -- and other educational courses and programs.

We believe in investing in people, and all people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. To cut the benefit level of the injured worker, to adopt a value-for-money approach, dehumanizes the system and the needs of the victim. Suggesting cuts in benefits and entitlement rights is to take an unfair and unrealistic approach to a serious need. Injured workers should not have to face drastic cuts in income and lifestyle just because they are hurt on the job. Suffering and injury are sacrifice enough.

As the workplace changes from primarily blue-collar to white-collar jobs and as we discover more about the links between the workplace and various injuries and illnesses, workers' compensation has evolved to take into account occupational disease and repetitive strain injuries. However, to be compensated, a clear link between workplace and injury has to be established.

We must meet the needs of workers in Ontario. The entitlements also must meet the needs of the workers injured on the job. The government is working with the Workers' Compensation Board to meet the challenges of controlling costs and improving services.

Of course, it's critical that we prevent workplace accidents in the first place. Our government recently passed regulations to protect health care workers in hospitals, nursing homes and other health care facilities. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency has been helping workers and employers prevent workplace accidents and illnesses, and we've been imposing heavy fines on those who break Ontario's health and safety laws.

Our government is assisting and encouraging injured workers to get together to help themselves. Through this network they are more able to assist others, to lend support, consult and offer avenues for outside help; working together to lead productive and more satisfying lives.

Through the consultation process, we are working towards ways to reduce the unfunded liability -- I might add, the unfunded liability that was inherited from previous governments. It was the Tories who allowed unfunded liability to reach the point that it has, by keeping assessment rates artificially low. Once again our government is faced with cleaning up after previous governments.

Through clear, concise initiatives, our government is investing in people, the workers in Ontario, their jobs and in our future. With forethought we are planning for the future. We are making decisions that are directly linked to our future, the macro-picture. Previous governments have only viewed the micro-picture.

To say the workers' compensation system is failing to address the needs of injured workers is a fallacy. By broadening the entitlement to include chronic stress and student trainees, to name a few, is to take a realistic approach to the workplace of the 1990s.

It is the right of every individual to a safe and healthy work environment. When these rights are denied or overlooked, we must all take responsibility to work together to improve the situation or to remove the barriers.

Again, this is why the establishment of joint health and safety committees is so important. Through education, employers and workers alike will become more aware of safer work habits and practices.

We must vote against this resolution as it serves only to restrain and add further hardship to those who have suffered already. We must remain positive in our approach by encouraging safer practices by both employers and workers and by recognizing the changing design of the workplace in Ontario.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would just like to take a couple of minutes to remind the member for Sudbury, who has spoken so strongly on this resolution this morning, of her days on the standing committee on resources development when we did in fact look very deeply into the operation of the Workers' Compensation Board and we did spend a lot of time and we did identify the problems.

At that time, the whole issue was to be solved by the appointment of this new chairman and chief executive officer. We gave that new administration a definite length of time to assess the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board and report back to the resources committee.

The member for Sudbury knows very well we did not receive a report back. We did not receive anything, and when the Minister of Labour was asked in the House why he wasn't taking some action, his answer to us has been that he doesn't have the power to take the action. Well, if that's the situation, I would suggest we'd better look at legislation to give him some power to take the action.

At least he could ask the public auditor to come in and review the situation. He does have that power. But to just sit back and say: "My hands are tied. It's an independent organization. I can't do anything" -- and now recently in the House he's been supporting the idea of building a new building with all the vacancies we have downtown, for the simple reason that they say access in these buildings is not suitable for people to come to the offices of the Workers' Compensation Board.

This member for Sudbury knows very well what the problems are over there. Think of the number of people we interviewed. Think of the people who came forward with ideas on how to correct the situation, and think of the employer, who is really saying to us very clearly that if we don't do something, the whole Workers' Compensation Board will be bankrupt and there won't be such a board.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Waterloo North has two minutes in response.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Downsview, if indeed he wants to participate, has a very short time.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Absolutely. I think it's important to get on the record, in the 30 seconds we have left, that in response to some of the comments that were made here this morning, the only thing you can say is, "Poor workers, poor injured workers." If there is ever a shift in governments in this province and, God forbid, if the Conservatives or Liberals ever were elected, I would say, "Poor workers, poor injured workers," because they would be in big trouble indeed.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time for all parties. Mrs Witmer has two minutes in response.

Mrs Witmer: I'd like to thank the members for Mississauga North and Mississauga West for supporting the motion I've put forward today, also my colleagues from Simcoe East, Oakville South and Lanark-Renfrew for the support they've given to this motion.

I'd like to indicate to the parliamentary assistant and the members for London South and Kitchener-Wilmot that the reason I have placed the motion and the resolution here today is because the WCB is not -- and I stress, it is not -- responding to the needs of the injured workers. We all know that because of the tremendous workload we have in our constituency offices.

I can assure you, if you do not take action to reduce the $11-billion unfunded liability right now and adopt the recommendations that I have put before you today, there will not be any money in the future to deal with the problem. I ask that the government seriously look at these recommendations or the system will collapse and for injured workers in this province there will be no benefits whatsoever, because you are looking at expanding entitlement and you are not taking into consideration the impact of that on the employers in this province.

I can assure you that employers in this province are now looking at WCB as one of the great costs of running business in this province. In fact, I know of one business that decided not to locate here because of the WCB costs.

So in conclusion, I say this to you: I would suggest that you've had almost three years to make some changes at the WCB. The PC Party did have a plan of action to get rid of the unfunded liability. Unfortunately, the Liberals and now the NDP have thrown that into turmoil. I would suggest to you, help injured workers and make changes at the WCB.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotment for ballot item number 9, Mrs Witmer's private member's motion. We will further deal with this motion at 12 noon.

CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY

Mr Farnan moved private member's notice of motion number 8:

That, in the opinion of this House:

(1) Recognizing that our identity as citizens of this province is dependent also on our national identity as Canadians; and

(2) Recognizing that Ontarians need and want Canadian commercial films which reflect and help shape the unique lives and dreams of Canadians; and

(3) Recognizing that the production of such films is dependent on a viable national film industry and the development of a distinct Canadian market for commercial films; and

(4) Recognizing that the distribution sector is crucial to the health of the film industry, since distributors not only feed the markets but also finance film production by reinvesting these profits in new commercial films; and

(5) Recognizing that at this time, the major US distributors control the Canadian feature film market and, as a result, only 4% of screen time in Canadian movie theatres is devoted to Canadian-made movies; and

(6) Recognizing that the US film industry has always seen Canada as part of the US domestic market; and

(7) Recognizing that the 1988 Canada-US free trade agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement specifically provide that Canadian and provincial governments have the right to take steps to nurture a distinct national culture and protect Canadian sovereignty in this area; and

(8) Since Canadian distributors, most of whom are based in Ontario, are ready and able to buy separate Canadian distribution rights to successful foreign and independently produced American commercial films;

The government of Ontario should work with other provincial governments to urge the federal government to:

(1) Establish a nationwide licensing system that would,

(

a) give Canadian distributors open access to independently produced commercial films; and

(

b) limit the Canadian distribution rights of foreign distributors to films on which they were intended to hold the original copyright or on which they hold the world rights; and

(2) promote as an issue to be addressed in future interprovincial trade talks the elimination of barriers between provinces that currently prevent Canadian film distributors from having equal access to all Canadian markets;

And further, the government of Ontario should:

(3) Use its regulatory powers under the Theatres Act to establish a system of general and special distributor's licences within Ontario that would,

(

a) give Canadian distributors open access to independently produced commercial films; and

(

b) limit the Canadian distribution rights of foreign distributors to films on which they were intended to hold the original copyright or on which they hold the world rights; and

(4) continue to work on the development of an industrial strategy to promote the distribution of Canadian commercial films as part of the Canadian cultural industries.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Farnan has moved ballot item number 10. The honourable member for Cambridge has 10 minutes to initiate debate.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): More than 10 years ago, the Canadian Film Development Corp said in its annual report:

"Motion pictures are the most pervasive and powerful means of expression in our time. For any independent nation which wishes to nurture its people or convey to others a distinctive identity, the development of an indigenous, authentic motion picture industry is indispensable."

If this is so, and I believe it is, then this resolution is about the future of Canada as a nation separate from the United States; it is about our separate cultural identity, about the differences in the way we think, about the differences in the sort of nation we want.

Now, with NAFTA already a threat to our jobs, our health care, our sovereignty, all the things this government holds sacred, unless we take some action, we could lose control of our ability to present ourselves as a nation.

The Canadian film industry, much of it based in Ontario, has never competed in size or influence with the United States. This resolution looks at the effects of the free trade agreement and the possible effects of NAFTA on our indigenous film industry and asks the province of Ontario to exercise the right specifically provided in the agreements to nurture a distinct Canadian culture.

Ontario must signal to its own cultural entrepreneurs that it supports them in trying to retain a toehold in our own civilization -- or that massive part of our civilization that is affected by film, whether in movie theatres, on TV or on video. I say "toehold" because that is all we have: a toehold.

How has this come about? Accepted business practice has encouraged financiers south of the border to integrate the movie business both horizontally and vertically so that two major chains now virtually monopolize distribution of films in this country, not only pushing out our own movies but sending the profits of this distribution south of the border to finance further Hollywood films when our own industry survives on a shoestring.

This has been apparent for years to successive governments, both federally and provincially, and report after report has urged action, but nothing has been done about this basic problem of distribution rights. The result is that our own film industry starves while Hollywood eats up the market, a cuckoo in our nest.

It is my belief that we can maintain and build a Canadian film business not so much by subsidizing our own filmmakers but by giving our Canadian distributors open access to independently produced commercial films, putting certain limits on the Canadian distribution rights of foreign distributors and eliminating barriers between the provinces. The money and the attention this access will earn for our distributors and for our own Canadian films will be put back into our own homegrown film industry.

The topics in this resolution are not new. Only 10 years ago a federal task force on film distribution, exhibition and marketing recommended restricting American distributors to bringing into Canada only movies to which they have worldwide rights. A writer at the time referred to a "stranglehold" that Canadian Odeon Theatres and the US-owned Famous Players had over first-run showing of Hollywood pictures.

In 1984 the federal government released a national film and video policy that included authorization for negotiations between government representatives and foreign-owned film distributors. This same policy described Canada's film and video industry as a key growth sector in the context of the information revolution, and it noted that the best available figures at that time showed that 80% of theatrical distribution revenues went to foreign-owned distributors and that less than 1% of those revenues came from distribution of Canadian films. At the box office, Canadian features accounted for only 2% of receipts in Canada and the nation's films were rarely shown outside this country.

Canada is not alone in having its theatre screens dominated by US production. Hollywood is king in most parts of the world, but many countries have instituted restrictions to maintain a healthy domestic market for its film industry.

The national film and video policy promised a negotiated improvement in distribution of Canadian productions to Canadian audiences and to audiences worldwide, but the Liberal government of the time did nothing.

The year 1985 saw yet another federal government, and yet another task force made a report. This time the task force on the film industry had, as recommendation 1, domestic ownership and control of companies distributing films and videos. It noted, "Our problem is less one of obtaining entry to foreign markets than it is in gaining access to our own markets." It continued, "We require a firm domestic policy, not one subject to bilateral trade negotiations, particularly with the country that totally dominates our domestic market."

I don't want members to think that I am indulging in gratuitous US-bashing. Let me quote from the film industry task force again: "The Canadian film industry plays a unique role in our cultural expression. It defines our identity, creates jobs and has considerable economic ramifications." Looking after the Canadian film industry is not just a cultural necessity; it's good business.

More quotes from the task force:

"Distribution" -- and that's what this resolution is about -- "occupies a strategic position in the industry. It supplies markets and finances production. In 1981, 97% of profits from Canadian theatrical distribution went to foreign, mainly American, companies. In practice, the American industry considers Canada to be part of its domestic market. This situation is unique in the world. It poses a threat to Canadian sovereignty and hampers the growth of our industry."

Among the results of American control of distribution, the task force declared, was minimal screen time for Canadian productions, Canadian distributors holding only marginal positions in their own market, and Canadian film-goers, with their seat-buying dollars, financing foreign -- by which is meant Hollywood -- productions.

The task force pointed out that it just wanted Canadian distributors to have an opportunity to bid on rights to distribute films. It was not suggesting expropriation of property or keeping foreign films out of the country. What is needed is the right to compete fairly for distribution rights and to pay royalties for them, in accordance with standard business practice. That's what the task force said and that's what this resolution is about.

In 1988, the Film Products Incorporation Act, by all accounts, fell foul to the free trade talks, was watered down and then evaporated when a federal election was called.

Ontario has not been totally silent in the movie business. In 1987 it commissioned A Review of the Ontario Film and Video Distribution Industry, which found, "The vast majority of the business is controlled by subsidiaries of US studios." It noted Cineplex Odeon as "the largest theatre chain, not only in North America but possibly the world." It noted that all American production companies are vertically integrated to the distribution level by their branch offices in Canada.

In July 1990, the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ontario Film Development Corp released The Socioeconomic Impact Assessment of the Ontario Film and Video Industry. This noted the size of the industry: $2.7 billion in total domestic output, one of the top 20 industries in this province with a $5.4-billion trickle-down impact, creating 35,700 jobs.

In case anybody has ideas that giving our distributors the right we're suggesting in this resolution is an invitation to them to sit back, let me point out that the film industry in Ontario is lively, with 250 production companies. However, they make nearly 30% of their money from TV commercials. While I readily concede that commercials may well reflect our culture and our ethics, there are other aspects of our culture to be mirrored to the world: our kinder, gentler society, for instance.

The impact assessment noted difficulties in the film industry, lack of production financing and American domination of cinemas among them, both of which are addressed in this resolution.

No claim is made that your approval of this item will suddenly solve the problems of American domination of the industry or make our own distributors gloriously rich. It will simply be a start on putting the Canadian film industry, especially Ontario's part of it, into expansion mode.

The distribution part of the film business is the key to a healthy film industry. Successive governments of all parties have failed to turn this key. It is up to us, and I ask you to support this resolution.

Trade is fundamental to the economic wellbeing of a province. This is merely one aspect of the trade of this province but is essentially one of the 20 most important industries.

I look to this government and I look to this House for support in urging a response that will make this industry stronger.

The Acting Speaker: All recognized parties will now have 15 minutes to participate in the debate.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to this bill. I've read through it several times and, with due respect, I don't quite understand what he's trying to do. I somehow suspect by paragraph 3, where he says, "Use its regulatory powers under the Theatres Act," that this is an effort for government to once again jump into the marketplace and control and direct how things will be accomplished.

I have to say at the outset I agree with my friend that it troubles me and I think it troubles most Canadians that our children are being influenced by products that are beamed here through the electronic wizardry of discs and cables and all the rest of it and are in fact having an impact in terms of our morals, of our attitude towards life, our attitude towards family life and so on.

But unless you're prepared to build a wall that will perhaps reach to the sky to stop this wizardry, you're going to be involved in seeing it and it's going to have a direct impact on our young people and their attitudes towards all of the things I've suggested and many more. In fact I would suggest that Marshall McLuhan, who was probably well before his time, recognized the insidious nature of communications, particularly visual communications.

I think at that time, had we taken McLuhan up and accepted what he had said, we would have recognized the fact that if we wanted to protect not just our identity -- I agree our identity is important -- but if we wanted to protect our young people from images that were being produced in Hollywood, which at that time bore no reasonable representation of what was going on in the real life, if they had stopped it then, we wouldn't now be in a position where our society is in some respects emulating or adoring or falling at the feet of these images and these modes and ways of life.

Although I concern myself about the Canadian identity, I think that my friend, in introducing a bill such as this, perhaps could have given it a much broader and much more utilitarian and much more helpful face had he directed it in terms of what the responsibility of government is, if any, in entering a market field to make certain that the images that are projected and that we are bombarded with are ones that are healthy, that create a healthy lifestyle, a healthy attitude towards civilized society.

When we look at the number of images that are projected at us that contain violence towards women, towards a whole host of people, what is the government doing about that? My colleague the member for Eglinton debated a bill in here a short time ago, which I had the pleasure of participating in, talking about slasher movies. What have we done about that? What has the present government done about that?

They have the powers under the Theatres Act to deal with that. What have they done? I don't want to rehash that debate, but I think it's of some importance: They have the power to stop video stores from making available to kids, eight- and nine-year-olds, these movies where they can take them home and put them in the video machine, watch them and have their entire attitude changed and made very bad, deteriorate. I think that's where this should be directed.

I have concerns, as I've said, in terms of government trying to jump into the marketplace and direct what Canadians will do, or for that matter even finance them. There's a good deal to be said about entrepreneurial arrangements in this regard. Number one, it places an emphasis on the people who are investing in this type of material in ensuring that the product is one that's going to be marketable. Now that's a double-edged sword.

You can get entrepreneurs who want to sell smut because they figure it will make them a bigger profit or, on the other side of the coin, you can get people who are truly interested in the film industry in terms of achieving the end that my friend is reflecting in his motion: to achieve an identity of Canadians.

I came originally from the United States. I've been here since I was 17. I have to say that when I look at the United States and what has happened to the United States, particularly places like New York and Chicago, they have become totally out of control. The crime on the streets is unbelievable.

To a large degree, I think that's reflective of what the Hollywood idea puts on the screen, that it's fine to jump out of a helicopter with a bazooka and blow the brains out of all these other human beings. That's the type of attitude that prevails. It's no wonder then that joined with the Americans' right to bear arms and the fact that these kids are watching these movies, you are now seeing that type of violence creep into Canada.

In fact it's not the Canadian identity. I think if the government got involved in controlling how this is done and financing it, you would find that that would be just sort of shoved off on to the shelf. There would be really no interest in policing it and making certain that the content of that programming that we were going to try to establish to create the identity of Canadians was good, wholesome stuff. It would be an attempt to compete with the glossy, glitzy -- more often than not overglitzy -- attitudes that are prompted by Hollywood.

I don't want to condemn all of the films that come out of Hollywood. There are some very excellent ones that come out. But I suggest that if government has control of it, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be put on the shelf, just as they're doing with the slasher films, not exercising the powers they already have to take that smut off the shelves. So what can we expect government to do if it gets control of this industry itself?

The National Film Board, however, is an excellent example of how government perhaps can get involved in a singular way in terms of creating feature films, short subject films. We've seen many of them that I think as Canadians we should be very proud of that have wound up at the Cannes Film Festival or have wound up even getting nominated for Oscars in Hollywood in that big bash that takes place once a year.

I suggest to you that Canadians can compete. We have to stop telling Canadians that you need Big Brother or government to help you. I think the attitude of Canadians is, "We want an opportunity to be able to conduct our business free of government on our backs and having to file this and that with them every time we make a move." That's the type of environment in which you will see Canadian identity protected by Canadians.

I have to look at some of the -- and I try not to be partisan in these debates, but I have to at least jump into -- having just come from one of the budget breakfasts this morning where we tried to inform the public as to how the budget would impact on them, I look at the question of day care. There are people out there who want a choice, they want a choice between private and public day care. I didn't see one word in the budget talking about private day care even existing. It was simply public day care. Everything's public. The government is going to do everything for you.

All you've got to do is be prepared to continue to pay till you haven't got any money in your pocket and government will look after you from the cradle to the grave.

I suggest to you that's a bad mentality. That is a bad Canadian identity to reveal to the world and to Ontarians and Canadians alike. I think it's time we recognized that Canadians are in fact very bright people who have great ability to create -- very creative, industrious, inventive. I mean, you look at some of the inventors who have come from this country. They certainly weren't helped out by the government of the day and told what they could do or couldn't do. They were free thinkers. They had the opportunity to think freely, because governments of that day felt the entrepreneurial skills and the atmosphere should be created so that they could flourish.

The present government today, unfortunately, has this dogmatic ideologue attitude that you can't do anything. You can't cut down a tree because you need help in cutting down that tree. I suggest to you that's a very unhealthy attitude.

As much as my friend wants to protect the identity of the citizens of this province, I don't think they need government's protection, I say with all due respect to the member who has produced this motion. I think what they need is a free and open atmosphere to allow them to do this without hindrance from government. If you open up and give them that freedom of opportunity and you don't try to -- every time they want to do something and turn around, they've got to fill out a form or they've got to comply with a regulation or they have to do this or that.

If you do that, I suggest that you will find Canadians who will in fact participate fully in society, that they have the ability and the hope.

I think what's happening today is the hopes of Canadians are being dashed by the politicians who invoke taxes constantly, have drained them to the last cent in their pockets. I'm surprised they don't reach into our pockets personally and take that last couple of dollars, because they want it all, because they can do it better. My friend has been around this House long enough and I'm sure he's aware that governments don't do it better. Leave it to the individual.

Government's role should be, as I started out by saying, to maintain and protect the fabric of our society, to ensure that the quality of product that is being produced here or being allowed into this country is product that is going to make our children better, not worse. I suggest that the government perhaps should look at that first, before it starts suggesting that we should take over another operation by directing entrepreneurs how they will produce films and so on. Because, as I say, they've done a very poor job in terms of the slasher movies; they've done a very poor job in terms of ensuring that the quality and fabric of our society is maintained.

If that's the record of government, if that's government's record, then I suggest to you, I don't think I would want any part of government getting involved in that. I'd prefer to see the marketplace be the judge of how to produce films and let the purchaser and let the society determine that this is good or bad for them, and they'll invest in it or they won't invest in it.

I would think the large number of Canadians, although there are exceptions, will invest in a quality product. They'll invest in something they see that's going to demonstrate Canadians as an upbeat type of people with a large degree of family values, with a large degree of caring about individuals, less and less violence in them, and if that happens, I think you'll find the investment will flourish.

You do get the small group that will invest in smut, and they'll make a buck on anything, but I suggest that the largest number of Canadians are those people who have values, a different set of values than the United States, and this is one of the things about Canadians that's so beautiful. Perhaps we don't display our degree of individualism and we don't display this caring that we, as Canadians, have that perhaps distinguishes us from Americans.

That's why the only thing Americans know about us is that we have snow, and the standing joke used to be, and I think it still happens, you'll see them driving up here with their skis on their car in the middle of the summer, thinking, "Well, there must be snow in Canada because they're in the great white north."

Perhaps we should be selling what we have, and what we have is very distinctive. It's something that no one has ever been able to put a handle on. What are Canadians? What is Canadianism?

So you're quite right in this respect, that our identity must be maintained. But I would say on the other side of the coin that our identity should be something that we're proud of and that we tell other people about, and we relate it to them.

I just recently came back from travelling in England and France, and I find over there that they think we're all Americans. So my wife and I wore our Canada pins on our lapels because we figured that that way we would be received in a much better way.

I think Americans have a lot to learn from us as Canadians. They have a lot to learn about our caring attitude, the fact that we do care about the people who are not able to help themselves legitimately, that we're not prepared to run somebody over simply to make a buck, that we do, in fact, have a health care system which hopefully will continue to be the best in the world. I think Americans have a lot to learn from us. Americans come up here and are blown away by Toronto, the city of Toronto, and many of our small communities, because they still are relatively crime-free.

But I suggest that if government doesn't get off the backs of people and start doing what governments should do, to ensure safety and standards that will in fact maintain the fabric of Canadians, then we're going to go the same way as New York, Detroit and Chicago.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise this morning to speak to the member for Cambridge's resolution. The resolution is as follows:

"That, in the opinion of this House,

"(1) since our identity as citizens of this province is dependent on our national identity as Canadians; and

"(2) since Ontarians need and want Canadian commercial films which reflect and help shape the unique lives and dreams of Canadians; and

"(3) since the production of such films is dependent upon a viable national film industry and the development of a distinct Canadian market for commercial films; and

"(4) since the distribution sector is crucial to the health of the film industry, and distributors not only feed the markets but also finance film production by reinvesting their profits in new commercial films; and

"(5) since at this time, major US distributors control the Canadian feature film market and, as a result, only 4% of screen time in Canadian movie theatres is devoted to Canadian-made movies; and

"(6) since the US film industry has always seen Canada as part of the US domestic market; and

"(7) since the 1988 Canada-US free trade agreement and the proposed North American free trade agreement specifically provide that Canadian and provincial governments have the right to take steps to nurture a distinct national culture and protect Canadian sovereignty in this area; and

"(8) since Canadian distributors, most of whom are based in Ontario, are ready and able to buy separate Canadian distribution rights to successful foreign and independently produced American commercial films,

"the government of Ontario should work with the other provincial governments to urge the federal government to:

"(1) establish a nationwide licensing system that would,

"(

a) give Canadian distributors open access to independently produced commercial films; and

"(

b) limit the Canadian distribution rights of foreign distributors to films on which they were intended to hold the original copyright or on which they hold the world rights; and

"(2) promote as an issue to be addressed in future interprovincial trade talks, the elimination of barriers between provinces that currently prevent Canadian film distributors from having equal access to all Canadian markets."

The resolution continues. I won't continue reading it.

I would like to express my good wishes to the member for Cambridge. He's well liked and well respected by all members of this House, and he's put forward, in my opinion, a very sincere resolution that he feels should be addressed by this government.

The primary focus of this resolution is with respect to what the federal government can do, and that concerns me, because once again we see a member of the governing party talking about what the federal House should be doing, what the federal government should be doing to solve problems in this country, when in fact we have significant problems at the provincial level in this province, problems that we in this House deal with directly, that we really have an opportunity to influence. When we talk about the federal government, we can do it all we want, but really, we're responsible here for provincial problems that fall within provincial jurisdiction, and that concerns me.

With respect to this resolution, I consulted a number of knowledgeable people in my riding to seek their advice. A gentleman named Richard Dooley, who is a reporter for the Guelph Daily Mercury -- the honourable member may know him -- has written a number of newspaper articles about this very issue, and I sought his advice. He gave me the example of a film called Company of Strangers, which was a National Film Board production that won several awards abroad in international festivals and only after the international recognition came to the Canadian screens in a big way.

I also talked to a gentleman by the name of John Chalmers, who is I believe the owner-manager of something called the Gorge Cinema in Elora. I would like to tell all members about the excellence of that repertory cinema. We're very, very fortunate to have it in our riding of Wellington. That cinema, the Gorge Cinema, has been helped in the past with respect to endeavouring to screen Canadian-made movies through the assistance of the Ontario Film Development Corp, a program called the repertory cinema pilot project which assisted in the marketing of a number of Canadian films.

They make an effort at the Gorge Cinema to screen about 12 Canadian movies every year. I want to call them movies, because I think people traditionally don't talk about films; they talk about movies. What we're talking about here is actually movies that people want to see, and I think we have to keep it in that context.

The member has indicated that there are significant problems with respect to the ability of Canadian screen owners to screen American movies. There's a problem with respect to distribution. Because of the fact that the distribution end of the movie business is pretty well owned and operated by the American distributors, that creates problems. There is some degree of academic research which actually refutes this statement.

It suggests that this is actually a myth, that the distribution of films in Canada is handled as a matter of course and that the fact that US-owned distributors primarily distribute US films, really they don't have a problem with producing Canadian films if people want to watch them.

Steven Globerman, who is with the faculty of business administration at Simon Fraser University, has written on this subject. I refer to an

article that was published in the Canadian Journal of Communications in 1991, and I'd just like to read a paragraph out of his conclusion of a lengthy journal article. Mr Globerman writes:

"US film producers have a long-standing competitive advantage in the film industry that is not likely to be eroded by marginal changes in the structure of Canada's domestic industry. Improving the competitiveness of Canada's feature film industry quite simply requires making more films that a greater number of people want to see. Commercially produced Canadian films will be distributed by the majors, since it is in the majors' self-interest to do so. Commercially unpromising Canadian films will require government subsidy regardless of who owns the distribution sector.

In short, simply reducing foreign ownership in Canada's film distribution sector will not promote the production of more Canadian films."

What simply he is saying is, if a Canadian film is good, people will want to see it. If a Canadian film is good, if it receives positive critical reviews, it will be seen. If it's good, it will be marketed, and if it's good, people will want to see it and they'll pay to see it.

There are a number of good examples -- I'm very pleased to speak in support of our excellent film industry that we have -- in recent years. Denys Arcand, who is quite a well-renowned film director from Montreal -- two movies that were very well received critically and received substantial box office success as well, Decline of the American Empire, Jesus of Montreal; a more recent movie, Black Robe, which was directed by an Australian director, Bruce Beresford, but was with respect to a Canadian story, a Canadian novel set in Canada, actually a $14-million movie.

It's a very, very expensive, significant movie to be made in Canada. All three of those movies were good. They received good critical reviews and people went to see them.

Now we see, with this government's policy in this budget as of yesterday, $2 billion in new tax increases, money taken out of people's pockets, disposable income from every single family across the province being taken from their pockets. How can we see that anybody's going to be going to any movies, much less Canadian, much less whatever kind of movie you want to categorize? It's going to be very, very difficult. It costs the average family about $50 for two people to go to a movie, if you take into the account the babysitter, the food, the parking and the actual $8 admission fee for each movie that people go to.

With this government's tax increases, which will take most of the disposable income from every single family in Ontario starting July 1, when the theatres really do most of their business over the summertime, it's going to be very difficult for any of these screens to be able to continue to have people coming in. It's going to be very difficult for families who want to see movies; it doesn't matter what kind of movie you're talking about.

I recognize what the member for Cambridge is saying, but I submit to you that the government which he sits with has brought in policies that are going to devastate the film industry in Ontario and Canada and the screen owners.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I'm very pleased to join in this debate and I want to thank the member for Cambridge for this topical resolution. Unlike others today, I'm going to stay on topic and talk about the film industry.

As you know, the federal government moves closer each day to signing the NAFTA agreement, which, if we borrow from the film industry horror movie titles, could be called the Free Trade Agreement

Part II or the Foolish, Irresponsible Trade Policy that Ate Canada.

We all know about the more overt results of the 1989 free trade agreement: the deindustrialization of Ontario, the direct loss of 45,000 jobs, the increase to our social assistance rolls and the burden place on Ontarians as we try to meet our obligations to ourselves, our children and each other, a burden that has been very difficult for many of us in Ontario to carry.

One area, however, in regard to the damage on our society by the free trade agreement often overlooked is the damage to our cultural industries. Some in this House or watching on television mightn't appreciate the full implication of this threat to cultural industries. That is unfortunate.

When we read the works of a Margaret Laurence, Alice Munro, Margaret Atwood, Robertson Davies or Timothy Findley, we recognize ourselves. We feel the strength and endurance of the land and we sense something of our identity -- past, present and future. It's something that defies explanation. The same is true of Canadian films and Canadian television productions. Their continued availability is essential if we are to see reflections of ourselves, of who we are, in public broadcasts, movie houses and videos. That is why it is so essential to look carefully at the cultural implications of the free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement.

Last April, members of the Directors Guild of Canada and the Ontario district council of the guild presented a brief to the Ontario cabinet committee on NAFTA, of which I was a member. A key part of the presentation focused on film distribution in Canada and the need to not only strengthen Canada's own film distribution industry but to require that Canada be treated as a separate market for film rather than as part of the domestic US market. It is essential that the distribution sector of the film industry be under the control of Canadians, because from distribution of films comes revenue and from revenue comes investment in more films, thereby generating more revenue.

Did you know that more than $1.5 billion in annual revenue is realized from movie theatre and home video markets, and the vast majority of the revenues earned from such film distribution in Canada flows back to the US and is invested in making American movies? This drain poses a serious threat to Canadian culture and Canadian sovereignty and strangles the growth of our own film industry.

This is simply not acceptable, and what is most upsetting is that despite the clear need for protection of Canadian cultural industries and lipservice to that protection by the federal Tory government, that protection was abandoned because of pressure during free trade agreement talks by the powerful Motion Picture Association of America, and Canadian distribution rights were traded away. Interestingly enough, Mexico retained the right for 30% of screen time for films made by Mexican producers. It would seem that Canadian free-traders didn't just fail to protect our energy and natural resources under the free trade agreement and NAFTA but also managed to squander our cultural resources.

I would like to conclude my remarks, because I know that others in my caucus would like to speak, by indicating support for my colleague's resolution to urge the federal government to establish a nationwide licensing system and give Canadian distributors open access to independently produced commercial films and to encourage the government of Ontario to work on the development of an industrial strategy to promote the distribution of Canadian commercial films as part of Canadian cultural industries, and, above all, to defeat regressive trade agreements like the FTA and NAFTA that are strangling us materially and suffocating us spiritually.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution brought forward today by the member for Cambridge.

In essence, what this resolution is all about is:

"Since our identity as citizens of this province is dependent on our national identity as Canadians; and

"Since Ontarians need and want Canadian commercial films which reflect and help shape the unique lives and dreams of Canadians; and

"Since the production of such films is dependent on a viable national film industry and the development of a distinct Canadian market for commercial films; and

"Since the distribution sector is crucial to the health of the film industry, and distributors not only feed the markets but also finance film production by reinvesting their profits in new commercial films...."

While I support this resolution in principle, I suspect that the real intent of the member for Cambridge is to give his colleagues an opportunity to take some cheap shots at the federal government and free trade, rather than concentrating on cleaning up their own backyard.

What's not to support in a resolution filled with motherhood statements? Who can argue with the fact that our identity as citizens of this province is dependent on our national identity as Canadians? I suspect most of my colleagues here in this Legislature agree with the American film director D.W. Griffith, who told the Toronto Star on December 15, 1925: "You in Canada should not be dependent either on the United States or Great Britain. You should have your own films and exchange them with those of other countries. You can make them just as well in Toronto as in New York."

Of course Ontarians need and want Canadian commercial films that reflect and help shape the unique lives and dreams of Canadians. We in Canada are more than capable of producing films of our own that are distinctly Canadian, rather than trying to copy the Hollywood film establishment industry. Don Shebib, Canadian director of the film Goin' Down the Road, told the Toronto Globe and Mail on October 31, 1970: "I know a whole lot of people here are pushing hard to make Hollywood establishment films. The trouble is, of course, that they won't be won't be nearly as good as Hollywood establishment films." So why bother? asked Don Shebib.

Who wouldn't want government to work on the development of an industrial strategy to promote the distribution of Canadian commercial films as part of Canadian cultural industries?

In 1975, film critic John Hofsess noted that it would take more than government action to create a viable film industry when he said:

"To create a Canadian film industry, we first have to create Canada. Whatever happens to Canada's film culture will be symptomatic of Canada as a whole. The struggle goes on, and everyone, including the apathetic, is determining the outcome."

As I said earlier, this resolution is just a bunch of feeble, cheap shots at the federal trade agreement between Canada and the United States and the North American free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico. Other than containing a series of motherhood statements, it really does not do much for the film industry.

The member for Cambridge should know that Ontario, more than any other province, depends on bilateral trade with the United States to generate much of its wealth. No other province has more to lose if access to that market is constrained or reduced. Yes, the member for Cambridge and his colleagues know full well that for Canada, participation in NAFTA is regarded as a protectionist move. In order to avoid being shut out of the large market, Canada must continue to go along with the expansion of the free trade network.

I would suspect the people of Ontario would want their government to concentrate on cleaning up its own backyard, rather than working so hard and wasting so much time on resolutions that are nothing more than a poorly disguised attack on another level of government and its policies. You would almost think that political economist and renowned humorist Stephen Leacock, who once resided in the Sunshine City of Orillia on the shores of Lake Couchiching, was looking 60 years ahead into the future when, in 1933, he said:

"Socialism is only a bright soap bubble, light as ignorance and floating with its own gas. It would only work in a community of impossible people, guided by impossible leaders and inspired by an inconceivable goodwill." That was what Stephen Leacock said back in 1933. "The angels, no doubt, are socialists."

I believe the people of Ontario would tend to think about yesterday's budget if they read what Stephen Leacock said in 1959: "Socialism won't work in heaven, where they don't need it, and in hell, where they already have it." Enough said.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I take great pleasure in supporting the resolution put forward by the member for Cambridge, and I do this for two main, but connected, reasons.

First is the crassly economic one. Filmmaking is a business and a job provider. The relevant skills, once developed, are a valuable asset, just as are other skills. Films can be exported, they can make money, and I hope and believe quality counts here, as in other fields. What Canadians do best are films that express our own culture. To nurture and encourage the filmmaking expertise we have here is part of maintaining and strengthening our competitive advantage in the global economy.

But films are more than just cash producers. They are an expression of who we are, a vehicle for strengthening and nourishing our culture. We are not Americans. In fact, Jack Kapica's column in yesterday's Globe and Mail suggested that we are more spiritually distinct than is readily apparent.

Personally, as someone who chose to live in Canada, I have to say that I prefer Canadian films. Canada has a distinct and wonderful culture which varies with our many regions and populations. We should be proud of it. We have a lot to offer both each other and the rest of the world. We allow that self-expression to be suffocated at our collective peril.

We have a commendable record in film production. In particular, the National Film Board of Canada has produced excellent documentaries that deserve far wider showing than they actually get and would go a long way, if seen, to nourishing our national psyche.

I recently took a Canadian studies course that used these documentaries. I was amazed by the impact they had. But how many people see them? The movie version of Margaret Laurence's The Diviners captured the distinct Canadian flavour of the original novel. We can make great films.

Quebec in particular has many wonderful films to its credit which deserve a wider currency in the other provinces. Some have already been mentioned, but going back a bit further in time I think of Mon Oncle Antoine, Kamouraska and many others. If more widely seen, they might go far to dissolving some of the prejudice and ignorance that divide Canada's two solitudes, and Quebec, I'm sure, could benefit from films made elsewhere in Canada.

It is incredible that we have committed internal barriers to stunt the growth for so long of our already struggling national culture. We have good literature, beautiful and varied landscapes, the richness of our different regional and ethnic traditions and the talents of our people to celebrate. Toronto alone has many worlds within worlds that need to get to know each other. I remember a film about a young Italian Canadian that could only have been made in Toronto.

Why should we devalue ourselves by allowing both cultural and economic takeovers from the south? Unlike most nationalities, Canadians suffer from being too modest, too self-deprecating and from not realizing how much we have to offer. Let's take out some of that wealth and capture it on film and show it to each other and to the world.

I strongly believe that this government should work with the federal government to remove internal and other barriers to make sure that Canadians can make and see films about ourselves. The alternative is either no film industry or to make fake US movies here and export them. We can do better than that.

Above all, we must not let NAFTA or any other agreement deprive us of our ability to develop our own culture.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): In many respects, I really don't want to repeat a number of the comments that my very able colleagues have made. I appreciate the comments particularly from the member for Middlesex, who in fact made a number of the comments that I would like to have made about NAFTA, because I think that's something we're all keenly aware of and it's something that really and truly we have to address.

I don't want to steal the thunder from the member for Cambridge in addressing some of the points the member for Wellington had raised, but I feel somewhat compelled to respond at this time. I furiously started to write as he was making these comments.

The member opposite indicates that this is a federal issue, and I wouldn't be one to in any way deny that. Culture is primarily a federal issue, but at the same time I think all of us are aware that there are issues that do come up in this House where all members on all sides really want to take a position. I think culture, along with agriculture, is an area where we feel very strongly. They are important national issues but they also have a very important political concern, and we want to do something to protect those provincial industries.

If we take a look at what's happening in the supply management side of agriculture, in your riding, Mr Speaker, with the dairy industry and what have you, we would feel very loath in this House to say, "It's only a federal issue and we can't take a position." Very clearly, a lot of the rural members in this House would say, "No, we have to say something."

Culture in my part of the world also is very important, because I represent a riding that has a very vital cultural industry. It doesn't have a film industry per se, but it has an entertainment industry, a cultural industry. Provincially, I think it's very important for the people watching and members in this House to realize that one in six workers in this province is employed in the entertainment industry. If we do not promote that industry, you will see job loss. We have seen cutbacks in that industry over time because of the kind of --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Attitude.

Ms Haeck: -- attitude, thank you, but also the draconian measures that the US would like to bring to our film industry. They want to be the only ones to distribute films and they want to take over that vital industry. I personally can't agree with that and I know many people within my riding would not either. They would want to be able to see our technicians, our cultural workers actively employed in an industry that is important to us and to see that we're in a position of expanding.

Getting our products, cultural or otherwise, to market is the very foundation of both maintaining and possibly increasing our market share. When the US insists, as it has time and again, that it will dominate the distribution of our film products as well as its own, it effectively means the loss of our cultural industry.

I believe at the heart of my comments is the agreement with my colleague the member for Cambridge that our cultural industries are important and need support. I obviously am in support of the member's resolution and thank him for the opportunity in this House to discuss an issue which should receive national attention, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member and indeed all members for participating. The honourable member for Cambridge now has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Farnan: I want to thank my colleagues the members for Middlesex, Peterborough and St Catharines-Brock for a very substantive contribution to the debate. I might include that I was impressed with the contribution made by the member for Wellington. Having said that, I despair of the quality of debate that takes place in this House around substantive issues.

On one of the most important issues facing this society, our cultural identity, an industry that's one of the 20 most important industries, the only contribution from the Liberal Party was Mr Callahan, the member for Brampton South, who for 15 minutes went on with irrelevant ramblings. He was merely filling time; he was not addressing the issue. It was basically harmless stuff, but honestly, people in this industry must be frothing, absolutely disgusted and angry that the official opposition has nothing to say on an issue of great importance to them.

Then let me turn to the contribution of the member for Simcoe East, Mr McLean. He stood in his place, not having been here for the debate, having wandered in at the end of the debate, and said he presumed that this resolution must be a partisan-inspired resolution. If he had been here, he would have realized that was absolutely far removed from where I stood and the contribution I made. What I listened to from Mr McLean was a totally partisan rant on behalf of the member for Simcoe East, totally removed from the issue of substance that we are debating.

I am worried. I am concerned, and the people of Ontario have every right to be concerned, when issues of substance, when issues that affect the economic health of our society have so little interest to the opposition parties that we can have the kind of contribution we've had from the Liberals, which was absolutely nil, talking about day care and trees when the issue is Canadian identity and the film industry, and from the member for Simcoe East, which basically was one of the most partisan rants that I have heard on an issue of substance.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 9, Mrs Witmer's resolution. Are any members in this House opposed to a vote on Mrs Witmer's resolution? If so, please stand.

All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's resolution please say "aye."

All those opposed please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would all members take their seats.

All those in favour of Mrs Witmer's motion, please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Arnott, Callahan, Cousens, Daigeler, Harnick, Harris, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, McLean, Murdoch (Grey), Poole, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mrs Witmer's motion, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Klopp, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Rizzo, Sutherland, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 20; the nays are 32. I declare the motion lost.

CANADIAN FILM INDUSTRY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 10, standing in the name of Mr Farnan. All those in favour --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Are there any members opposed to a vote on Mr Farnan's resolution? If so, please stand.

All those in favour of Mr Farnan's resolution, please rise and remain standing --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1214 to 1219.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Farnan's resolution please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Arnott, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Klopp, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Poole, Rizzo, Tilson, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Farnan's resolution please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Callahan.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 35; the nays are 1. I declare the motion carried.

It now being past 12 noon, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 today.

The House recessed at 1222.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TAX INCREASES

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Yesterday's budget cast a dark gloom across this province. Today, many people are reading reports of the budget, and the extent of the tax grab is becoming more evident.

This is a budget which among others attacks our young people and our seniors. Ontario's young people are facing a job crisis. The unemployment rate for our 15- to 24-year-olds is 17.5%, and right now in this province more than 150,000 young people in Ontario are out of work.

With this backdrop in mind, the government imposes taxes, taxes which directly hit our young people, the ones who are trying to find work. The government has increased their cost of living. Our young people will now pay tax on their auto insurance premiums and they will be paying tax on parking fees, dollars which they can scarcely afford. How is it that this government can justify this direct blow to our young people?

What about our seniors? Mr Speaker, you will know that these are the people who built our communities. In many instances, they are on fixed incomes, and as of yesterday, apart from the tax on car insurance, the tax on parking, they too will be paying taxes on their property insurance premiums. This is nothing less than an insult. It is regressive, it is hurtful, it is callous.

The government should be ashamed of its attack on our youth, especially on the jobless, and our seniors. Mr Premier, how do you justify this assault?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that we recess for 15 minutes until the government feels that it can find the time to come in and listen to the proceedings of the House.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Are you asking for unanimous consent?

Mr Elston: That's right, for a recess for 15 minutes, until the government feels that it can provide enough people. There is not one, single minister in this place. These people are responsible for the budget. These things are supposed to be taken care of in the normal routine business.

The Speaker: The member, first of all, will note that this is members' statements time, which is available to backbench members. I understand the member's concern, but perhaps we'll reach another point of the routine proceedings.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe a quorum is present in this place.

The Speaker: Would the table count, please.

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

The Speaker: Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My statement is in regard of the Madawaska Highlands regional trust proposal --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Where the hell is the government?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member for Mississauga West please come to order. Stop the clock, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask the House to come to order, for all members to respect the opportunity for private members to make statements.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): After the budget yesterday --

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South is asked to come to order so that his own colleague can have his minute and a half. The member for Lanark-Renfrew.

CONSERVATION

Mr Jordan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My statement is in regard of the Madawaska Highlands regional trust proposal in eastern Ontario.

The Premier and Minister of Natural Resources are in Algonquin Park today celebrating the 100th anniversary of Ontario's parks. We are celebrating the 260 parks in Ontario that cover an area larger than the province of Nova Scotia. After his tour of the park, the Minister of Natural Resources will appear at a public meeting in Denbigh this evening where he will face a crowd of over 1,500 people at an information session about the highlands proposal.

While celebrating the 6.3 million hectares of parkland, the Ministry of Natural Resources wants to establish another 4,000-hectare conservation area in the highlands region. For what would amount to only 0.07% of Ontario's parklands, the MNR is prepared to stifle the forest industry in eastern Ontario.

The Minister of Natural Resources has launched the silviculture tour of northern Ontario to "reflect on the importance of forests to our community." It seems that the MNR has failed to reflect upon the amount of jobs and revenue that will be lost if this proposal is implemented.

Constituents of mine who have attended previous information sessions by the MNR say that it appears as though the wheels are already in motion, that this conservation area will be established regardless of consultation.

I hope that the Minister of Natural Resources can prove this assumption wrong. I am asking the government to listen to the people who attend the meeting in Denbigh and to engage in true consultation. I am positive that you will find that the overwhelming majority of the people in the highlands region are opposed to this highlands proposal.

CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I rise before this Legislature today and give an account of the events which took place last Friday at Dougall Avenue Public School in Windsor-Sandwich. May I say that the school put forth all efforts to ensure an enjoyable and exciting event, an event attended by the entire student body, some parents and also my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

It is truly a joy to watch and be part of an exciting event as it unfolds and to see the look on the faces of new citizens as they are welcomed to Canada. This past Friday was one of those events, when Judge Velma Meconi presided at Dougall Avenue Public School and invited students, parents and teachers to take

part in a citizenship reaffirmation ceremony, a time when we reaffirm our allegiance to Canada and, of course, the Queen.

Judge Meconi is the presiding citizenship judge in Windsor. On many occasions I've been in attendance at her chambers on University Avenue to listen and to observe as she welcomes new citizens to Ontario and Canada. Judge Meconi is a judge who believes court sessions should be brought to the people and has many times brought her podium, her oath and her staff to various different settings throughout the city of Windsor.

About 20 children were brought to the stage, given a miniature flag and a scroll. They read aloud, as I did, the oath reaffirming our commitment to this great country of ours. Here's what the scroll looks like.

I simply would like to thank the teachers and staff of Dougall Avenue Public School for the kindness and generosity afforded to us during the ceremony. Their songs were splendid and their artwork second to none. Thanks to Judge Velma Meconi for bringing us a bit closer to an event which usually takes place in a court type of setting. To the children at Dougall Avenue Public School I'd like to say, "Make it a better place."

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): As you know, tourism is Ontario's fourth-largest export industry and the province's largest employer in the service sector. The industry, because of this budget, will again be hard hit by reduced consumer spending and the lack of confidence due to increases in provincial corporate and income taxes and the expansion of the consumption taxes that were announced in yesterday's budget.

The cancellation of the Ontario -- Incredible! program will be a loss of $15 million. This will seriously affect many of the conventions that were coming into the province and that may now cancel. The decision on the business deductions for meals will also greatly affect our numbers. In Australia alone, they found that in a matter of months 10,500 jobs were lost.

There are 30,000 businesses in the Ontario tourism industry, most of them small and family-owned, which have generated $16.9 billion in tourism expenditures, $2.3 billion in provincial taxes and $3.3 billion in foreign exchange earnings over the time. Many of these will disappear, go bankrupt and out of business because of this budget.

Premier, you, the Treasurer and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation have failed to recognize in this budget that the tourism and hospitality industry is an integral part of the social and economic fabric of every community in the province.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Yesterday's budget and the government's whole approach to deficit reduction have revealed who the real victims are of eight years of fiscal mismanagement at the hands of the Liberals and the NDP: the individual taxpayers.

The PC Party is supportive of deficit-reduction measures and led opinion on this issue long before anyone else in this assembly clued into that being the right thing to do, but we do not support the approach being utilized by this panic-stricken government.

You are in crisis management mode, formulating destructive proposals, like the fee proposals, which will have detrimental effects on graduating medical students. As the OMA president said recently, the slash-and-burn approach brought on by this government's panic is the antithesis of careful, planned, rational management and change.

The PC Party strongly opposes the tax hikes in yesterday's budget, which will leave less money in the pockets of consumers and less money available to fuel economic recovery.

We're also opposed to the government's unrealistic and unreasonable approach to expenditure reduction. The government is still a long way from fiscal accountability.

We had hoped for a budget which would have addressed the waste in government, such as the problem of health card fraud, rather than a fiscal plan which attacks Ontario's already overburdened taxpayers.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to talk about a march that I protested in and joined with at Parliament Hill in Ottawa last Saturday.

Mr Speaker, 100,000 people from across Canada turned out, 100,000 people with one voice, and that voice --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Why don't you do that at Queen's Park in Toronto?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Give me a break; 100,000.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr White: -- delivered a message to the Mulroney government: "Your government, Mr Mulroney, robbed us of our jobs by forcing the free trade agreement down our throats and now is prepared to completely give away our future and that of our families by implementing the North American free trade agreement."

That message was loud and clear and repeated by activists and trade union members from across this province, across Canada, that those who are the hardest hit by the recession want jobs, the jobs that free trade and NAFTA have exported to the United States and to Mexico. They want their federal government to represent their interests and not those of multinationals and of foreign countries.

I was proud to join those 100,000 people, proud to join our CAW local and to bus up with them and with their children to Ottawa on Saturday. These Canadians made the effort to go by car, by bus, by train to the seat of the federal government. They demanded that the federal government get off its seat and recognize the situation. The subject is our economy and our jobs.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Consumers in many parts of Ontario awoke this morning to huge and unjustified increases in gasoline prices, which as always were hiked across the board by all oil companies, by the same amount and at the same time within communities across the province.

Peop