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

March 28, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L049 - Thu 28 Mar 1996 / Jeu 28 Mar 1996

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

MOTORCYCLES

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

MOTORCYCLES

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INSURANCE AGENT EXAMINATION CENTRES

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

SAMANTHA WALKER

LONG-TERM CARE

MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

MARJORIE LEWSEY

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION FINANCING

COMMUNITY-BASED CARE

THOMAS STELLING

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

WATER QUALITY

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

MINISTRY RELOCATION

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

WORKFARE

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

VISITORS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

PRIVATIZATION OF ONTARIO HYDRO

SCARBOROUGH GENERAL HOSPITAL

ECONOMIC POLICY

BUS TRANSPORTATION

JEU TÉLÉDIFFUSÉ

TAX REDUCTION

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

ST THOMAS PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

ST JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

BUS TRANSPORTATION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TD TRUST COMPANY ACT, 1995

CITY OF SCARBOROUGH ACT, 1995

1092040 ONTARIO INC ACT, 1996

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE (CONTINUED)

VISITORS

LAND USE PLANNING AND PROTECTION ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 SUR LA PROTECTION ET L'AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE (CONTINUED)

COMMENTS OF SOLICITOR GENERAL

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Ms Lankin moved private member's notice of motion number 8:

That in the opinion of this House, since the evidence placed before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs illustrates that the stated fiscal plan of the government will not work and that the government's commitment to deliver 725,000 jobs over the next four years is unattainable, given the current state of the Ontario economy combined with the government's plan to deliver a 30% reduction in personal income taxes at the same time as eliminating the deficit and that the evidence presented to the committee illustrates the contradictions within the government's fiscal and economic agenda as well as the damage it will cause in every community in Ontario, therefore this House calls on the government to recognize its responsibility to working men and women in this province and abandon its plan to introduce a 30% reduction in personal income taxes and instead the government should concentrate on the creation of jobs so that the economy will grow, the deficit can be eliminated and the accumulated debt reduced.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member has 10 minutes.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I recognize that, in some ways, the members opposite might think this resolution is a little bit of heresy, because in fact it runs in an absolutely contradictory fashion to the promises that the government made during the campaign in the Common Sense Revolution. I know that the 30% income tax reduction is one of the key promises and one they feel honour-bound to continue and to deliver. But I think it's really important that the members opposite take the time to understand the impact of their economic policy on the fiscal status of the province, on the economic status of the province and on the lives of men and women and families in this province.

There are times in government when you come to recognize that your stated plans aren't workable, aren't implementable or won't have the same results as you anticipated, when you should be wise enough to reconsider those initiatives. I believe very strongly that such is the case with respect to the 30% income tax cut.

Let me take the members opposite through the reasons that I've come to that conclusion. I don't argue that a 30% tax cut wouldn't be nice, I don't argue that people wouldn't appreciate having more disposable income; what I do argue is whether or not we can afford the cost of that right now and whether or not it will provide any kind of benefit to our economy in the way in which the Premier argues.

Firstly, let me say to you that the cost of that tax cut over the next four to five years is in the order of $27 billion. That's $27 billion in a combination of lost revenue and interest charges that you'll have to pay on borrowing more money. You're going to increase the debt load in this province way out into the year 2001 as a result of sticking to this commitment to the tax cut.

For what reason? You argue because it will be a major economic stimulus. But every expert witness who came before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs disagreed with you on that. Even your own finance minister suggested that in the first couple of years there would probably be no economic stimulus from this initiative and that he couldn't quantify what the effect would be in the future. He just hoped that it would restore some sense of consumer confidence and some sense of purchasing power to people and that this would have a positive effect on the economy.

Fully two thirds of the value of this tax cut, the lost revenue that the government is going to spend -- I mean, it is an expenditure in a sense; it's a very large spending program that you're undertaking here -- will go to families that are earning over $90,000 a year. I think it's a false argument to suggest that those families are going to immediately go out and spend the $2,000, the $3,000 or the $5,000 that they will receive back in a way that will stimulate our economy. I've heard members opposite talk about people going out and buying fridges and stoves. How many fridges does a family making over $90,000 a year need? This is not a valid argument.

In fact, all of the consumption studies that have been done indicate that families in that socioeconomic level will take that money and either pay down indebtedness or put it into savings or investments -- mutual funds, whatever -- much of that being offshore, investment in the Asia Pacific rim; not a benefit to our economy. Or as Professor John Crispo, a well-known supporter of your party, said the other night in a debate that I was taking

part in with a member of your party and a member of the Liberal Party, he and his wife are going to take a holiday down south someplace with their money.

That is not money that is going to go back into the Ontario economy. There is tremendous leakage from that. So if in fact your goal is to stimulate the economy, I suggest you're using the wrong policy tool to do that. If you are absolutely committed to giving up that much revenue, then perhaps you should take a look at other mechanisms, a mix of different kinds of measures, including looking at sales tax, which would have a more direct and immediate economic stimulus in the economy than the income tax cut that you have proposed.

But let me argue with you why you should not proceed down this line at all. We see economic growth being much slower than the government anticipated in the Common Sense Revolution, which means that revenues coming in to government are already lower than you anticipated in your own document, which means that the gap between revenues and expenditures is larger and you are already looking at a larger deficit than you anticipated.

In order to make up for the money that you will be losing in revenue as a result of this tax cut, you will have to make cuts much deeper, much harsher than even you anticipated in the Common Sense Revolution.

These are cuts that have a real impact on our communities, on our health care system, on our education system -- we've already seen announcements of $1.3 billion being cut from hospitals alone, which is only one part of the health care system; $400 million being cut from our education system, with a minister who has promised that in fact that should probably increase to over $1 billion; we've seen cuts in law enforcement; we've seen cuts in programs that support the very fabric of our communities. These affect real people's lives.

But perhaps it would be more persuasive with the group opposite if I make the argument based on economic conditions, because this kind of cut in public spending also affects our economy. You can't take $8 billion out of the economy and not expect that to slow down economic growth and not expect that the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of public sector jobs that will be cut as a result of that massive reduction in expenditure will not affect the economy or consumer confidence. Let me tell you that people who are afraid of losing their jobs are not going to go out and buy and people who don't have a job can't go out and buy.

I know that in the Common Sense Revolution you went around and you told everyone: "Elect us and the investment will come. Our doors will be open and we'll just declare Ontario open for business and it will come." It's not coming, my friends. In fact, the enormous size of the cuts that you are making in public spending are very close to pushing us back into a recession at this point in time.

Again, all of the expert witnesses who came before the committee on finance and economic affairs urged extreme caution, urged that you understand that the economic effect of the cuts is a real one -- the public sector is part of our economy -- and that if you're not cautious about the approach that you take here, the combination of those massive cuts, potentially missing your deficit targets as a result of continuing with your absolute obsession with a 30% tax cut, all leads us to the potential of seeing recessionary pressures return to this province and massive job losses in the private sector as a result of that as well.

The Premier attempted some voodoo economics last week to tell us that the tax cut was going to pay for itself, that simply by cutting the economic stimulus that would be brought about in the economy would create jobs and then those people would be working and paying taxes and that in fact you weren't going to lose any revenue, you were going to make revenue on this. I don't know; based on that theory, if that's what it's going to take, cut it by 60% and then we'll have full employment. It's nonsense and there is no one with any sense of economics who agrees with the Premier.

The Premier stands in his place and says they're all wrong: "The experts from the banks are wrong, the experts from the business community are wrong, the experts from the board of trade are wrong, the experts from the trade union movement are wrong. Everybody else is wrong but me." Why? "Because I believe in the Common Sense Revolution and everything in the Common Sense Revolution is the truth and we're just going to continue no matter what everybody else out there has to say about it, no matter what the impact is going to be on the economy and no matter what the impact is going to be on the Ontarians that we are elected to represent and on whose behalf we govern."

That is an irresponsible approach from the Premier of the province and from the governing party. You must understand the balance that must be struck between your Common Sense Revolution ideology and the real world in Ontario in which you govern.

I say to you, please take a look at what is happening in our economy. Please take a look at the fact that all the experts urge caution at this point in time, that no one believes that this is the right time for you to proceed with this tax cut except the taxpayers' coalition that made the Premier sign a promise that he would resign if in fact he didn't keep this promise.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): This private member's resolution is based on faulty premises. Its basic premise is that the critics of the government are right and that the people of Ontario, who elected this government, are wrong.

This resolution is also highly selective in its citation of the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. A total of 78 groups and individuals appeared before the committee. Except for those groups that are heavily reliant on government funding, an overwhelming majority agreed with the government's commitment to reduce the deficit. They agreed with the government's commitment to bring down the debt-to-GDP ratio.

Almost all the business groups agreed that expenditure cuts are absolutely essential to restoring market confidence in the economy and attracting investment and creating jobs. This is part of our fiscal plan that the member's resolution rejects.

The NDP resolution pretends that economists are agreed that the cure for high deficits, high debt and high taxes won't work. The fact is that economists are divided. As anyone who has dealt with economists knows, four economists can look at one problem and come up with four different solutions, yet the NDP's resolution makes a sweeping and unproven declaration. It says that the government's fiscal plan won't work. The fact is, members of the third party sitting opposite simply don't know that.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine can speculate and even hope that the government's program won't work, but the member can only hope and speculate; nothing more. In fact, many experts believe that our fiscal plan is exactly what is needed to reduce Ontario from the legacy of the NDP's profligate spending and tax increases.

Catherine Swift, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, said before the committee that, "We believe that cutting taxes and balancing the budget will improve Ontario's competitive position, which will enhance our attractiveness as a place to invest and do business and provide a direct boost to job creation." The Royal Bank also said that our policies will help attract investment and make Ontario competitive. Despite this, the NDP's doom-and-gloom resolution says that the government's goal of 725,000 jobs in five years is unattainable. Well, the member for Beaches-Woodbine can't know that. Again I say that the member is merely hoping and speculating.

Might I point out to you that the facts suggest a far more promising future in so far as jobs are concerned. There were 31,000 new jobs created in the month of February, the highest in the past 16 months. As Finance Minister Ernie Eves pointed out, this shows the confidence in our government's plans and the financial community is beginning to take heed and invest and create jobs.

Canada Trust said that international markets, in fact, are already treating Ontario's debt as if it had been upgraded. And the Council of Ontario Construction Associations already has said that the image of Ontario as a place to invest has improved greatly.

The NDP resolution also presumes that a cut in personal income tax will not be good for the economy. The members of the NDP sitting opposite are entitled to that view, but the people of Ontario simply don't agree. They voted for a tax cut last June. Last January, in the annual Maclean's poll, it showed that the majority of Ontarians continue to want a tax cut, and the presenters before the finance committee argued in favour of a tax cut. This included a wide range of business groups.

The fiscal program that this resolution rejects is based on our belief that cutting taxes will help create jobs and, coupled with our other initiatives, will create a favourable economic climate that will reduce the cost of the tax cut.

The NDP resolution pretends to speak in the name of working men and women of Ontario, the same working men and women of Ontario who voted for the party that promised to cut the provincial personal income tax rate by 30% in three years. Working men and women know that over the last 10 years income tax increases have outpaced their own income growth and that this simply cannot go on. They know that they need more disposable income and that the economy needs their money in order to grow, and in fact they are right.

Weak income growth has been a major factor in holding back consumer spending, and a tax cut will give consumers more spending and borrowing power, as more than one witness before the standing committee on finance has pointed out.

In a democracy, the voters are the ultimate experts. Presented with the NDP's fiscal record and the Liberal fiscal alternative, the voters gave a majority mandate to our party that pledged in a clearly laid out plan a 30% cut in the income tax rate and to restore prosperity to the province of Ontario. In the face of such an overwhelming mandate for this government's fiscal plan, this NDP resolution is an affront to the collective wisdom of the voters of Ontario.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I speak in support of the resolution by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. The resolution in front of us makes a great deal of sense. No one is questioning the need for fiscal restraint. No one is questioning the need to deal with the deficit, with the debt, with the operating budget of this province. I think any of us who would have come to government, even on this side of the House or the NDP, would have had to deal with the fiscal reality of what we see today.

Let me remind my friends before we go on and on, before we get the "10 last years" speech again, in your own documents published by Ernie Eves, I would point out to you that the only time in 30 or 35 years in this province that there was a balanced budget was in 1989 under a Liberal government, something you weren't able to do.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Straighten him out.

Mr Agostino: What we're talking about here today is the tradeoff between your 30% tax cut and the price that people in Ontario have to pay for that tax cut. I think that some of the Tory members, Mr Stockwell and others, who have spoken in opposition to this cut make a great deal of sense and you should listen to them.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, get it straight. You are speaking on the opposition --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): You got a letter --

Mr Stockwell: No, I didn't.

Mr Agostino: You should listen to them.

The Deputy Speaker: Would the member address his comments to the Chair, please.

Mr Agostino: What is happening as a result of this tax cut is that you're willing to sacrifice thousands of jobs. This government is willing to sacrifice thousands of jobs in order to give this tax cut. In my own community of Hamilton the average individual making around $30,000 a year will benefit around $700 as a result of your tax cut -- $700 based on a $30,000 income. The average individual, not in my community but certainly in other parts of this province -- bank presidents would receive about $110,000 as a result of your tax cut. Now let me tell you what the tradeoff is.

The tradeoff is, first of all, the massive cuts that you've imposed upon municipalities, which mean that now that same average individual receiving that $700 tax cut has to pay higher property taxes, higher school board taxes; has to pay for library usage; has to pay increased water and sewer fees; has to pay more money for the transit system. If you're disabled, you have to pay more money for Wheel-Trans, or DARTS in Hamilton. That is one reality of the cuts and what you have done to municipalities in order to finance your tax cut.

The massive cuts you have made to hospitals and health care: In Hamilton-Wentworth alone, $27 million has been cut out of the health care system. That is the price that the person making the $700 in gain from your tax cut has to pay. There's a potential for closure of St Joseph's Hospital. That is as a direct result of your government's initiatives and the 30% tax cut.

We have calculated that in my own community the direct, firsthand job loss in Hamilton-Wentworth up to this point as a result of your transfer cuts is close to 5,000 jobs. That is a result of the transfer partners: school boards, universities, hospital, municipalities; 5,000 job losses in Hamilton-Wentworth directly as a result of your obsession with this wacky tax cut that you want to give in order to help your rich friends. That is the reality that my community and communities across Ontario have to face every single day.

So you can tell those 5,000 people in Hamilton-Wentworth and explain to them how they're going to benefit from your tax cut when you no longer have a job, when you can no longer pay your mortgage, when you can no longer put food on the table because you don't have a job because this government's obsessed with this tax cut.

What I say to this government is that there is a time and there is a place to make those kinds of moves. It is not at the same time that you're trying to deal with the deficit, that you're trying to balance the operating budget of this province. That is the problem. The fault is not the concept of a tax cut. In the right economic circumstances, I think most of us would say a tax cut is the way to go. But to try to do it all at the same time forces you to cut much deeper than you would have to under normal circumstances.

This is why I ask this government to reconsider that, reconsider the tax cut, make the moves that are necessary to attack the deficit, to try to bring a balanced budget in this province in five years or three years or four years, whenever you try to achieve that. But to do it at the same time, I think is a price that is much too high to pay. It's a price that most Ontarians should not have to pay. It's a price, more importantly, that the individuals who don't earn that much money, individuals who are struggling, the working poor have to pay. That is the tradeoff.

If your son or daughter goes to McMaster University next year in Hamilton, you'll have to pay $600 more for tuition. The individual making $100,000 or $150,000 is not going to feel it anywhere as much as the individual making $30,000 or $35,000. So I say to you, reconsider, bring some sense to this, listen to some of your backbenchers, listen to some of the Tories who have had the guts to come forward and speak against it. I would urge more backbenchers to have the same guts as these other members and ensure that the tax cut is put on hold. Do what is right. Forget what you've committed to; do what is right for Ontario.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I'm pleased to have the chance to rise and speak in support of this resolution presented by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, which essentially --

Mr Stockwell: So predictable.

Mr Silipo: The member for Etobicoke West says I'm predictable. On this one, yes, absolutely. I feel very good being predictable in supporting my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine in advocating, as this resolution does, what I thought the members opposite were very much in favour of, which is good common sense.

The approach that this government has taken is to say that the main reason for the tax cut is because it's going to stimulate the economy and create the 725,000 jobs. How many ministers and how many members of the government have we heard say to us that the tax cut is the primary job creation incentive of this government? The reality is that it's not going to work. It's not going to work, not because we on this side say it's not going to work; it's not going to work because people who know more about the economy than many of us in this room do are also saying it's not going to work.

We can quote, I'm sure, anyone that we want. We can always find a quote that will support what we want to say and we can play that game as long as we want, but the reality is that there was not an overwhelming consensus by even the expert witnesses, the economists who appeared in front of the finance committee, who said: "Yes, go ahead. Do this tax cut and you'll see the 725,000 jobs." I think the member for St Andrew-St Patrick will have to admit that there was no one who was that strong in their belief that in fact this would do the job.

I think it's important that the government recognizes that, but we know that in fact this government seems to be very hard and fast on this issue because the Premier himself seems to be very committed personally to the tax cut, as I say, not because it's been shown economically to work, certainly not when you look at the social costs that it's having in terms of the cuts to health care, in terms of the cuts to classroom spending, in terms of the cuts to the justice system -- all promises, by the way, I remind the members opposite, that this government also made in the election, that they would not cut funding in those areas.

Yet they're having no problem in moving away from their promises in those areas. But somehow, when it comes to the tax cut, that one is sacred, that one they have to stick to, that one they can't move away from.

I think we need to ask then, what is the point if it's not to create the jobs? The Minister of Finance himself, when he appeared before the committee, said to us that he doesn't expect any real job growth coming out of the tax cut for the first year after the tax cut, maybe a little bit in the second year after the tax cut. So we're pretty close to the end of the term by that point and the jobs aren't going to be there.

They're certainly not going to be there by virtue of the tax cut and yet the devastation that we're seeing across the province, the dismantling of service after service in our school system, in our health care system, in the law and order of this province, in the everyday life of the people of this province -- people are being hurt, and all because this is the one promise that Mike Harris is intent on keeping.

We know, as the member for Beaches-Woodbine has pointed out, that in fact the people who will benefit the most by this tax cut are not the average citizens of this province, but they are the wealthiest 10% to 15% of taxpayers across this province. Now, the members will argue, everyone is going to see the benefits of the tax cut. Of course, everyone will get some tax cut, there's no denying that.

I also want to remind members opposite that they were the ones, and in fact Mike Harris was the one as the Taxfighter who said, "There's only one taxpayer in this province." Remember that, "There's only one taxpayer." So when you give people a tax break -- and I remind you that for the average taxpayer in this province, it will be relatively small -- by reducing their provincial taxes, and you force school boards, municipal councils, to put in place user fees, to put in place increases in property taxes, what happened to your concept of one taxpayer, because they are going to be paying a lot more through those increases in taxes than any benefit they will ever see from the provincial tax cut?

So gone is your concept, I say to the members opposite, of the one taxpayer. I don't understand at the end of the day what's left other than the fact that Mike Harris has staked so much of his personal reputation on this 30% tax cut and is shifting the wealth and the power from all of us into the hands of a few. That's really what's at the base of this. It's wrong, and the members opposite should realize that it's wrong and withdraw from this position.

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): I welcome the opportunity to speak against this motion. Before I begin formally, I just want to indicate that I was the member from the government in the debate the other day with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, and it was interesting to note that her comments were that she agreed the expenditures had to be cut, she agreed that job creation had to come from the private sector, and I thought for a moment we were approaching a conversion, but I know it was too much to hope for. In any case --

Ms Lankin: You should represent my position correctly. That is a misrepresentation of what I said.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Spina: As a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, I also heard the suggestions put forward by groups and organizations representing a wide variety of interests.

The motion states that this government cannot deliver its promises made in the Common Sense Revolution, and this is not the case. Our government's balanced approach to reduce the expenditure and lower taxes is achievable, and the budget forecasts are on target. The need for the tax cut today is more important than ever before. The people of Ontario want a tax cut. They voted for a tax cut. We will deliver a tax cut.

The government wants to indicate to all the taxpayers of Ontario that we will follow through on our commitments. The 30% tax cut was not a cynical attempt to grab votes. There is a deep concern among the public about their personal wellbeing, their ability to make ends meets, and the concern is that the future holds little for their children and our children. Because we want to create hope, we have to create opportunity, we have to create jobs.

In the past decade, taxes have been raised 65 times, and 11 of those increases were personal income tax increases. That's more than one per year for the last 10 years. Our burden is among the highest in North America. This high level of taxation discourages job creation and economic growth.

The resolution states that the government should concentrate on the creation of jobs so that the economy can grow and the deficit and debt will be eliminated. Our government is doing just that. Tax cuts are part of that job creation plan.

I want to add that growing the economy does not mean government spending, as the union economists indicated during that presentation -- that government spending was the method by which job creation would be achieved.

We also heard about comparisons between our government and those from other jurisdictions, particularly the United States and the supply-side economics during the Reagan presidency. For years, Liberal and Socialist parties alike have misrepresented this era as an example of the failure of conservatism and that those Reagan-style tax cuts were misdone. Many times we have heard the left wing and Liberal mantra, "The rich are richer; the poor are getting poorer." We heard it in the last 20 minutes. Here are some of the facts that the opposition will not tell you.

According to statistics obtained from the US Census Bureau, the treasury office, the federal reserve and the Congressional Budget Office, from 1982 to 1989 the following occurred: 19 million net new jobs were created, two thirds of which were middle to high-paying, resulting in the lowest unemployment rate in 16 years. Secondly, the economic growth from the tax cuts increased federal revenue by $1.1 trillion.

Ms Lankin: Wait a minute, what about defence spending? Defence spending had a lot to do with that, not a tax cut.

Mr Spina: That's correct, reductions in the marginal tax rates actually caused an increase in total revenue.

The tax cuts also produced, I might add, a 76% jump in new business investment, and tripled the rate of productivity growth. That's what the tax cuts resulted in.

To get to the issue that only the rich benefited from this process, real family income increased every year from 1983 to 1990 in every income group from the poorest fifth of households to the richest fifth, and the poorest fifth increased by 12%. Well, what about the poor? The median income for those who were in the bottom fifth, or the poorest group, increased by 77%; the richest fifth increased by 5%, so the poor benefited more proportionately than the wealthy, contrary to those opposition critics.

Why did the US not balance the budget? -- and the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine brought that forward -- because the Democratic Congress would not allow the Reagan government to implement the spending cuts that he had proposed, and that is the fundamental difference between that approach and our strategy. First, we will reduce the spending, then we will reduce the taxable income.

In New Jersey, the state government enacted a 30% income tax cut. In the first two years, they saw a net increase of 117,000 jobs, and the Governor has publicly stated a tax cut is financing them itself.

Ms Lankin: That's where Mike got it from.

Mr Spina: There was an

article in the paper the other day that the BC Premier, an NDP Premier --

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): A Socialist.

Mr Spina: Yes. He is looking to implement a 30% tax cut in his government, in a broader scope, and his statement was that this would make the Harris tax cuts in Ontario pale by comparison. This is from a Socialist Premier leader, and this is his strategy to balance the budget. I'm just ecstatic.

The reality is that there is a need for tax cuts.

Ms Lankin: Really, what are you going to do with your tax cut?

Mr Spina: The biggest critic says, "What are we going to do with our tax cuts?" I, unfortunately, did not have the opportunity to ask the union leaders who made a presentation to our committee what they were going to do with their tax reduction. Madam Casselman, at least $86,000 a year salary -- what is she going to do with her $4,000 tax cut? These are the people who are going to benefit as well as the lower-income people. It's the rank and file that will benefit from these tax cuts.

As a government, we cannot always act to prevent corporate downsizing, but we can continue to create the climate that ensures that lost jobs are replaced with others, and we must add that opportunity for work. The plan that our government has promised to deliver will work because it is responsible, it is effective and it is balanced. It promotes jobs in the private sector. It spends less of the taxpayers' hard-earned money. The coming months and years will challenge us all.

The interesting thing and what was consistent and what I heard from the presentations at the committee was this: A reduction in retail sales taxes causes a hard jump in consumer spending. A reduction in personal income tax will cause purely a psychological jump in the short term, but the real benefit will come after the first, second and third year. That's where the consumer spending comes. That's where the job creation comes. That's where the benefit of a real tax reduction comes, and that is the impact that this government wants to make, because we need a long-term positive generation plan.

That's why we are here and that's why I'm against the motion and that's why I am in support of a personal income tax reduction.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the kind opportunity to contribute to this resolution which is so compelling on this day.

I'm very much in favour of this resolution because I think it deals with what is now the primary issue of the day in the province of Ontario, the one that has long-term implications. Most of what the government is doing today is based upon the fact that it wants, or at least a few people in the government and key advisers to the government who are not elected want, to ensure that we have a tax break in Ontario in the amount of 30% for the income tax.

The problem with that is it is attractive for a government. The other problem the government has, I understand, is that it gave a commitment during the election campaign that it was going to do so. So I can understand the dilemma that members of the government face, but I think the people of this province would be very receptive to the government giving an explanation on why it would not proceed with this tax cut.

The Minister of Finance said yesterday that they haven't cut any taxes yet, and I agree that in fact that was the case, that they had not cut the taxes. But all of the measures that are being taken by the government are related to the fact that the government wishes to deliver an income tax cut of 30% on the most progressive tax that the province has under its jurisdiction, that tax being the provincial income tax.

It is transferring the responsibility, financial obligations particularly, to local municipalities, boards of education and agencies, and they have to, through user fees, which are the most regressive form of taxes, get that money for those services. In addition to this, they have the option of raising property taxes.

We saw in Peel county yesterday a board of education in the region of Peel which was desperate in this particular case for money because the province has cut back so drastically on funds to that board of education, so they offered as an option a user fee on bus services. This was obviously not popular with people, and that's understandable to the people of Peel, but that's the dilemma that the government is placing boards of education and other local agencies in by this tax.

I have been very impressed with some of the news reports I've read about members on the government side who have themselves -- some of whom are endeavouring to leave the precinct this morning -- indicated some concern about the potential of this tax break. The member for Wellington, Ted Arnott, now a veteran member as far as the Conservatives are concerned, has written a letter to the Premier calling it a reckless obligation. I've respected the member for Wellington's views on issues for a long time.

There are other members such as the member for Etobicoke West, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore -- there must be something in the water down that way -- and the member for Grey-Owen Sound, all of whom have a good political nose and know what people are saying out there, who understand how important it is to be able to deliver good services to people and not to borrow money.

One of the reasons we have a strike which OPSEU is involved in at this time -- and we hope it is concluded today -- is because the government is cutting so quickly and so drastically and not looking at the consequences of those cuts. As a result, we're in a difficult situation in Ontario.

Again, I was at family and children's services' annual general meeting last night and I was talking to an individual who is involved in a business. He was asking about what was going on at the Ontario Legislature and so on. This person didn't realize that the government of Ontario was going to have to borrow over $20 billion in order to give a tax break which would largely favour the most wealthy in our society. This person was genuinely shocked, and he said, "Well, where do you get these figures?" I said in the Common Sense Revolution, this document.

It says right there that the revenue losses to the government are anticipated to be over $20 billion over the term of office. So here's a government which says -- and many people agree -- "We have to address the problem of the deficit," that is going to increase the deficit. It's going to increase the borrowing needs by $20 billion. In my view, that's exceedingly important.

That's why I'm supporting this motion today, because of the cuts to our services and because you are going to have to borrow the money to be able to deliver on this. I think the resolution is timely and all members of the House should support it.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I am very pleased to participate in this debate this morning and to congratulate my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine, who has introduced this resolution. I think it's very timely and important that we have a debate on the approach this government is contemplating for economic stimulation in the province.

We've seen the announcements made by the government since taking office that have produced a climate of vulnerability, concern, worry, people not sure whether they're going to have jobs or actually receiving pink slips so that they are facing layoff, and we know the government is proposing to significantly downsize the public service.

I was very interested in the comments of my friend from Brampton North in that he indicated that the reason the government is contemplating an income tax cut rather than a sales tax cut to stimulate economic growth and jobs by stimulating expenditures was that a sales tax cut would produce immediate sales, sort of a blip where the sales would increase but then might decrease later on, while an income tax cut would be longer term. He indicated, though, that an income tax cut would not take effect really for two to three years down the road.

People, I guess, initially might use their additional moneys to go on a holiday to Florida or to the Caribbean or they might pay down debt or whatever, so that wouldn't stimulate spending, but two or three years from now there might be spending that would produce jobs.

So essentially what he is saying, I guess, is that the people the government is laying off now will be out of work for two or three years and then they will hopefully have the opportunity to receive jobs because at that time jobs will be increasing because there will be a stimulus down the road. So what we're looking at, I guess, is a two- or three-year Harris recession that might then improve as spending and investments improve at that time, according to the member for Brampton North -- I guess just in time for the election, they would hope.

The problem is, I'm not sure this whole approach will work at all because the government, as we know, is committed to balancing the budget and reducing the deficit. If you're also going to be doing that while at the same time having a 30% tax rate cut, the cuts are going to have to be so deep and so widespread that we're going to see many, many people laid off. We know that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 people will be laid off in the Ontario public service.

We're headed for significant cuts in education because of the cuts in transfer payments: $400 million this year, which really works out to $1 billion, which the minister, Mr Snobelen, has said is a good thing. That will lead to a layoff of somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 teachers in this province. Of course, the government promised it would not affect classroom education and we know this is going to adversely affect classroom education. It's impossible to lay off those numbers of teachers -- one third of the total workforce of the East Parry Sound Board of Education received pink slips yesterday.

In the post-secondary sector, we see chaos in the community college system because of the layoffs that have been announced, thanks to the cuts by this government, and serious increases in tuition fees for students in the college sector and the university sector.

In health care, we're going through major restructuring. We all accept that there needs to be restructuring. The minister has announced target cuts of 4% or more for most hospitals. In my area, this means that we are facing significant cuts to the Plummer Memorial Public Hospital and the General Hospital in Sault Ste Marie, which have already followed through with integration and amalgamation; they've merged, as governments have wanted them to do. Now they're facing these additional cuts on top of that.

In my own communities, in Richards Landing and Thessalon, it means they are going to close the two community hospitals in those areas and turn them into 12-hour clinics: no emergency service, no beds.

This is just unacceptable because it's being driven by a fiscal plan that is unworkable and doesn't add up. It's going to mean layoffs and fewer jobs and fewer services that the people require, rather than a truly worked-out, reasonable health care plan for the community.

I fully support my colleague's resolution. It's timely. It makes absolutely no sense to be contemplating this kind of income tax cut at a time when they're trying to balance the budget and cut the deficit. I'm very worried about the effects it's going to have, specifically on education and health care.

Mr Gerretsen: I get very concerned when I hear members of the Conservative caucus talk about balance. They've already stolen our real slogan, that we stand for the real common sense in this province, and now they're even stealing our slogan with respect to the balance of things. We heard it yesterday with respect to the planning legislation. They claimed the new act is balanced when we all know it's a sop to the developers and the building industry in the province.

Now this morning we hear that this is a real balanced approach, to take $8 billion out of the expenditure side of things and at the same time also cut personal income tax by 30%. It's not very balanced for all those people who got cut 22% last year as far as the social services are concerned in this province. It's not very balanced for all those civil servants who are going to lose their jobs as a result of the privatization effort this government's involved in. It's not very balanced for all those individuals who are really hurting out there on a day-to-day basis.

To talk about personal wellbeing as the last Conservative member mentioned, it's the personal wellbeing of all Ontarians we ought to be concerned with, not just the personal wellbeing of those people who are in the higher income brackets. I think that's the one thing this government has completely lost sight of.

I too am totally in favour of a balanced budget, with no deficit, but I say to you that anybody I've spoken to who has not been involved in the political field over the last seven or eight months completely concurs that there should not be any tax cut whatsoever for anybody until we reach that position where we don't have an annual deficit. At that point in time, we can talk about cutting the tax rate. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever, when you're running a $10-billion deficit annually, to start cutting on the revenue side of things as well.

There's one other interesting thing, and I realize my Conservative colleagues won't want to hear this, but it's my understanding from doing a little bit of reading in this that most economists will agree that a combination of drastic cuts to government expenditures and a 30% tax cut will not have a stimulative effect at all on the economy. It will have a contractionary effect on the economy. Just about every economist agrees on that. You cannot have it both ways. That's what this government's trying to do and it simply will not work.

There are some members of the Conservative caucus who obviously have realized this and they are speaking out openly and writing openly to the Premier. All I would suggest to all the other backbenchers here is that you can actually have an influence on this, you can do it, if you just do the right thing, talk among yourselves, let the cabinet know, "Look, fellows, this is one promise that maybe we should hold back on until we've licked the deficit problem in this province, and thereby we're not hurting other people in this province."

We totally and fully support the resolution as presented.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): In the four minutes I have left, I make the following points. The first is that this is really a question of the tax cut the Mike Harris government is bringing forward. It not only doesn't add up, but I would argue it's a failed policy. It has been tried in other jurisdictions. We don't need to look far; we need to look at the United States with regard to what Reagan did in his term in government. His whole idea with regard to economic stimulus was the Star Wars program, and the other part was a tax cut.

All we got with the tax cut in the United States was, not more jobs being created but a higher deficit. They increased the deficit to record numbers in the United States because it meant that the very revenue the government needed to balance its budget was being taken out of its overall budget. It doesn't make a lot of sense.

If the government is really serious about doing positive things to get the economy going and to create the jobs and the wealth needed to have the revenue to be able to balance the budget, there are positive ways to do that. Really, that's what is at issue here.

Rather than looking at positive measures such as supporting the mining industry through the types of programs we had in place under the Ontario mineral incentive program and the Ontario prospectors assistance program that the government has cancelled; rather than doing positive things like keeping the northern Ontario heritage fund in place so you have the leverage dollars necessary to form partnerships with the private sector, so that they can go to the banks and other people to raise the dollars to start up new enterprises or to add to what they are doing, in examples we have seen throughout Ontario; rather than trying to do positive things such as working with the labour movement and with employers where companies are failing or are in difficulty, such as we did in Kapuskasing and in Sault Ste Marie and in Toronto with de Havilland; rather than looking at positive things, the government says, "We rely on two basic principles."

The two principles are: They're going to create a tax cut, about which, in the long run, I say we will be proven right. It will increase the deficit over the long run. It will not do anything to create the economic stimulus because the money's not going to the very consumers you want it to go to. It's going to the consumers at the higher end of the income scale; in other words, the people who have the biggest bucks will probably spend most of their tax cut on some holiday in Florida or Bermuda.

The second thing you're doing that I think is really wrong is that you're also, rather than looking at positive measures, doing quite the opposite. You're saying, "We will lower the standards by which we control various issues around labour, the environment and the other mechanisms that we have in our economy so that we can compete with capital from places like Mexico, the Far East and other places, so that we can lower our standards so low that people will come and invest in our province because we will not have an onerous regulation system or we will not have the kinds of things the Conservatives believe stop the economy."

I say that's wrong. The Minister of Economic Development and Trade stood in this House last week and said that the youth employment programs we now have in place are in danger of being cut, meaning we will not have the money to hire the students this upcoming summer. What he was relying on for the private sector to hire students was to make Ontario's minimum wage the lowest in all of Canada. I say, shame on the Conservative government. When the Ontario government stands in this House and says the only idea they have to increase economic activity to create jobs and wealth is by lowering standards, such as cutting the minimum wage, I would say that is a step in the wrong direction.

I support the resolution that my caucus colleague has brought forward from the NDP. The tax cut will only compound the problem over the longer term. It will deprive the government of the revenue that it needs to balance the budget in the longer term and it will make the cutting exercise it's doing all that much more difficult. They're going to have to cut further to be able to get a balanced budget in five years.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine to wrap up.

Ms Lankin: The member for St Andrew-St Patrick says that I hope and speculate that their plan won't work. First of all, let me say directly to her, as someone who has spent all the years that I have in public service, I do not hope for a bad economy; I do not hope for joblessness. I believe very strongly in working with people all across the broad political spectrum to try and achieve the best for the people of Ontario.

You say I can't know what the results will be. I ask you how you know with such surety that your tax cut will produce the 725,000 jobs, the economic growth, the wellbeing that you seem -- I'll use the same words back to you -- to pin all your hopes on when every expert who has come forward has urged caution.

You say I'm selective in the groups that I cite. Let me cite the board of trade, which ideologically supports the concept of a tax cut but which said, "Please be careful," because you're going to go out and borrow the money to pay for the tax cut; you're going to cut deeper in order to try and get to a balanced budget; you're taking money out of the economy faster than the economy can absorb; and you may miss your deficit targets. They weren't unqualified in their support.

This is not about balancing the budget. This is about keeping a promise that the Premier signed a pledge to and if he didn't keep it he would resign. Thousands of people are going to be laid off in this province as a result of your actions of cuts in order to make up for the lost revenue from that tax cut. Thousands of families, their dreams and their lives are going to be affected as a result of that. Why? To protect the Premier's job.

You say the voters voted for this tax cut. They voted for a tax cut when they were promised there would be no cuts to health care, no cuts to education and no cuts to law enforcement. You've broken all those promises. The one promise you should break is the promise on the tax cut, for the sake of the people and the economy of Ontario.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Beaubien moved private member's notice of motion number 9:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Transportation should bring forth amendments to the Highway Traffic Act which would incorporate a change to the inspection requirements and performance standards for motorcycles in regard to the present handlebar height regulations in the province of Ontario.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I have been hearing about tax cuts for the past hour. As the member for Kingston and The Islands mentioned, I would like to bring some balance. I'm looking for a raise, not in pay, not in taxes but in handlebars.

The present Highway Traffic Act regulation 611 reads as follows:

"(3)(

e) No part of the handlebar shall exceed a height of 380 millimetres above the uppermost portion of the operator's seat when the seat is depressed by the weight of the operator."

That regulation was probably adequate in the 1960s, when we had Easy Riders, when motorcycles had ape hangers and were portrayed as if people were hanging from their motorcycles. However, this is 30 years later, and I would strongly suggest to the members that the regulation should be changed.

For instance, I think we have progressed, when we look at automobiles today, in that we have seats that are adjustable and we have steering-wheels that tilt. We try to make the driver of the vehicle comfortable. Consequently, probably it makes the driver drive a little more safely.

If my good friend the member for Lake Nipigon were here today, I would strongly suggest that if I were to drive his vehicle, I probably would adjust the steering-wheel according to my needs and certainly would adjust the seat according to my needs. On a motorcycle, the operator does not have that option, and I think it's about time that we start realizing that people who operate motorcycles do have a right to comfort and safety.

However, many of the motorcycles today are considered illegal by the present standard. Such motorcycles like the Honda Gold Wing, the Yamaha Venture Royale exceed the 380-millimetre height. I would strongly suggest that those two motorcycles are not motorcycles that you would speed on. I'm sure that you could speed with them, but basically those motorcycles are the ma-pa type motorcycle whereby you, Mr Speaker, or myself, if I were a motorcycle driver, and maybe some members of the opposition, if they had their balance properly, would probably ride these.

The province of Saskatchewan and the province of British Columbia, along with many of the southern states, have already addressed this particular problem. They've seen fit to change the regulations to accommodate drivers for the 1990s.

As I've mentioned previously, we have done that with the automobile. Again, if we have an operator who's six-foot-six sitting in a car as opposed to one who's five-foot-two in a car, I'm sure there's going to be some changes made to the tilt on the steering-wheel and the seat position. However, a motorcycle driver does not have that option.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): What about adjustable seats?

Mr Beaubien: Well, I think maybe some seats should be adjusted across the House or so. It would be more reasonable to assume that we should provide a little bit more flexibility to motorcycle operators today.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Don't attack us yet. You don't know where we stand on the issue.

Mr Beaubien: So I think with the regulations that we have in place today, we insist on maintaining the height of the handlebars on the motorcycle at 380 millimetres.

I am not a motorcycle operator. However, I'm told by experienced motorcycle riders that it can be very uncomfortable for some people, especially if you're over six-foot-four. Many of today's motorcycles, due to style, comfort, practicality and safety, have handlebar heights which are illegal in this province. It is unreasonable to expect uniform measurement for handlebar height if the operator is not of a uniform size.

I am proposing the following revisions to the regulations, and that is basically what British Columbia and Saskatchewan have done: (

a) would be so that the secured maximum height to which the handlebars extend is not higher than the top of the driver's shoulders when the driver seat is occupied, and (

b) that the handlebars do not exceed the overall width provided by the vehicle manufacturer.

The above two recommendations would make it more comfortable for the operator of a motorcycle and it certainly would not jeopardize the safety of the operation of that unit. Furthermore, we have enough safety standards in the province today to make sure that the all the safety standards are abided by.

Mr Gerretsen: Where is this stuff coming from, anyway?

Mr Beaubien: "Where is this stuff coming from," as the member for Kingston and The Islands says. I also bring to your attention, the member across the hall, that the Bikers Rights Organization, Ontario, favours these changes.

Mr Wildman: Yes, but they don't like helmets either. What's your position on that?

Mr Beaubien: Well, no, they do like helmets.

With regard to making it more comfortable for a person to operate an automobile, we had seen the light 30 years ago. I know some of the members were not around in those days and it's hard for them to understand the words "comfortable" and "reasonable." However, I think it's about time that we, as a government in this province of Ontario, started giving the same rights to motorcycle operators. I think it would make it much easier if we had some flexibility for a motorcyclist to adjust his throttle, his clutch, his turn signals and his brakes. The more comfortable we make the operation of a vehicle, I would strongly suggest that the safer the operator will operate his vehicle.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): We are, I think, very interested in this amendment really, and it's an amendment which I think is very sensible and reasonable.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Get your motors running. Get out on the highway.

Mr Colle: Born to be wild, yes.

The member for Lambton is going to contribute to a bit of an improvement in terms of the way this regulation is enforced because one of the problems that arises even for police officers is trying to make a judgement call on a highway in terms of the number of centimetres. I think this will make it much easier for enforcement. Like the member for Lambton says, I think most motorcyclists in the province are representative of a cross-section of citizens. They're taxpayers and they do certainly deserve fair and equitable treatment.

This seems to be in line with what BC and Saskatchewan are doing, and it's very easy to understand that it would again be of benefit to the motorcycle riders across Ontario.

I would like to say that as much as we hear all the negative inferences about motorcyclists, there are thousands and thousands of very decent, law-abiding citizens who ride motorcycles in the province and I think this is of benefit to them. I've been involved with a number of people in the annual Ride for Sight which is held every year in Fenelon Falls -- and this year it's going to be on June 15 in Fenelon Falls -- where motorcyclists from across Ontario raise money to fight blindness. They raise about $1 million a year.

They ride from Whitby Towne Centre up to Fenelon Falls, and then they spend the weekend in Fenelon Falls. There's family camping. There's a dry area of camping. Then there's the Bikers for Christ. From all walks of life they come together and they raise $1 million for eye research. This money goes towards fighting retinitis pigmentosa, which is a degenerative eye disease many Canadians are afflicted with.

I can put that on the record to show that I think there's no reason why we can't listen to the motorcycling community, which thinks this would be a benefit to it. I applaud the member for Lambton in bringing this forward as a minor adjustment to the height of the handlebars, which makes it easier for them and I think easier for enforcement for the police officers.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Up front, I would say I don't have a real difficulty in supporting what the member is trying to do. I take it what he's trying to do is accommodate a request that he has either had as a parliamentary assistant to where he is or in regard to his constituents back in his riding. Whenever possible, I think we, the members of the House --

Mr Stockwell: Yes, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr Bisson: Agricultural people do have motorcycles, you know. I have to tell you, a lot of my friends who are out in the farm community have bikes.

I think what we should do whenever we can, in private members' hour, is when we see members coming before the House trying to advocate something that makes sense for their constituents, we should at least in this forum try to keep out of partisan politics and try to support that member's efforts.

I would say just a couple of things, however, in regard to motorcycles and what has happened I think over the past 10 or 15 years when it comes to bikes. I think Mr Stockwell, being of my vintage and age, a fairly young man, barely in his 40s -- we all remember very well growing up, when we were younger in high schools. Motorcycles were something that were very affordable as a means of transportation for young people of my generation when we were growing up and going through high school. Most of us, I would say, who wanted to buy a motorcycle to have transportation, because cars were a bit more expensive and not as much fun to drive, obviously, as a motorcycle, were able to do that.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): In Timmins?

Mr Bisson: No. I have to say to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin that Iroquois Falls, which is a community of about 5,000 to 6,000, right next to Timmins, has probably one of the highest motorcycle populations I've seen in most communities, I would say throughout Ontario.

Mr Colle: Can you prove that?

Mr Bisson: I can prove it. There are individuals in Iroquois Falls --

Mr Colle: Mimico's got the most bikes.

Mr Bisson: Mimico? All right. I think Iroquois Falls is a close second.

Mr Colle: You've never been in downtown Mimico.

Mr Bisson: Actually, I have. The point I'm making is that at one time it was very affordable for a young person to go out and say he wanted to buy a motorcycle for his means of transportation and enjoyment. We've seen over the years a real erosion of that. Insurance on motorcycles over 750 ccs has gone up quite dramatically over the past 10 or 15 years to where it's really out of the reach of a young individual 18 or 19 years old wanting to buy a motorcycle as a means of transportation.

I own two motorbikes. I have a Honda Gold Wing, a classic 1973 strip, black, beautiful machine, and I have another one which is an offroad-onroad 350 XT. For myself as an older driver with driving experience, the insurance is fairly expensive but affordable, and with my income level I'm able to afford that as a pastime.

I very much fear that what's happened with the insurance, because of some of the problems that have been associated with accidents with motorcycles, especially with younger people, is that we've seen the insurance literally go through the roof to where, if a young person wanted to buy a bike today, let's say a Gold Wing or maybe one of the low riders, it would be $1,800 to $2,000 a year, really unaffordable.

I would hope that the government -- and I see the parliamentary assistant is here; he was listening -- can try to do something about that, because I think young people today are responsible; they're looking for a means of transportation. If we can try to support them in doing something about insurance rates for motorcycles specifically, I think it would be a step in the right direction.

I only have one concern to the motion being put forward. I know you worded your resolution in such a way that you're giving some latitude to the Minister of Transportation to look at this to see what is the safest thing. I think there is a certain danger in having motorcycle handlebars up excessively high. It doesn't give you the kind of control, especially in tight situations, that you would like to have to really be in control of your motorcycle in the event that something happens and you've got to react quickly.

I'm not quite sure that I'd want to see motorcycle handlebars allowed to be as high as you're talking about, but I think the ministry would look at this in some detail and try to figure out what's a good compromise that would allow your resolution to go forward.

My good friend Mr Cooper, a former member of this assembly, if Mr Stockwell remembers, had brought forward a resolution to this House some two or three years ago. If I remember correctly, I was reminded by one of the members that it was a motion supported by all members of the House, and I think the motion read something like, "In the opinion of the House, we are in favour of motorcycles, as they use less of everything." If you remember that one, it was quite an interesting debate.

Mr Gerretsen: I think we supported it.

Mr Bisson: We all supported it, actually. I would say I will support the member on the basis of what he's trying to do. I hope that, in working with the ministry, they try to look at what is a safe compromise in regard to that. I just say to my friend across the road, keep your motor running, and we'll see you on the highway some time.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am pleased to rise in the House this morning to support the resolution that is being proposed by my colleague the member for Lambton. I believe the fundamental issue that the member for Lambton is attempting to deal with by proposing this motion is an example of the outdated regulations in this province at the moment. Other provinces have dealt with this same issue by amending their regulations to create a much more commonsense approach.

Currently in the province of Ontario, there exists a regulation that states that handlebars on a motorcycle cannot be more than 380 millimetres above the uppermost portion of the operator's seat when the seat is depressed by the weight of the operator. What kind of a regulation is that?

During the days of the infamous chopper, this type of regulation may indeed have had its place. When a motorcycle has handlebars that are excessively high, there is a serious safety problem not only for the driver of the vehicle but indeed for the vehicles that are in the vicinity of that motorcycle.

The days of the chopper are over, and so should be the regulation regarding the 380-millimetre height limit. The regulation needs to be amended, and it appears that the member for Lambton has made an interesting proposal on how the regulation should be amended. It is important to note, as we've heard this morning, that some of the most common touring types of motorcycles that are currently travelling our roads are considered illegal by today's standards by as much as four inches.

Let us spend a moment to consider how other jurisdictions have dealt with similar regulatory changes. According to the Saskatchewan Gazette that was printed September 1987, regulation 230(

a) and (b), where amended, the vehicle should have handlebars that have grips that are no higher than the shoulders of the seated driver and do not exceed the overall width of those provided by the vehicle manufacturer. Again, the province of British Columbia suggested, in order-in-council 7/86, which dealt with the same problem, that the maximum height to which the handlebars extend is no higher than the top of the driver's shoulder.

The difference is that Saskatchewan and BC regulations allow some freedom of modification. As many cyclists have noted, we have tilt steering-wheels and adjustable seats in our cars to allow improved comfort and control of the vehicle; why in the name of goodness should we not have that in motorcycles? To maintain a regulation that expects the same 380-millimetre height restriction for an individual who is five feet tall or six feet, whatever it might be, is not a commonsense approach.

The length of an individual's arms, size of their upper body or their riding position greatly differs, and we can certainly see that among some of the members in this House. A uniform height for handlebars does not make sense when the people riding these vehicles are different shapes and sizes, which often creates a situation where some riders are operating the motorcycle unsafely.

The original intent of the regulation was to promote safety during the era of the chopper style of motorcycle. That era is behind us, and so should the regulation be. If motorcyclists are permitted to adjust their handlebars to a comfortable position to a maximum height of their shoulders, then they will be in a much better position to control the motorcycle in a safe manner.

Currently, the private vehicle inspection safety certificate program that is in effect in Ontario has done a good job of keeping unsafe motorcycles off the road. However, it is worth pointing out that many owners of motorcycles are being fined for violating provincial standards but that no import standards exist when these motorcycles are brought into the country. So we have a situation where motorcycles, regardless of the size of the handlebars, are allowed into Canada, but you cannot legally operate the vehicle because the province states that handlebars do not comply with the 380-millimetre provincial regulation.

Those in this House who love to impose new regulations, and we've had a lot of them in the last five or six years, will respond to that situation by saying we should lobby the federal government and have them impose import standards on bikes. The real solution to the problem is to amend the current provincial regulation by adopting similar wording as in the province of Saskatchewan.

I support this resolution as put before this House by the member for Lambton. It ensures that safety will be maintained and yet allows the operator of the motorcycle some flexibility and ensures that the rider will be more comfortable on the bike. By doing so, by increasing that comfort, it will make a much safer and far more alert rider than we currently have on the road. I do support this resolution.

Mr Gerretsen: Let me also stand in support of this motion. I've found that these private members' sessions on Thursday morning are very educational, because most of the motions and resolutions that have come forward have been very reasonable and have been very supportive. It's like the last resolution, which was put forward by the member for Beaches-Woodbine: very reasonable. Forget about the tax cut until we've got this deficit under control.

I could get very political with the member for Lambton and say, yes, we'll support this one if you support that one. But you know, I would never play those kinds of games because I'm totally against that sort of thing. I guess the real question that we have to ask here is --

Mr Colle: "Who cares?"

Mr Gerretsen: No, not, "Who cares?" People do care. But with all the influence that this member has within the current government -- and his influence is very substantial -- and with the reasonableness of this particular idea, why hasn't the ministry done something about it over the last six to eight months? I've heard it being referred to by the last member as a change in the regulations. We all know that regulations don't have to come here. Regulations are passed by cabinet. They're introduced by a member of cabinet and they're just passed and they're implemented.

So I'm somewhat disappointed that this member, with his tremendous influence as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, has not been able to convince his own caucus cabinet members of the wisdom and the reasonableness of this resolution and just have it done, rather than us dealing with this matter in this session this morning. I would suggest to him to in the future talk to his cabinet colleagues first. I'm sure you could set up appointments with them, if not here in Toronto then in their local constituency offices. I'm sure they do see people from time to time.

Maybe these kinds of good ideas can be brought to the foreground and can be dealt with a lot quicker.

It has raised a number of other very interesting issues, though, because one cannot possibly think of motorcycles without thinking about the condition of the roads in this province and the potholes that are out there. We heard about it yesterday when Pothole Palladini I think was trying to blame the federal government, was trying to blame Mother Nature, was trying to blame all sorts of other people etc about the condition of the potholes not only on the major roads of this province, but also on all of the highways and byways and country roads etc.

I would suggest to this member that he put just as much effort into trying to convince the Minister of Transportation to actually do something and correct these situations that we have with respect to the roads.

Yesterday I had an opportunity to look at an old budget of 1969, which was the last balanced budget that the Tories ever had in this province: 1969, 27 years ago. What was very interesting to read from that document was that the amount of money that the province then was spending in the area of transportation was some $400 million, if my memory serves me correctly, which was about the same amount of money that was being spent on health care at that time.

We know that since that time the health care costs have just ballooned to over $17 billion, but the influence of the various ministers of transportation and the transportation departments in this province has declined, and declined to a point where I think in the current budget only about $200 million is being spent provincially for the maintenance --

Mr Colle: Sixty per cent of the roads are substandard.

Mr Gerretsen: Sixty per cent of our roads are substandard, and all those motorcyclists who will now be on the road under those new regulations that undoubtedly will be passed will have to drive on roads with huge potholes, risking their own lives and safety, probably with much ruin to their vehicles so that their insurance costs will escalate on a monthly or a daily basis. I'm quite sure that the member for Mississauga West, or North -- where is it? -- who is currently working on all these insurance regulations -- I'm sure, according to the newspaper reports anyway, he won't succeed any more than the previous committees that have been set up to look at the Insurance Act will succeed.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Oh, John, that's unfair.

Mr Gerretsen: It may be unfair and I hope to be proven wrong. I hope you will actually be able to do something about the insurance rates in this province.

Again, to the member for Lambton, we support your resolution, at least I do, and my honourable colleague here who is the critic for transportation. We're totally behind this resolution.

With all the influence that you have within the government, please talk to the Minister of Transportation about the real problems out there. Fix the potholes, make sure that by doing that we can do something about the insurance rates and about the health and safety of the citizens who use our roads on a day-to-day basis.

Let your real influence be shown within this government on some real, meaningful issues, and don't bring issues like this that could have been dealt with by regulation before this honourable body, because I'm sure we can discuss much more meaningful things, such as, for example, the 30% tax cut, which we all know should not occur in this province until we have a balanced budget.

Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate my friend from Lambton for bringing this matter before the House. This is of course the real purpose of private members' hour, that individual members can raise matters of public import which may not be central to the agenda of the government but which are of importance to his or her constituents or to a particular constituency across the province.

In this case I understand he's responding to the bikers' rights organization, and I would never want to label them as an interest group, because it's not my view that we should label groups, as this government seems wont to do. But I'm pleased that in this case the member is responding to the concerns of this organization. It does seem to make sense that we would have a regulation worded in such a way that motorcyclists could in fact be comfortable on their machines, so that they can properly control the machine, particularly in emergency situations. So I congratulate the member for bringing this matter forward.

I would raise a couple of concerns, however. It seems to me we have to have some sort of definitive limit on the height of handlebars. I know you've said not higher than the rider's shoulders, but I've seen some bikes that are operated in such a way that they don't seem safe for the rider or for the other members of the travelling public.

I'll give you an example. A number of years ago I was driving on Highway 17 between White River and Wawa, and there was actually a lot of traffic, which is unusual for that

section of road. There was quite a lot of traffic, and there were two lanes of traffic. It was in the summer, I think in July, a bright, sunny day, good visibility and so on, but the traffic was moving rather slowly because there were a lot of trailers and trucks.

All of a sudden, I heard this very loud noise which startled me, and right beside me, one of these -- I think it's called a hog -- one of these great big motorcycles -- I'm not sure of the make; I think it may have been a Harley-Davidson, but I'm not sure -- went right by me along the centre line of the road between the two columns of traffic.

Mr Gerretsen: How fast were you going?

Mr Wildman: I was going just a little less than the speed limit. That motorcycle was going much faster than the speed limit and it was very dangerous. I'm not suggesting that most bikers would travel this way -- I know they don't; they're not unsafe -- but this guy was taking an awful chance. All that had to happen is for one of the vehicles to be a little farther over than he'd expect and there would have been a terrible accident. He went right through, but the point is that he was leaning way back, he wasn't sitting upright, and his handlebars were up above his head. The front wheel of the motorcycle was one of those that looks like a bicycle wheel, a very small wheel.

Mr Stockwell: Did you make a citizen's arrest?

Mr Wildman: I was too scared.

Obviously, that kind of motorcycle I don't think would be in compliance with the regulation that the member for Lambton is proposing, but I suppose this guy might argue that for him it was comfortable to lean backwards when he was riding and therefore he needed to have very long and high handlebars.

The other thing that was worrisome when I first listened to the debate from the member for Lambton was he wasn't just talking about height, he was talking about width, and at first I thought he was talking about not having -- he said the handlebars should not be above the shoulders of the rider and they should not exceed the width and I thought he was going to say of the rider, but I think he then said it should be the width proposed by the manufacturer for the motorcycle -- because I have seen some motorcyclists that that might be a problem.

There is another area, though, I want to raise. I know that you have seen these other very different types of bikes, motorcycles, that are like racing bikes. They're called low riders. The handlebars are right at the level of the machine, and the rider has to lie on the motorcycle as if he were in a motorcycle race. I just can't believe these are safe machines, and I'm wondering how your regulation deals with that kind of a machine. Could this individual say, "Well, for me comfort is lying down, and therefore I want to lie down on the machine and ride with the handlebars very, very low"?

Mr Gerretsen: You can't say "lie" in here.

Mr Wildman: No, you're only not allowed to say, "Lie awake at night."

Quite seriously, I would like the member for Lambton to address this question of these very low-rider type of machines and whether or not we should have a limit on how low the handlebars can go.

Mr Bisson: How low can the member get? That's what I want to know.

Mr Wildman: In other words, how low can you go?

Other members have raised somewhat extraneous issues during this debate which I think is rather unusual. Most people would want to keep to the principle of the issue and to deal with this in a very serious way in the way that the member for Lambton has raised it. But I would indicate that I do have some sympathy for those who have said that we have to look at the condition of the roads on which these motorcycles are riding.

I also would like to know whether or not you're also talking about off-road motorcycles, the dirt bikes, and whether or not they would be included in this regulation. It's getting to the point now where in order to be safe on many of our highways you should be riding a dirt bike, not one that is meant for highway travel, because right now we have a serious deterioration on our roads. I know the road contractors --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): You let it go for five years.

Mr Wildman: Well, we built a lot of highways in this area, as you know.

The contractors have indicated that the existing highways, rather than the new ones that government has brought forward and got the contracts going on or has planned, the existing highway system has deteriorated significantly, because we aren't doing the same amount of maintenance that used to be done. It used to be standard for the Ministry of Transportation to resurface and repair a road every seven or eight years. Now I think it's been extended to almost 15, and that means that the roads are in much worse condition than they used to be.

It's something we really should be addressing, because I would not want the member to come forward next year with a regulation saying that because of the safety issues related to the deteriorating condition of our roads we should only allow dirt bikes on our highways. I seriously want the member to address the issues I've raised and I congratulate him for bringing forward this resolution. I think it will be one of those few resolutions that might in fact actually lead to something.

Many people consider the private members' hour to be an hour of just esoteric debate, and I would never subscribe to that. Obviously, I've never thought of motorcycles as in any way esoteric, and I would think that members should bring forward issues that they consider to be important because they really want change.

I would hope that the member has discussed this at least with his pal Al and that he could in fact have some assurance that if the members of this House were to pass this resolution, it indeed would be moved forward, that the government would respond and listen to the members' opinions. I would encourage many members of the government and the opposition parties in this House to seriously consider this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired.

Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I would just say that I really do resent the fact that you haven't given me enough time to deal with this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough East.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): First off, I'd like to say that I will be supporting the resolution of the member for Lambton. I'm Harley prepared for the comments that I have to make here today, and with only eight minutes, I don't want to hog all the time here.

I must say, since yesterday, when Mr Beaubien asked me to consider this, I've tried to get a handle on the issue and to come to grips with the many and varied facets of this issue. I know that it's been frustrating for the members opposite to not be able to talk about chops today and only choppers, but I think that Mr Wildman's comments about low riders are as close as we can get to a commentary about the positions in the polls of the various parties here today. But I'd like to stay on topic.

This is in fact a serious resolution brought forward by the member for Lambton and it's consistent with the government's approach to eliminate all sorts of silly and irrelevant and unproductive regulations that have cropped up over the years, not just the last 10 years, although mostly during the last 10 years, but even going back before then.

Comments have been made in the House earlier in this debate that this regulation dates back to a time of the ape hangers, as they were called in the chopper craze in the late 1960s. As the member who spoke previously commented, there are those who have taken it to an extreme, and none would argue that handlebars that are higher than the shoulder pose a serious hazard to others on the road.

The requirement right now that no part of the handlebar shall exceed a height of 380 millimetres above the uppermost portion of the operator's seat when the seat is depressed by the weight of the operator really is not appropriate, because many of the motorcycles which are imported legally into this country have stock handlebars that exceed that. So there's the irony. In this province we have vendors selling motorcycles, legal for sale in this country, legal for sale in this province, that the moment someone sits on them become illegal because of the height of the handlebar.

But the duties and taxes have been paid. The federal government has got their pound of flesh. Every other province would allow you to sit on that motorcycle and head on down the highway looking for adventure or whatever comes our way.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Potholes.

Mr Gilchrist: Or potholes, looking for potholes in Kingston.

But seriously, the incongruity that here in Ontario we've set a standard that makes a Honda Gold Wing or a Yamaha Venture Royale illegal is really quite silly.

The resolution the member has proposed would prefer that we instead go to what British Columbia has done, which says, "so secured that the maximum height to which the handlebars extend is not higher than the top of the driver's shoulders when the driver's seat is occupied," and also add a clause from Saskatchewan's act, that "the vehicle shall have handlebars that have grips that are no higher than the shoulders of the seated driver and do not exceed the overall width of those provided by the vehicle manufacturer" as original equipment.

Clearly, the fact that Ontario is out of sync with the rest of Canada should be motivation alone for all members in this House to give serious consideration to and vote in favour of this resolution. I'm sure that the member will then have greater assistance in his efforts to convince the Minister of Transportation of the need to change this regulation.

We have to remember that a lot has changed in the construction of motorcycles since the 1960s. They have become far more powerful. They have become far more expensive. They have got creature comforts the likes of which we had no idea would ever come to motorcycles: adjustable seats, AM-FM radios, the whole nine yards. I think the context of the new construction and the fact that every other province has seen fit to change their regulations to the new realities really should drive Ontario to follow their example.

As I said, this is consistent with our entire approach to regulatory change in this province. The Red-Tape Review Commission, chaired by Mr Sheehan, is looking at the 4,500 regulations with a view to eliminating untold numbers that do nothing more than vex and frustrate businesses and consumers in this province. It's also consistent with the committee, chaired by Mr Wood, that's looking to scrap the agencies, boards and commissions that oversee those regulations or that promoted their creation; or, where they're not scrapped, change their terms of reference to make them more accountable to the elected officials in this province.

It's also consistent with our approach to all aspects of government. We're bringing common sense back to everything else we do; why shouldn't we bring it back to the shape and style of motorcycle handlebars?

I have done my best to treat this seriously, Mr Beaubien, and it is a serious issue, but I think at the end of the day it's more symptomatic of the kind of problems that our government inherited where we have products legal for sale elsewhere in Canada that somehow, as a result of disinterest or a lack of education in the last few years, we have seen our predecessor governments fail to make the necessary regulatory changes for.

I certainly support the resolution put forward by the member. I think it's high time we make this change. I'd just like to end by saying that I hope my comments will accelerate the decision-making on this issue. I prompt all other members and I encourage them to support this worthy resolution.

Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member talked about the potholes in Kingston. I know we do have a problem there, but no worse than any other municipality. Let me just say that for those students who were there in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, as the honourable member was, if they were --

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have enjoyed this last sparring on the potholes. I have to agree with the member that the roads are all very bad nowadays, partly because of the winter conditions and partly because of the lack of maintenance. I have had a chance to travel in the last couple of months to Ottawa and the Kingston area on a variety of government business and I have to agree that you have to negotiate your way, if you can, if there isn't too much traffic, to avoid some of the larger potholes, let alone with a car, but especially with a motorcycle.

Speaking on that particular issue today, not to trivialize the issue -- which I support, by the way; I support the member for Lambton and his resolution -- I would say that one good reason for lowering the handlebars is so the driver can have a good view of the road ahead and make sure that he may deviate from some of the potholes on the road. That is one of the benefits of the resolution by the member.

I would agree with one of the previous speakers that if the resolution indeed will pass to legislation, it will find speedy acceptance by the other side, and the minister as well. I do congratulate the member for bringing this forth, as it is some reason of safety. Nowadays I think we have to intrude, if you will, as little as possible, but interfere with those matters when safety is at risk, not as much sometimes for a particular driver himself or herself, but for consideration of the other drivers.

The other thing that is a little bit perhaps stunning is that when the House seems to find acceptance on a particular private member's bill or resolution, not too many people have much to say. Perhaps it's because of the issue itself, perhaps it's because members feel, "Since we agree with that, maybe there isn't too much to say about it."

However, it is a good resolution. I support it. Let's hope this will find speedy acceptance by the government.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Chair then will entertain two minutes by the presenter.

Mr Beaubien: First of all, I would like to address the comment from the member for Algoma with regard to, "Comfort is lying down." I don't even want to touch that one, because I could be incriminated in doing something illegal.

With regard to the member for Kingston and The Islands, I would point out that his party was in power from 1985 to 1990 with regard to regulation 611. That party didn't see fit to change it.

My concern with this entire issue is the safety and comfort of the operator of a motorcycle. We have designed and altered automobiles in the last 25 years whereby the comfort and the safety of the driver are of the utmost importance, yet we keep on insisting on antiquated regulations when it comes to motorcycles. We have to face the reality and use common sense. How can we expect a six-foot-six person to abide by the same standard as a five-foot person?

This issue has been dealt with in most states and in the provinces of Saskatchewan and British Columbia. Also, changing the present legislation would make enforcement of this regulation much easier. It is time for Ontario to address this issue and change its regulation to allow the operator of a motorcycle similar comfort and adjustments as we have done with automobile drivers. This province has always been concerned and will continue to be concerned with the safety on our highways. Why not provide comfort and safety to the motorcycle operator? After all, isn't safety our most important issue?

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): On ballot item number 15, private member's notice of motion number 8 standing in the name of Ms Lankin, is there anybody who objects to this coming before the House?

All in favour of the motion? Is it agreed?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This item will be put over until after the next ballot.

MOTORCYCLES

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): On ballot item number 16, private member's notice of motion number 9 standing in the name of Mr Beaubien, is there any member who objects to this coming before the House?

On the resolution then of Mr Beaubien, shall the motion carry? Carried.

Call in the members; there will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1154 to 1159.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 15, private member's notice of motion number 8, standing in the name of Ms Lankin: All those in favour will rise and stay standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Cooke, David S.

Marchese, Rosario

Bartolucci, Rick

Crozier, Bruce

Miclash, Frank

Bisson, Gilles

Gerretsen, John

Pouliot, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Grandmaître, Bernard

Pupatello, Sandra

Brown, Michael A.

Gravelle, Michael

Sergio, Mario

Castrilli, Annamarie

Kormos, Peter

Silipo, Tony

Churley, Marilyn

Lankin, Frances

Wildman, Bud

Colle, Mike

Laughren, Floyd

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will rise and stay standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Gilchrist, Steve

Sampson, Rob

Bassett, Isabel

Guzzo, Garry J.

Shea, Derwyn

Beaubien, Marcel

Hudak, Tim

Skarica, Toni

Boushy, Dave

Johns, Helen

Smith, Bruce

Brown, Jim

Kells, Morley

Snobelen, John

Chudleigh, Ted

Klees, Frank

Spina, Joseph

Doyle, Ed

Leadston, Gary L.

Stewart, R. Gary

Eves, Ernie L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Tilson, David

Fisher, Barbara

Maves, Bart

Turnbull, David

Flaherty, Jim

Munro, Julia

Vankoughnet, Bill

Ford, Douglas B.

Newman, Dan

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Fox, Gary

Parker, John L.

Wood, Bob

Froese, Tom

Pettit, Trevor

Young, Terence H.

Galt, Doug

Preston, Peter

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The ayes are 23, the nays are 41.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It being past 12 o'clock, this chamber stands adjourned until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1203 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INSURANCE AGENT EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise before the House today to ask this government to address another issue of inequality in the province of Ontario.

As the Minister of Finance opposite knows, there are no Ontario insurance examination centres in northern Ontario. This has been a long-standing grievance of insurance companies in the north, as the lack of access to this licensing process has impeded their ability to bring on new agents as quickly and efficiently as in other parts of the province.

Whereas prospective agents can walk into centres in Toronto, London or Ottawa, write the examinations and receive their results within a one-day period, applicants in northern Ontario must sometimes wait three months or more before getting even the simple authorization to write their exams. As you may well imagine, the resulting delays and inconvenience are a great source of frustration for would-be agents and the insurance companies looking to hire.

But there exists a simple solution to this northern Ontario dilemma, and I would encourage the minister opposite to give due consideration to a pilot initiative brought to my attention by the Thunder Bay Life managers. They have proposed a system to me where the initial authorization to write qualifying examinations is eliminated and replaced by an opportunity to write the examination locally upon request. I would point out that this proposal would not result in any additional cost or administrative burdens.

There is no reason for those of us in the north to be treated in this unfair and inequitable manner when the minister can so easily fix it himself. Minister, do the right thing. Help us create more jobs in the north.

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention this government's complete disregard for the people of northern Ontario. Specifically, I want to talk about the people of Chapleau. When norOntair makes its last flight tomorrow, the town of Chapleau will be completely without any form of reliable public transportation -- no buses, no trains, and now no planes.

The Minister of Northern Development and Mines clearly stated that communities will have air service after norOntair is forced out of business, and now, through his complete incompetence, the communities of Chapleau, Hornepayne and Gore Bay will be without air service starting April 1. This minister is not an effective advocate for the north. He should be called the minister for southern development and mines.

Bill Davis and Leo Bernier, both Tories, understood the difficult transportation problems that people in the north face every day. That is why they created the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. The Liberals also supported ONTC's goals and objectives, as did the New Democrats. All three governments have seen the need for norOntair, and now the Harris government, in its short-sighted quest for its tax break for the rich, is shutting down norOntair.

The minister made a half-hearted attempt at putting an interim deal together with Voyageur Airways to serve the community of Chapleau for a limited time, but this deal has fallen through, and tomorrow the people of Chapleau are without reliable public transportation. The people of Chapleau have been done a disservice by this government.

SAMANTHA WALKER

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to congratulate a remarkable young individual in my riding.

Tomorrow, Samantha Walker of Peterborough will be one of 12 young people from across the province to be presented with the distinguished Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year award by Ontario's Lieutenant Governor.

The Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year award program is coordinated by the Ontario Community Newspaper Association, with financial assistance being provided by Bell Canada.

The award was created to honour young Ontarians who have demonstrated

an act of commitment to their communities, and I am proud to say that Samantha Walker has indeed demonstrated that commitment.

Samantha has assisted a young student from Korea to adjust to life in Peterborough, she has been active in local girl guides, she has organized a tulip-planting event on Remembrance Day and she has served as a community ambassador for visiting dignitaries such as the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and the Consul General of the Netherlands. She has participated in all these functions while still maintaining an A-plus average in school.

On behalf of the people of the Peterborough riding, I want to congratulate Samantha for receiving this distinguished award. She truly is a remarkable citizen of this province.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): One of the most effective ways of evaluating a government in any society is to examine the way it treats those who are vulnerable and require the help of others. In this regard, I urge the government today to redress the unfair way in which long-term-care resources have been allocated to seniors in the Niagara area.

The Niagara District Health Council has made representations to the Minister of Health which reveal that Niagara, despite having one of the highest per capita populations of seniors, ranks 32nd out of the 38 health regions in long-term-care funding. More disabled people wait for support services from the March of Dimes than those who are actually served by it.

Alzheimer patients, who critically depend on support services in order to cope in a more humane way with this devastating illness, continue to suffer from unacceptable delays in receiving respite care. Indeed, all 28 people in Ontario waiting for Alzheimer counselling services are in Niagara; 25% of those waiting for Alzheimer disease day programs in Ontario are also located in this region; and lastly, more than half of all Ontario families waiting for Alzheimer-related respite care reside here as well.

I urge the government to implement the plan, which has been put forth by the health council in an expeditious, responsible and effective manner, creatively targeting ways in which health care dollars can be saved and rerouted to help those who so desperately need care and who by any measure have been treated unfairly in the past.

MINISTER OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): My statement is directed at the Minister of Community and Social Services.

On October 3, 1995, the minister said in answer to a question from our leader: "To the leader of the third party, there are many places where you can buy tuna for 69 cents. In fact, even if it's not priced at 69 cents, quite often you can make a deal to get it for 69 cents."

Five members of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty decided to follow the minister's advice. They went to a Loblaw's store in downtown Toronto and tried to "make a deal" at the checkout. For their troubles, they were charged with trespassing.

The five go to court on Monday, April 1 of next month.

The minister, I understand, has been asked to be present and has been called as a witness. The defence will be that of "officially induced error," and the defence would obviously have their case enhanced if the minister would appear.

On March 22, 1996, a lawyer from the Attorney General's office representing the minister has indicated very clearly that they want the summons the minister has been issued to be withdrawn because he has no intention of going to court.

I think it's incumbent on the minister to not only say what he says here in the House but to go out and defend it.

MARJORIE LEWSEY

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I rise to congratulate Marjorie Lewsey, winner of this year's borough of East York Agnes Macphail Award. Marjorie was presented with the award this past Sunday at a special ceremony attended by many of East York's most prominent citizens and the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

The Agnes Macphail Award honours the memory of the woman who, as the member for York East, served in this House as one of Ontario's first female MPPs. It is presented each year to an East York resident who has exemplified and continued Agnes Macphail's tradition of community leadership.

I am pleased to have served on the selection committee this year and to confirm that Marjorie Lewsey is a very fitting recipient of this year's award.

Marjorie's contribution to East York's proud tradition of volunteerism has spanned many years and many causes. She has served for 12 years on the East York Mayor's Committee for Multiculturalism and Race Relations. She was the first woman president of the Universal African Improvement Association, Toronto chapter. She has been honoured also for her outstanding contributions to her church and to the causes of children, seniors, ratepayer concerns, families in need of housing, health care, penal issues, Junior Achievement and the preservation of community history.

I endorse the words of one of her many nominators, who said: "Marjorie Lewsey has made East York and Metro Toronto and Canada a better place for all. She has always been a beacon for others to be guided by."

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Today we have word that the OPSEU strike is nearing an end. While government members talk about popping champagne corks, I just wanted to reflect on what this strike was all about.

First and foremost, this strike was about workers trying to keep their jobs and trying to ensure there would be dignity for those whose jobs had to be lost. At some point in the next few weeks or months, the layoff notices are going to begin. While Tory members celebrate, as many as 27,000 people will learn they no longer have jobs. For many, these are not happy times in Ontario.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the men and women who had the courage to stand up to this government. It is never easy to say: "I know this is going to mean sacrifice. I know this is going to cost me thousands of dollars." But these workers also knew the difference between what is right and what is wrong, they knew the difference between what was fair and what was unfair, and they were willing to fight for it. They put their money where their mouths are.

Against great odds, the men and women of OPSEU stood up to this government for what was right. They deserve our congratulations, for they believe balance, fairness and justice is what Ontario should be about.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My statement today regards the minister without portfolio responsible for gutting the WCB.

We've witnessed in the last couple of days the minister arranging for backbench members to lob him setup questions on public meetings he's attended, and I want the government members to know they're fooling no one. Injured workers know that this minister and this government refuse to hold public meetings on their slashing and gutting of the WCB. They've been holding all their meetings in the background. The only thing they've been doing in public is when the minister absolutely couldn't avoid going.

He's had the audacity to stand in his place and say that when he is at these meetings he's getting concerns expressed from injured workers about the size of the bureaucracy and talking about the administrative structure. What a lot of baloney.

I was with injured workers this morning out front of your sham conference where you're planning to look at how you'll dismantle the WCB by taking examples from around the world. Those injured workers care about you slashing benefits, removing legitimate injuries from the ability to claim for compensation, shutting down the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, slashing workplace health and safety training for workers. That's what injured workers are upset about. That's what they have to say to this government, not the sham of questions that we see here with this play-acting every day in the House. Injured workers will not take this lightly.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): Time has expired.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): It is my pleasure to announce that the last International Plowing Match of the millennium will be held in Huron county in the town of Dashwood.

I would like to congratulate Jerry Theil of Zurich and members of the committee for their diligent efforts in ensuring Huron county was chosen for the 1999 match. Neil McGavin and the committee made an impressive presentation to the Ontario Plowmen's Association on February 12 of this year, which I was privileged to partake in. The Ontario Plowmen's Association accepted Huron's bid to act as the host of the 1999 International Plowing Match late the same afternoon at the annual convention.

The residents and organizations of Huron county are backing this initiative 100%. The success of Huron's matches in 1966 and 1978 speaks for itself.

The generosity of Earl and Michael Becker and surrounding neighbours should also be recognized for graciously allowing the use of their land and farms as the site of the 1999 International Plowing Match, which covers nearly 2,000 acres. The match will be a community effort involving some 30 townships and municipalities working together on preparations over the next three years.

Plowing matches have drawn as many as 150,000 people. Therefore, it will be an economic spinoff for our entire area. I welcome you all to come and be visitors to the International Plowing Match.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): We have two former members in the east gallery. I'd like to introduce Mr Bud Gregory, a former member for Mississauga East, and Mr John Turner of Peterborough, a former Speaker. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

EDUCATION FINANCING

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): On March 6, I announced on behalf of this government a strategy to help school boards bring education spending under control and to achieve savings of $400 million for 1996-97. The $400-million savings represents 3% of the $14 billion spent on education in Ontario. It is clear that we must maintain and improve quality programming and at the same time find out-of-classroom savings in order to make our education system of real value to the people of Ontario.

The future of Ontario's students will be seriously threatened if we continue to spend beyond our means. Ontario spends close to $1 billion, or more than $500 per child, above the average of the other provinces. Our government is committed to developing an education system that is based on excellence in student achievement as well as accountability to, and affordability for, all Ontario taxpayers.

Over the past few months I have met with a number of parents, students and taxpayers, as well as trustees, school board officials and teachers, and have received suggestions on how to accomplish the necessary savings in education spending. Through these discussions, I have heard three clear messages: First, people believe that education savings can be achieved and that it is important for Ontario to bring its spending in line with other provinces; second, Ontario taxpayers believe there must be an opportunity to develop solutions locally; third, they emphasize that while it is urgent to address these matters, we must allow time to ensure we maintain quality programming for our students.

Today I am introducing into the House the Education Amendment Act. This act will allow school boards to implement measures to achieve savings. The legislation includes amendments to the Education Act to:

Restore junior kindergarten as a local option by removing the mandatory requirement that school boards operate junior kindergarten;

Provide flexibility to school boards with respect to adult education by enabling school boards to direct certain adult pupils to continuing education credit courses;

Promote equitable impacts throughout the system by enabling negative grant boards to contribute their share of the savings;

Increase cooperation with other local boards and other public agencies by authorizing school boards to enter into cooperative agreements with other boards, public sector agencies and other organizations as prescribed by regulation, and require school boards to report annually on cooperative initiatives taken or explored to improve efficiency;

Provide flexibility to school boards by removing references to the number of sick days to which teachers are entitled, effective September 1, 1998.

The decisions for realizing the savings through the changes in the Education Amendment Act as well as other measures we announced on March 6 are based on three goals: Classroom funding should be protected, opportunities should be provided for local decision-making and locally negotiated solutions, and local taxes should not be increased.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You know you are hurting kids.

The Speaker (Hon Allan K. McLean): The member for Oriole is out of order.

Hon Mr Snobelen: Our responsibility as leaders of the education sector is to create an education system that is excellent and affordable. We must ensure that overspending, and the resulting burden of debt, does not deny our children the quality education they need or the future opportunities they deserve. With the introduction of this bill, we are ensuring that we are fulfilling these responsibilities for the people of Ontario.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I truly marvel at the capacity of communiqués like this. There must be someone in your office who has participated in some fantasyland Republican wordsmith communication program and says: "Listen, the way you talk is, you don't walk straight; you just continue to promote myths and you continue to say things. You know what? People are kind of stupid, I suppose, and they'll believe it." Well, the people of Ontario aren't stupid.

What they're trying to do here, ladies and gentlemen, is provide themselves with the opportunity to take resources away from education. In the

preamble, the minister says that this is to "find out-of-classroom savings"; three times in this communiqué. No acknowledgement that JK is classroom, that adult education is classroom, both of which -- one for an option and the other totally cut.

In estimates, the minister and the deputy minister acknowledged, and my colleague the member for Algoma I think would concur, that this continual reference to the expenses in line with other provinces was a misnomer, that it was apples compared to oranges. It is not a fair comparison. The minister continually presents this as if it were fact.

The fact is that 41% of the students in Canada come from Ontario. How much does Ontario spend? Forty-two per cent of those dollars. Is this out of whack? I suggest to you not, let alone the uniqueness of Ontario and the demographics of Ontario and who makes up Ontario. Comparing them to other provinces is not the standard. Minister, you said you wanted to be the best in the world and you compare yourselves to the other provinces. We're behind five other areas -- BC, Manitoba, Quebec, Northwest Territories. Is that our standard, right in the middle of the pack? Mediocrity.

"First, people believe that education savings can be achieved...." Of course they can be achieved when they're under duress, and that's what the school boards are saying.

You're saying local "taxpayers believe there must be an opportunity to develop solutions locally." Of course they have local solutions, because they've been forced to cut back. Look at your own Peel board. You've pitted the rural areas against the urban areas for busing. You've pitted those parents of children with special needs against the regular classes in terms of transportation. This is a divisiveness that's going on because of the cuts that you talk about.

The legislation includes amendments to the Education Act which enable you to make cuts. There is nothing positive. There is nothing creative. There is nothing supportive. Your

interpretation of what you hear, I would suggest, is selective hearing at best. "Classroom funding should be protected" -- what a joke. Speak to the children and look at the school boards that have to drop junior kindergarten at this particular stage.

You talk about the local option. You talk about opportunities locally. Local option means no option for some school boards.

"Local taxes should not" -- you did not say "will not"; you said "should not" -- be increased. They will be increased in certain areas. What you've just done and sent out to the boards, and I have a copy of this with me today, are the 1996 provincial increases in the mill rate. Why is that? So that more money can be grabbed from the local tax base in order to fund the money that the minister is looking to take out of the system totally. That money is going out of the system totally.

I'd like to pass on to my colleague the member for Oakwood an example of some of the cuts. But isn't it surprising how the pattern of create a crisis, bankrupt the system, find a scapegoat and privatize continues to always emerge?

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): It's hypocritical for the minister to say that this is not going to cut classroom. Tomorrow, 428 educational workers in Metro are going to get their pink slips from this minister: 108 elementary teachers, 41 secondary teachers. Fifty-three elementary teachers are going to have a pink slip as a result of the elimination of industrial arts, family studies and instrumental music. There are going to be 104 instructors in international languages who are going to get their pink slips because of your cuts.

Also, there are going to be 47 adult education teachers who are going to get their pink slips tomorrow. And you have the gall to say this doesn't affect students, it doesn't affect education?

Minister, go into a classroom for one day, spend one day in a classroom and come back and tell us if your cuts are not affecting teachers in this province. I challenge you to go to that classroom anywhere in Ontario for one day, Mr Snobelen.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): In response to the Minister of Education and Training's statement on the legislation he's introducing today, I think there are a couple of significant things masked in the edubaffle that he has