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

May 30, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS LICENSING ACT, 1990

Mr McLean moved second reading of Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to offer some opening remarks this morning as we consider second reading of my private member's Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

Members will no doubt recall that my bill requires operators to have some form of licence, sets age limits and requires a written examination or the completion of a motor boat operation and safety course. It also sets a maximum $1,000 fine and creates the offences of careless operation and impaired operation of a motor boat.

I am a boater. My family and I have a great deal of enjoyment on the waters of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe and the Trent-Severn waterway, and as a boater I do not like the necessity of imposing tough regulations on myself and on my boating colleagues. However, stupidity and carelessness have made boater legislation inevitable. The increased congestion on our waterways and a new breed of damn-the-consequences boaters have brought it on themselves by demonstrating that they either do not care or do not know the fundamentals and courtesies of safe boating in the province of Ontario.

Many Ontarians now spend more on leisure and recreation, and this increased spending is reflected in the proliferation of boats. There are more than one million boats in Ontario. This province has more boats per capita than anywhere else in North America, so there is no doubt that the increased number of boats results in a great deal of congestion on this province's waterways.

Boating activities continue to increase, and boaters are now finding greater demands made on their skills and experience in many cases. Boaters appear unwilling or unable to develop a responsible attitude and to practise boat safety. By 1990, more than 300 people had been killed in boating accidents over a six-year period. Police indicate that approximately 60% of all accidents go unreported because there is no obligation to report mishaps unless someone is killed.

I believe a recent report from the Ministry of Natural Resources lends a great deal of credence to my call for regulating power boats in Ontario. The ministry report, Recreational Boating Facilities in Ontario (1980-87), indicates that while boating fatalities fluctuated, without any definite trend during the study period, statistics show that the majority of fatalities occur to males between the ages of 15 and 34 in power boats that are less than 5.5 metres in length. Fatal accidents usually occur during the summer months, when the bulk of the boating activity takes place.

The most common accidents result in the victim's falling or being thrown overboard or the boat capsizing. In a large number of fatal accidents, the victim was not wearing a lifejacket or personal flotation device, had consumed alcohol or encountered rough water and had been negligent or careless while in the boat.

I believe that many fatalities could be prevented if boaters were more aware of the boating environment, their own limitations and the power of the water. In other words, boaters should be required to take a motor boat operation and safety course. Skill and experience are not always enough to prevent boating mishaps. The boater must know boat safety practices and be willing to apply those practices in order to avoid critical situations.

People who perceive recreational boating as relatively safe may ignore obvious risks. They may violate regulations designed to reduce the risk of accidents. They may fail to prepare for unexpected equipment failure. Their perceptions may determine their response to dangerous situations.

There are several factors that relate to the possibility of a boating accident. The first group relates to the boater's character and condition, including experience, skills, physical condition, safety, knowledge and attitude. The second group relates to the environment and includes weather, water conditions, boat traffic and obstructions. The third group relates to the craft itself and includes structure, mechanics, equipment supply and fuel supply.

All boaters must be aware of potential dangers and risks and how they can avoid them. In an attempt to reduce boating accidents, it is necessary to raise public awareness of acceptable boating practices. Effective public education depends on knowing where and with whom potential boating problems exist. I believe that my private member's bill to regulate and license motor boat operators will contribute to public awareness and education.

Drinking is involved in nearly one half of all boating accidents. A majority of the boating charges and warnings handed out by the Ontario Provincial Police each year are for safety-related offences such as too few lifejackets, nonfunctional running lights or water-skiing without an observer on board. The closest thing under federal law to the Highway Traffic Act's careless driving charge is failing to keep a proper lookout, which carries a maximum $500 fine. The Criminal Code does not apply to water offences, but is usually used mainly to crack down on drinking boaters.

I have noticed a startling increase in the number of mishaps and deaths during my years of recreational boating in Ontario. It is most unfortunate that we have reached the point where we require the licensing of recreational boat operators in Ontario. However, I also think it is a pretty sad commentary when a 10-year-old can drive any size of motor boat he or she wants and no licence or training is required. There are too many novice skippers on our waterways who have no knowledge of water safety, and our authorities have no way to regulate who operates a boat.

Police should be given the authority to enforce the safe operation of motor boats on our waterways, inasmuch as the Highway Traffic Act regulates the safe operation of motor vehicles on our roads. Motor boat operators should be licensed and held accountable for their actions on our waterways in much the same manner as those who drive vehicles on the roads are licensed and held accountable in Ontario.

I am not a strong advocate of licensing people, but I do know that there has to be an avenue whereby there can be a test. There has to be a written test where people demonstrate knowledge of our waterways, such as what the buoys stand for, and how to read a chart. The power squadron course in Ontario is one of the best courses that anybody could ever take, and I would urge anybody who is going to operate a boat to have one of those courses.

I have been a boater for over 20 years, and when I look back today to when I first bought my boat and I realize the little I knew about boating, I am surprised that I did not get into any serious trouble on the waterways. But today the boats are faster and there are more of them on the waterways, and that is where I see the problem.

The other day I noticed in front of my place, within 300 feet of shore, a boat with two outboard motors on the back of it, going probably no less than 50 miles an hour. Those are the people who are causing the problems, and the people who want to enjoy our waterways are not able to do it. These are the people this bill is aimed at. It gives the police the authority to protect them. I predict that the day will come when we will see speed limits on our inland waterways and that we will also see a regulation whereby boats will have to stay so far from shore.

I urge the members here to give this bill second reading, because I want to see this important piece of legislation passed as soon as possible, before another tragic series of recreational boating accidents, injuries and deaths occurs on our waterways. It gets very dangerous out there.

I want to thank the members for giving me this opportunity to briefly outline Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. I would like to reserve the balance of my time for the end of this discussion.

Mr Wood: As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, I want to speak on Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators. Before doing so, I want to emphasize the government's great concern about the safety of anyone who uses Ontario's lakes and waterways. One boating fatality, even one boating accident, is one mishap too many. While the government can share many of the concerns of the member for Simcoe East about public boating safety, it cannot support Bill 37 for two fundamental reasons.

First of all, the bill deals with areas under federal, not provincial, jurisdiction. Second, the bill does not address safety concerns and target groups that were clearly identified through analysis of fatal boating accidents conducted by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Since 1983, the ministry has been working with a number of agencies on recreational boating issues. I want to emphasize some of the problems with the bill as proposed.

First of all, in

section 2, it proposed the licensing of vessels with motors of 25 or more horsepower. One problem is the connection that seems to be made between accidents and horsepower. It is a tenuous connection. You cannot say bigger is deadlier. According to the ministry studies, non-powered boats and boats under 18 feet in length with small engines are the types of vessel Involved in 75% of fatal boating accidents. As a matter of fact, one quarter of boating fatalities involve canoes. If there is a connection to be made, it is between accidents and boater behaviour rather than horsepower.

Section 3 of the proposed bill would require that nonresident boaters have a licence from their home jurisdiction before being allowed to boat in Ontario. However, this would effectively bar anyone but Ontarians, because no jurisdiction in North America currently requires motor boat operators to have a licence. In addition, there are some 3.5 million boats registered in the states bordering on the Great Lakes. Many of the American owners of these boats regularly visit Ontario and spend tourist tax dollars here. This bill would effectively put an end to that.

Further, we believe that subsection 6(2) of the proposed bill is unnecessary. This

section addresses the operation of a boat by a person who is impaired. This matter is already covered under sections 233 to 243 of the Criminal Code of Canada, which covers infractions involving the operation of automobiles, vessels and aircraft while impaired.

Section 7 deals with the suspension of a licence. Again, this is a matter already covered by the Criminal Code of Canada, which allows for the removal of the right to operate a vessel in the case of negligence or recklessness. I might add that other regulations dealing with such things as boating, speed limits, safety, passing and lights are contained in the Canada Shipping Act under the boating restriction regulations and small vessel regulations.

In closing, while the government shares many of the concerns of the member for Simcoe East about public boating safety, we do not believe that Bill 37 addresses this issue effectively.

Mr Curling: I too want to thank my honourable colleague the member for Simcoe East for introducing this bill. I almost want to call it Bill 8 or call it the resurrection of Bill 8, which is now Bill 37, because previously the member had introduced this bill and it died in Orders and Notices some time ago. I want to commend him for bringing forward this bill which will license all motor boats while in operation.

Let me just quickly comment, before I go into the bill itself, that the member for Cochrane North, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, seemed to put money before safety. I just want to refresh his memory. His former colleague in the House, Mike Breaugh, strongly supported the licensing of motor boat operators. Then, all of a sudden, the bureaucrats got to the member. The bureaucrats seem to have gotten to him and given him that line, saying to him that all of these tourists are coming to our country and if we do license them, my golly, we will lose all this money.

Forget about the deaths and the irresponsibility. Anyhow, I just want to remind him to be careful of those briefing notes he gets. He should go back to his conscience and it will lead him much better.

My colleague the member for Simcoe East had noted earlier, in 1988, that there were 54 fatalities due to boating accidents in Ontario -- 54 too many. It does appear that there is a growing public safety concern with regard to the operation of motor boats, because between 1984 and 1989 there were over 288 people killed in boating accidents. As the member stated, now it is over 300 people who have died because of boating accidents.

At present there are over 1.5 million boats in Ontario waterways and the traffic has increased immensely. The size and the speed have also increased and the irresponsible manner of operating these boats seems to have increased. It is very common to find 11-year-olds or 12-year-olds speeding at 60 miles an hour along the waterways without a licence whatsoever. Incidents have been seen in the headlines of the paper where an individual was run over by a boat and killed on the spot while bathing.

In policing these, the OPP have a very difficult job. Currently, there are just about 105 boats and 260 officers assigned to patrol the waterways of the entire province. In addition to this there are approximately 36 RCMP boats. There are some Canadian Coast Guard search-and-rescue teams and the marine units of some urban police departments. Marine police officials have reported being often overworked and they are understaffed.

At some time an inter ministerial committee task force was led by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and I would ask my colleague the parliamentary assistant for Natural Resources to check on that. Give them a call and see if they are still in operation and find out what they are doing in that respect. They were supposed to examine this issue, particularly as it really pertains to certain jurisdictional questions. We tried to contact them just to get an update and at the time of coming to the House we were unable to get information from them.

There are other people of course who are concerned about this licensing. The Ontario Marina Operators Association has criticized a proposal to license the motor boat operation and our colleagues here are quite interested to find out why they would resist this. They maintain that the real issue is the need for mandatory safety and education programs. I feel too that yes, it is a very important issue that must be addressed, safety and education. My colleague the member for Simcoe East stated that people need to be educated, to go on courses to learn that and maybe improve that.

In the meantime, licensing brings a sort of responsibility to it. It brings a serious approach to things. They realize that it is something to be maintained and they would not like to lose that. So I think in licensing these motor boats we bring some order to the scene. Of course, as I have laid out earlier on, there are areas in which we have to make sure that if we bring laws into place they must be properly enforced.

We must of course take heed of the concern of the marina association, which said that we must get enough police on the waterways to enforce laws. The government said it cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford not to do that, because in the meantime we will get rid of all those irresponsible people and in the meantime we are to make sure that before someone gets a licence he has studied and understands what he is doing and not just maybe learned from his father or by watching and trial and error, in the process causing lives to be lost on the waterways.

We must make sure that history comes into place here. Where did we stand? I would remind the honourable member that the member for Oshawa at that time, Mike Breaugh, supported that. I just cannot understand at this moment how they have gone through a change of heart. The party that concerns itself with the common people and the concerns of human beings is saying, "Careful, we may lose some money from our resources and revenue from tourism."

In 1989 the Premier of the day, David Peterson, had indicated that his government would be taking steps to regulate boaters. My colleague in the House today, the member for Mississauga North, was reviewing it at that time to see if there was an effective way that could be done.

The former Minister of Transportation, Bill Wrye, noted that there were some concerns that we should look at. One of the two main factors that had prevented immediate action by the government was looking at the cost of the policing of the waterway and to work out the jurisdictional areas. That of course can be done. We know that the federal government is responsible for the Canada Shipping Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but that does not stop us from making sure that those who are handling motor boats on those waterways are properly licensed.

We know too that legislation regarding drinking alcohol on boats is also a federal matter, but we know that most of the individuals who are dying are Ontarians and we must protect our people.

We know too that licences are not required for motor vehicle operators if vehicles are operated on private property. We know about snowmobiles jumping over streets. Young five-, 10- and 11-year-olds are doing this. Sometimes, as a matter of fact, even the 11-year-olds are less irresponsible than some of the adults. But again, as I said, licensing brings about a control and a better sense of responsibility. Quite often the police officials have commented on the large number of the unlicensed individuals believed to be operating motor vehicles on public roads. We have those areas to be addressed too.

I support this bill in principle. Of course, public safety needs to be addressed. At the same time, work will have to be done to ensure that the legislation is enforceable in a meaningful way. That can be done. Just to reject it outright would be very irresponsible of this House. We need to work towards an effective means to ensure that the public safety on the province's waterways is increased.

I would strongly like to see that Bill 37 goes through second reading. If there are amendments to be done, I am sure that the honourable member for Simcoe East will gladly accommodate that. I have to emphasize again, let's put people before money because people are more important than money.

Mr Harnick: I too am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today about Bill 37, the bill introduced by the member for Simcoe East.

It is interesting to note that as I look around this Legislature this morning I see the member for Durham Centre, the member for Durham West, the member for Kingston and The Islands, the member for Simcoe Centre, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay and the member for Victoria-Haliburton. I am a boater myself and I can tell members that I have operated boats and travelled in the areas where all of these members reside.

Mr White: Not too often in Whitby, though.

Mr Harnick: I can tell the member for Durham Centre I have been in Whitby harbour many times.

I can tell members that from my experience in the waterways of each of these jurisdictions I have been in places where I have seen water skiers, fishermen, sailboats, large cruisers, small pleasure craft, small sailboats, rowboats and canoes all operating on inland lakes or in small areas of open water all at the same time. There is absolutely no question that in Ontario today there has been a tremendous proliferation of the number of people operating boats of all kinds.

However, the important thing to note is that the boats that can potentially be the source of the most danger to all boaters and to swimmers if not handled properly are power boats, particularly power boats in excess of 25 horsepower. That is why I applaud the initiative of the member for Simcoe East, because it is well known that we have had a number of very tragic accidents in Ontario in the last several years.

I point out some of the very unusual accidents that have happened in the last number of years, not just boats colliding with other boats, but the idea of a boat going into a rock face on a lake in Muskoka and people being fatally injured, or the idea of a family taking a boat out of Midland harbour early one summer evening to go from Midland harbour to Beausoleil Island, a short distance, and the wind coming up and the whole family dying when the boat capsized and they did not have proper lifesaving equipment on board. These are very serious safety problems that are being incurred by people using our waterways today.

I might point out to the Legislature that there is a system of licensing and testing all boaters who use Toronto harbour. Toronto harbour is a very congested area. It has aircraft coming in to land at the island airport, it has ferry boats going to each of the various islands, and it has the gaps, both the eastern and western gaps, that are difficult areas to navigate through. Because of that, the harbour police have instituted a form of testing and licensing of people who are using the waterways on a regular basis, and to some degree that has been a successful program.

Today, there is no recognition per se in any comprehensive piece of legislation regarding pleasure craft, particularly pleasure craft of a motorized type in excess of 25 horsepower. What we have today is the Canada Shipping Act. The member for Cochrane North made mention of the Canada Shipping Act. Unfortunately, the Canada Shipping Act is designed to regulate the operation of large Great Lakes ships. By implication, there have been attempts, when necessary, to use the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act with respect to pleasure craft. It has not been a suitable bill to really regulate the waterways of this province in so far as their use by pleasure craft is concerned.

One of the things that comes to mind when one reads the bill of the member for Simcoe East is the aspect of enforcement and the difficulty that police will have enforcing the provisions of this bill. I acknowledge that in fact it will be very difficult to police this bill, but that is not the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is to provide for safety and education and training. Granted, there has to be some enforcement, but the other aspects of the bill -- and I urge the members to listen to these aspects -- the education, training and safety aspects of this bill are what it is really all about.

There will always be difficulty in terms of enforcement, but the fact that this bill could become law would enhance the opportunity for education, training and safety on our waterways.

The important aspects of this bill, I submit, are in

section

Section 4 reads as follows:

"The minister or any person authorized in writing by the minister shall issue a motor boat operator's licence to any person who applies in accordance with the regulations, pays the prescribed fee, and" -- these are the important aspects -- "is at least 12 years of age and has successfully completed a motor boat operation course in accordance with the regulations; or is at least 16 years of age and has successfully completed a written examination in accordance with the regulations."

What is very important about this bill is that young people who are learning about the operation of boats today will, by necessity, have to learn what it means to safely operate a motor boat.

Let me point out some of the aspects of operating a motor boat that these courses and these examinations could cover. They could encompass the necessity to wear life jackets, the knowledge that a person would have to have in order to be capable of performing a rescue, having the proper safety equipment on board a boat and the idea and the aspect of knowing how to navigate in our waterways.

I might tell members that from Midland to Bing Inlet is probably one of the busiest waterways in this country today. It is an inland waterway -- a magnificent waterway, I might add -- that goes up the inside shore of the eastern side of Georgian Bay. If anyone ever has the opportunity to go there and see the magnificence of this waterway, he should certainly not hesitate. But this waterway is much akin to a highway. It is a marked channel. One has to be familiar with the marking system.

One has to respect that there are boats of different types -- sailboats, canoes, small craft where people are fishing and bigger pleasure craft -- going up and down that waterway and it is very important that people know how to navigate, because that is now basic on this highway-like waterway.

The other aspect that would be taught in terms of these courses would be the idea that you do not drink when you are on a boat. You might drink after you throw the anchor and you cook your dinner and spend your evening in a quiet spot. You might have a bottle of beer or you might have a glass of wine, but you certainly do not do it while you are under way.

The other aspect is, how do you handle an emergency situation? What if you have a mechanical failure in your boat? How do you handle those situations? What about the use of a radio? There is a proliferation of boaters who have radio systems in their boats, but they are not licensed to use those. They clog the airwaves and they do not know how to use those radios in the event of an emergency. All of that could be accomplished by having this bill enacted.

The other aspect is the idea of handling gasoline in boats. Fires, I might tell members, are devastating things when they occur on board a boat. In my former career as a lawyer, I acted for a family that had two children who were on board a boat that exploded while it was being filled with gas. The devastation to this family is indescribable. These two young lads were burned so badly that it really affected and will continue to affect their lives. That is why this bill that promotes education and safety by way of licensing is a very important bill, and that is why I would urge that the members opposite consider it and keep it alive.

I have a few final remarks, and I see I have some time remaining. I would like to respond to some of the remarks of the member for Cochrane North. He stated that accidents and horsepower bear no relationship. I can tell members that the bigger the boat, the more destruction it can do and the more difficult it is for a young person to handle, because when that throttle goes forward and that boat starts to move, it becomes very difficult for a young person to control it, so I cannot subscribe to what he tells us.

The bigger the boat, the more difficult it is to maintain at high speeds and the more devastating the accident that can occur. Granted, there are accidents with smaller boats and there always will be. Boats tip over; people do stupid things, but you cannot underestimate the idea of horsepower, and the higher the horsepower, the more the devastation can be.

The other aspect that my friend across the way mentioned was that it would affect American boats coming up here. There may be some difficulty in terms of a transition period, I acknowledge that, but it would make it more imperative for boats coming here from other jurisdictions surrounding us to be familiar with the power squadron courses that are available in those jurisdictions, or perhaps, if Ontario takes the lead, which we would be doing by voting in favour of this bill, then other jurisdictions surrounding us will follow that lead and make their own waterways as safe as our waterways would be.

The other aspect of this bill is the idea of the Criminal Code removing the right of people to operate boats if negligent or reckless. Those are pretty difficult things to prove in an area that I have already stated is difficult to enforce, but that is not the emphasis of this bill. The emphasis of this bill is not enforcement; it is not charging people who make errors. The emphasis of this bill is to promote education and safety on our waterways. The idea of having to license boats and to license individuals, particularly young people, is something that will promote safety, and that is what this bill is directed to.

As my friend the member for Scarborough North spoke about earlier, we have many problems in terms of safety on our waterways, but he acknowledged that protection of the public is what we are after here, and that the best way to protect the public is by educating it. It may be difficult to educate people who believe they are competent boaters and who take their children out to educate them when they really do not have the level of competence.

What this bill will do effectively, from the moment it becomes law, is that it will start to educate young people so that 10 years from now and 20 years from now, when there are more and more boats on our waterways, we will not have these very severe accidents and injuries.

Mr Dadamo: I wish to speak to Bill 37, introduced by the member for Simcoe East this morning and given first reading last December. As this bill is now again before the House for second reading, I would like to point out to the House that the Ministry of Transportation well agrees with the Ministry of Natural Resources that this legislation does go beyond our constitutional jurisdiction.

We understand, and of course to some degree we support the member's intent here. The member is not here now, but the member for Scarborough North this morning mentioned that a former member of this side supported a similar bill. He is right. However, that was for 10 horsepower. This bill concerns itself with 25 horsepower or more. Bill 73 from 1989,

section 40a, says, "This part applies only in respect of motor boats propelled by engines of at least 10 horsepower," and "subsection (1) does not apply to a person who is the resident of another province, country or state, is a holder of a motor boat operator's licence issued by the province, country or state and is at least 12 years of age."

I also understand the member's concern about boating safety. However, this bill does not adequately address this issue.

First, the proposed bill fails to cover the majority of craft which are involved in boating fatalities. Half of the boating fatalities each year are associated with vessels under 5.5 metres in length and which usually have a motor of less than 25 horsepower. Another 25% of boating fatalities involve canoes.

Second, controls proposed by Bill 37 already exist in other legislation. Unsafe boating practices are dealt with in the small vessels regulation under the Canada Shipping Act, while impaired boating is an offence under the Criminal Code.

The third major concern is the fact that no other jurisdiction in North America requires licensing of boat operators. There are 3.5 million boats registered in states that border on the Great Lakes. Many American pleasure boaters use their vessels to visit the province of Ontario. This bill would bar these people from bringing their boats into Ontario waters. I do not think our tourist industry would support this kind of restriction. Of course, in the area I come from, Windsor, on the Detroit River, this would restrict the Americans from coming over to Windsor.

On top of these concerns is the fact that establishing and operating a boat operator licensing system would be very costly. It makes far more sense to continue our current efforts to promote boating safety in Ontario. The Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and municipal police forces all carry out boating safety programs. As a matter of fact, since the OPP began its major safety campaign in 1985, the number of boating fatalities has declined considerably -- from 100 in 1985 to about 45 in 1987 -- and these efforts are continuing. I am sure the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General has provided more details to the House this morning.

In conclusion, at the present time we are unable to support this particular proposal for the reasons I have outlined. Just to go back: first, it does not deal with the majority of vessels involved in boating fatalities; second, it would have a detrimental impact on tourism in this province, and of course it would be very expensive.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise and indicate my support for the member for Simcoe East and his private member's bill, Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. There is no time left. I am advised by the table that there is no time left.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order: I have been advised by the member from Mississauga that they had four minutes left on their time and wish to allocate it to us.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the four minutes be passed on? Agreed to.

Mr Arnott: As I was saying, I am pleased to support this initiative by the member for Simcoe East. I want to compliment him on his persistence, his perseverance and his good common sense, which he always exhibits in this House when he is presenting his private member's bills. I am very pleased to indicate my support.

I am disappointed to hear the member for Cochrane North indicate he will not be supporting it, as well as the member for Windsor-Sandwich, and I listened closely to the comments they have made. With respect to the member for Cochrane North, when he talks about the fact that there is a tenuous relationship between speed and accidents, I do not believe that is the case. If you look at the speed that some of the boats are going, certainly, in terms of accidents on the water, increased speed means there is less reaction time, and less reaction time generally means there is more chance of having an accident. I just do not understand that submission by the member.

My friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich apparently had a briefing note sent in that indicated that the former member for Oshawa did in fact support a bill of this nature, but it was a 10-horsepower motor boat they wanted to regulate. I do not see that there is a big difference there, and I am disappointed by his contention that he will not support this bill.

This issue is public safety. I do not think we have a more compelling issue that we should address. It is an overriding issue, and that is the main reason why I can say that I completely support in principle the intention of the bill. In my own, I would admit limited, experience with boating -- when we go boating my wife drives the boat, so I cannot say that I am a particularly experienced boat driver, but at my wife's family's cottage in the Loring-Restoule area, we see a lot of pleasure craft boating. Clear Lake has no access from rivers or other lakes, so the amount of traffic is limited.

But close by is Le Grou Lake, with which I have some experience, where there is a great deal of access and a great deal of congestion, and speeding boats have in the past caused accidents.

In my own riding, in the areas in West Garafraxa township and in Peel township, Maryborough township around the village of Drayton, there are two lakes, Lake Belwood and Conestogo Lake, both administered by the Grand River Conservation Authority, where there have been fatalities. At Lake Belwood a couple of years ago there was an accident with a speeding boat. It involved, I believe, a water skier. The water skier was killed.

I just cannot imagine that this government would not look at those aspects with greater interest than the excuses it has made. I am disappointed in it and I hope that there are enough members in this House to pass this bill.

Mr Mills: I am very pleased to stand in the House today and respond to Bill 37,

An Act to provide for the Licensing of Motor Boat Operators, presented by -- and I should say this -- a friend and a colleague, the member for Simcoe East. The member and I go back over a number of years. We shared many occasions together and I also shared living in the Lake Simcoe area for almost 20 years. I know the member is presenting a bill that he sees is very much needed in that area. I have a lot of empathy with some of the things he said here this morning.

I would like to make some comments here today as the parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General. Of course, everyone here knows that the promotion of safe boating is an important duty and function of the Ministry of the Solicitor General in Ontario.

I would like to inform the members today that 50% of all the boating fatalities are associated with power boats under 18 feet, and they are usually under 25 horsepower; another 25% of the fatalities, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich has said, result from accidents in canoes. It should be evident, then, that the types of boating that give rise to the vast majority of deaths would remain somewhat untouched by this legislation.

Further, I would like to remind members that other issues raised by Bill 37, safe boating and impaired boating, are already addressed under existing legislation.

The implementation of the marine awareness program was followed by a decrease in the number of boating fatalities in Ontario from a high of 100 in 1985. The number has dropped progressively to 55 in 1986 and 45 in 1987. But I must say that in 1990 there were 62. Though this has gone up, the number of boaters has increased significantly and the per capita number of fatalities is thus significantly lower than in 1985.

While much of the responsibility for waterways policing falls within federal jurisdiction, the Ministry of the Solicitor General is doing all possible to ensure the safety of Ontario waterways. We have implemented some fine boating safety programs. The OPP marine unit currently consists of 105 boats and 150 uniformed policemen, and each of the 16 OPP districts has a marine co-ordinator to ensure the necessary police presence on Ontario waterways. Each OPP marine unit is equipped with an approved screening device to enforce the legislation regarding impaired boating.

The OPP's marine awareness program, which I have already spoken of, alerts the public to the dangers of unsafe boating. The program, in part, is delivered through a 45-foot display trailer equipped with teaching aids to demonstrate in the areas where people are likely to take up boating. That is where this is set up. Under the OPP marine awareness program, pamphlets and posters on impaired driving are widely distributed everywhere.

Members will be pleased and interested to learn that the implementation of the marine awareness program has resulted in a per capita decrease in the number of boating fatalities, even while the number of Ontario boaters has increased significantly.

In May 1989, an agreement between the OPP and the RCMP ensures co-operation for policing on the waterways of Lake Erie, on Georgian Bay, the Kawartha Lakes and the Ottawa and St Lawrence rivers.

I would like, at this point in time, to enter on the record the high regard the public has for the policing capabilities of the OPP, the municipal police and the RCMP carrying out the safety of the waters in Ontario.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that the Ministry of the Solicitor General remains committed to reducing the number of boating fatalities through enforcement, through innovative public education programs and, above all, through the cooperation of all those people who operate boats.

In closing, I would like to thank the member for Simcoe East. I think his bill is very well placed and put. It has some flaws that I see. As an individual, I am very pleased with the effort he has brought forward here in the House today regarding some concerns that we all have about safety on the waterways of Ontario.

Mr McLean: I would like to thank those members that participated in the discussion of this bill this morning: the member for Cochrane North, the member for Scarborough North, the member for Willowdale, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, the member for Wellington, and the member for Durham East. I welcome the comments and appreciate the input the members have had, although I am not overly enthused with some of the prepared remarks I have heard, due to the fact that I am not getting a good feeling about this bill being able to pass.

I would hope they would consider this. It is important for the safety and the education of people in Ontario who operate boats that there be something done. I would urge members to have this bill sent to committee. I can say that if there are some parts of this bill they do not agree with and do not like, that is fine. There are some things there that I see could be changed, and should be changed, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Some say it is not our jurisdiction. Maybe it is not all our jurisdiction, but let us have a further debate in committee, let us have some people in to appear before the committee, let us have some input from the public so that we can have a safer waterway. That is really my major concern. It is the people who are buying boats who do not know how to operate them without any courses at all. That is my number one concern, that people do have some knowledge of what a chart is, what the waterway is all about, and it is the safety and educational aspect of this bill.

I would urge the members to accept a recommendation to send it to committee to have a full and open debate.

WORKER OWNERSHIP

Mr Martin moved resolution 14:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should support worker ownership as a significant initiative in the restructuring of the province's economy by:

1. developing an interministerial committee comprised of representatives from the ministries of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Industry, Trade and Technology, Labour and Financial Institutions;

2. providing development funds and seed capital for a number of worker-owned business models;

3. establishing a financial incentives program to provide venture and expansion capital to new and existing projects;

4. amending existing tax law and regulations and developing new legislation which would enable worker owned enterprises to compete on an equal basis with other business forms;

5. implementing an interim financial mechanism (to be operative while the above steps are implemented) to compensate for the financial penalties presently incurred because of discriminatory tax law and the inability of worker-owned businesses to access existing government programs;

6. developing curriculum and programs through the Ministry of Education which would support and encourage awareness of, and participation in, worker-owned and managed workplaces;

7. encouraging the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to take the initiative in providing training in the management skills appropriate for worker-owned and managed businesses;

8. including a member of the emerging Worker Co-operative Association on the Premier's Council on the Economy and Quality of Life.

Mr Martin: This resolution that I am presenting today is not a new idea, simply one whose time has come, I believe, in this province. The time has come for this government to take this type of initiative seriously and get on with it.

Worker ownership has been a phenomenon in Europe for a number of years. One that particularly jumps to my mind and inspires me is an outfit in the Basque area of Spain in the community of Mondragon. Worker ownership has also been a significant part of industrial activity in the United States.

I am aware of this because of things that are happening in my own community of Sault Ste Marie and Algoma Steel. Particularly in the steel industry, many steel companies that were experiencing difficulty in the early 1980s have now restructured. Worker ownership is a significant part of the action there and these companies are very successful.

Worker ownership has also been a part of the history of many parts of Canada, particularly in the form of worker co-ops. It is important to note, though, that even though there has been significant activity in Canada to date around the issue of worker ownership or worker control of the place of work, while there are 375 such operations in the country at the moment, only three of those can be found in Ontario. I suggest that it is because the legislative climate in this province is not conducive to that kind of idea, which is why I bring this resolution forward today.

Certainly the previous government's Premier's Council on the economy suggested that worker ownership be looked at as a significant part of any restructuring of the economy of this province, and I am simply today building on that and suggesting that we as a government take that and move forward with it.

Our government in its speech from the throne spoke of new strategies and new partnerships. Again, when we delivered our budget in the House not so long ago, I believe it reflected a new attitude around what it will take to jumpstart this economy. We clearly indicated our intention to invest in people. Today I ask this government to remove any impediment to the next step happening, which is people investing in themselves.

I think it is important to reflect, as we talk about this resolution today, on the present situation. I remember being in New Brunswick in 1987 as part of a Governor General study tour and meeting with management and labour and other folks in communities and listening to them as they shared with us the terrible impact of the changing way the economy is being done in the world today on their particular region of this country where unemployment was astronomical. They seemed to be without any answers as to how they might regain control of their economy and make life better for everybody who lived in that province.

I dare say that we in the rest of Canada are beginning to feel that particular influence even more dramatically today than we did back then. I almost felt, as I looked at what was happening in New Brunswick, that part of the country was a Third World experience. Living in a smaller, one-industry community and having friends in many small, one-industry communities in northern Ontario, one gets the feeling sometimes that maybe we are developing a Third World economy up there too.

I think some of the thoughts in the resolution that I am presenting today might give us another piece to work with as all of us who live up there attempt to come to terms with what our economy will look like as it evolves and as it gets better, as we know it will, because we are not going to stop certainly with this resolution here today.

Our present situation is one that has been evolving over the last 10 years and certainly a lot longer than that. The emergence of the global economy and what that means, new trade arrangements that we have entered into with the United States and possibly soon with Mexico, the changing fundamental shape of industry as we move from smoke tech to high tech all have a tremendous impact on our economy and on our ability to do business.

The most obvious impact of the changing economic environment is the increasing number of industrial enterprises either closing down or moving to the United States or Mexico to do business. This impacts most dramatically on smaller communities dependent on one major company for their livelihood. Many people and groups in these communities have been trying for years to stimulate new economic activity, without much success I must add.

So what do we do? Do we continue to wait for that fairy godmother to land that big Honda plant in our city as opposed to some other city, or do we do what many of us have actually been trying to do over the last little bit, which is look to the community itself, look to the resources of that community, to the resources of that area to actually build an economy and build some industry that speaks to what we have there?

As I have said before, certainly the greatest resource of any community is the people who live in it, the ideas they have, the talents they have developed, the experience they have got over the years by working. We should be somehow taking advantage of that and building economies that involve everybody to the limit of their potential.

In saying that, we obviously need to look at initiatives such as the one that I am introducing today which, as I have said before, is actually not a new idea, simply an idea whose time has come, I believe, in the province of Ontario and which we must do something about in terms of the present legislation as it exists.

I presented my ideas today in the form of a resolution because I know that our government, in various ministries picking up the pieces from the previous government, is looking at this. I think, though, it is time that we brought it all together under the guidance of one joint committee, which is the first piece of the resolution that I am presenting. If the whole House today got together behind this resolution, that in fact might happen and we might move this thing ahead.

Worker ownership is a viable, proven form of business. It tends to take root in areas in which other forms of management and ownership have failed, where there has been unemployment and where plants have closed, where there has been a lack of a sense of adventure and risk-taking. God knows, any of us looking at our own communities can see that we all suffer from some degree of that. Because workers own and manage the operation and share in the decisions and profits of their own enterprise, there is a commitment to success in worker-owned businesses. There is thus realistic planning and a spirit of interdependence in the business itself and in the wider community.

An example of, rather than a competitor with, free enterprise, the worker ownership idea ensures that profits stay in a local community. Such an approach is to be lauded, I believe, and encouraged in these times of instability in Ontario.

Although there is ample evidence of the beneficial nature of the worker ownership approach to the workplace, there are blatant blocks in the way of developing this form of business. Tax laws, for example, inhibit or discourage ownership in common by disallowing access to capital gains incentives. This is just one of many issues requiring attention at this time.

I believe it is imperative that we as legislators respond by doing what is in our power to improve the climate and the processes which presently impede worker ownership in this province. This is my agenda in presenting the resolution that I do today for debate. Again I ask for members' support for this important venture and for their continued attention to this opportunity to strengthen Ontario.

Mr Offer: It is a pleasure for me to partake in this debate this morning and I state at the outset that I will be speaking in support of the resolution.

The resolution is very lengthy indeed and I do not want to dwell on any of the particulars of the resolution contained in the words in each of the eight points, but rather to speak about the principle and the direction of the resolution, which is one I have indicated earlier I do support.

However, I state to the honourable member that it would be, I think, very nice to see if he would take this type of resolution to his own Treasurer and to his own Premier for action, because to date there has been no action on the government side of this Legislature in terms of meeting the needs, meeting the issues that are contained within this resolution.

I only refer back to the last budget. The last budget contained a deficit of almost $10 billion and in it there was not one single new job created. Competitiveness in this province has been eroded. We have had our credit rating reduced and indeed our ability to compete, and for many areas across this province our ability in many sectors to exist is being called into question.

I believe there is an obligation. Certainly we on the opposition side and the third party side have been bringing it forward to the government side. But I believe it to be an obligation on the part of the member to take this particular matter, these particular issues, the principles contained and embraced in this to his own Treasurer and to his own Premier so we can get this province back on the tracks to recovery and provide the type of remedies which are needed by so many people in so many areas in this province.

We have had and still are in a recession where 250,000 jobs have been lost, where, as all members of this Legislature will know, it was not just a matter of a cyclical nature. Almost 50% of that job loss was not just job loss but indeed job disappearance: companies closing, companies moving out of the jurisdiction, things that will stay with this province for many years to come. It remains the responsibility and the obligation of the government of the province to deal with issues of that nature. To date we have not had that type of commitment.

The type of principles brought forward in the honourable member's resolution are ones which I believe should be examined, should be determined, should be analysed as to their viability. In passing, I note that much of the substance of the resolution is in areas where the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ontario development branch could be of great help. I believe that much of what is contained in the resolution was in fact in existence, put into place by the previous Liberal government and, I dare say, with the Conservative government of two or three sessions ago.

It is up to this government now in existence to make certain that those programs remain viable so that workers who have this type of initiative, this kind of vision, in many ways, can access the types of programs which previous governments put in so that the objective as envisioned in this particular resolution can be met. It will be up to the government to make certain that the good work of previous governments remains in existence and indeed is enhanced. To date, all we see is the gutting of programs which could have been used by workers for this particular resolution.

I know there are other members of our caucus who want to discuss this particular matter. In closing, I think a great deal of work could be done in the field of education. I know the member's resolution speaks well of that and I am certainly in full support of that. I believe all of these types of initiatives and alternatives to workers through worker ownership can be promoted through an in-depth form of education, and I believe there is good work that can still be done.

On that, I strongly support this resolution, but I urge the member to take the principles and substance of this resolution to his Premier and to his Treasurer so that some work can be done to enhance the competitiveness of this province.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and speak on this occasion. I would like to start off by thanking the member for taking the initiative to introduce this. I was very pleased to hear that he also said the government will be taking other new initiatives and that we have to look at new and creative ways, and for that I applaud him.

I am also pleased that the member for Chatham-Kent is here this morning as well. In fact, we had a very good discussion last night at the east door on many of these same initiatives. It was very helpful to understand and appreciate some of the feelings of somebody who has been involved in a lot of the union negotiations, so hopefully we can pass on some of the comments we had last night and, if I can remember them all, go through them again, because it was very helpful to understand and appreciate where we are at. We definitely need to have some creative new ideas.

I will say at the outset that I am supportive of the idea. Of course, in the resolution the big problem is that you do not get too many of the details, so we will be looking forward to getting a little more into some of the meat. But the principles are very acceptable. I have some concerns and hope I can lay them out in the short time I have this morning.

We talk about having the interministerial committees. I guess it is one of the first points and while I favour that, one of the big problems and concerns I have as a new member coming in is the overlap. When you take a look at it and see the number of committees we have, and we strike committees, if we can somehow get rid of the entanglement -- there is a great deal of duplication, and I think the member would agree. If we can very clearly lay out the responsibilities, I think that would be very helpful.

Included in that committee, what I would like to see also is some representation from the Ministry of Revenue, because of course the whole tax question that needs to be looked at should be included. I would add that point.

One suggestion I may make is that when we talk about taxes, as the member has in this, whether this would possibly be a good chance for the Fair Tax Commission to look at this whole idea and initiative. Of course they have a lot of things on their plate, but on the whole idea of the committee reviewing the tax structure, it might be a good chance for the Fair Tax Commission to do that.

The next point he makes involves the development funds and the seed capital. Of course, this is where it gets a little difficult because in a resolution you do not get into any of the details. I fully expect that, but there is no definition of what type the development funds will be, whether it will be loans, grants or something else or something new. There are some of the details we would like to get in as we go. We also do not know what model any of this would be following, if in fact we are going to blaze some new trails or what some of the procedures will be.

The third point that comes in is about the financial initiatives. I will say to him very clearly what we need to do, and it has been pointed out by the previous speaker. We need to make sure the tax structure for all businesses is such that we do not impede upon businesses and help to make them more competitive. We should not just do it for this type of program; we should be attempting to do it for all business.

As my friend the member for Chatham-Kent talked about last night, we have to realize that when businesses fail, everybody loses. Management and workers lose their jobs. If we can do anything to improve the co-operation between the business community and labour, then we will have done our jobs. If nothing else comes from this government, if we can improve that we will have taken a major step forward, because unfortunately, all too often in this province we have not been progressive in our thinking. I say that not blaming any particular side.

The Canadian Federation of Labour currently sponsors a Canadian worker venture fund, which allows for tax credits for any investors. They have called on the province to take a look at that. I believe Saskatchewan is one of the few provinces that has instituted something in their area for matching tax credits. That would be helpful. If somebody does invest through this there will be some tax audits available. In fact, the last Progressive Conservative government sponsored the small business development corporation, which attempted to provide incentives for small business.

That is really what we are talking about, providing incentives so that the workers can put together a program and remain viable.

The OFL submitted to the previous government, I guess, some ideas for a fund that would focus on environmental technology and affordable housing. They got very specific in a couple of areas. It would be interesting to see what some of the proposals were and how they can be incorporated, although one of the things we should do is to take a look very clearly at some of the existing business and what they say the big problem is in this province.

As members know, some of the people from groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business say it has less to do with the venture capital, getting a business up off the ground, and more with the tax structure in this province. They say the number one impediment to creating a new business in this province is not availability of funds, it is the fact that people realize what you get in return after paying all the taxes is very little.

We need to take a very hard look at what we are going to do to be able to say, after all this comes through, that the company will be able to remain viable, because as it stands now of course we are taxing business right out of this province.

On point 4, about amending existing tax laws and regulations, I think that needs to be done. We need to make this province more competitive. Anything that can be done in that area will be well worth while.

In some of the other areas he talks about, developing some of the curriculum through the colleges and universities and the Ministry of Education, I think that is a good program. As we all realize, the curriculum that was correct in the past is not necessarily what needs to be done for today. We should have programs that teach our students both at the junior level and in colleges and universities how to properly analyse situations, how to take corrective action, how to implement solutions, how to sustain the solutions to problems and how to reinforce them.

All the things that have become part of modern management techniques should be learned, because regardless of whether you are somebody who never gets the chance to manage, being able to understand and appreciate this will be very helpful. Of course, many people who go into business may start out not managing anybody and then in a couple of years move up, so anything we can do to enhance and educate the young people would be very helpful. It is my personal belief that the overall economic benefits in this province will be in direct relation to the skills we give our workers and our young people.

As we go forward, I would like to again commend the member for taking the initiative.

I think it is unfortunate that quite often we have had to face a major crisis in this area before we have really taken a hard look at that, and that is unfortunate. But we are seeing a lot of co-operation between the steelworkers, for example -- I had a chance to meet briefly with Mr Gerard in the hall when he was here -- and we need to come up with new initiatives and new ideas. This is one time when all three parties should be trying to put their collective heads together and come up with some concrete proposals that will help to improve the economic wellbeing of all the citizens, and in particular the regions that are literally facing devastation in this province.

Those would be a couple of my preliminary remarks. I will leave some time for one of my colleagues to proceed to speak on this topic as well.

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to speak in support of the resolution of the member for Sault Ste Marie.

A social economy is a humane, democratic system set up by and for the people. A new relationship is called for in such a system between labour, management and capital, and in this new relationship capital is subordinated to labour. There is more concern with ethics, equality and investment in a green environmental policy, certainly in this time of economic uncertainty. The economic uncertainty is certainly exacerbated in the north, and the member for Sault Ste Marie has spoken to that problem.

But certainly in southwestern Ontario, in the riding I represent, London South, we too have suffered a great deal of economic dislocation as a result of certain federal policies, including high interest rates, a high dollar, GST and free trade. Numerous jobs have been lost in my riding for those very reasons.

In this time of economic uncertainty, great creativity must be shown in the manner in which we exercise change in the marketplace. What we need in Ontario is a self-sustaining economic development program that creates and maintains jobs, and one viable alternative to what we have right now is to reward co-operative entrepreneurship at the same level as private entrepreneurship.

With co-operative management, as the member for Sault Ste Marie has indicated, workers are allowed to participate in the creation of goals and strategies. Company democracy becomes an unalterable principle. Each worker, despite the level of his or her status or contribution, investment, has only one vote and not more than one vote. In Ontario we have only eight worker co-operatives, compared to Quebec, which has 217 worker co-operatives, and I believe that by developing the co-operative alternative in Ontario we can secure for ourselves a more progressive economy. Why do I say this?

Because co-operatives provide more meaningful and stable work, a better working environment for the workers and a more democratic workplace, where the workers have a say in ultimate decisions that management takes. There is more community concern and profits stay in the area. There is more productivity and reinvestment and workers have a sense of control.

The Mondragon experiment in the northern Basque country of Spain is a singular illustration of a large-scale commercial co-operative. It has been described as a profound example of successful worker ownership, labour-management co-operation and entrepreneurial initiative, economic growth and creative social commitment. Its 20,000 members consist of fewer than 173 out of a total of 1,100 co-operatives in Spain.

Worker co-ops have also been successful in Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Yugoslavia. The report of the Premier's Council -- and I am referring to the last government -- entitled Competing in the New Global Economy, recommended the development of a comprehensive people's strategy. The Premier's Council observed:

"Successful restructuring of our core industries will depend upon our ability to retrain displaced workers and broaden and deepen the skills of those who remain in our resource-based and mature manufacturing sectors. The development of a larger base of high-growth industries and threshold companies will require a well-educated supply of workers in those industries and firms. In short, if we are not capable of providing a flexible workforce with basic and applied skills at the level of our leading competitors, the agenda we have set out in this report cannot succeed."

The challenge of maintaining a flexible and competitive workforce may well be met by an economic development strategy with an accent on worker co-operatives.

Mr Cordiano: I want to stand up and applaud the member for Sault Ste Marie, because he has taken the initiative that I think should be taken by his government. But I want him to send this message to his Treasurer as well and get it through to him that he has to bring forward creative and innovative initiatives like the member's to bring about the restructuring of the economy. We have been saying this for six months. I have yet to see an initiative by this government, on the part of the Treasurer or on the part of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, which matches the level of creativity and innovativeness that I have seen displayed this morning by this member's initiative.

Let me say this: The economy needs restructuring, and whether we like it or not, the restructuring is taking place. It could take place without our directing it, without our having a positive say on how that is done. Restructuring is taking place now and we are seeing a massive change in the economy, but I think we need to redirect that, make it positive, make it work for us and take advantage of that.

I would like to say to the member as well that I am not happy that this government did away with something the previous administration brought forward, the small business committee of parliamentary assistants. That was dissolved by this government.

I can see this initiative working wonderfully in the area of small and medium-sized firms. I think that is going to be a major thrust here. I think small business can flourish as a worker co-operative enterprise.

I also want to say at this point that I am glad there are members on the other side of the House who still think in entrepreneurial terms, and that capitalism is not entirely dead on that side of the House. The government has to bring forward initiatives which seek to create new wealth, seek to create new jobs, and I have yet to see that. The budget that was presented just recently fails miserably to address those concerns, fails miserably to create new jobs.

That is something the government is going to have difficulty with in the future and I think the people of this province will not pass positive judgement on it because of that. They are going to see that this government is incapable of bringing forward the kinds of initiatives that are required, although we see today that this member is bringing forward an initiative that is important. I must say it is not a huge initiative, but it is one that is significant and I think the Treasurer has a lot to learn from what the member has done here today, so I would like to congratulate the member and say to him that I will support this resolution this morning.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Sault Ste Marie. I am thoroughly excited and very pleased about the initiative and the resolution that he has introduced today. It demonstrates that there is a willingness on the part of the government to do whatever it can not only to sustain and keep the jobs that are presently in this province, but also to look at the possibility of creating new jobs. Certainly this worker ownership model would allow for this to happen, and I think we need to actively pursue this and look at what the benefits and the implications will be, so congratulations to the member for Sault Ste Marie for bringing this forward today.

I am going to deal with each one of the points the member has made here and just state some of my concerns or some of the support I would have for them.

He talks about the interministerial committee he would like to set up. I certainly do not have a problem with that. My question is, is there a committee perhaps already in existence that could look at that particular initiative, or do we need to spend more taxpayers' dollars in establishing another one?

I also believe very strongly that the ministries of Revenue and of Treasury and Economics need to be included, because there are some amendments here to the tax law, so these ministries certainly need to be included in those discussions.

The member talks about providing development funds and seed capital for a number of worker-owned business models. I do have a few questions here. There is no indication of what is involved. There is no definition of the type of development funds or the amount of seed capital to be provided by the government, or in what form. I guess I would ask if this is to be in the form of loans or grants or something other. Another question I would have is what models of worker-owned businesses would qualify for these funds and seed capital. Obviously, those are all questions that need to be considered, and obviously the member could not have conveyed all of this in the resolution.

The member talks about establishing financial incentives to provide venture and expansion capital to new and existing projects. Certainly this whole concept of providing incentives to business is something which I feel very strongly we need to support on all levels, and I believe we need to direct it at all forms of business and not simply those which are worker-owned. If we are going to keep jobs in this province, we need to do whatever is possible to encourage the retention of jobs and also the creation of new ones, so we need to assist not only worker-owned business, but all business.

In point 4, the member talks about "amending existing tax law and regulations...." I believe very strongly that all businesses should be able to operate on a level playing field. I believe this is something the Fair Tax Commission could be taking a look at.

In point 5, the member talks about "implementing an interim financial mechanism...to compensate for the financial penalties...." I am not quite sure what he means when he talks about a discriminatory tax law. Again, I believe it is something which the committee on fair taxation should be looking at. Tax laws in this province should not be discriminatory towards any form of business, regardless of ownership.

The member talks in point 6 about "developing curriculum and programs through the Ministry of Education...." I guess with the background I have in education, that thought always frightens me because in the 10 years I was involved with education -- we seem to be adding more and more courses to the curriculum at the present time. Although I very strongly support the inclusion of this type of program, I would suggest that we include it with the new curriculum that has just been introduced entitled Entrepreneurship. I believe it could very effectively become a part of that program and would prevent an unnecessary overburdening of the educational system.

In point 7, the member talks about "encouraging the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to take the initiative in providing training in the management skills appropriate for worker-owned and managed businesses." I would very strongly support that happening. I would like to see us move very quickly in that direction to make sure that becomes a reality. I think there is a tremendous need for that to occur.

Finally, in point 8, the member talks about "including a member of the Worker Co-operative Association on the Premier's Council on the Economy and Quality of Life." As he knows, labour and management are already both represented on this committee. However, because the membership is so extensive, it is certainly not going to make any difference whether we add one more individual or not, so that certainly could happen; there is certainly not a problem there.

In looking at this, I would just again mention that I think it is very important we do a complete cost analysis in order to determine the cost of the programs. Before we deal with any specific company, we need to take a look at the cost analysis and the viability of that company to see whether or not it is going to be successful as a worker owned operation.

On the whole I support what is here, I congratulate the member and I hope that the government will go ahead and look at the benefits of this resolution.

Mr G. Wilson: I am certainly pleased to be taking

part in this debate that I think we will all agree has been very thorough, and I commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for bringing forth this resolution. I think all members who have spoken to it so far have shown that they have considered it very carefully and put a lot of thought into it.

Listening to the debate, one thing is emerging very clearly. It is that, as the member for Lawrence said, restructuring is taking place whether we want it or not, and it is just how we respond to that restructuring.

I should share a perhaps personal anecdote here in that I come from Timmins which, like Sault Ste Marie, is a northern town, a single-industry town. In fact, I made my way down south like so many of the people I grew up with because there was simply too limited a range of opportunities in the north. The reason was quite clear: Although the wealth of the gold mines was phenomenal, too little of it was staying in the north to develop industry and occupations that would keep the people who are already there employed. As the member for Sault Ste Marie well understands, when something devastates the single industry, of course that devastation occurs right through the community.

I think he has very effectively gone on to say that it is not only in single-industry towns that we are faced with this problem of how to find sustenance throughout the community. With the high level of unemployment and the job dislocation that we are faced with now, obviously there are things that are happening here that are very detrimental to community life and something has to be done.

I commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for raising the issue of worker co-ops as an alternative that should be looked at very seriously and, again, I think the members who have spoken in this debate have shown they have looked at it.

I think, though, that some of the principles that should be highlighted with worker co-ops include not simply their economic effectiveness, which some of the members on the other side have pointed to; I think one major element the member for Sault Ste Marie raised was the issue of democracy and the fact that the people who work in an industry should have some control over the things that are done in that industry, as against the model that we are following now, which is the capitalist system. Again, how it works out in single-industry towns leads to a lot of insecurity.

It comes down perhaps to a need-versus-greed outlook, and as long as investment occurs in industry simply to provide a return for people who have no direct interest in the outcome -- that is, they do not live in the community where the industry is taking place -- then many of the decisions that are going to be taken will be detrimental to the people who are living in the community. Again, I think the worker co-op model puts a brake on this in that the kind of industry that will be carried out will be much more responsive to community needs. I think the democratic model would lead to more responsiveness in this area.

One thing I would suggest to the member for Sault Ste Marie is that the idea be extended beyond a narrow industrial approach into other kinds of institutions like non-profit institutions and indeed public institutions so that workers everywhere are encouraged to take an interest in and control over their working conditions in a much more active manner rather than simply reacting to the ideas of management, which again can often be detrimental to their interests.

I would like to suggest that this is an initiative, as the member has pointed out in his resolution, and there is a lot to be done about it. He has drawn to my attention a magazine called Worker Co-op: The Voice of Economic Democracy in Canada, which I hope will soon be in our legislative library. I think by using sources like this we can go beyond this initiative into thinking about how we can restructure the economy in a way that is more beneficial to the people in communities throughout Ontario and, indeed, throughout Canada.

As the member for London South mentioned, the Mondragon experiment has a lot of lessons that we can learn from. It is this kind of co-operation, even beyond our own borders, that will lead to developments, I think, that we will find very beneficial here.

Again, economic security is the goal of our industrial endeavour. The capitalist system has been shown to fail very badly throughout not only Ontario but indeed Canada and much of the world. It is a question of this restructuring that has to take place, and I think worker co-ops are an invaluable initiative in helping us to restructure.

Mr Brown: I rise to express my support for this resolution. I know the member for Sault Ste Marie has some difficult problems in his own riding and that this, at least in part, is meant to address some of the difficulties that are now being involved at Algoma Steel. I also know that the member for Cochrane North has some interest in his riding in Kapuskasing in the same sort of model.

I am fully supportive of this, and I appreciate the fact that it is building on an initiative that came out of the Premier's Council and is something that I think Ontario has lagged behind in. I really believe that Ontario has not taken full advantage of its people resources, the people who are working in the plants and factories of Ontario, and it is about time. I appreciate and applaud the member for bringing it forward at this time, because it just is time.

One of the concerns I have, and it is certainly not a problem that is created by the member for Sault Ste Marie, is that a lot of this may not be able to be accomplished in the time frame that we need in Sault Ste Marie or in Kapuskasing or indeed in other places in northern Ontario or for that matter elsewhere in the province where this model may work very well.

I, like some members, have some difficulty just in knowing exactly what the resolution means, and again, it is not the problem of the member for Sault Ste Marie. He is trying to tell us that we need some consultation on this. We need to look at the various models that are involved across not just this country but across the world where this has worked very successfully, and I know other provinces such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba and Quebec, just to name a few, have been very successful in creating the kind of worker ownership, whether it be co-operative or, let's say the words, "worker capitalism," in such various places.

I am hoping that the government will be able to move very quickly on this, because I think there are some situations that we are particularly aware of in the north that demand quick action. Consultation does not always mean taking years. Sometimes consultation can be done fairly quickly. I am pleased that the member calls for an interministerial committee, but I would appreciate if the government moved on this very quickly, because I think, as the northern members especially know and I am sure southern members, too, that we need to move on these kinds of initiatives quickly in order to address some particular situations we have in northern Ontario right now.

I, like the members of my caucus, am a little concerned. We have seen in the north some very dramatic measures in the recent budget which have caused us deep and abiding concern in terms of our competitiveness. Just to point out a thing that we in the north think is not particularly useful is a 3.4-cent gas tax hike. The member for Sault Ste Marie will know what that means to the crossborder shopping problem that we already have. It can do nothing but aggravate that, and it will cost northerners $35 million each and every year, this 25% increase.

We are not particularly pleased about the gas guzzler tax. We are unhappy. We are unhappy that in the north in many places the Jeep, or the Ford Bronco or whatever, is not just a machine of the yuppie to show your friends on Bay Street. These are machines that you need and must have, and to increase the costs of those to northern people at a time when the economy is in recession and in some places in the north is in depression, is just, I do not think, good economic policy.

We are also concerned about just the general thrust of this government in terms of all energy prices. In the north we are very concerned about an energy policy which on gasoline seems to be, let's put it up; electricity, let's put it up, let's make the part of the province which needs gasoline, which uses electricity in greater quantities, more expensive. We do not think that is particularly competitive. We are not very sure that a $9.7-billion deficit increases our competitive ability either. We think our future generations will have great difficulty in paying the bills of this government.

We think that as the amount of money available to any government of Ontario diminishes, and that is what happens when you have a budget that spends 20 cents of your children's dollars, you cannot be competitive in that situation three or four years down the road.

Those are some concerns we have in northern Ontario. We are also concerned with what happened to the additional $200 million that was supposed to be available this year for northern development. That is what the Treasurer told us he was going to do. We do not see it. It might be helpful in this resolution, when we are talking about seed money, that some of it appeared, but we do not see that money anywhere. We do not see the four-laning of highways in northern Ontario that the Treasurer very carefully promised on many occasions. It was in the Agenda for People or power.

We are concerned in the north about those, but we are very happy with the member for Sault Ste Marie's bringing forward an innovative model which is going to canvass all the alternatives for seeing possible ways of worker participation, worker responsibility in their own lives. On this side, we see that as a very positive and important initiative that the government has to move on quickly to help solve or at least provide an alternative for the communities of Kapuskasing and Sault Ste Marie in the near term, and for communities across the province and the north in the long term.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr B. Ward: I am pleased to see that it appears to be almost unanimous support and I hope it will be unanimous support for this resolution. I am a little bit surprised at that. I am glad to see it, though, because the Liberals and the Tories appear to be finally adopting and supporting some of our basic principles of social democracy. The concept of co-ops comes from the very roots of our party, when we signed the Regina Manifesto. I think it is great, and I hope it is a trend that will continue.

I have said many times that the old ways will no longer work, that we have to have new ideas, that we have to look at new concepts. Although this is not a new concept, it is in the sense of a new idea for the 1990s, because Ontario never really wrapped itself around the idea of a workers' co-op. That is proved by the fact of this lack of numbers in Ontario, as has been said, approximately eight in this province.

But I think it is an idea that has come for the 1990s. I think it is something we can support, this government can support, since it is the very roots of our principles. I believe this concept will work because what it does for workers is it gives them true ownership of their labour, it gives them the real benefit of their labour in profit. I think that is a very good thing to look at.

However, there are some pitfalls to this concept of workers' co-op. My fear is that some workers may buy into a company that is not viable. We really have to ensure that when we encourage workers to purchase their company it is a viable operation. Otherwise their investment, their equity, will end up being evaporated in bankruptcy.

But when you look at the benefits, to a degree there is employment security for the workers. The enterprise is locally owned. There is a possibility of improved productivity. Risk exposure is reduced and workplace quality is usually improved because the workers truly care about their labour and they will ensure that it is a safe place to work at, because it is their place.

We have asked ourselves, if all these benefits are here, why do we not have more worker co-ops in Ontario? Well, perhaps a part of it is attitude, that governments never really encouraged this concept in the past. Another reason: Workers may be a little bit afraid of the economic risk there is in any enterprise.

I think that governments can overcome this attitude in this province. I believe our government can assist workers in this province by amending existing legislation, by taking a look at the eight points in this resolution and examining them in closer detail so that we can make it easier and offer assistance wherever possible for workers to take control of their company.

Again, when we look at the resolution, some of these may not be workable, but I think they are worth while to pass unanimously in this House. I think our government should be examining them in greater detail, as is recommended in the eight points.

For those reasons, I can support this resolution. It is ironic that we are discussing this resolution today, because just last week in constituency week, I had a constituent call me about the workers in a plant he is employed with. They are interested in taking over the plant. The local owners want to get out. They are tired of the many hours involved in managing the plant, and they simply want to get out, but the plant is viable.

I think if we had some of these recommendations in place it would be easier for the workers in Brantford to take over this plant immediately. I wish them well and I think they are going to be successful.

I fully support my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie. I think this is an excellent resolution. I think we have to be open-minded enough to explore new avenues of opportunity in this province and I think this is one avenue we can explore.

As I stated, I am glad to see that every speaker who has spoken before me has fully supported this issue, which is the basic realm of social democracy of our government and of our province. So I hope that it will be passed unanimously.

Mr Martin: I would like to say thank you to all the members who spoke, first of all for their kind words and encouragement of myself as I try to be creative and innovative and courageous in front of the challenges that face us all in Ontario today. I thank members for the excellent suggestions.

One in particular that I find rather interesting, that I certainly will follow up on, is the inclusion, through the Ministry of Education, of worker owned and managed workplace principles in the curriculum on entrepreneurship. I think that is a good idea, as were so many of the other ideas that were presented.

I would also like to say to the House that certainly, if and when we move on this or continue to move on it, because it is certainly not a new idea, there are resources available to us to assist us. I bring to members' attention the presence of a representative of the Worker Co-operative Association of Ontario in the House today and say thank you to John Brauwer for coming this morning and taking time out of his busy

schedule to support us in this important initiative.

I would just say that in this day of great challenge, we all have to be positive. It is time to bury cynicism and negativism and search for new and creative methods of co-operating so that we might regenerate our economy, and that we might in fact be able to develop a sustainable wealth for everybody who lives in Ontario and look forward to some good times, not only for ourselves but for our children and our children's children.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS LICENSING ACT, 1990

The House divided on Mr McLean's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes-27

Arnott, Brown, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cordiano, Daigeler, Drainville, Ferguson, Jackson, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Martin, MacKinnon, McClelland, McLean, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Poole, Silipo, Tilson, Ward, B., Waters, Wessenger, Witmer.

Nays-17

Abel, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Gigantes, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jamison, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr McLean has moved that this bill be referred to the standing committee on resources development.

The House divided on Mr McLean's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 14; nays 30.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

WORKER OWNERSHIP

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Martin has moved private member's resolution 14.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LIBRARY WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr Daigeler: For three months the University of Toronto library workers have tried in vain to get a response from their campus MPP, the Minister of Community and Social Services, from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and from the Minister of Labour. All they have received so far is a two-line acknowledgement from the Premier. Why is it that the NDP government will not give the striking workers the common courtesy of a reply?

Yesterday I met in my office with representatives of the union. They asked me, as Liberal critic for Colleges and Universities, to send an urgent message to the Minister of Labour. The message is a simple one: "Minister, make an effort to bring the parties back to the negotiating table." The union did not ask me or the minister to take sides in the dispute. All they ask for is an honest attempt by the ministry to bring the parties back to the bargaining table.

The University of Toronto library workers' strike has now gone on for three months at tremendous cost to the workers and to the university community. I call on the government at least to answer the union's letters, to meet with their representatives and, most important of all, to do its level best to get the parties talking again.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Arnott: As the members of this Legislature are aware, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations announced on 7 May that her ministry would close land registry offices in Arthur and Durham and 12 other communities across the province. This announcement came with little warning and absolutely no consultation and has sparked serious concern within the municipalities which will be affected and among those who depend on the services of these facilities.

I have a constructive suggestion for the minister. The minister should immediately initiate a process of consultation with the users of these facilities and the municipal councils to accurately determine the impact of the closing of these offices on the local communities and assess how cost-effective it will prove in real terms. Pending this review, she should announce that no registry offices will close.

On Wednesday 22 May, I attended a public meeting on this issue at the land registry office in Guelph. In view of the fact that the minister was fully aware of the political implications of her 7 May announcement, one would have expected her presence at that meeting to defend her very controversial decision, or at the very least, the minister's parliamentary assistant, who also happens to be the member for Guelph, should have been delegated this responsibility. Instead, a public servant was placed in the position of having to defend this extremely controversial and contentious political decision.

We have no option but to conclude that this minister and this government have no concern or understanding of rural Ontario. Now we see that the government will not consult, that it will not listen and that the minister and her parliamentary assistant do not have the requisite courage to publicly defend their decisions. I call upon the minister to accept my suggestion and review this matter with the stakeholders before closing any registry office.

TOWNSHIP OF SANDWICH WEST

Mr Dadamo: The summer of 1991 marks a time for local celebration in communities right across Ontario. I would like to take this opportunity to inform members of this Legislature about a celebration that will take place in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich this weekend, 2 June 1991, as the township of Sandwich West becomes the town of La Salle, inaugurating its official town status.

The town of La Salle has a unique historical development. It is located south of Windsor. It was once used as the hunting grounds of the Algonquin Indians in the year 1651. In 1749, it became known as the colony of Petite Côte. The settlement of Petite Côte was slow throughout most of the 19th century, but following the war of 1812, the Canadian government began granting 10- and 15-acre plots of land to war veterans. Farming the rich black soil, French-Canadian farmers prospered and Petite Côte became famous continent-wide for its flavourful radishes.

The community built its first Catholic school in 1901, and later its first parish in the 1920s. In 1924 the town of La Salle was first incorporated, but the 1930s brought with it the Great Depression, which forced harsh consequences on all the municipalities. The impact of the depression affected La Salle's economy so adversely that it chose to amalgamate with the township of Sandwich West. La Salle became know as the town that chose to die.

I would like to congratulate town council and the residents of La Salle and look forward to being with them on Sunday. I am certain that members of this House would join me in congratulating the residents of Sandwich West in its new identity as the town of La Salle.

CROATIAN GOVERNMENT

Mr Sola: Today is a significant date in the history of democracy and democratic government, especially for democracy in Croatia. One year ago the first democratically elected government since the communist takeover after the Second World War assumed the reins of power.

The fact that democracy in Croatia has survived for even one year takes on added significance in light of the provocations and hardships the people and government had to endure. For instance, the following acts -- the mining of railway tracks, armed blockades of main thoroughfares, armed terrorist attacks and murder of civilians, the massacre and mutilation of police officers and the threat to blow up the nuclear plant near Zagreb, the capital of Croatia -- were committed by imported, bearded thugs under the skull-and-crossbones banner, aided and abetted by adherents to Stalin's hammer-and-sickle dogma.

This is also a significant celebration for this Legislature. Five members of the 34th Parliament of Ontario -- Sam Cureatz, Walt Elliot, Frank Faubert, Steve Mahoney and myself -- served on the international commission monitoring the Croatian election in April 1990. In addition, many Canadians, especially from Ontario, helped out during those elections. Some helped so much that a Canadian, Gojko Susak from Ottawa, has been appointed the Minister of Immigration and Deputy Minister of Defence for Croatia.

I invite all members of this assembly to join us in celebrating this occasion tonight in room 351 at 7 pm.

BUDGET

Mr Tilson: Yesterday the Mike Harris task force on the Ontario budget travelled to Peterborough, where I and five members of my caucus listened to the concerns of six ordinary Ontarians, concerns that we as politicians ignore all too often.

The presentations we heard yesterday reinforced my conviction that Ontarians are fed up with seeing governments taxing us to the point that our uncompetitiveness with the United States has forced jobs south. Glenda Hunter, general manager of the Peterborough Kawartha Tourism and Convention Bureau, told us that in 1982, 47% of all visitors to the Kawarthas came from the States. In 1989, that figure had dropped to 17%.

The tourism industry is in trouble. Our task force has learned that a further tax on the tourism industry by this budget will reduce this number even further. Brian Tye of London Life Insurance said his company is compiling a study of how many companies have moved south of the border, what kind of companies are moving and what their reasons are for so doing. Our task force is learning that increasing numbers of Ontarians are upset with the direction this government is taking us in and are now leaving Ontario.

I hope this government will take these concerns into consideration when evaluating its budget in committee. The Progressive Conservative Party will submit a full report of our task force experience to the all-party committee.

Mr Duignan: I rise to today to draw the attention of all members of this House to my dismay at the publication I hold here in my hand, the budget analysis of 1991 prepared by the official opposition.

This little document claims to represent a budget analysis of my government's budget and asks that those who wish to comment on the budget contact their Liberal MPP. I am disappointed that the published analysis of the budget presented by the Liberals should so badly misrepresent important initiatives that my government announced in April.

I understand what a difficult job the Liberals have in getting anybody in Ontario to listen to them on these matters, when they went into the 1990 elections saying we had a surplus, when we found as a government that we were left with a $3-billion deficit. It must be difficult to have people listen to them on a subject when what they said and what they do are so different.

I must shake my head at this material in disgust when I see that the Liberals will not acknowledge the terrible role the Tory free trade agenda is playing in Ontario and in Ontario's economy. After all, they did not fight free trade and they left my government working so hard to find ways to overcome this problem.

I trust that those who read this pamphlet, the so-called budget analysis, will take time to read the real budget and let the Liberal members of the opposition know that they are out of touch, out to deceive and out of order.

Mr H. O'Neil: Talking about being out of touch, I want to --

Interjections.

Mr H. O'Neil: Let's not give me any trouble today. Do I still have my two minutes, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Keep going.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: I want to remind the government that people have not forgotten the government's decision to drop the reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance sworn by all police officers in Ontario. My office has been swamped with letters and phone calls protesting the government's decision, and I am sure other members have had a similar experience.

People are upset because the NDP is downgrading an important Canadian symbol. They are upset because the government secretly imposed the ban, with no consultation. To top it off, the Premier disappointed the people of Ontario by refusing to send an official representative of the government to the annual Victoria Day celebrations organized by the Monarchist League of Canada here in Toronto.

Elected officials representing the six municipalities which make up Metropolitan Toronto recently voted overwhelmingly to ask the province to change the law back. If the government thinks this issue is going to die a quick death, it is wrong. I call upon the Premier. All we need is a word from him to reverse this decision. Will he reinstate the oath of allegiance to the Queen?

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: With respect, I think it is worth noting that in the five years that Premier Peterson was Premier of Ontario, he never once attended the ceremony the honourable member mentioned.

Interjections.

The Speaker: On an alleged point of order, the member for Quinte.

Mr H. O'Neil: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to remind that minister that whether or not the Premier was there, there was always a cabinet minister or somebody there representing the government. Also, the Premier of that day would never have removed that oath.

Hon Mr Pouliot: A point of order --

The Speaker: No, it was an alleged point of order. The member knows full well that it is not a point of order, although obviously it is a point of some interest to some members.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On a point of order under

article 26(b), Mr Speaker: We had a representative there, but the honourable organization would not have him. I just want to set the record straight, sir.

The Speaker: There is nothing out of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members take their seats, please. We do not want to forget the purpose of this portion of the program. The member for Simcoe East is quietly and patiently waiting his turn to make his statement.

MINING RIGHTS

Mr McLean: My statement is directed to the Minister of Mines, who is very active here today.

Next month his government will implement a new tax on certain mining lands that will quadruple existing rates over five years. This new legislation affects approximately one third of Ontario's mining lands, and many land owners feel it will have the effect of confiscating property. Owners of patented mining lands, those owned outright rather than claimed or leased from the government, will be required to pay substantially higher taxes to maintain the mining rights. The minister's government is driving land owners to cede the land or the mining rights back to the province.

This mining tax will be phased in over five years and quadruple existing rates to about $4 an acre from about $1. If land owners do not pay, they will lose their mining rights but still keep the surface rights. If these owners do not retain their mining rights, prospectors can then stake claims on their lands. With this new tax, the government is taking away the rights of land owners and allowing outsiders to come on to their properties to cut timber, blast and take advantage of mining rights that once belonged to the land owners.

I urge the minister to rescind the tax and get out of the business of forcing land owners to surrender their rights to the government.

HAMLET OF WHITEVALE

Mr Wiseman: I rise today to congratulate the hamlet of Whitevale in north Pickering. Earlier this month, my family and I spent a wonderful day in Whitevale. The occasion was Arbour Day. On this day, my family and I planted some of the 5,000 trees that the residents of Whitevale and the citizens of Pickering planted in the area around Whitevale.

I would like to congratulate the residents of Whitevale on their continued efforts to protect and enhance their environment and protect their community. I would like to congratulate Lloyd and Marion Thomas, who have been very active in the community and have put a lot of work in the organization and planting of the trees on this day.

However, on a sadder note, I must say that a tree was planted to commemorate the passing of Bev Morgan, who was the regional councillor of that area for the past four years. She was a true champion of the environment and an untiring fighter for the rights of her constituents as an elected representative in a way that all of us in this House would be proud of. She was a true champion and friend of the environment, a friend of the people of Pickering and a friend of mine. She will be missed.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I would invite all members to welcome to our gallery today His Excellency Dr Assem Jaber, the ambassador of Lebanon, who is accompanied by his wife. Please welcome them to our chamber.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Hon Mrs Boyd: Today I would like to advise members of further details regarding the $300 million in school capital funding that the government has committed for the 1994-95 fiscal year. This commitment was made by the Treasurer in his recent budget. The $300 million will be divided into three parts, each directed to a particular purpose.

First, a $50-million fund will be established to encourage school boards to plan towards and assist them to build community-based, multipurpose schools. This initiative was mentioned in the budget. I am pleased that we are able to provide the money to promote a new direction in the capital funding program for education.

My ministry will consult widely with interested parties and communities about this new direction. After this consultation is completed, I expect to make further announcements about the allocation of the fund. The target date is early September.

It should be noted that there are already examples of successful and innovative multi-use schools in Ontario. Many of these examples involve the partnership of the local public and separate school boards. Others have involved different community agencies, such as library boards, municipalities and community colleges.

As part of this new direction, my ministry will be looking at these schools and studying how each works for the benefit of its community. We will share our findings with all interested partners in education, provincial government ministries and other interested groups.

The second part of the total capital funding package is $214 million in capital grants. These funds will be provided to school boards across Ontario for specific projects identified by the boards on their annual capital expenditure forecasts. Details will be announced tomorrow.

I ask members to note that these announcements will focus on the estimated provincial grant -- that is, on the number of dollars that the province anticipates contributing to each project -- rather than on allocations, which represent the estimated cost of a project. In this way, it will be clear what portion of each project's cost is being paid by the local ratepayers and what portion is being paid by the province.

The third and final part of the package is $36 million set aside for emergencies and to meet the legitimate needs of boards that are currently seeking to negotiate solutions to their accommodation problems. Many boards are currently working to meet their accommodation needs at the local levels. Boards that follow the path of local co-operation will receive full consideration for capital funding from the province.

While the $300 million in capital funding for fiscal 1994-95 is being divided into three parts, all of this funding represents an investment in Ontario. Members of the Legislature should be aware that the total net grants requested by boards across the province equalled $2.1 billion. In this time of recession, the government cannot meet all those needs. The decisions made reflect very serious consideration on the part of local trustees and the regional offices of the ministry as to the most urgent needs.

Many communities will be disappointed that their requests were not met and we hope they will recognize the restraint under which the government is forced to operate.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Hon Ms Akande: As members know, this is National Access Awareness Week, a fitting time to affirm this ministry's commitment to providing access to services for persons with disabilities.

I am pleased to be able to announce today that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has agreed to assist the Canadian Hearing Society with its apprenticeship training program for interpreters through a grant in 1991-92 of approximately $200,000.

Interpreters are specially trained and uniquely skilled people who enable the deaf, the hard-of-hearing and hearing people to communicate face to face, as this House has reason to know. My colleague the member for York East makes use of their services every day and I am sure he would agree they are invaluable to him.

The apprenticeship training program has been at risk for lack of money, so I am particularly pleased that this ministry funding allows the program to carry on its valuable work. It increases the numbers and enhances the expertise of signing interpreters and therefore may improve the access of hard-of-hearing people to the job market.

Turning to another kind of access, earlier this month this ministry announced funding of almost $9 million in new funds to expand and enhance access to community-based shelter services for women who are victims of family violence.

These funds will improve access for northern, aboriginal, immigrant and racial minority women as well as women with disabilities. Renovations to buildings and other necessary non-structural modifications will be made.

By March 1992 a total of 94 shelters will be accessible across the province, providing places of safety, counselling and support for women who are assaulted.

On 2 May I made an announcement in the Legislature concerning the process of social assistance reform and how this government is putting it back on track. These reforms included instances of this ministry's concern for welfare recipients who have disabilities.

For example, special necessities such as wheelchairs and respiratory supplies will be provided to all benefit recipients who need them. Parents may now bequeath moderate sums of money to disabled children without causing them to lose eligibility for social assistance. Personal needs allowances for those who live in institutions are being increased and also benefits for boarders, many of whom are disabled.

Further, a number of our vocational rehabilitation officers who work out of ministry area and district offices mark National Access Awareness Week by setting up major displays in community malls. Again this year they are taking to the public our message that vocational training opportunities are available for disabled persons. They also encourage industry and business to consider such persons as the best possible candidates for certain jobs, taking into account that their mobility may be limited.

In all these different ways, the Ministry of Community and Social Services recognizes and shares the vision and intent of National Access Awareness Week and continues to translate that intent into action year round.

NET INCOME STABILIZATION ACCOUNT PROGRAM

Hon Mr Buchanan: I rise to inform the members of the House of another initiative this government has undertaken to assist the farmers of Ontario.

As the members will know, my ministry has been negotiating with the federal government on possible participation in the net income stabilization account, or NISA. The objective of this federal-provincial program is to encourage growers to set aside savings in good years to give them a financial cushion in bad years.

I am pleased to announce today that the province is committed to full participation in the NISA program starting in the 1991 tax year. The program is open to grain and oilseed producers and producers of edible horticultural products. We estimate that more than 10,000 producers will benefit from this program.

Ontario producers can sign up for the NISA program for the 1990 tax year and they will receive provincial contributions next year. Application forms will be issued shortly by the federal government and we expect that federal funds will start flowing to Ontario farmers this summer because of our decision.

The province's financial contribution will be phased in starting in the program's second year, an approach similar to what is being done in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba.

Ontario's phase-in to the NISA program is in addition to our commitment to the gross revenue insurance plan and the $50-million 1991 farm interest assistance program.

With today's announcement, we will ensure that participating Ontario farmers receive NISA assistance from the federal government in the short term and federal and provincial assistance in the long term.

Under NISA, individual producers can put up to 2% of their net sales of eligible agricultural commodities into an account. The contribution will be matched by a combination of federal and provincial government funds.

Producers will have access to the NISA accounts when the farm's gross margin falls below the five-year gross margin average or when the individual farmer's net income falls below $10,000.

I am pleased to say that we were very successful in bringing horticultural producers into this program. It was largely through Ontario's negotiating efforts that horticultural producers were brought into this program.

I would also say that Ontario has been negotiating with the federal government to incorporate environmental cross-compliance requirements and income caps into the NISA program. These negotiations are ongoing and I will be discussing the direction and long-term goal of these negotiations with the Ontario farm community. The continued involvement of Ontario farmers in the evolution of these initiatives is critical to their success.

We are pleased to offer this program to the farmers of Ontario. This government firmly believes that in providing individual producers with income stability we are also strengthening our rural communities.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

Hon Mr Farnan: I am pleased to announce that I have established a seven-member Appointments Advisory Committee to make recommendations to me for the selection and appointment of volunteers from our communities to local police services boards.

The new committee is made up of representatives from the police leadership, as well as from the community, and reflects this government's continuing commitment to community policing.

I would like to inform members of the House about the individuals who have been named to the new Appointments Advisory Committee.

From the police leadership, members include Gord Noels, chairman of the board of the Police Association of Ontario; Sandi Humphrey, executive director for the Municipal Police Authorities; and Merv Johnson, deputy chief for the London city police and third vice-president of the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

From the community, committee members include Kathryn Barnard, an Ottawa lawyer who specializes in immigration law; Bettye Clark, executive director of the Family Crisis Shelter of Cambridge; Lois Miller, a teacher at Manitoulin Secondary School; and Jang Singh, associate professor, faculty of business at the University of Windsor.

These members are present in the gallery today and I would ask that they stand and be recognized by members of the House.

This new committee has the expertise and ability to carry out its duties with sensitivity and fairness. It will ensure that interested men and women from our communities have the opportunity to take an active role in the development of local policing policies. Names of qualified candidates will be presented by the committee to assist me in appointing those candidates who best demonstrate a commitment to ensuring the safety and the security of our communities.

As members will recall,

section 27 of the Police Services Act requires all municipalities that maintain police forces to establish police services boards. Currently, 80 municipalities have police services boards in place and 58 more need to establish such boards before the end of this year.

The mandate of this new committee has been established in keeping with this government's commitment to ensuring greater fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions. My ministry has already advertised in 53 communities around this province to encourage applications from men and women to serve as volunteer members of their local police services boards. It is my hope that the men and women who are recommended to me by the committee will represent the varied experiences, the abundance of talent and the racial and cultural diversity that makes up Ontario. I am fully confident that this committee will perform its duties well.

RESPONSES

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE SERVICES BOARDS

Mr Curling: I want to applaud the message that came from the Solicitor General. It has been long awaited and it is certainly welcome. I am sure that all the individuals who are appointed are qualified and committed individuals who want to serve their community and see that we have a good police service in this province.

I would like to say too, though, while I commend the message, I question the messenger. I think the messenger is under question, and as you can see from my party here, we have always asked, and with a cloud that hangs over the situation now we ask