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

April 30, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Carr moved resolution 7:

That, in the opinion of this House, given that the previous Liberal government and the present NDP government have contributed to the high taxation, high government spending and high unemployment in the province of Ontario through their tax, spend and borrow approach to fiscal management, this government should introduce the following measures to bring prosperity back to Ontario:

-- Commit to a policy of achieving deficit reduction through expenditure controls and not through tax increases.

-- Avoid hiking taxes or introducing new taxes.

-- Introduce legislation to cap and, where necessary, to roll back wage increases in the broader public sector to hold wage hikes to the level of the transfer payment increases announced by the Treasurer on January 21.

-- Provide tax relief for the retail, tourism and small business sectors through reductions in the provincial sales and gasoline taxes.

-- Abandon its proposed changes to Ontario labour law, proposals which are only helping to fuel the exodus of business and investment from Ontario.

-- Restructure the provincial welfare system to make more productive use of social assistance dollars by financing wage subsidies for employers who hire social assistance recipients.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Pursuant to standing order 94(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to introduce this resolution into the House. It's appropriate that I do it on a day when we have a budget coming later today, which I suspect will not incorporate many of these resolutions. But I hope some of the things we talk about will offer some of the direction I believe this province should be taking.

I do it as a bit of a backdrop and talk a little bit about the fiscal problems we're facing by the Liberals in this resolution somewhat reluctantly, but I think it is important that we take a look at where we're at today and how we got into this situation.

Make no mistake about it: Ontario is in trouble. Our economy is being battered by high taxation, high government spending, high unemployment and low productivity. Our social structures are being stretched to the limit because of soaring costs for health, education and welfare. The issues of crime and poverty seem to be growing faster than we can respond to them.

In spite of this, we still have one of the highest standards of living of any people on this planet, but our time is short. As these pressures continue to mount, many of Ontario's blessings are now at risk.

One of the reasons we have the problems we are going to hear about later today with the high taxation is because of high government spending. I have in front of me the growth of program spending over the last five years in the province of Ontario. Most people can't see it, but if you were to get a close look at it you would see that Ontario spent more than any other province, 10.6%; Alberta, 3.8%.

I introduce this because I believe today we are facing a crisis. We have had one philosophy since 1985: Anything that moved, we taxed it; if it still moved, we regulated it.

I see the member for Sudbury East laughing at that. Later today I think we'll see even more of that.

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Sudbury, not Sudbury East.

Mr Carr: Sorry. Sudbury, not to be mixed up with Sudbury East.

In 1985 we had a 10% tax advantage over the province of Quebec and we were rated very competitive versus West Germany, Japan and the surrounding United States. Today, as we sit here, we are the highest-taxed province in Canada and the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America. In spite of that, we have a deficit that up to this point is costing us about $15,000 a minute just to service. That's not for the good roads, health care or the education system; to pay the interest alone costs us $15,000 a minute and we will hear later today at 4 o'clock how that is going up.

All the things we care about -- good roads, the health care system, hospitals, the environment; all those things -- don't depend upon the compassion of government, as this government is finding out. It does, however, depend on having a healthy and prosperous economy to support them.

The people who were elected in 1985, when the government changed, came in and said, "We care more," and they pumped more money into all these programs, social assistance and non-profit housing. Since the NDP came in they did the same thing: They poured money into these programs. Guess what happened? The waiting lists now for social assistance are longer than they have ever been in the history of this province. The waiting lists for non-profit housing are longer than they have ever been.

Surely to goodness, what we need to do is to judge the programs not by the amount of money we pump into it because we say we're more compassionate, but by how we reduce the number of people on social assistance or reduce the need for some of the non-profit housing. Our growth in spending has been higher than any other province over the last five years -- 10.6% -- most of which isn't the fault of this government, but the previous Liberal government. In spite of the fact that we spent more than Alberta, Saskatchewan and every other province, our services in this province are deteriorating.

We've got waiting lists for hospitals that are longer than they have ever been. Cuts are being made on an ad hoc basis out of fiscal necessity, as we saw by that portion of the budget estimates tabled yesterday, instead of with a long-term, comprehensive plan. The fiscal problems we are facing are a direct result of the tax, spend and borrow approach of both the Liberal and the NDP governments.

We are, in no small part, in the dire financial straits we are because of the growth of spending programs during those good years, when we spent faster and more than any other province in Canada, and in spite of that, most of the services we have today, most people would say, are deteriorating. There are waiting lists now for all those programs in spite of the fact the money has been spent, overspent and borrowed.

I believe one of the big things we can do is to stop driving the private sector out of housing, like we did with the crazy rent bill this government introduced. In 1985, 80% of the rental units used to be built by the private sector. Today, less than 20% are.

It's the same with day care. Their policy drove the private day care operators out: $175 million pumped into non-profit day care centres, when the private sector in housing, education, day care, does the job faster, better, cheaper and at no expense to the taxpayer. They are being thwarted, penalized and shut out because it doesn't fit in with today's trendy political ideology of this government. That's why we are in the fiscal shape we're in now.

It wasn't like auto insurance where they came out and said, "We're going to nationalize it," and everybody got up and said, "No, don't do that." With day care and housing it was sneaky. It was sneaky because they didn't say, "We're going to nationalize all the housing being built in the rental units in Ontario." They did it because they regulated them to death, and that's why we're in this fiscal situation.

The chap from Peel who appeared before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs wanted 800 new units of non-profit housing, because there's a waiting list of 7,200. He admits that even if he gets those 800, next year alone the waiting list will get longer.

We see how the Liberals attempted to deal with their famous Ataratiri program, where basically we have taken a billion dollars and we may as well have have put it outside on the front lawn and burned it, because that billion dollars was completely and absolutely wasted. Of all these programs, not one more unit has been created, even though that money was wasted on programs that supposedly were going to create 7,000 new non-profit units; not one was created. So I talk a bit about that in the resolution.

We've talked about some of the tough choices in introducing legislation to cap and roll back the wage increases that have been negotiated. The people of this province have to realize that their property taxes will go up next year as a direct result of this government.

They said 1%, 2% next year and 2% the following year, and the Liberals said: "Well, you should've spent more. You should've given more to municipalities, more to the universities, more to school boards, more to hospitals." We said no. We were consistent. We realized we've got a financial crisis.

If you're going to give them 1% this year, 2% next year and 2% the following year, you should have the political courage to tie the wages -- which in school boards, for example, for teachers is 80% of the cost -- to the same transfer payments you got from the province. We've got the Minister of Education, who stands up and says: "You can't cut programs. You can't lay off teachers and we've only given you 1% this year," and then he wonders why property taxes will go up dramatically.

The irony of this whole thing is that the Premier criticizes the federal government for transfer payments when he has been one of the worst -- what were the words he used? -- "absconding debtors." He did that to his transfer partners: the municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals. Yet he didn't have the political courage to come in with a wage cap and rollback where the negotiations have been made. In the city of Toronto, where they were asking 4.9%, you got 2%. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that property taxes will go up as a direct result of this government.

We're saying that if you've got fiscal problems, you should come in with legislation to be able to cap and roll back. The problem is that when school boards negotiate, they will go to the arbitrators and the arbitrators will get big increases. So we talk about that.

We talk about the abandoning of the proposed changes -- and I'll close because we're winding up here -- to the Ontario labour laws. That will be the single biggest factor in Ontario's history in driving out business: $20 billion and up to 400,000 jobs will be lost if this is brought in. If you look at it, you'll see that this government is driven by ideological -- all we did in September 1990 was to replace one high-taxing, big-spending government beholden to special interest groups with another high-taxing, big-spending government beholden to special interest groups.

I hope the resolution will be passed today and that we can get on the road to prosperity that we had under the Progressive Conservative Party for 42 years.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South will have two minutes to sum up at the end of the debate. Each recognized party will have 15 minutes to participate in this debate, going in a clockwise fashion.

Ms Murdock: I'm very happy to be speaking this morning to the member for Oakville South's resolution, first, to clarify some of the misconceptions that have been stated. I'm only going to address one or two of the six issues that have been mentioned as suggestions to bring back prosperity because I want to allow my colleagues on this side to address some of the others.

It's all well and good to suggest making expenditures, but the reality is that if you do that to a great degree, as suggested by the opposition, what exactly do we cut? We have discovered in the past year that we have already had to cut programs which we as social democrats feel are needed in this province; we've had to make reductions in those areas with the hope the economy will improve in the very near future. The problem we have, that any government, frankly, would have in this economic time, is to figure out what exactly has to be cut.

If I understood what the member for Oakville South was saying, basically we would end up with no housing and no social assistance programs in order not to have any tax increases.

When you think about the situation of a $1.5-billion increase to social assistance recipients alone, the problem is not so much the increase in taxes, which we did in a very minimal fashion in the last budget, but the reality that unemployment insurance recipients who have fewer weeks of coverage are now having to fall back on the provincial safety net. We as a province then have the responsibility of picking that up.

It is interesting that the member for Oakville South talks about transfer payments. He keeps referring to the word "cut," the fact that these transfer payments have been reduced and that we've cut transfer payments. The reality is that we haven't cut transfer payments; they have actually increased by 1%. I'll agree it is true that the 1% is a low percentage, but the reality is that they are sitting with an increase of 1%, 2% and 2%.

The problem with restructuring of the provincial welfare system -- I use the exact wording of the resolution today, "welfare system"; I personally prefer the whole social assistance aspect. I don't know where the opposition has been, because we've been talking about this for months in terms of the review programs already under way in every single ministry in which we have programs.

I use an example that is already under way, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, which will be affecting social assistance programs and retraining programs. There are 48 different training programs presented in this province, supplied and delivered by 10 different ministries. The Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is going to put that all together. Instead of having 10 ministries delivering similar kinds of programs to similar client groups, we're going to have one training and adjustment board that's going to deliver those same kinds of programs.

Through the social assistance program, they will be able to cut into OTAB and utilize those training programs which are there for the very people who need them. We have to look at the assessments of the people on social assistance, make a decision as to what kind of training they really need, what will be most beneficial to them, and then provide the training to see to it that they do get jobs in the future.

We can't do everything at once. The reality is that as much as we would like to be able to change this world overnight, we can't. We have to take it one step at a time, and the first step is OTAB.

The main point I want to make today is the Ontario Labour Relations Act changes, the reform to the labour review. It was with interest that I looked at the words the member for Oakville South used: "helping to fuel the exodus of business and investment from Ontario." It is business's own rhetoric and hysteria that are fueling any exodus that is occurring. Businesses were closing and moving from this province long before labour reform was even mentioned last April. The successful companies are those that work with business, labour and government to form different kinds of working relationships.

This is going to allow working people to choose to join a union if they wish. Who are those people but predominantly women, immigrant workers and part-time workers? Right now 70% are allowed to organize if they wish, yet only 32% of them do. That is not what is fueling businesses to leave.

What is fueling businesses to leave is an American company like Hill and Knowlton. It is the fodder from their cannon that is causing businesses to move. It is not the government of Ontario that has taken out full-page ads in the New York Times and every paper across this country.

We're being asked to abandon our proposed reforms. I'll tell you right now, it's not going to happen, and therefore I will not be supporting this resolution.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): In the few minutes I have, let me say I'm quite disappointed in the resolution that has been placed by Mr Carr. I don't question his motive. He is a new member of the Legislature; he is quite inexperienced. Much of the information contained in this resolution is factually incorrect, and I believe that's partly due to his inexperience. But I also suggest that an important resolution such as this, during private members' hour, could contribute to an important debate if the facts were presented in a factually correct way. I listened carefully to what he had to say during his presentation before this House, and I want to say he is not correct about a number of facts.

We know these are difficult economic times in Ontario, and I suggest that the kind of rhetoric coming from some members of the Conservative Party is not helpful in reassuring the people of this province what the facts actually are. For example, I served as a member of the government during 1985-90. Those were very, very good economic times in the province; there were some 700,000 jobs created. Not only were they strong economic times, but they were also times when we were able to see the deficit reduced very significantly and the presentation of the first balanced budget in the province in 1989-90.

I'm quite surprised to hear laughter, as it was true; in 1989-90 there was a completely balanced budget.

Mr Carr: Balanced budget: a $30-million surplus went to a $3-billion deficit in two months.

Mrs Caplan: The member from Oakville is shouting, but the truth is that there was for the first time in over 40 years in the province a deficit reduction of $430 million in 1989-90. Not only was that accomplished that year, but it was the year that a fully balanced budget, including all capital expenditure, was presented in this province, and that is a fact.

For the members of the Conservative Party to suggest to the people of the province that that is not the fact engages in the kind of misleading -- and I use the term appropriately in this House -- debate that the public becomes confused and upset about. I think it's important, as legislators in this House, that we argue our policy differences and that we argue our philosophical differences on the basis of the truth.

One of the things the people of this province and my constituents in the riding of Oriole are saying to me is, "We're really disappointed because in opposition Premier Bob Rae said one thing; now that he's in government, he's saying and doing the opposite." They are concerned because the rhetoric that is coming from the New Democratic Party today is very different rhetoric from what they heard during the election campaign, and people are upset and they're frustrated.

During this time of economic downturn, all of us in this House need to understand how important it is to tell the people of the province that we may differ in philosophy, we may have different values and principles -- although sometimes I think our values and goals are very similar -- we may differ in our approach and we may differ in our policy, but the facts are the facts, and the truth is the truth. We can argue and debate on the basis of those facts and realities.

Having said that, governing is difficult during difficult economic times. Governing is difficult during prosperous times: Having served in government, I can tell you that during prosperous economic times we could not possibly meet all of the very high expectations the public had and that were demanded by members of the opposition in this House. However, we did the very best we could at the time, given the prosperous resources of the province and the need to be fiscally responsible, and I am proud of the fact that we were extremely fiscally responsible.

One of the concerns I have about the approach of the new government is that it has reversed the trend. During the period from 1985 to 1990, government's role in spending as a percentage of the provincial domestic economy, often referred to as the gross domestic product, was actually declining. What that means is that as the total wealth of the province is reflected in the gross domestic product, the amount that government was spending of that wealth was on a decline. Even though spending in total was increasing, it was declining as a percentage of gross domestic product.

What has happened and why this is important is that the New Democratic Party has reversed that trend. As a percentage of our total wealth, as a percentage of our gross domestic product, this government is spending a larger and larger share. What that means is that there is less room for the kind of spending by consumers and business and others to create wealth. That's about wealth creation, and there's a very important difference in philosophy between the Liberal policies and the NDP policies.

We Liberals believe that government can't do everything, that government cannot create the jobs, that government's role is to create a climate so that private people, individuals and businesses can have the confidence to create the jobs this province needs. That's a very big philosophical difference between the approach of the previous Liberal government and the approach of this New Democratic government.

There's also an opportunity for government, in creating that climate, to send out certain signals. Now is not the time to increase taxes. You increase taxes during time of economic expansion, when wealth is being created and jobs are being created. That's the time for tax increases, not now. During a recession, government should not be taking money out of the economy. Now is the time to make sure we hold the line on the deficit, which was well under control from 1985 to 1990, and on a steady decline. To see huge increases is misguided.

I would say to Mr Carr that I think his motion today is simplistic and is misguided in the extreme.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I welcome this opportunity to say a few words in support of this resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Oakville South. I trust you will agree that it is rather ironic that we are debating this resolution on the same day the NDP government will be bringing down its most recent effort at a budget. It's a budget that the Premier has already said -- and we already know, thanks to Mr Stockwell, the member for Etobicoke West -- will contain substantial cuts, a considerable increase in the deficit and tax hikes, among many other revelations of yesterday.

This budget will come at a time that has been very difficult for the people of Ontario. Our economy is being battered by high taxation, high unemployment and low productivity. Our social structure is stretched to the limit by soaring costs for health, education and welfare. Our economic difficulties are far too pressing to allow the provincial government the luxury of playing political games. Our economic difficulties are far too real to allow the provincial government the luxury of not giving the resolution of the member for Oakville South serious consideration this morning.

In simple terms, this resolution would direct the provincial government to commit to a policy of achieving deficit reduction through expenditure controls and not through tax increases; avoid hiking taxes or introducing new taxes; cap or roll back wage increases in the public sector; provide tax relief for the retail, tourism and small business sectors by reducing the provincial sales tax and gasoline taxes; abandon proposed changes to Ontario labour law, and restructure the provincial welfare system to make better use of social assistance dollars by financing wage subsidies for employers who hire social assistance recipients.

All of these are practical solutions. All of the points contained in the resolution today are also contained in the Ontario PC document New Directions, which we brought out some many months ago. We were very hopeful that the government would have paid attention to that document, but I think we're going to find out again this afternoon, with the budget, that the government is not listening to the commonsense suggestions put forward by my leader, Mike Harris, the member for Nipissing, and my caucus colleagues and myself.

It's a practical resolution that takes a commonsense approach to ending high taxation, high government spending and high unemployment. The provincial government's fiscal policies are having a dramatic impact on the province's ability to attract investment, create jobs and maintain those we already have. Common sense tells us that economic opportunity, social justice and health care cannot be attained just be tossing money around.

Provincial government spending has tripled since 1981 to more than $53 billion today. You can bet that today's budget will contain a $12-billion deficit at least, a far cry from the $9.7 billion figure we were promised last year, which we made very clear at that time was unacceptable to this province. Add this to the recession, the restructuring process in Simcoe county, for example, and a clear anti-business bias by this government, and there's no question why our economy is reeling, job creators are under siege, taxpaying families are being deprived of hope and opportunity and the least fortunate in our society are being exposed to untold hardship.

These views were echoed by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce in a submission to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The chamber submitted that: "The problem isn't new to this government. The province has a legacy of expressing moral outrage at anything that remotely resembles a reduction in federal transfer payments at the same time it has been obstructionist on federal tax initiatives."

I wanted to quote that paragraph because it brings us into an area of justification often used by the Premier and the members of the NDP caucus that somehow federal transfer payments and a so-called cut in federal transfer payments are really the root of the NDP's problems today in trying to run the fiscal affairs of this province.

I want to point out, as Mr Phillips, the Liberal member, pointed out on April 28 in a question to the Premier, the fact -- and the Treasurer has admitted this fact -- that transfer payments from the federal government are up some 25%. They are not cut; they're up 25%. In addition to what he was expecting in the regular increases in transfer payments every year, the Treasurer will be expecting an additional $1.5 billion this year from the federal government.

I want to quote Mr Phillips. He says: "The thing that offends people...is hypocrisy. On the one hand, the federal government says, 'We are going to give you a 25% increase in transfer payments.' On the other hand, the Premier gets up and says in a speech, 'These are tough times. We are going to give our transfer payment agencies, the hospitals, the school boards, 1%.'"

Mr Phillips went on: "If you can call the federal government an absconding debtor with those sorts of transfer payment" increases, and then he simply poses a rhetorical question that if the feds are being called an absconding debtor, then what are you, Mr Premier? I think it speaks volumes of the type of political games that have been played by the NDP over the past 18 months, and in fact it's a history in that party.

I want to continue to quote from the Ontario Chamber of Commerce submission to the legislative committee: "We have some news for you. It may have escaped the attention of most people here, but the federal government's taxpayers and the provincial government's taxpayers are largely one and the same. Hard as it may be to believe, the federal government is actually in much deeper financial trouble than the provincial government is -- so far.

"This country and its economy can not afford any more cute games of political one-upmanship at the expense of the economy."

They then go on to speak specifically about the NDP government in Ontario: "This recession did not just happen, and it wasn't caused by the free trade agreement any more than the 1982 recession was caused by the free trade agreement. It was created by the Bank of Canada trying to control rising inflationary problems that were centred primarily in Ontario.

"A lot of that inflation problem arises from the provincial government." That is a quote from the chamber. They point out that that problem stems from "higher taxes; legislated cost increases; a costly and rising bureaucratic burden; expensive, high-profile public sector wage settlements; increased provincial competition for the scarce funds that are available."

Finally, the chamber says: "Ontario has become a high-risk, hostile environment. There is no comfort that business will receive fair treatment. Unless that perception changes, and changes quickly, our economic prospects are dim."

I also want to speak about the tourism industry in Ontario. I'm the former Tourism and Recreation critic for my party and I live in a part of the province that is very much dependent on tourism: the Wasaga Beach and Collingwood areas.

The Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union, Local 75, says, "There are no new major conventions booked in Toronto before 1995 because the city has become uncompetitive in terms of costs." I raise the Toronto example from a union in the hope that this government that is Toronto-centred and union-centred in its thinking will listen to its union partners. The union went on to say, "The cost of holding conventions in Toronto is 40% higher than elsewhere in North America."

"The Treasurer is said to be considering removing the sales tax exemption for meals under $4" -- we're expecting that in the budget this afternoon. "This will decimate the tourism industry and may cause substantial job losses in the neighbourhood of 12,000 jobs...Bankruptcies in the food services industry are at record high. Bankruptcies increased 85% in 1990 over 1989 levels," and that trend continued throughout 1991. "The restaurant industry has lost more than 50,000 jobs over the past 18 months."

To date, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation's response to the Metro Toronto convention crisis and the overall tourism malaise has been to say, "The Treasurer makes decisions on taxes." When asked outside the Legislature what he was doing to bring more conventions to Toronto and Ontario, as more conventions mean more dollars in our provincial economy, Mr North said: "I'm not the Treasurer. It's not my job to think that way." It's a pretty astonishing response from the so-called advocate and Minister of Tourism and Recreation in this province.

The NDP government's response to another major tourism problem, cross-border shopping, is to avoid a real solution: to lower taxes and to make us competitive again here in Ontario. Instead the government is betting with its collective heart that casino gambling will solve this problem. I say, not likely. I'd say the NDP has crapped out if it expects casino gambling to solve its economic and tourism woes. The horse racing industry generates almost $2 billion annually and employs close to 50,000 people in this province. The industry says 10,000 of those jobs would be lost with the introduction of casinos to the province.

In a letter to me from Mr William Rowe, president of Barrie Raceway Holdings Ltd, Mr Rowe writes: "In the present depressed economy, the pool of disposable entertainment dollars is very small and growing smaller daily as more individuals and small businesses go bankrupt in this province.

"There is no doubt that bringing in casino gambling will bring in some dollars to the provincial Treasury -- some estimates are being quoted at $150 million. This sounds great, but most of these dollars will not be new dollars but dollars diverted from the racing industry and the lotteries."

Mr Rowe feels the "advent of casino gambling will have a grave consequence for individuals who make their living at the Barrie Raceway. It takes no great genius to see what will happen to Barrie Raceway and 500 people who work here and the hundreds more people who derive indirect income from the racetrack throughout Simcoe county."

Other problems in the area of casino gambling: addiction. The NDP government withdrew funding for programs designed to treat gambling addicts. A New Jersey committee studying casino gambling reported that evidence indicates that availability of legalized gambling increases the risk of becoming a compulsive gambler.

How many lives will be ruined, I ask? How much will it cost our society to treat the rise in addicts that accompanies legalized gambling in Ontario?

I want to make this point specifically to the tourism operators in my area of the province: Some areas could suffer a tourism decline if they are competing against other Ontario jurisdictions that have casinos and they don't. What will form the basis of which areas get casinos?

The Huronia Tourist Association has written a letter to the Premier:

"We must, in the strongest way possible, take issue with the site selections, since they totally bypass and isolate central Ontario and the region known as Huronia. Therefore, while it's nice to know that you do not want to see us at a disadvantage, the 'us' does not include us in Huronia, but rather a select few areas of the province. As a result, it would appear that the sites are strategically placed so as to entice Americans to cross the border.

As desirable as that may be, did it occur to those selecting the casino locations that they were restricting this major tourist lure to Canadian border areas and completely boycotting that part of Ontario which accounts for almost 12% of all tourist destinations in Ontario? As well, why should there be two in Metro Toronto? On that basis, this association finds the proposed sites clearly discriminatory and unfair."

Finally, I want to thank the member for Oakville South for bringing this thoughtful and commonsense resolution before the Legislature today. It's sad that the other parties seem to be void of common sense. We saw that in five years of Liberal reign and we are certainly seeing that in the last 18 months of NDP reign in Ontario.

I would urge all members of the Legislature, though, to step back from their political agendas and lend their support to this resolution. A more stable and prosperous future in Ontario begins with the passage of this resolution today. Thank you for your indulgence.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): That was somewhat entertaining.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Talk about entertaining: How about that tie?

Mr Waters: I think it's a beautiful tie.

Anyway, I'd like to address the member for Oakville South's resolution. We'll start at the top.

As I look at the main body of his resolution, it talks about the government contributing to high taxation and high government spending and high unemployment in the province. Maybe we'll give them a quick history lesson on the whole thing.

I come from a unique area of the province. In the early 1980s we had a Premier of this province who went about my riding and promised various things. He promised sewer projects, he promised housing projects.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Wasn't he a Conservative Premier?

Mr Waters: Very much a Conservative Premier. The roads were going to be taken care of. This all happened back in the early 1980s, and nothing ever came of it.

Then we had a Liberal government come in, and the same promises went around, and once again literally nothing came of it.

Now it's at a point in my riding where we have absolutely no alternative: We have a series of sewer plants we desperately need, we have roads that have to be repaired -- we have roads that have needed repairs since the 1950s. We have housing projects that -- I find it quite interesting that it's fallen upon our government to fulfil the projects the past Premier announced back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and I find it interesting to be able to travel around with him and do the sod-turnings and the openings of these projects.

Here we are in the toughest economic time this country has seen since the 1930s, and it falls upon us to go around and clean up the neglected mess that was left there before us. Even though times are tough, we are able to do some of it and put a start in on this. I see housing projects around the province; I see sewer projects around the province; I see road projects. This infrastructure is needed by the people, by the private sector, I might say, to be competitive. They need this infrastructure, and the members across should recognize that unless we have this infrastructure, these towns can't grow.

Yes, we might be spending a bit more than what they would like to see us spend, but we have to build that infrastructure and indeed we are spending on infrastructure.

Then I would go on. One of the key arguments that has been going on in this House for months has been labour reforms. The members across would have you believe that if you have a husband-and-wife industry, the wife is going to go out and organize against her husband. Nothing could be farther from the truth and they know it. They're out there creating scare tactics to try to force us to back down on legislation that is desperately needed in this province. The fact that we are dropping from 55% to 50% for the right to organize is nothing to be afraid of. They would have you believe it's the end of the world.

I think at this point I'm going to save some time for some of my fellow colleagues to make some comments, so I will at this point take my seat.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Further debate?

Mr Bradley: It's a pleasure to be able to participate in this activity this morning. The member for Oakville South has presented a resolution for consideration of the Legislature. Unfortunately it's fitting in with the new Progressive Conservative strategy. I don't know who is concocting this strategy. Hugh Segal is advising or someone is advising. But if you look at the resolutions that are brought forward by the Conservative caucus at this time, you will see that they are designed not to attract the support of any of the other political parties in the Legislature.

This is so they can go out to various places across the province and wave a particular resolution, and that resolution will be one which sounds attractive but they won't show what the

preamble was in the resolution. They'll put a hook in criticizing one or both of the other parties. In this case, I noticed the last few resolutions have references to the previous government. They're still fighting the last provincial election. If they wanted to be truly effective, they would in fact put forward a resolution that might attract the support of even some members of the New Democratic Party who in conscience would be prepared to vote for it.

You may think this is a good trick. Back in the old days when the Big Blue Machine was around Ontario and you had Norm Atkins and Hugh Segal and that crew concocting these resolutions, it may have been pretty politically smart. Today I think people see through that strategy. What they're looking for is straightforward resolutions.

There are some components of this resolution which are certainly worthy of support and some which are not. I want to deal with a couple of these, first of all the suggestion that no new taxes be brought in at this time in this particular budget. I think that's a reasonable proposition for the following reasons.

First, I think we should be leaving as much money as possible in the hands of the consumers at a difficult economic time so they can make the purchases they feel are necessary and essential. This will keep the economy going. The Treasurer will see that his revenues will continue to increase as in fact the economic activity across the province continues to increase.

Second, there is the problem of cross-border shopping. It used to be said that you could put a tax on gasoline because some people saw that as being a negative consumption, or you could put a tax on alcohol or on tobacco and most people would live with that. Indeed there was a time when that could be done, and various governments across this country have done so.

The difference today, if the government were to include those taxes, is that it would continue to drive people to make purchases across the border, making those purchases because they felt the tax increases were making it an economic necessity. Those are attractive taxes. I know that from time to time they are attractive taxes, but in this particular case those are the loss leaders which send consumers to the United States in great numbers to make purchases. So I hope at this time the government would avoid increasing those kinds of taxes as well.

The third issue I wish to deal with is that of casino gambling. I know I saw Mel Swart, for instance, in the precincts of the Parliament yesterday and I can imagine the viewpoint of Mel Swart, though I can't speak for him, on the issue of casino gambling. I recall seeing Fred Young here, former member for Yorkview, the individual who had a hand in writing the prayer that commences the session each day. I can't believe that people of the ilk of Mel Swart and Fred Young would look favourably upon casino gambling as the solution to the problems of Ontario.

There will be those who will say: "Well, isn't it attractive to have it in your own community? Wouldn't it raise a lot of money?" Of course, there's always that attractiveness. What people have to understand, however, is that the day you put a casino in one border town you will find out that the American jurisdiction will have it in another town right across the border. Any advantage you have gained will be diminished by the fact that there is a casino or a major gambling event in another location immediately across a border.

Second, of course, is that we're having a great problem in the Niagara Peninsula with the Fort Erie Race Track. We've already lost Garden City Raceway, just outside of St Catharines, and now very much threatened by economic circumstances is Fort Erie Race Track. The mayor of Fort Erie and others in the Fort Erie area in particular have expressed great concern about the impact of casino gambling on their particular sport and their particular facility, and I think that must be taken into account.

Third, members will know that three members have now dealt with issues related to people being able to raise funds for themselves. I had the opportunity to raise the issue of junior hockey teams, soccer teams, fastball teams and you name the sport, having individual bingos they would use to raise funds so that they could operate within their communities. In the Niagara Peninsula we have several Junior B hockey teams, and some Junior C and Junior D hockey teams around Ontario.

We're going to see two results: first, casino gambling will take money from other sources of raising revenues; but second, and more important as far as the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is concerned, they must understand these are important activities within a community. It seems to me that the provincial government, while it has to always look at all of its policies and I appreciate that, should not be threatening to withdraw bingo licences simply because of the age of the players in one case or the so-called narrowness of the focus in another case.

I hope the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will give very serious consideration to the representations which have been made by members of various parties. I've raised the issue with her personally in the House. I've previously made a statement in the House about this. I hope they will not remove from those people the opportunity to raise their own funds so that the government of Ontario can then come by and say, "Here is a grant directly from us." Those people want to raise their own funds, and I think it's important that they be allowed to do so.

There are many aspects of this resolution which are quite attractive. Obviously it was written so members of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party cannot support it, and that's most unfortunate. I wish members would bring forward resolutions which would attract consensus support in this House. That often happens in this hour, and I believe it's what this hour is all about.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Further debate?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Good morning, Mr Speaker. You wouldn't believe how lucky I feel to be allowed to spend all of four minutes and 29 seconds speaking to this. It's not a whole lot of time that I get to stand up and talk here, but I'm happy to be able to do it on this occasion. I just left the whip's office, where the bells have been momentarily silenced, and it remains that I anxiously and eagerly await my passport and my ticket for whatever destination the whip may see it appropriate to send her favourite puppy to.

It's interesting, this kind of debate about this kind of issue. It's interesting that people listening ought to know exactly who it is talking about their concerns right now and really what kind of income brackets they're in. Let's talk for a minute about what MPPs make by way of income here in the province of Ontario. It's a little bit confusing, because you've got to add all the things up and factor in some impact of tax-free income.

Mr Carr: You guys got an increase.

Mr Kormos: The base income -- and I'm reading from April 1990. There was a clever little stunt played here where there was a so-called freeze on salaries, but that was after there was a retroactive increase. That's a very clever sort of thing. I've got workers down in Welland and Thorold who wish they could pull off the same sort of thing. Every MPP makes, first of all, $44,675, but it doesn't end there. Every one of these 130 people then make an additional $15,000 tax-free.

Ms Murdock: It's $14,000.

Mr Kormos: It's $14,984, which is close enough to $15,000 for me to call it $15,000 tax-free. Now $15,000 tax-free is just about maybe $20,000 or $22,000 taxable, so you add $22,000 on to the $44,000 and you're up to $66,000, and there isn't a single member of the government caucus -- we inherited this trait or we acquired it none the less from our Liberal predecessors -- who doesn't make a little bit more on the side, anywhere from around $5,000 up to around $12,000 up to around $30,000 if you're a cabinet minister. Plus every single member of this Legislature picks up $2,000 or $3,000 tax-free every year just for doing the job. It's called the per diem for sitting on committees.

Then of course there's the 29 cents or 29.5 cents, depending on what part of the province you live in, for every kilometre -- not mile; metric did it again -- that you travel in your car. Hopefully it's a made-in-North-America car, but there are more than a few Nissans, Volvos and Lexuses out there in the parking lot. Some of them have got MPP plates on them. I find that the height of arrogance.

The bottom line is this: These people in this assembly make more money, each and every one of them, than most working people in this province will even ever dare dream of. I find it incredible that this resolution could talk, for instance, about the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments when those people working in sweatshops, those people working in non-unionized workplaces, as often as not women, as often as not immigrants, will never dare dream of the incomes that MPPs enjoy.

I find it incredible that these people could somehow purport in this resolution, Mr Carr -- and I appreciate that there are some valid points here. There's some quality in this resolution; unfortunately not enough. It unfortunately ignores the reality of hardworking women and men and unfortunately non-working women and men who would like to have jobs, had they not been stolen from them by Brian Mulroney in free trade and GST.

I find it the height of arrogance for people making $70,000 or $75,000 a year and having a trough available to them, be it gold-plated identification pins or be it little trips that the whip may wish to dispense at her pleasure, depending upon for whom the bell tolls -- I find it incredible that this resolution coming from the Conservative Party would attempt to say what it does when these people are so removed from reality, so wedded to Brian Mulroney and a regressive, reactionary policy, a sellout of workers. They should be ashamed.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oakville South has two minutes for concluding remarks.

Mr Carr: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and welcome. I understand this is your first time in the Chair and we welcome you as the new Speaker.

I am pleased to add a little bit to the debate. It was interesting. I'm one of the 28 who doesn't get any extra money. I believe 102 out of the 130 get extra money. I'm one of the 28 who does not. It's interesting we hear from the member for Welland-Thorold who talks about perks and --

Interjections.

Mr Carr: I don't drive a Corvette. I didn't ever in my life have a Porsche like the member did.

Mr Kormos: You've got a Lexus out there.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member sit down, please. I would ask the honourable member for Welland-Thorold please to restrain himself and allow the member for Oakville South to continue with his concluding remarks.

Mr Kormos: I apologize, Mr Speaker. I sincerely apologize to you.

Mr Carr: My time, my time.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I thank the member very much. Please take your seat. I ask the member for Welland-Thorold to take his seat.

Mr Carr: Mr Speaker, would there be any chance of getting back the 20 seconds we lost?

Mr Kormos: No, you can't play those games.

Mr Carr: Okay, I'll have to wrap up very quickly. All I'm saying is that for a member who drives a Corvette and had a Porsche to stand up -- unfortunately I'm not in those circumstances, but for him to stand up and talk about perks when he goes out of here in his Corvette -- I will leave that for the public to decide.

Some of the other speakers talked about who I'm talking about. I'm not in this House to impress anybody. I was elected by the people of Oakville South. These are the polls I got back -- and I've got to be really quick because I lost some of the time -- 80% of the people said, "You shouldn't have any tax increases." Liberals, NDP, Conservatives, everybody in the riding said -- 80% of them -- "No new taxes, no government spending."

That's who I'm standing up for. I'm not in this House to please anybody -- Corvette drivers or Porsche drivers. It's the people of Oakville South I'm standing up for here today and I hope you'll support me.

The Acting Speaker: The time has expired for ballot item 3.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

Mr Winninger moved second reading of Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code / Loi modifiant le Code des droits de la personne.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): The member has 10 minutes.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Mr Speaker, I ask you to imagine if Einstein had been refused work at Princeton University when he was in his 70s. I ask you to imagine if Jessica Tandy had been denied her Oscar-winning performance at the age of 80 or if Picasso had been told to stop painting or Rubinstein told to stop playing the piano to allow younger people access to such work.

These are questions Reginald Stackhouse, a member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, raised in 1990. Does Ontario have a place for age discrimination? Are people who reach the age of 65 to be treated like so many barrels of oil or lumps of coal?

Many people feel that mandatory retirement fails to consider ability and denies the opportunity for the benefits, the dignity and the self-satisfaction ongoing employment can provide. A study last fall by Statistics Canada showed that only one third of adult Canadians favour retaining a mandatory retirement age and that most people interviewed wanted greater choice and flexibility regarding retirement than company or government policies provide.

Provincial legislation, as you know, applies to the provincially regulated private sector as well as the provincial public sector. Exceptions to provincial legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of age exist within the Human Rights Code of Ontario. Ontario has an exception in subsection 10(1), defining age to mean over the age of 18 and less than the age of 65. Another exception provides for situations in which age is a reasonable or bona fide qualification or factor for the job. I have some concerns about other exceptions regarding employment, but those can await another day.

I note in passing that if an age of 65 or over is a requirement, qualification or consideration for preferential treatment, a right to non-discrimination is not infringed.

The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, McKinney v the University of Guelph, a decision involving seven justices -- five male justices and two female justices -- is binding on the courts of Canada. The decision ruled that universities are not bound by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because of their private component as they function in society. But even if the charter had extended to universities, the majority of the court would have found that compulsory retirement is a reasonable limit on protection from age discrimination.

Even though the court found that our subsection 10(1) did violate the right to protection from discrimination and that under

section 1 that limit on protection from discrimination was reasonable and constitutionally valid, the two female justices, who spoke in dissent, would have struck down the mandatory retirement provisions. They wrote that discrimination based on age "has the effect of reinforcing the stereotype that older workers are no longer useful members of the labour force. Their services may therefore be freely and arbitrarily dispensed with." In fact these justices, who wrote a strong dissent, echoed the 1985 report of the federal parliamentary committee on equality rights.

I believe you, Mr Speaker, participated in the preparation thereof. The third female justice on the Supreme Court of Canada could not participate in this decision because she, sitting in the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, had previously struck down a mandatory retirement decision there. It's interesting to note that Supreme Court of Canada judges enjoy tenure on the bench until the age of 75.

Mandatory retirement clearly disadvantages capable people who are forced to retire solely because of age, particularly women, new Canadians and others who begin careers late or in midlife and are unable to build up adequate pensions. Further, there are many people for whom employment is a source of physical, mental and social health. To deprive individuals of the opportunity to work may contribute to a wasting away following retirement.

At one time many employees were forced to work long after they had become decrepit, often employed for long hours and in squalid working conditions we would consider intolerable today. A mandatory retirement age was designed to ensure that those employees who required a dignified retirement with the security of pension benefits would not be denied a comfortable and dignified retirement. The confusion, however, between normal retirement age and mandatory retirement age has been well documented.

After the Second World War, pension plans proliferated in the United States and Canada, generally using 65 as the entitlement age. The 1979 Canadian senate committee on retirement age policies concluded "that mandatory retirement based on age involves an infringement of human rights, economic waste and misconceptions about the relevance of age." The report of the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement observed in 1987 that: "The appropriateness of mandatory or compulsory retirement is being widely questioned. Some see it as a form of age discrimination that offends the rights of the individual."

Six other provinces -- PEI, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta, as well as the two territories -- have taken the necessary steps to amend their human rights legislation to remove exceptions for those over 65. Quebec, for example, notwithstanding its abolished mandatory retirement, can regulate and has regulated exceptions for firefighters and police officers. The case law in Ontario has upheld such exceptions.

The time has come for Ontario to take a bold step in this regard. Why? The C. D. Howe Institute declared recently that later retirement should be the way of the future. We must adapt our social policies and workplaces to meet the challenge from large-scale population changes.

People over 65 will increase by 60% by the year 2000 and by 200% in the next half-century. Some 1.6% of the working population is over 65. In 1990 the average income of those over 65 was only $17,640, compared to $24,294 for those aged 15 to 64. So you can see and appreciate clearly, Mr Speaker, that people forced to retire after the age of 65 are facing a concomitant decline in their income.

Certainly it makes good economic sense, as the baby boom generation retires and the workload falls to a number of younger workers due to the decline in the fertility rate, that there may be labour shortages. In fact, as the baby boom came of age, labour force growth exceeded 3% a year. Now the labour bust generation has come down the pipe, and labour force entry is down to 1.8% a year, a decline in participation, particularly among men.

While there is some evidence of loss of memory and cognitive ability with age, it depends on the demographics and on personal characteristics. Some maintain all their competence well into their 80s. So I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to be aware of the changing demographics in Ontario and to understand and appreciate the need for a re-evaluation of Ontario's policies on mandatory retirement.

I'll have more to say in conclusion.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to rise in today's debate. I want to compliment the member who raised this issue for a very thoughtful discussion which we've heard from him in the last few minutes.

I want to quote from a research paper on this subject. The concluding, bottom line says, "Historically, all advances in human rights have been opposed by those with vested interests, who inevitably have predicted all manner of resulting evil and destruction." The writer says, "My own view is that the benefits of eliminating 'ageism' from our employment systems far outweigh the costs."

This

article was written by Michael Krashinsky, who is an economist with the department of economics at the University of Toronto. I would commend this paper to anyone in this House or anyone who is interested in the issue of mandatory retirement, because it does deal with many of those things which would have to change if we were to eliminate mandatory retirement and look at normal retirement.

Things that would have to change would be tenure, collective agreements, bargaining, pension plan design and reform, and performance appraisal. Anyone who thinks we could just amend the Human Rights Code and eliminate mandatory retirement without having ripple effects through the economy, ripple effects through changing some of the institutions and infrastructures that have been in place in our society, is simply wrong. We know that there would be many changes. The question is, would those changes be better for us or worse for us as a society?

Philosophically, I am very supportive of the elimination of mandatory retirement. I do believe, as our society is aging in Ontario, that we cannot afford to have unproductive human resources.

I also believe we have the opportunity now to do the planning, make the kind of anticipated changes, whether it is in our universities, which would be tremendously impacted by a change in mandatory retirement because that is where tenure is most prevalent; whether it would be in our labour laws, which would encourage the kind of renegotiating that would have to happen around collective agreements that have mandated mandatory retirement as part of the collective agreement; whether it would be in pension plan design to ensure proper incentives, better pension plans, more widespread, when you take a look at the number of people in our society today who have no private sector pensions, who rely only on the Canada pension plan for their retirement and find that this is inadequate.

Women are particularly impacted by the provisions of mandatory retirement. Many of them have left the workforce to raise their families or, because of marriage breakdown, have entered the workforce late in life and do not have adequate pension benefits and credits and find that when they reach the age of 65 they are living in poverty. They need to have greater opportunities to work.

In fact, once we're through this recession -- and we know we will come through this recession -- we have to create the kind of society that will encourage people to be as productive as possible, if they choose, for as long as possible.

I believe the concepts of lifelong learning and career change will be with us. When we talk about a change in mandatory retirement, that does not mean that people will be able to stay in work and be unproductive. That's the issue of performance appraisal, and it's one of the concerns I have, because some of those who argue against mandatory retirement suggest that employers would be less likely to maintain their workforce and would institute practices which may result in job loss for those workers who are not seen to be as productive as they should be.

I argue that while that is a concern and should be discussed, I believe workers should have the opportunity to prove they are able and capable of doing the job that is required, but that would be a significant change and something that should be considered.

The predictions for the future for the young are that they will change their careers many times. Our society is changing generally. When it comes to the development of social policies which will be forward-looking and take us confidently into the next century, which is really on the horizon, I believe we must look at issues such as mandatory retirement with a view to how this will have a positive impact on our society and how it will have a negative impact. Let's have a proper discussion and debate.

I would encourage the member, as a member of the government, to suggest that we not simply discuss this in private members' hour, but perhaps have a white paper of government policy. I think that would be very helpful, a chance to discuss what would have to change. We know it's highly unlikely that a private member's bill of this magnitude would be proclaimed by the government without significant discussion. I don't want to deceive anyone today to suggest that this is likely going to become government policy without it being a government bill.

I think it's important that members know the difference between a private member's bill and a government bill. I'd like the opportunity, as a legislator, as a member of this Parliament, to have before us a government document, a piece of government legislation that could be thoroughly discussed and debated at committee. I would like to hear from the economists who would argue in support of mandatory retirement. I'd like to know from all those who argue for the status quo what they believe it would mean.

I believe mandatory retirement ultimately is a good thing not to have in the future. I believe mandatory retirement is an outdated, outmoded, unnecessary, discriminatory provision. It's my hope that we will have the opportunity to raise the public consciousness to see what this would mean in Ontario; to give people the right to work if they choose and to have that freedom, free of discrimination. I thank the member for bringing that forward and I support his resolution, even though I do not expect it will become law in the province unless it is supported as a government piece of legislation.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It really is a pleasure to speak this morning in favour of Bill 15, put forward by the member for London South. I must say at the beginning, though, that I really speak for myself as a member of the Ontario PC caucus. We did not have the opportunity to come to a consensus on this issue in caucus; anyway, it certainly is the practice of my party that members speak on legislation for themselves. I simply make that clear this morning.

Interjection.

Mr Jim Wilson: The member for Durham East doesn't me want to get started because I am supportive of the bill. Did you hear that? It's a historic moment. I know I'm agreeing with the NDP and it's budget day and all that jazz, but I'm kind of hoping to put the NDP in good humour before the budget comes down at 4 o'clock because I think they're going to have a bad evening.

None the less, I think the member for London South is correct in wanting to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to allow people, in effect, to work beyond age 65. I'm supportive of this, I should also say, because in other jurisdictions -- and I will talk about some of the experience of the other jurisdictions, as the member has, including the federal civil service that no longer has a requirement for mandatory retirement -- less than 1% of the workforce has actually been affected.

So I think when people are opposed to banning mandatory retirement, they do so really on philosophical grounds and not in actual fact and by experience, because the experience has been generally positive. I will go into that.

I note, as the member for London South has, that in December 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that it was constitutional for provinces to allow mandatory retirement policies. This put the government of Ontario in the position of allowing mandatory retirement at age 65 to remain or amending the Human Rights Code, as the private member's bill does this morning. I point out that in making its decision, the court said that while mandatory retirement did constitute age discrimination under

section 15 of the charter, it could be considered justifiable in a free and democratic society and therefore was constitutional under

section 1 of the charter.

Currently, half of Ontario's workforce of 2.5 million employees is subject to mandatory retirement provisions. At the time of the Supreme Court decision, again in December 1990, the Ontario PC Party Citizenship critic, the member for Markham, Mr Don Cousens, was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, "It's a good idea to change the code" -- the Human Rights Code -- "so people over 65 can work if they want to." I note that the Liberal critic at the time also agreed with Mr Cousens's remarks.

The impetus to abolish mandatory retirement in this province receives a boost from current demographics. Ontario's workforce is aging, our workforce is shrinking and people are living longer lives. I note that Ontario's Task Force on Mandatory Retirement recommended in its 1987 report that mandatory retirement be abolished except where it can be established as a bona fide occupational requirement, and that membership of a pension or retirement plan, even under a collective agreement, not be grounds for exemption. Mandatory retirement is disproportionately present in the unionized workforce.

I point that out not in a partisan manner, but simply because there is work to be done in terms of collective bargaining agreements and pensions. The member for Oriole very correctly pointed that out just a few minutes ago. A 1979 study of major Ontario collective agreements found that 83% of such employees were subject to some form of mandatory retirement.

These are some of the arguments opposing mandatory retirement, and I'm going to do this under headings, the first heading being flexibility.

The chairman of the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement, Dr Ron Ianni, argued that its removal would precipitate a number of innovative and imaginative policies facilitating early retirement, voluntary reductions in work responsibilities for seniors, improved pension plans and a more flexible approach to the whole question of retirement.

I argue that this flexibility would enable skilled workers to continue working in their field of expertise past the age of 65. When I think of my own riding of Simcoe West, a very significant portion of that riding -- because we have a lot of retirees who chose to retire to the country from Toronto -- are working past age 65, particularly in businesses in their own homes. I am surprised, as I visit a number of subdivisions, at how many older couples -- older in terms of over age 65 -- are running consulting businesses, working with computers at home or doing crafts, a number of things, businesses on the side, really because they need the money and, second, they are living longer.

The quality of life is very high in this province and in this country. They're perfectly capable of doing many of the things they did when they were younger, and I don't see why we should have a law to prohibit people from doing what they do best.

Under the heading of planning: Opponents of mandatory retirement argue, first, that it is paternalistic to assume that career planning needs to be imposed upon older workers; second, it's overkill to uniformly retire all senior workers because some may experience a personally difficult dismissal; and third, it's of questionable justice to require workers to retire just because of some sort of administrative convenience.

Under the heading of increased monitoring: As the number of employees likely to stay on is minimal -- as I say, studies indicate that it probably would only affect about 1% of the workforce; ie, only about 1% of the workforce would choose to work beyond age 65 or the mandatory retirement age -- employers have little incentive to alter their personnel practices.

Under the category of deferred wage compensation: The argument that deferred wage compensation is a major incentive for workers to remain at work, as well as being a significant cost to employers, is weakened by the current trend to early retirement.

Again, estimates released in the study by the Task Force on Mandatory Retirement indicated that between 5,000 to 10,000 persons a year would consider working beyond age 65 if mandatory retirement was to be removed. As I've said, this would mean an increase of about 25,000 to 50,000 workers, or less than 1% of the Ontario workforce.

As the member for London South has correctly noted, the provinces of Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba and New Brunswick have abolished mandatory retirement and the federal government abolished it in 1986. I wanted to take a moment just to recap the experience in each of those jurisdictions.

Manitoba in 1982 introduced an amendment to its human rights code. A study commissioned by the Ontario task force again found that the elimination of mandatory retirement appears to have had little effect on workers or working conditions in Manitoba. When the Ontario task force looked at the experience in Manitoba, there seemed to be very little effect.

The same study also found that of employees affected by the elimination of mandatory retirement, almost none chose to stay on in heavy industry, while two thirds of eligible university faculty chose to stay. Overall, though, the study found that those who chose to stay on were most often pension-poor older women, an interesting and important fact.

I think of that in my own mother's case. She had six children, was a school teacher and took 13 years out of her teaching career to have the six children. We very affectionately say, "Mom, you're going to have to work until you drop," because they certainly need the money. I don't come from a wealthy family by any stretch of the imagination. I may add, she's one of these teachers that went to normal school, did not have the opportunity over the years to get her BA because she was raising a family, and subsequently makes significantly less money than many teachers after their first one or two years --

Mrs Caplan: Just don't say how old she is or you're in big trouble.

Mr Jim Wilson: The member for Oriole reminds me not to say how old my mother is. That's very kind of you because you know I'm going into one of my side speeches here. None the less, it's important that she be able to work as long as she can and wants to, and she very much enjoys her job. She is a special education teacher.

New Brunswick also brought in amendments, I believe, in 1973. When our task force in Ontario looked at that, it again found that less than 1% of people 65 years old were staying on in employment. In that legislation in New Brunswick the exemption for pension coverage is broad, which accounts for the minimal impact in New Brunswick of mandatory retirement elimination.

In Quebec, by means of provincial legislation in 1981, mandatory retirement was abolished. Again the Ontario task force found little impact on the workforce or employers. It is interesting to note that the exemption was universities where the study found that 10-year professors were becoming "complacent and entrenched" -- that's from the Ontario task force study -- and that the impact this was having on the prospects of new graduates wishing to enter the teaching world was creating "a pressing problem."

Of the last two jurisdictions I want to look at, the Canadian federal government, of course, as I mentioned, abolished mandatory retirement for the federal civil service in 1986. The Ontario study indicated that not enough time had really elapsed to come to any significant conclusions of what the effect was at the federal level.

In the United States, 1978 amendments to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act raised the retirement age for federal government employees from 65 to 70. Amendments to the same act in 1986 resulted in the elimination of mandatory retirement for federal government employees in the United States. Our Ontario task force uses the words, "Overall, the removal of mandatory retirement in the United States was a non-event." It really says quite a bit there.

I want to end by saying that we support it. I echo the thoughts brought forward by the member for Oriole when she said people really shouldn't get their hopes up. This is a private member's bill that's being debated this morning on second reading. I note that the Minister of Citizenship, Elaine Ziemba, at the time of the decision in December 1990, wasn't clear what the government's intention would be.

I would be interested to hear in the member for London South's two-minute windup if he is working with the unionized sector. In a lot of the reading I did in preparing for today I found that not only are 83% of unionized workers now forced to retire at age 65 or earlier because of their pension plans and a number of other issues that have been mentioned, but many of them want to. The Canadian Labour Congress, in its response to the Supreme Court's decision in December 1990, supported the Supreme Court.

I think there's some work to be done in both a public way and behind the scenes with some of the labour leaders in the country to see really where they stand. I would not want to see the government move ahead without really giving us a clear indication. When you read the Ontario task force report, it studies other jurisdictions and gives us an overall feeling that abolishing mandatory retirement is okay. It's not going to have any great effects, but there will be and could be individual cases of hardship resulting from pension plans that may not work as well for people.

We want to make sure the government does its homework thoroughly on this before proceeding to third reading with this bill, if that ever occurs. The record around here, of course, is that private members' bills don't go very far. None the less, I commend the member for London South for bringing forward this thoughtful piece of legislation today.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise in my place this morning and speak in support of second reading of Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, introduced by my colleague the member for London South. I didn't think the day would dawn when I would stand in this House and agree with the member for Oriole or the member for Simcoe West, but it's happened and it's very unique.

Also, my experience this morning is somewhat unique in that I was the victim of mandatory retirement at the age of 50, when I was forced to leave the military. I must say at that time I was able to run 10 miles a day and was doing that. I thought I was at the height of my powers of knowledge of policing, yet on my 50th birthday, I was told I was no longer useful. That was a traumatic experience. Many of my colleagues have gone down hill steadily, because it is very difficult to find a job anywhere in Canada today in that 50 age group. That is discrimination. People say, "Well, you got a pension." Yes, I got a pension all right, but it wouldn't pay the rent on a normal apartment.

Then I retired again. I went to another job and was encouraged to leave early under some sort of plan. I must say it was what I considered an artful plan to get rid of older workers, where they encouraged you to take some form of increased severance, and that way you were out of their hair.

I went off to the sunset in Florida to live happily ever after. After about four weeks down there, I said to my wife: "You and I have got to sit down and have a talk. Each morning I go around the park that way and say good morning to those people, and in the afternoon I go around and say good afternoon to those people in the opposite way. In the evening when I meet them, they tell me what they had to eat the day before, and then this guy says what he had to eat. I can't put up with this. I'm going crackers. I've got to go back to work." She said: "I understand. You're a bit of an oddball."

I would like to see some amendment in my friend's bill that would allow for some cooling-off period so that when you took mandatory retirement, you could step back and say, "This isn't for me," and then you could be welcomed back into the workplace once again.

Age-based retirement severs people from their livelihood. I'd like to go back to the days after the war when my father was forcibly retired. He lasted about two years after that. It absolutely devastated him, the loss of work with very little pension and having to grovel around and do odd jobs for very little money. His whole pride went down the tube. As a matter of fact, he passed away two years after being forced to retire.

I've got a lot of news clips here. This one says, "End Forced Retirement, Council on Aging Says." "Your Opinion" -- the London Free Press -- "Benefits of Forced Retirement Doubtful." The Supreme Court, "Retirement Judgement Ominous for Women." Another editorial, "Flexible Policy Best on Retirement Issue." "Seniors Totals Soaring but It's a Fit Lot." We're a fit lot, seniors. "Age Ruling Hurts Women Most." "Retirement Ruling Shocking Loss of Rights." "Federal Human Rights Commission Opposed to Mandatory Retirement."

There's a very fine

article here by Michael Krashinsky of the department of economics, University of Toronto, "The Case for Eliminating Mandatory Retirement." That's a very interesting document one should read.

On April 1 of this year, I had been working for 50 years. I'm hoping I can work another 30. As a member of this Legislature, along with my colleagues, I am not subject to mandatory retirement. I thank God for that, because if it were mandatory, very shortly I would be getting the pink ticket. So now the pink ticket is in the hands of my constituents. If they're watching this morning, I like the job and I'd be appreciative if they didn't ever give me the pink ticket.

I know there are a number of my colleagues who want to speak on this very important issue. In

summary, I would just like to say that, in my opinion, forced, age-based retirement squanders people's talents, it ruins in some cases their health and it drives many elderly people into despair and even poverty. I can speak from the experience of my own father.

Agism today is as odious as racism or sexism. I know my friend's bill is not perfect -- no bill that comes before this House is perfect -- but I am sure we can work on this and introduce this into some legislation whereby we protect people. This is not forcing people to work over 65; it allows people the choice to continue working and I hope we can do that.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I also wish to speak to Bill 15,

An Act to amend the Human Rights Code, which will prohibit discrimination in employment against persons 65 and older. There are numerous arguments for and against mandatory retirement. The arguments for include the following: mandatory retirement opens up jobs and promotional opportunities for young workers; it makes it easier for employers to plan and manage pension plans, most of which are calculated on the basis of people retiring at 65 years of age; it makes employers less reluctant to hire middle-aged employees who they know they would be able to retire.

However, there are also arguments against forced retirement. It is an unfair assumption that workers over 65 years of age are less competent than younger people. It systematically discriminates against working women, many of whom, because of family responsibilities, have not worked long enough to earn adequate pensions. It denies people who want to continue working the right to do so. It fails to allow for consideration of individual situations and abilities and it does not take into account the labour shortage this country may face because of our aging population.

Projections show that 20% of our population will be over 65 by the year 2021; no doubt that will include several members of this House. If all elderly workers were forced to retire, eventually there would be a job glut. As mentioned, there is the argument for mandatory retirement that jobs for young Canadians become threatened when older workers do not retire. Even economists who strongly support mandatory retirement agree that mandatory retirement has little to do with youth unemployment.

Employment rates in the long run are not generally dependent on the size of the labour force. Workers who stay in the labour force allow the economy to absorb the labour force increase, because such an increase itself increases demand. Perhaps at the beginning there may be some impact on youth unemployment, but I believe the impact will fade relatively quickly. Another assumption supporting forced retirement is that younger workers are more effective workers. This is debatable, because experience must be recognized.

As you know, Max Yalden, chief of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, recently urged the federal government to abolish mandatory retirement. People over 65 should have legal protection against age discrimination. As Mr Yalden said, "Employees should be judged on their competence, not their age." He went on to say that medical advancements have left Canada facing "an unprecedented extension of human longevity. More and more people will likely feel fit enough to wish to extend their working lives...and we must be prepared to deal with any age discrimination to which that gives rise." I agree with that statement.

An argument for mandatory retirement, as I mentioned previously, is that it makes it easier for employers to plan and manage pension plans, which are calculated on the basis of people retiring, in most cases, at age 65. I believe this is an outdated premise in that what is convenient for an employer is not always best for the employee. The convenience factor is not what should judge the quality of life for citizens over 65.

I do support this bill -- however, not without reservations. While researching the topic I read in various articles that there was not a consensus among cabinet ministers on this topic. This is perhaps the reason it is not government legislation but a private member's bill. This is a concern of mine.

The Labour minister, who has traditionally supported the idea of mandatory retirement, now says he is hearing good arguments from the other side. He is impressed with the argument that mandatory retirement discriminates against women. Mandatory retirement is discriminatory to all older persons but it is especially disadvantageous to women because they have not traditionally been able to build up the financial resources that men have. Women traditionally have not earned as much as men, and their work history has often been sporadic because of the demands of child-bearing and child-rearing.

There are also the women who have not worked out of the house but have remained as homemakers. Should their marriage end in divorce or should they become widowed and be thrown into the workforce at this stage in their lives, mandatory retirement at age 65 would force them into unemployment and would cause severe financial deprivation, often accompanied by mental and physical stress. The Minister of Citizenship says she opposes age discrimination but worries about pensions being in place for older workers. But she does not worry about sexual discrimination regarding pensions for women.

We all know that the Supreme Court ruled in late 1990 that age discrimination is justifiable. However, the court also said that if provinces feel strongly about mandatory retirement they could pass laws prohibiting it, and four have done so, as we've heard: Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta and New Brunswick. If the Ontario government was serious about addressing this issue it would be presenting this bill as a government bill, not a private member's bill.

I will be supporting this bill. Let's have less regulation of people's lives wherever we can. However, I do hope the government decides to move forward with this legislation and does not let it slide to the bottom of the government's agenda and remain there like so many other private members' bills that should have been introduced as government bills.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for his contribution.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm very happy to get up and speak to this bill that the honourable member for London South has brought forward.

There's no guarantee that when people become older they are wise, nor that a young person has particularly new and fresh insights on the world.

But I was reading once again one of the fine essayists of the 17th century, Sir Richard Steele, who once said, "Age in a virtuous person, of either sex, carries in it an authority which makes it preferable to all the pleasures of youth." Indeed, if we look at those who are creative in their later years, those who are older in society, the contribution they make to their own communities is a contribution based upon the imagination and the spirit and the vision that they have been able to inculcate within themselves and in their families over the years.

I'd like to say that in the society that we live in today, with better health and the fact that people live longer, there's no question that people of ability who are aging are people who have the raw material and resources that we need to build a better society. So I want to very much applaud the member for London South for bringing this particular bill to the House today.

So this is very much a human rights issue and I want to underline that. There is no question that such decisions are unfair particularly to women, minorities, refugees and people who have few pension benefits.

I also want to say, in a comment to the member for Simcoe West, that Mr Winninger, the member for London South, has already shown his ability to move private members' bills through the House. His last private member's bill indeed did have third reading and was passed.

Anyway, I want to leave some time for the other honourable members on this side of the House. I am glad to support the member for London South in this.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Mandatory retirement is certainly a complex issue. All seven Supreme Court judges agreed that the Ontario Human Rights Code is against the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The code permits mandatory retirement by banning employment discrimination only between ages 18 and 65. However, there is a "notwithstanding" clause which says, "if reasonable limits are justified in a free and democratic society." So the question is, is this discrimination justified?

A little bit of background: First of all, only half the workforce in Ontario has jobs subject to this ruling. The rest do have choices, such as being self-employed.

Second, a very small number wish to work beyond the age of 65. Whom would this affect? Certainly we know of the skilled professionals who have challenged this ruling.

But let's look at the others who are affected beyond these professionals. It also affects non-unionized, part-time workforces that are the least likely to have adequate or indexed pensions. Who are these people? They are, in the main, women. Let's look at the work patterns of women. Women often have interrupted work lives because of child care responsibilities.

Mandatory retirement at 65 recognizes that an average man has worked for more than 40. It does not reflect that a woman's career very often could have begun at age 35 or 40, on re-entering the workforce after her children have been in school. Women earn less and therefore have less savings -- that is very obvious -- and also women live longer. These women want to be part of life and of society. Women over 65 can of course be called old women. Maybe society views old women as expendable or irrelevant to the economy. Older women are more likely, statistics prove, to be poor and living on the margins of society.

The question we ask today is, does mandatory retirement serve some overriding public interest? I realize it can certainly be argued both ways. I think what we're dealing with here are the values of equality and freedom. We say we want all people to be equal and retire at 65 to ensure there is not abuse. I believe that once our society has established a social safety net and stopped abuse, and through education there is an atmosphere of equality and a reality of equality, then we can move towards more freedom.

I think this time has come with regard to the issue of retirement. I believe we want choice, for each citizen of Ontario to choose to be able to join a union. I also believe we want choice for people at 65 to work or to retire.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): As the member for the riding of Lambton it is with pleasure that I rise today and speak in favour of this bill. I would also like to compliment my colleague from the riding of London South for his consideration in this regard.

There is a perception in the public that the abolition of mandatory retirement will prevent access to jobs for the younger people. However, I remember very much the day a younger member of my family came to me with great consternation. This person was working where many senior people had taken an early retirement rather than be laid off. The concern he expressed to me was, "There's no one left to represent my dad." In other words, he could not find anyone with more years or experience than himself to confide in or to discuss the whole job situation with. As a young person he felt left alone.

He was not denying that many of the retirees were deserving of the retirement but was questioning the validity of leaving the responsibility that had been placed on them on short notice.

If mandatory retirement at age 65 was law, I would not have the great privilege of being here today and being allowed to speak for the riding of Lambton. When I was elected I was elected to stand up for Lambton, and in Lambton there are many wonderful people past this imaginary retirement age who are contributing a great deal to our community as well as to the province of Ontario. I know of one woman in Lambton who is well over the age of 70 and is still contributing to the whole of Canada in the health care sector.

Why should she be deprived of that opportunity to serve this country because of her age, and why should all of us be deprived of gaining from her work and knowledge because of her age?

Life at 60 is terrific. Life at 66 is even more terrific. I know because I'm there. So let us allow others the same opportunity and let us not force retirement on them that would deprive those of us who need their skills, their knowledge and their experience. It is noteworthy that there is no real, particular evidence that indicates productivity declines with age, and I'll include myself. A measure of the peculiar way many people view the older citizen is to substitute any other group into this debate. It would be considered intolerable to ask women, Asians or people of different religious organizations to step aside to provide a place for a younger person to be employed.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Lambton for her contribution. The member for London South has two minutes to wrap up the debate.

Mr Winninger: I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues the members for Lambton, Victoria-Haliburton, Durham East, Niagara Falls, Simcoe West, Oriole and Brant-Haldimand for their thoughtful comments and personal perspectives. I can certainly appreciate the unique perspectives members bring to bear on this issue, because I too had a grandfather in Austria whose career was interrupted in midlife during the war, and he had the opportunity there to practise law well into his 80s.

I think that had he been denied that opportunity it would have had a tremendous effect not only on his mental, physical and emotional wellbeing but certainly, in the post-war years in Europe, a very deleterious effect on his ability to earn an income.

Many of the points I'd hoped to make earlier in these proceedings have been made by my colleagues on all sides of the House and I appreciate the support they bring to this issue. As indicated by all members, a projected labour shortage in the future, as our population ages and fertility declines, merits that we take action now to address the issue. We need to utilize the productivity of our seniors to the greatest extent possible. Rather than saying to people at the arbitrary age of 65, "You no longer have value," we need to affirm that value.

Certainly the employers of today are far more inclined to rate the productivity of people over the age of 65 higher than they did 20 years ago, for example.

For those who make economic arguments that our society can't afford to abolish mandatory retirement, just remember that in the United States 90% of those who have elected to stay on after the age of 65 leave the labour force after two years. In Canada we've made the necessary amendments to the Canada pension plan to allow people to work on after 65. Thank you for the opportunity of making these concluding remarks.

FISCAL AND ECONOMIC POLICY

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

Ayes -- 8

Arnott, Carr, Cunningham, Jackson, Jordan, Sterling, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 43

Bisson, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eddy, Ferguson, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mancini, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neil (Quinte), Owens, Poole, Ruprecht, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LE CODE DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Mr Winninger has moved second reading of Bill 15.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker: The bill will be referred to committee of the whole House.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I would ask, with the consent of the House, that the bill be referred to the standing committee on justice.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Speaker: All matters related to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MAILING

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): As we head into another peak of the tourist season in northern Ontario, many of the operators in the area are concerned about the season they face. Some of them are no longer concerned because they have gone bankrupt.

A good number of operators suggest that the upcoming season may not be all that great. Higher gasoline taxes, higher tobacco taxes, higher alcohol taxes and higher costs across the board are things that discourage travel in the northern part of this province. I can only hope that my friend the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, a northerner as well, has paid some attention to the northern tourist industry in the budget he will release in full today.

But how can I be optimistic when I've received this in the mail: the NDP promoting a trip to Costa Rica, of all things, suggesting that if I make a contribution to the party it will give me a chance to win a trip for two, all expenses paid, to Costa Rica. This package epitomizes the NDP government. The mascot is a three-toed sloth. The NDP has been in power for 19 months and it has not done anything to soften the recession.

The entry form starts off with, "Yes, I don't care what the opposition says," and I often question myself as to whether the Honourable Bob Mackenzie thought up this line when he was devising his labour reforms and included it in this package. It goes on to say, "I promise you, your generosity would not be forgotten." Shirley, does that ring a bell?

The NDP is going to give two people a break from a weary Ontario winter. Why do they not give all Ontarians a break by creating some jobs? Why don't they give our tourist operators a break and promote tourism right here in Ontario?

ROAD MAINTENANCE AND CONSTRUCTION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I want to bring to the attention of this House how the NDP government appears to be punishing the people of my riding of Wellington for not having elected an NDP member.

As you know, Mr Speaker, funding for our municipal road system largely comes from the Ministry of Transportation. At the Ontario Good Roads Association convention in February, the minister promised a 1% increase in the total provincial base allocation to municipalities. The Wellington county roads committee in my riding actually budgeted for a 5% decrease because it was trying to be cautious. It was stunned to learn in late February that it was actually going to receive 8% less than last year, a full $441,000 less than last year's allocation.

This was bad enough, but then we learned that the city of Guelph actually received a 4% increase over its allocation for last year. The people of my riding understand and accept the need for fiscal restraint, but they were angered by this blatant example of favouritism shown to an NDP-held riding at the expense of one held by the opposition.

In my riding important projects, roads and bridges will not be built and will have to be put off as a result of this government. I demand that the Minister of Transportation review this matter. The county roads committee is awaiting his response to its letter of protest. I call upon him to abandon this cynical, manipulative and outrageous policy of showing favouritism and punishing ridings which have shown the wisdom not to vote for the NDP.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Ms Anne Swarbrick (Scarborough West): This year our government took major steps to open up the budget-making process. For the first time ever, we gave people information on how budgets are made and shared details of the economic and fiscal challenges facing Ontario.

In my riding of Scarborough West, I conducted three pre-budget consultations with community leaders representing businesses, unions, social services, community organizations and others.

Some of those participants are here in the members' gallery now and will remain as my guests today to hear the Treasurer's presentation of the budget. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Jim Russell of General Motors, who is chair of the East Metro Industrial Training Advisory Committee, Mai Cheng of the Chinese Canadian Association of Scarborough, Melinda Rooke, executive director of the Second Base Youth Shelter, and Christine Chun, coordinator of the Scarborough Housing Help Centre.

Participants encouraged our government's program reviews to cut waste, duplication and excess administration. Many spoke of the need to protect and improve needed human services. They called for better and more coordinated training programs. They called for greater use of welfare funding to help people get back to work. They expressed concern for the budget deficit, while also demanding action on the deficit of jobs and infrastructure.

My government and I hope that our constituents will feel heard by our Treasurer's budget today. I will be meeting again with my community's leaders to determine how well we will have met that test, and I thank them for their participation in making democracy work.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have two letters from constituents which outline a need which is very great in the Niagara Peninsula.

One is from Jack Leake of St Catharines. He writes:

"The Hotel Dieu Hospital, St Catharines, has operated the regional life support program for dialysis in the Niagara Peninsula since 1974. Since that time, the program has not received any funding from the Ministry of Health. As a result, the dialysis unit is in dire need of renovation and requires new equipment to ensure that safe and quality care is given to patients.

"I have written numerous letters to Premier Bob Rae and the Minister of Health, the Honourable Frances Lankin, asking that the Hotel Dieu Hospital, St Catharines, receive its fair portion of the $23-million dialysis fund. Now those moneys are gone and a new $49 million is to be spent for dialysis, bone marrow transplants, chemotherapy and heart surgery.

"What portion of this will go to Hotel Dieu Hospital, St Catharines? The hospital has prepared proposals and made presentations to no avail. The patients are getting tired of waiting for a response while conditions continue to deteriorate....

"Can you help us to get fair funding in the Niagara regional dialysis program?"

The other was a letter from Diane Reed, who is a peer volunteer, outlining the very difficult circumstances facing patients, the families of patients and those who serve the patients at Hotel Dieu Hospital. Within the allocation which has been presented to the Minister of Health, I ask that she give urgent consideration to providing those funds to Hotel Dieu Hospital.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): My colleague Bill Murdoch, the member for Grey, recently raised the issue of the London-Middlesex arbitration report and legislation which will follow. I too am very interested in this issue, especially as it relates to the farming community surrounding London.

The report states that the annexed agricultural land must be protected and cannot be built on for at least 10 years. If this farm land is important enough to protect against development, why then would this government even consider including it within the city of London? Why will the protection exist for only 10 years? A good question. Is protection of farm land not a priority of this government beyond a 10-year period?

It will seem very odd to have an agricultural community within a major city, and the situation raises many concerns. I am not sure that any major urban area, no matter how well intentioned, can protect the rights of farmers as they relate to raising livestock and producing crops within the city limits of London. How will the city handle the reduced rate for hydro paid by farmers? Will this be lost? Will city people living on farms pay more for electricity?

This is a serious issue. If the Minister of Municipal Affairs does not care, he should at least speak with the Minister of Agriculture and Food; I think he does. I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to consider the plight of the Middlesex farmers before those farmers join the city of London federation of agriculture.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): In the first speech from the throne, this government signalled its desire and intention to reform the outdated labour relations laws of this province. Revising the rules on how employers and employees relate to one another -- that's essentially what the act is about -- will make the labour relations structure more efficient and effective in this province.

The minister has indicated time and time again that he's prepared to look at any vehicle to reduce confrontation. Unfortunately some but not all in the business community have accepted that this government is going to move into the 1990s in terms of labour legislation in this province.

There is no doubt at all that we all must adjust to a new competitive reality. For business that means a strategy that ensures profitability and for workers it's a strategy which provides job security and enrichment of the quality of their lives, their families and their communities.

The workers of this province clearly have demonstrated that they do want to enter into a meaningful partnership with the business community. I believe that when the new Labour Relations Act is introduced, it will indeed be

an act of confidence: confidence in the workers of this province, confidence in our quality of life and confidence that together business and labour will be able to compete provincially, federally and globally.

GOVERNMENT'S RECORD

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): It's one thing for a bunch of oppositionists to decry the antics of our NDP friends from Clampettville; it's another thing, I suppose, for the Ottawa Citizen to editorialize as it did this week that Bob Rae has become the Jerry Brown of Ontario politics, gyrating madly around in a kind of policy vacuum. It's another thing, I notice, to see Allan Fotheringham write about how our Premier has become Premier Prude.

All of these things, I think, might be considered as part of the regular fare, but what are we to make of it when major pillars in the NDP of Ontario like Professor Rob Martin are writing in the provincial press such as the London Free Press of yesterday? Of course, Mr Martin is well known to all of us as a very distinguished professor at the University of Western Ontario's law school, twice a candidate for the New Democratic Party.

What is Mr Martin writing? He's writing among other things that "the NDP of the 1990s doesn't seem to have any ideas or principles." He goes on to observe that "the government of Robert K. Rae, QC, has shown us the party's moral bankruptcy." He goes on to conclude by saying: "The NDP today manages to be both pathetic and obscene, ludicrous and grotesque. It has betrayed its constituency, betrayed its history, betrayed itself."

I say in conclusion only this, that as Premier Rae prepares to wing his way to New York City, Tokyo and Hong Kong, he might want to make a detour to Australia to talk to Bob Hawke as to how one avoids being deposed as a Labour Prime Minister who loses his way.

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Market value reassessment bears no relationship to municipal services used or ability to pay. This system may be fair in areas that have stable home prices, but not in my riding of York Mills or Metropolitan Toronto. It becomes a tax on location.

The former Liberal government mandated 1988 values as the basis of assessment. These artificially high values are not realistic in today's market. The convoluted implementation plan proposed by Metro council will have the commercial sector subsidizing home owners and industry for five years. Approximately $200 million of taxes will be shifted annually from the residential and industrial class to the commercial class. More than 14,000 businesses in the city of Toronto alone would face tax increases of greater than 25%. More than 6,000 would see 100% tax increases in 1993.

These tax increases would have a particularly devastating impact on businesses just coming out of a major recession. Many firms may be forced into bankruptcy or relocation. Metro Toronto cannot afford more job losses at this time of hardship and high unemployment. Metro Toronto is already penalized by the Liberal commercial concentration tax which takes approximately $100 million from Toronto each year.

The Minister of Revenue cannot play Pontius Pilate and wash her hands of this decision. It remains her responsibility to see fairness is attained.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): As all members are aware, it is National Volunteer Week and in appreciation I would like to share a story about volunteerism. Next fall when you see geese heading south for the winter, flying along in V formation, you might consider what science has discovered about why they fly that way. As each bird flaps its wings it creates an uplift for the bird immediately following. By flying in V formation, the whole flock adds at least 71% greater flying range than if each bird flew on its own.

People who share a common direction and sense of community can get where they are going more quickly and easily because they're travelling on the thrust of one another. When a goose falls out of formation, it suddenly feels the drag and resistance of trying to go it alone and quickly gets back into formation to take advantage of the lifting power of the bird in front.

If we have as much sense as the goose, we will stay in formation with those who are headed the same way we are. When the head goose gets tired, it rotates back in the wing and another goose flies point. It is sensible to take turns doing demanding jobs with people or with geese flying south. Geese honk from behind to encourage those up front to keep up their speed. What do we say when we honk from behind?

Finally, and this is important, when a goose gets sick or is wounded by gunshots and falls out of formation, two other geese fall out with the goose and follow it down to lend help and protection. They stay with the fallen goose until it's able to fly or until it dies, and only then do they launch out on their own or with another formation to catch up with the group. If we have the sense of a goose, we will stand by each other like that.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: This is a point of privilege which is important to every member of this House because I believe our rights as members have been abrogated. We, as members, have a responsibility, indeed a duty, to assist our constituents in cutting through red tape and getting problems solved at Queen's Park. I believe that a government agency has abrogated those rights, those responsibilities and those duties. The Office of the Ombudsman has paid for an ad campaign which says, "Getting nowhere at Queen's Park? Call the Ombudsman," with a 1-800 number.

First, I believe it usurps the responsibility of an MPP, whose duty and responsibility it is to solve his constituents' problems with Queen's Park. Second, I believe it is very misleading. The Ombudsman's office is a court of final and last resort. What will happen is that our constituents will phone this 1-800 number. At that stage they'll be told, no, it is more appropriate that they phone the MPP. By the time they call our office, we have wasted enormous taxpayers' dollars and completely confused and misled our constituents. I would ask you to rule on --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member take her seat, please. I realize the member for Eglinton has an item which is of interest and concern to her. It does not, however, constitute a point of privilege, although I do appreciate the fact that she has brought it to our attention and to the attention of the House.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, can I ask for your advice and assistance in how one would deal with this type of problem, which I believe does abrogate the responsibilities of members of this House?

The Speaker: All I can say to the member in her request for information is that the Ombudsman is an officer of the House and operates at arm's length from the government of the day. The member, of course, is quite free to contact the Ombudsman in person if she wishes to and to bring her concerns to the attention of the Ombudsman. Perhaps that is of assistance. I don't know what else I can add to that in trying to assist the member.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for the Provincial Anti-Drug Strategy): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It may be furthering this request for assistance, but certainly there is a jurisdiction here in the Legislative Assembly of all the members of all the parties, and I think the point the member raises is a point of concern to all of us. Perhaps if you could look into the matter you might be able to give us all better advice on how we could address this problem.

The Speaker: I should add one other point of information which would be perhaps of assistance. Since the Ombudsman is an officer of the House, one avenue to explore is that the matter can be brought to the Board of Internal Economy. Of course, all three parties are represented on that board. It is a matter which can be dealt with there. There is also a committee of the Legislature for the Ombudsman, which again is an all-party committee, and the matter can be dealt with in that avenue as well.

JAYNE SUTHERLAND

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Perhaps you'll find it to be more of a point of information than a point of order, but I would be very remiss if I didn't rise in the House today and indicate to you and other members present and their staffs that today happens to be the last day, serving in her current capacity, of Jayne Sutherland, my executive assistant. I can tell you that anybody who can tolerate me for over eight years certainly has to be an individual of outstanding character.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for his point of information. There is in fact nothing out of order, and you would not want the Speaker to comment on anyone's tolerance of other members.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I'd certainly like to join with Ernie in saying that this is a wise career move on Jayne's part, but I do want to say that when I was an opposition House leader and since I've been over on this side as well, the working relationship that's existed between the three offices, but particularly with Jayne and with the Conservative office because of Jayne and only because of Jayne, has been a very good working relationship. She's very professional and very helpful and respects the parliamentary procedure.

We all wish Jayne well in her next career, although I think she's going to work for the federal Tories, so I think we should all have a little sympathy as well.

The Speaker: House leader for the official opposition.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): If I may, just a few brief words. I got to work twice with Ms Sutherland. Instead of just on one occasion for eight years, mine were for many shorter months. I would only ask that when she leaves she leave her copy of the Jayne Sutherland annotated standing orders with me so we too can make use of her really deep-seated understanding of the way this place works. I know she was receiving instruction and debate, no doubt, with her own employer, but it has been a pleasure to see someone here who knows how to do her job and to work very well at it.

I must say that I hope she's on secondment. I wouldn't want to see her go without employ after Mr Chrétien and others in the federal Liberal Party have an opportunity to deal with Mr Andre, who is about to become her employer, and others in the next federal election. But from someone who likes to deal with rules and procedure and administration, I can tell you that I was very much taken by the depth of her knowledge, her understanding, and sometimes, although we're not partisan in those meetings, she does know how to take the advantage and she is very skilled.

Mr Harvie Andre's gain is obviously going to be Ernie's loss. Maybe that's something that will give us some gain as well, although I know her replacement, Ms Hutton, will probably do a very good job indeed.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday, Mr Minister, you talked about reform of the educational system, based on reshaping and restructuring. Other words for those are downgrading and downsizing.

My community of Ottawa-Carleton and many communities right across this province are finding your statements about educational reform based on cooperation and partnerships contradictory, counterproductive and confusing. Your government says you recognize the difficulties of 1% transfer payments to education. "We really do understand." You say this; your Premier says this. The words ring very hollow.

You said in this House yourself, Mr Minister, on April 13, "Teachers' federations and school boards...need to be looking at the question of salary packages and what has been happening versus what we believe needs to happen." Mr Minister, what do you really mean when you say that teachers and boards need to be looking at salary packages? What do you really believe needs to happen?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): What I really believe needs to happen is that in the same way school boards are being asked by us to look at the administrative costs of their budgets, which we all know are in the neighbourhood of 25% to 30% of their budgets, we also need to be encouraging school boards, teachers' federations and support staff employee groups to be looking at ways of managing the salary costs of school board budgets, because we know that's the largest portion. What that means in terms of how that translates into different ways of looking at that is really something that needs to be worked out at the local level.

The end result that we believe is useful is one that looks at wage increases that are more in line with the kind of inflationary increases we've seen, along with a number of issues that we know teachers and other employers continue to raise, whether it's in terms of increased job security provisions or other kinds of things that are of benefit to teachers and other employees and obviously are of benefit to our students. The more we can protect jobs on the teaching side in education, the more it allows us to protect the kinds of programs that we all want to see maintained in our schools.

Mrs O'Neill: