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

October 9, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L244a - Thu 9 Oct 1997 / Jeu 9 Oct 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VEHICLE SAFETY

PROVINCIAL DEBT

VEHICLE SAFETY

PROVINCIAL DEBT

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COUNTY PARK

TVONTARIO

TEEN RANCH

LAYOFFS

BIRCHWOOD TERRACE NURSING HOME

LEUKAEMIA AWARENESS MONTH

EDUCATION REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ROSAMOND AUSTIN

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON .FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

SPEAKER'S RULING

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

HEALTH CARE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

EDUCATION REFORM

PUBLIC HEALTH

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

GASOLINE PRICES

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

EDUCATION REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

CROP INSURANCE

PETITIONS

TVONTARIO

LABOUR LEGISLATION

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION REFORM

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION REFORM

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ROCK MUSIC GROUP

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

COURT DECISION

GASOLINE PRICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WORKERS' COMPENSATION REFORM ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA

LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VEHICLE SAFETY

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should request the Ministry of Transportation to amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act, to include mandatory safety checks on used leased vehicles.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Martiniuk: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to bring an important issue to the House today. This resolution, dubbed "the lemon leasing resolution," speaks to a very serious and potentially dangerous problem on Ontario roads. We are asking that the Ministry of Transportation amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act to include used vehicles that are leased. This is an important consumer protection issue and also an important safety issue. Ontario families deserve to be protected.

Safety checks are required on all vehicles sold in Ontario. However, a safety check is not required if a vehicle is leased. A leased vehicle does not change ownership and therefore a safety check is not required.

Many Ontarians may ask how this obvious loophole came to exist in a province that prides itself on consumer protection and public safety. The Minister of Transportation has an efficient ministry and his staff work very hard to ensure our transportation system is one of the safest in North America. But the market has developed faster than expected. Leasing has become very popular very fast.

Regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act, the current regulation covering safety checks, was developed by combining a series of regulations in the 1970s to protect consumers when buying a used vehicle. It does not recognize a used car lease. Regulation 628 has done its job in the past; however, it has not kept pace with the growing practice of leasing a used vehicle.

Industry experts say the problem has the potential to grow very rapidly. Nearly 1.3 million vehicles are transferred in Ontario each year; those are used vehicles. There may be as many as a quarter of a million potentially unsafe leased used vehicles on Ontario roads at any given time.

Maybe some people watching, and perhaps some members of the House, are not familiar with what a safety check does cover. It covers the following: body and chassis, seatbelts, mirrors, glass and windshields, speedometers, lamps and reflectors, the fuel system, the exhaust system, the brakes, the horn, the accelerator linkage, steering, suspension, wheels and safety. You can see this all-inclusive list relates directly to the safety of that vehicle on the road.

The practice of leasing has increased significantly in Ontario. Approximately 149,000 new vehicles are leased yearly. The average lease is 30 months. Many people in Ontario are choosing the leasing option. Vehicles are being re-leased for the second or third time, and this will increase more and more as more vehicles are turned in on their original lease program.

The car dealers operating in our province pride themselves on quality. Most dealers go the extra mile to ensure they sell first-class vehicles to Ontario consumers. Stakeholders in the industry want to see a change in the present regulations. The Ontario Automobile Dealer Association and the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario both express support for this resolution.

Across Canada, many jurisdictions are faced with this growing problem in their outdated safety-check regulations. Ontario can be proactive in protecting consumers and meeting this growing market trend head on.

The provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland have already addressed this problem through the registration process. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia require yearly safety checks in any event. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario have not yet addressed the problem.

I am not saying we should create a new system that is a burden on the industry or creates needless red tape or expense for consumers. The Ministry of Transportation consults with stakeholders regularly. A fair, balanced amendment to regulation 628 must be developed.

This resolution makes sense. The market has evolved faster than the law. We must address this growing problem and market trend. I hope all members of the House will support this important resolution to protect all citizens of Ontario.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm pleased to join the debate on the resolution presented by the member, Mr Martiniuk. At first glance you would think this was something that was already done, was something already existing in our laws, with respect to the leasing of cars. I have to say at the outset that even I thought that every car, new or old, resale cars, whatever, came with the necessary approvals and all kinds of checkups, to make sure that the car is roadworthy and safe to be on the road, regardless of whether it's a new car or a resale.

I'm pleased the member has introduced this resolution this morning which will immensely improve the leasing of used cars and leased cars when they hit the road.

I think it has merit for many reasons, not only from the consumer's point of view. Of course today leasing is becoming more and more popular. Normally when people have to lease a car, have need of renting or leasing a car, they usually do that practically on the spur of the moment because of a number of personal requirements, let alone if they're going on holiday. It could be because of accidents, stuff like that, so really they are not familiar with the regulations entailed when leasing a particular car. I think it's important that this is in the record, that this is done properly and that motorists are protected.

Nowadays, I don't have to tell you that cars are being used more and more by youngsters, by women, by all kinds of people for work, for pleasure. The automobile is being used more and more. The fact is there shouldn't be any difference between a used vehicle and a new vehicle. It also shouldn't be any different if there is no change in ownership, as the member just alluded to. I believe that a car, once it's put on the road, must be in excellent working condition. A safety check does mean that yes, there is enough oil, yes, there is enough brake fluid, yes, the wheels have the right pressure, stuff like that.

I think every mechanical part must be functioning and offer peace of mind to the person who is leasing the automobile.

It would be terrible if a family, let's say, let alone for work or whatever, was on a trip, especially travelling on holiday, and they got stuck perhaps on a very lonely stretch of road or highway at a particular time of the day or night and the car was failing because of mechanical problems. I don't think the public should be subject to situations like this. If the proposed resolution deals with the leasing of a so-called lemon, I think it's quite proper. I don't think anyone, either reselling a car or a leasing company, should get away with that.

I believe it's incumbent upon us, upon the government, to make sure that cars put on the road by leasing companies are done in such a way that protection is offered to the consumer and the public in general.

When it comes to the matter of ownership -- and this is a good point that the member has in his resolution -- it's not a question that because it's a leasing company and there is no change in ownership that a safety check is not required. I think this is perhaps a loophole. It's a fault of the existing legislation. I note that the Minister of Transportation has shown many, many times in the House his personal interest in making roads safer and he has taken to heart the safety of all passengers and motorists at large. I'm sure he would very willingly and expeditiously comply with such a request.

I would also like to add that perhaps situations like this do exist within the Highway Traffic Act and the minister would do very well to see that every possible regulation is revisited and makes it so that indeed every car is safe on our roads.

I believe it's not enough to say, "Listen, Ontario has one of the cleanest and safest records when it comes to transportation, cars, pollution and stuff like that." Yes, there is a big problem as well, and if I have time I want to touch on that, because there is nothing more aggravating than sitting behind a truck or a car spewing the worst kind of pollution that we can see and nothing is being done about it. This is one area I would invite the Minister of Transportation to seriously look at, the pollution not only in older cars but sometimes even new cars because of poor maintenance and stuff like that.

I think it should be incumbent upon the minister to really take a serious look at this resolution for a moment as the first thing that he has to look at. I would look at it that this would be approved in the House today and move it on. Indeed, it's not that we are moving away from summer, which is a period that leasing cars becomes more perhaps the thing than any other particular period during the year, but I think it is an aspect of the regulation that is important throughout the year, especially during the winter months.

If it's in the summertime, perhaps you may want to walk a mile or so to reach some help, a telephone or a gas station, but in wintertime it may be very dicey if you were stuck because of a mechanical problem that someone would encounter in a leased car. It would be very irresponsible if we were not to take these particular precautions.

It is indeed a good idea and I don't think this would find any opposition from any segment of the population with respect to this maybe sounding like an additional expense on anyone, any company that may be in the leasing business. I think this should be well accepted as a measure of providing good service to the public, of providing protection to the public. I don't think this should come as a surprise, if you will, or as a burden of additional expenses to a leasing company. I'm sure they are all serious in running a good business and everyone would take into consideration the delivering of safety to their cars.

As I was saying before, I'm surprised that this does not affect the car itself, that with respect to the ownership, if you are a leasing company, because the car does not change ownership, that car is not subject to safety checks on a regular basis. This is a major fault of our laws as they exist. As a matter of fact, this should be more so than any other vehicle because of the frequent change in driver, if you will, the change in operator of that particular vehicle.

Why is that? Because when you have a number of different operators, the car tends to be driven in different ways. That car will be driven in different places, in different road conditions. The car will be utilized for different uses and managed differently by each driver.

I don't have tell you that we have very conscious drivers, we have very attentive drivers and we have some reckless drivers as well, and sometimes when they drive on bumps, curbs, they don't try to take care of the car because it is a leased car, so I think it is incumbent upon on us and upon the companies to make sure that every car that is exposed to a road and given to anyone, young women or any other persons, to be driven especially with children in them, is safe, that those cars are worthy to be on the road.

I think the member has given an amount of some 120,000 or something like that leased a year, which is a large number of cars being leased on a yearly basis. As he said, the trend is increasing. I think it is something we have to look at. It's something that should have been addressed a long time ago. I would say that most of the populace is not aware of this very large loophole within the regulation, the Highway Traffic Act, and I am sure the minister would be very happy to take this into consideration and make sure every leasing company and even car dealers, because car dealers are in the leasing business as well -- some garages, for example, may have a leasing licence as well.

The fact that we require anyone leasing used cars, as I said before, it shouldn't make any difference if it's new or a used car -- a lot of those places already have at their disposal every facility to make sure a car that is put on the road is safe. What better safety check can be given than passing on to the person leasing the car, the lessee, a copy of a certificate to show that the car has a safety certificate, that it has been certified as worthy of being on the road?

I think the public must be educated to that as well. I would say the general public is not aware that this is not part of our present legislation, part of our present regulations. The public would be well served. I think the leasing companies, be they garages, banks, or just leasing companies, should provide a copy of the safety certificate when they lease a particular car. The public would come to know that; the public would come to appreciate that.

For my part, I am pleased to support the member as he has introduced this legislation. I hope it will receive the necessary approval so we can get on with the business at hand and provide safe cars for the general public.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Let me say at the outset that I am generally in favour of what the member is trying to do here. I think there are some problems in the application, but that's something that could be looked at if this bill passes second reading today and goes to committee. Generally, I am in favour of the direction of the bill.

What really amazes here is the role the Tory members play in this House when it comes to private members' hour. I recognize private members' hour is here for us as members to come in and present bills, but there seems to be a difference in the approach of the government, the Tories, when they are together as a caucus from when Tories are alone, operating individually in the House, such as in private members' hour. We know that the government, the Tory caucus, prides itself greatly in reducing regulation and getting rid of all kinds of impediments, as they see it, to business.

They believe smaller government is better, having fewer laws is better, having no regulation is best, "Let the marketplace do its own thing; the private sector knows how to do it best; let the marketplace dictate; government has got no role there; keep them out of the face of business."

But every Thursday morning we see Tory members coming to this Assembly with yet more regulation, so I've got to ask myself, are Tories saying one thing when they're in caucus and saying quite another thing when they operate individually as members? I'm not going to be that cynical, but the point I want to make is simply that when government members operate on their own, individually, they start to recognize that government has a role and government can play a positive role in our lives and government at times, yes, must write laws and at times must even regulate if there are situations where the public is at risk.

It's heartening to see that some of the individual government backbenchers, the majority of them, come into this House at private members' hour and pass private members' resolutions, but I wish they would go back to their caucus meetings on Tuesday mornings and say: "Mike, we believe government has a role.

We're here as legislators and we want to make sure we are here primarily to do our business, which is serving on behalf of the people of Ontario, and in cases where there are injustices or in cases where there are problems, yes, the government has a role to pass laws." Imagine a society with no laws and no regulations. You'd be able to run down the highway at any speed. You'd be able to purchase equipment without any kind of safety regulations or concerns. I just make that point.

I wonder if members of the House are familiar with a program called Star Trek, Deep Space 9. They have this spatial phenomenon inside it. It's called a warm hole. A warm hole is a phenomenon which, when you put an object in it, comes out at the other end quite far away from where it's at. I would suggest that in private members' hour there is something called a warm hole when it comes to the individual Tory members, because they are certainly far away from the positions they take when they are together as a caucus, as they demonstrate here in the mornings.

I would just say to the member across the way, I think your resolution, or your private member's bill, actually, makes some sense. I can tell you that under the Bob Rae government, Mr Pouliot, the member for Nipigon and at the time the Minister of Transportation, had done similar things when it came to used vehicles.

We recognized at the time that there was a real problem in the marketplace when it came to what they called curbsiders selling vehicles off curbsides that, not all of the time but in a lot of cases, were selling unfit vehicles, and unsuspecting buyers trying to get a good deal -- which is what were are all trying to do in this life when we go out and buy something, get the best possible price -- were getting it in the ear -- maybe a good price, but certainly in a lot of cases they were not getting a good product.

I take it what the government member is trying to do at this point is to expand on the work Mr Pouliot had done and say, "We need to take a look at leasing arrangements." In those cases, as he rightfully pointed out, there are some cases where you may have people operating in a shadier way than they need to be and are leasing vehicles to people that have a lot more mechanical problems than the buyers or lessees are willing to pay for.

The other thing is, I hope the Tory member had a chance to talk to some of his Tory colleagues in his caucus. I remember when we moved forward on the curbsider legislation there were grave concerns on the part of a number of Tory caucus members in the then third party; and individually it was the Speaker himself, Mr Chris Stockwell from Etobicoke, who came into this House and was really upset with what the government was doing. You know that in his former life, before he ever became our Speaker, he leased and sold vehicles here in the city of Toronto; I think his business was actually in Etobicoke.

Mr Al Palladini, the Minister of Transportation, is in the automobile business, and a whole bunch of other people in the Tory caucus. I hope the member across the way had a chat with them. I'll be really interested to see how many of those Tory caucus members who own vehicle leasing companies and car lots are going to be here voting in favour of this private member's legislation. I would hope he has talked to them and I hope they concur. I'm very much looking forward to seeing them in this House so they can pronounce their position on what is I think a very progressive private member's bill.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak briefly in support of this resolution by the member for Cambridge. It is in my view an appropriate type of private member's resolution since it seeks to fill an gap we have in our legislative and regulatory framework with respect to safety checks on motor vehicles in the province.

I think almost everyone in the province would agree, and I'm sure my friends opposite would agree, that it's important from a consumer safety point of view, from the point of view of all users of the road, all of us and our children, that vehicles be safety checked. We have this gap that exists in the legislative and regulatory framework where leased vehicles that do not require change of ownership, as leased vehicles do not, are not required, as used vehicles, to have a safety check. This resolution proposed by the member for Cambridge addresses that gap in that structure, which is appropriate, and I think most people who have reviewed this issue would also come to that same conclusion.

The resolution provides for mandatory safety checks on used leased vehicles. I know from my discussion with automobile dealers in my own community of Whitby that there's an increasing number of vehicles that are sold as leased vehicles. It seems to be a popular option that people are pursuing increasingly. The resolution's all the more relevant because it is a situation that's increasing around the province.

I also had an opportunity to discuss the resolution with an important good corporate citizen in Durham region, which is General Motors of course. They told me that this is the type of regulation they would support. They told me further that they already have this in practice at GM Leasing, although it's not a legal requirement now. As good corporate citizens, they're already practising this safety check procedure.

I congratulate the member for Cambridge for bringing it forward. All of us want to make sure we're safe on our highways in the province, having our own vehicles checked and having other vehicles checked as well, so that we can be sure as we drive along the highways that the vehicles coming toward us are in good condition and have been checked, whether they've been purchased outright or leased. I congratulate the member and I support the resolution.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I am pleased to rise in my place and engage in this debate. I would invite the member for Durham East to come over and join me as I engage in this debate. I need all the help I can get. I must say that I rise to support this intrusion in the marketplace by the Tory backbencher. I can tell you I'm getting phone calls from all across Ontario as Tory backbenchers come in here and keep urging their government for yet more intrusion in the marketplace.

We had the member for Quinte in not too long ago on gasoline prices, saying the marketplace was not appropriately handling the problem. That's what the member for Quinte said.

Now we get the member for Cambridge saying that the marketplace is not doing a good job on safety checks for leased vehicles.

I happen to agree with him, but I'm not a Reform-a-Tory. I have every right to think there should be more regulation when it comes to health and safety; in particular, for safety checks for leased cars. It is strange to see these Tories coming in here week after week after week with regulation after regulation after regulation. You're going to sink in a sea of regulations by the time you're through. I thought this was the government that was trying to deregulate. Is there no end to it?

I know the member for Durham East wouldn't do something like this. He wouldn't come in here and urge yet more regulations on the long-suffering taxpayers of this province, because these regulations do cost money. But then I stop and I think, now wait a minute, the backbenchers are coming in and saying -- I'll be very specific; I don't want to misquote the member for Cambridge -- "That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should request the Ministry of Transportation to amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act."

For those people in our vast viewing public who might not be aware of the difference between regulation and laws, laws of course can be changed only through this Legislature where we have a packed legislative agenda; regulations, however, simply go to a committee of government, not of the Legislature. They don't require the blessing of the Legislature as a whole. If the backroom folks in the Tory party get together in the caucus -- I'm sure they have a regulations committee of their caucus and of their cabinet -- and they bring forth regulatory changes and they pass them through cabinet, they're given approval and that's it, end of debate.

I say to myself, why would the member for Cambridge feel he has to bring it here to the Legislative Assembly as a whole to get a regulatory change? I don't mind that he does it, but it is shamelessly exploiting the Tory party's vulnerability. Why anybody would exploit their own vulnerability, I don't know. But that's what he's doing when he says: "We want more regulations. This government is in favour of more regulations."

I think it's time you started getting a little more consistency in your message because I'm worried that the public out there is going to be confused as to who's governing: New Democrats or Tories in the province of Ontario? Do you think there's any chance?

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I don't think there's any chance; I don't think so. That's a big stretch.

Mr Laughren: You don't think there's any chance of confusion? I don't know. If day after day after day they come in here with all these regulatory changes, people are going to say, "This can't be a Tory government." I'm worried about your Reform supporters out there all across the province. You have a lot of Reform; you've elected Reform people to your caucus. What are they saying to you at your caucus meetings, more regulations? I doubt it somehow that your Reform members are encouraging you to bring forward these requests for more regulations. Somehow I just don't believe it.

But having said all that, I don't think this request for a regulatory change should take a full hour. I support it fully because, as the member for Cambridge says, there's a dramatically increased number of vehicles being leased out there in the province. It really is a phenomenon that's taken hold. It makes eminent good sense to me that there should be safety checks required on leased vehicles just as there are for vehicles that are sold. I have no hesitation in supporting the member for Cambridge and urging him and his colleagues to selectively bring forward requests for yet more regulations in Ontario.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise today to contribute to the discussion in support of the member for Cambridge's resolution. The resolution we're discussing this morning I believe has unanimous consent of the House and everyone is going to support this because it's about safety.

The resolution is that it be resolved, "That in the opinion of the House, the government of Ontario should request the Ministry of Transportation to amend regulation 628 of the Highway Traffic Act, to include mandatory safety check on used leased vehicles." The difference here being: used leased vehicles.

Members of the House should know that in the research Mr Martiniuk has done, he's found that many other provinces have addressed this problem, with the exception of BC, Alberta and Quebec. Ontario is examining the options and choices that have been made in other jurisdictions within Canada.

Also the whole issue here is protecting the consumer. The current regulations were developed after many years of consultation to address the transfer of ownership process for -- at that time, in the 1970s -- what were prior-owned vehicles, used vehicles. But today the situation is changing.

In Ontario, 35% of all new sales are leased vehicles. Of the approximately 450,000 vehicles sold per year, 35% of those are leased and, of that, there's a good portion, perhaps 150,000, that are actually leased used vehicles. When the plate transfer takes place, there's no requirement in the regulations now to have a safety check. All other transactions do require a safety check. What the member's trying to do is address a long-standing deficiency in the transfer process.

In my own consultations on whether or not I should be supporting this resolution, I spoke to the dealers in my area. Of course, in Durham East, the member for Oshawa, Mr Ouellette, and myself, represent a lot of people who work in the auto industry. There's no question of that; that's our job.

I spoke to Tom Cowan from one dealership and Bill Nurse from another dealership and they were generally supportive. They would like to see a little more clarity on when the specifications within the regulations would require that there be a safety check.

I talked to Doug Bramley, the manager of used vehicles at Roy Nichols, and he told me, for example, that a vehicle with under 30,000 kilometres quite often is in just fine shape. He said, "Perhaps we could set a limit, that 15,000 kilometres would not require a mandatory safety check, but over that, it would." He said, "Eventually the customer has to pay for the safety check."

I think, to be reasonable and prudent in this decision, we want to deal with safety and we want to deal with customer satisfaction. The member's resolution goes a long way towards providing the consumer with the protection that's needed in a purchasing consumer environment that is changing.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will be supporting the resolution.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'm certainly glad to join in today's resolution in private members' hour and to deal with the resolution by the member for Cambridge. I think the member for Cambridge has acted in a very responsible and responsive way in how he approached this whole issue of leasing or dealing with vehicles in fleets and in car rental companies. I know the member for Cambridge is very, very concerned about the potential of unsafe vehicles on Ontario's highway system that have not been properly checked. I think he has gone to great detail and effort to present a resolution that deals with a very vital issue of consumer protection for the motoring public in Ontario.

I would like to commend the member for the hard work that he has put into this because it clearly demonstrates, for one member and the government as a whole, as a reality, that here is a specific member who looked at a situation, listened, consulted, and acted promptly.

I am very glad to announce that the Ministry of Transportation for the province of Ontario will, on or about December 31, 1997, the end of this year, proceed with changes to regulation 628, vehicle permits, that are made under the Highway Traffic Act so that all leased vehicles with more than 20,000 kilometres or more than 15 months of age will be required to undergo a safety check. The amendment will apply to the original lessee and to all subsequent lessees. Approval and implementation, as I said, will proceed on or about the end of this year.

Ontario will join with the other provinces, some of which still haven't undertaken this initiative, to ensure that we have a motoring situation, safe roads, with vehicles that were previously not checked because of the growing leasing industry in this province and throughout Canada, and also because regulation 628, as it's written, did not catch up to what is happening in the marketplace.

I think this particular initiative by the member for Cambridge, in combination with what will be happening at the end of this year by the Ministry of Transportation for Ontario, will fit nicely into ensuring that we have a more effective, safe motoring public and highway system in Ontario. I'm glad to join with all those members in supporting this particular resolution. I commend the member for Cambridge for the initiative that he has taken in this area.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I am proud to stand this morning in support of this resolution that would recommend the amending of regulation 628 to require mandatory safety checks on used leased vehicles. My distinguished colleague from Cambridge has brought forward a resolution that I think makes a great deal of sense. The number of leased used vehicles is growing in Ontario and could represent a tremendous safety problem to our motoring public. In fact, there could be as many as a quarter of a million unsafe vehicles on the road at any given time.

There is really no reason why this regulation cannot be changed, seeing that there is support from the Ontario Automobile Dealer Association and the Used Car Dealers Association of Ontario. The rules vary widely across this country in respect to safety inspections, which should indicate that we should have some national standards.

The honourable member for Cambridge has a long history of finding solutions to problems such as this. He has put forward a resolution that is for the sole protection of motorists and pedestrians throughout all of Ontario. I urge all members present to support this resolution to make our roads and highways an even safer place to drive.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I simply want to briefly indicate my support for this resolution. There are times in this House when we have a consensus that builds on a particular subject, and this consensus is quite obvious on this particular resolution which is going to, I believe, enhance safety in our province, particularly on our highways. I'm very supportive of this resolution, as I'm sure will be my colleagues.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I'd like to respond to some of the comments that were made earlier by the member for Nickel Belt, criticizing some of our backbenchers about bringing in regulations and standing for getting rid of regulations.

I can assure him that we do stand for getting rid of useless and stupid regulations that are in place, some of those regulations that may have been a good idea in their time but that over the years have become outdated. Certainly those are the kind of regulations that this government wants to get rid of. I can also assure him that any in the Reform Party have very similar ideas about regulations that we have in place.

This one sounds like it would be a very good regulation. Leasing of cars is something that wasn't going on a few decades ago and has been occurring frequently in the last few years.

I would like to bring to the attention of the member across some of the ones that we are dealing with in environment as a good example of regulations that we are trying to get rid of. I give him an example like the regulation that their government worked with on pesticide containers. Pesticide containers under regulation are supposed to be buried; their government said they should be recycled. This is just an example of some of the regulations that are outdated and we're trying to change.

The objective of the regulations he was bringing forward had to do with ones that are obsolete and outdated and are a barrier to business, a barrier to industry, but this kind of regulation certainly isn't a barrier to industry. It's a regulation that's going to make driving on the highways safer, whether it's a car that you're leasing or whether it's one you're meeting on the highway that may have brakes that may fail or whatever problem might exist with that particular vehicle.

It's important for the member for Nickel Belt to be clear and to understand where this government is coming from, the regulations that we want to get rid of: those that are outdated, those that are obsolete, those that are useless, those that are cumbersome to business and to industry and to job creation in this province. It is indeed very important that we get rid of those regulations. I think basically, deep down inside, he agrees with those changes to the regulations.

Anyway, I can certainly support the member's private member's bill that is being brought forward this morning.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? If not, Mr Martiniuk.

Mr Martiniuk: I would like to thank all the members who have spoken in support of this bill. There is a problem with this regulation, and it's a problem that we can fix by passing this resolution. There are individuals who will be protected, both as consumers and as users of our roads, upon the amendment of this regulation.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first ballot item has expired.

PROVINCIAL DEBT

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I move that in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, with five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the year 2025.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Arnott: "We in Wellington understand the economic value of hard work and the social value of personal responsibility. From this understanding stems a serious concern when our government refuses to live within its means, when our government grows until it begins to inhibit overall economic growth, when even excessive taxation does not prevent the expansion of our government debt."

Those words ring as clear and as true today as when I first delivered them in my maiden speech in this chamber seven years ago. My intention then was to speak in support of a better future for our young people, the need to tackle our deficit and debt problems so that our children are not forced to pay for our years of overspending.

That is why I am proposing today that once the budget is balanced, the provincial government commit itself to a debt-retirement plan. This resolution again reads:

"That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, with five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the year 2025."

Let's examine the province's finances for a moment. The deficit or shortfall when this government took office in 1995 was $11.3 billion. Through disciplined and decisive action, the government estimates that the provincial budget will be balanced by the year 2000-01. Once the budget is balanced, even though the government has made substantial and impressive progress in reducing the deficit, the accumulated debt will have risen to almost $120 billion, according to the government's own projections.

The province is currently spending $9 billion a year just to pay the interest costs on our outstanding debt, and $9 billion is more than we spend on our schools in a year.

We didn't get into this debt problem overnight and we won't solve it overnight. All three parties during their terms in government over the years have contributed to this problem, although some more significantly than others. Ontario has run a deficit every year since 1970, with one exception. There was actually a modest surplus in the year 1989-90. However, between 1985 and 1995 the growth in our debt skyrocketed, tripling in a period of 10 years.

I know that some people over the years have advocated in favour of deficit financing year after year, believing that this was the direction to go in order to provide the new services they believed the public were demanding. "Don't worry," they said, "it's only a debt we owe ourselves." However, this kind of thinking ignored the serious long-term consequences to our economy and the debt. Increasingly, as our deficits and debt grew, the province was forced to borrow from overseas lenders. These actions helped to drive up interest rates and had a negative impact on our economy.

Jobs were disappearing and consumers were paying higher interest costs on their mortgages and on their personal borrowing.

My generation grew up in an era when deficits were not questioned. They were the norm and there were few people who questioned the conventional wisdom that contributed to government overspending and borrowing. Now people my age are having their own children. My wife and I have two little boys. As parents, we want the best for them, and like other parents, we worry about their future. We want to leave our children with a province that is as vital as it is today. Ideally, we as parents hope for better conditions for our children, better than we have enjoyed, more opportunities for jobs and personal fulfilment.

Protecting the integrity of our natural environment so that future generations have clean water, clean air and a safe environment requires commitment, political will and action. This same logic should be applied to our finances. I believe that the adoption of a formalized plan by the government to pay down the debt would create an expectation by the public and pressure on all future governments to manage the province's finances responsibly. To bestow upon today's children, when they become adults, an unsustainable debt and a serious decline in their standard of living is unacceptable and unconscionable. It is generational selfishness.

One of my constituents is in the public gallery today. His name is Michael McLellan. Michael, stand up. Michael is 13 years old. In the year 2025 Michael will be around 40 years old and he'll probably be entering into his best earning years. If the political will exists to do everything within reason to retire the debt by the year 2025, I believe Michael's taxes will be affordable and his generation will benefit from economic opportunities that are superior to today's conditions. That is my hope and my vision for Michael and others of his generation, including my own two sons.

This proposal on debt retirement is nothing novel and nothing new. The Alberta Legislature passed the Balanced Budget and Debt Retirement Act in 1995, which included a 25-year

schedule for debt retirement. Manitoba also passed debt-retirement legislation last year. Recently media reports have suggested that Alberta is well ahead of

schedule and is on track to having its debt eliminated by the year 2000. Imagine, debt-free in the new millennium.

The political will that exists in Alberta and Manitoba is not unique. I know there is broad public support in Ontario today for taking the bull by the horns and tackling our financial problems. A full two thirds, or 66%, of the people in Wellington who voted in the 1995 provincial election voted Conservative. I sincerely believe that the strength of that mandate was due to people's concerns about the state --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It was just the local candidate.

Mr Arnott: No, not at all -- of the province's finances. They wanted and still want a government that controls runaway spending and borrowing. When I went knocking on people's doors during the campaign, time and time again I was met with expressions of shock and disbelief when I talked about the size of our debt and the fact that it had tripled over a matter of 10 years.

Children understand and support action on the debt as well. When I can find the time, I often visit schools in Wellington to speak to students about public affairs and answer their questions. When I explain the provincial debt situation to students, their reaction is palpable. Their eyes widen and their jaws drop. They can't believe their parents' generation would hide their heads in the sand and allow the debt to grow as it has.

The great CCF, and later NDP, leader Tommy Douglas was a statesman in Canadian history who cared passionately for people. He was the father of medicare and he fought to establish social programs that we enjoy today. Yet he objected to the state incurring public debt. He felt it was a mistake when government racked up excessive debt and ended up paying high interest costs to bankers with the people's money. Tommy Douglas was right.

I want to point out several organizations that have expressed to me their support for a debt-retirement plan in Ontario. Brian Kelcey of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation writes:

"Mr Arnott deserves credit partly because his private member's resolution isn't revolutionary. Rather, it advances a tested concept. His anti-debt resolution is useful at a time when many pro-spending lobbyists are talking as though deficits were Canada's only fiscal problem."

Judith Andrew of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business writes:

"You will recall my writing to you in July 1997 to convey results of CFIB's Ontario Mandate Ballot #185. The results showed that 84% of our Ontario members favour the federal government continuing spending restraint to pay down the accumulated debt, once its annual budget deficit is eliminated. We would anticipate our members holding to the same principle in connection with the provincial fiscal situation. CFIB reiterates our pre-budget recommendation that the Ontario government follow the example of other jurisdictions and set out a tough but attainable plan for paying off the net debt."

Colin Brown of Ontarians for Responsible Government writes:

"I'd like to wholeheartedly endorse your private member's resolution which proposes that the provincial government adopt a debt-retirement plan. Taxpayers need some assurance that the monstrous provincial debt problem will be addressed in a serious and timely way."

Peter Woolford of the Retail Council of Canada writes:

"The retail council strongly shares your concern about the size of the current Ontario debt. While the government has made significant progress in reducing the size of the current deficit, it simply is not sufficient to get the books to balance on an annual basis."

I'd like to conclude my introductory remarks this morning by saying that flexibility must be employed in the five-year targets I've suggested. In years of economic downturn it may not be possible to target resources towards the debt. However, in good times, in good years, in years of strong growth, we should be making progress towards reducing our debt. Common sense should prevail, of course, as the government undertakes the serious task of restoring sanity to our provincial finances.

I look forward to the participation of other members in this House on this important issue and ask for their support.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate the member for Wellington bringing this issue before the Legislature. It is one which people in various jurisdictions are endeavouring to wrestle with at this time: That is, with the economy rebounding across the country and with the American economy very strong -- the debate is the same there -- how do we deal with the revenues that we should anticipate would increase with this rebounding economy?

The member has pointed out that he wishes to see a good deal of the dividend, if you can call it that, going to the retirement of the debt. Certainly, when we look at the accumulated debt we have at the present time in Ontario, everyone would like to see that debt reduced. There may be some question as to how quickly it can be reduced and eliminated, but the overall goal in the best of all worlds would be to eliminate that debt.

We have to be careful that we have the flexibility the member talked about, because if you're very rigid it means that during times of deep recession you're going to see a drastic loss in revenue and some increases in expenditures. A good example, the most recent example, was the recession we experienced during the years of the NDP government. They were unfortunate or unlucky enough to come into office and experience a recession after we had had an economic boom in the province for about five or six years.

It meant that the expenditures were going to increase; it meant that the revenues were going to drop off drastically. The government, in those circumstances, is faced with difficult decisions. Whether you simply abandon those who are most vulnerable during that period of recession to deal entirely with the deficit, or whether you try to balance it, you try to provide a safety net while at the same time not allowing the deficit to go too high.

The last balanced budget we had in Ontario was the 1989 budget of Robert Nixon. You'll remember that in 1990 there was another projected surplus that would be brought about as well. The economy changed throughout the country. Every province changed its projections; the federal government and the private sector all changed their projections. As a result the Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, who was in the House that afternoon, was faced with a very difficult challenge. With revenues dropping drastically, with the economy beginning to falter considerably, he had a very difficult decision to make.

I'm sure he got all kinds of advice on what he should and shouldn't do, and was faced with the challenge throughout the early 1990s of dealing with a deep recession.

The best thing to overcome a deficit and the best thing to have to reduce debt is a strong economy. All of us in this House, regardless of what political party we're involved with, want to see a strong economy, first of all nationally, and second, and more important to us on a personal basis, in the province of Ontario. If we can build a strong economy, then the revenues are going to come in and some of the expenditures that are needed in very difficult times are not needed to the same degree. We'll all work towards that strong economy.

The Alberta example is used. I don't think it's as applicable to Ontario as we would like to think. Alberta has oil in the ground. I suggest to members of this House, if we had oil revenues of the kind they had there, where they have a heritage fund -- that meant they didn't have to borrow as much, if at all, on the regular market. They have the heritage fund to cushion them. Those oil revenues are very good for the province of Alberta. We have some oil revenues here. I think in Petrolia we have a very small amount of oil, but it sure helps to have the oil revenues Alberta had. It's not always a good analogy to use Alberta as the comparison, though there are some things which are the same.

One of the policy pronouncements the member for Wellington, Ted Arnott -- not too loudly -- expressed in the early days was his apprehension about an income tax cut before the budget was balanced. He and a few other members of the caucus expressed that view. The reason there was apprehension about it was that first of all it meant the government had to borrow money. It was losing revenues. As soon as the government cuts its taxes, it loses revenues. They would have to borrow that money to finance a tax cut. That meant, of course, that the provincial debt would continue to rise unnecessarily.

If the government said, "Once the budget is balanced we're going to have this tax cut," then I think more of the small-c conservative observers would have felt less angst about this. I remember the member himself was expressing -- he can't do it too loudly, but certainly within certain circles -- his concern about cutting taxes before the deficit is eliminated. Once it's eliminated, of course, those choices become more available.

Gambling preys upon the most vulnerable people in our society: those who are addicted to gambling and those who are desperate. They are people who, for instance, don't have the connections in the upper echelons of society to get the good jobs, to get ahead, to get the advantages that might be out there. They often are people who have been unable to afford considerable post-secondary education or may have had to leave school earlier in secondary school because of economic circumstances at home. People who are in desperate straits financially tend to be the kinds of people who will take more of a chance to win that jackpot to bring themselves up to others in society in an economic sense.

We see those revenues coming in, and I know governments of all stripes welcome those kinds of revenues. I would suggest that they're not particularly -- I call it blood money. I don't think they're the same as the kinds of revenues that are levied through taxes, where everybody can see where they are and they take into account a person's ability to pay.

Right now we're fortunate that the economy is picking up. I know that many of the ministers of this government blame the federal government for everything. I suppose they're going to blame the federal government now for the booming economy across this country. I didn't hear much talk of a booming economy during the federal election campaign, but immediately after it was finished, suddenly the economy is booming. It makes me a little bit suspicious that there were some who did not want to put that information out at that time.

Be that as it may, as the lawyers say -- I'm not a lawyer -- it is a circumstance we face and we are pleased to see that happening, though there are many people in our society who are adversely impacted by the present circumstances we face.

I say to the member that I think there should be a dedication of a certain amount of money available to the reduction of the debt in the province. That should be one of the components of an economy which returns to a robust economy, as we all hope we will see a completely robust economy. That should be the dividend that is paid. There are many ways of doing it. We can invest in people and programs, for one thing; we can give some tax cuts, if that's what the government wants to do, on a selective basis to directly help those who are most in need; or third, we can pay down the debt. Probably a combination of the three is what most people in this province would like to see.

I want to ensure that my colleague from Yorkview has an opportunity to express his views on this important issue. Therefore, I will now terminate my remarks and say that I'm pleased we're having this discussion in the House today.

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): I rise with some trepidation, realizing that when it comes to debt and deficit, I could be regarded as somewhat of a lightning-rod, so I'll be circumspect in my remarks.

I first of all welcome the Arnott family to the Legislature this morning -- Ted's wife, mother and two young boys -- and commend the member for Wellington for bringing this resolution to the House this morning. I must say, though, that when Mr Arnott introduced Michael, who looked to be about 12 years old -- I'm not sure -- he failed to remark that if you are obsessed with deficit and debt reduction, it's the Michaels of this world who will be most hurt as you ratchet down your commitment to the education system. That's what we see happening in this government now.

While I have no problem with setting goals and I like the flexibility in the resolution from the member for Wellington, if you do it, if you get obsessed by that and you achieve that goal by reducing the quality of education or the quality of health care -- and that's the perception in this province today, that this government is obsessed with its tax cut and must reduce the quality of health care and reduce the quality of education in order to achieve that tax cut and at the same time balance their budget by the year 2000-01. I believe that's the year they intend to balance their budget.

I'm always a little edgy or sceptical about people who think there's something simple about this whole process of ratcheting down the deficit and the debt.

I must say I very much appreciated the remarks from the member for St Catharines, who I thought took a very fairminded approach in his realization that sometimes things don't work out the way you want them to, that you can get into a severe recession and then you have some really difficult choices, because at the end of the day the people at the top of the heap will always be able to get themselves through a recession, but it's the people at the bottom, who are most vulnerable, who will suffer the most if you are obsessed with deficit reduction and forget about the people who most need the help of government.

I know that Tories tend not to have the view of government helping people. Rather, their view is that government must get out of the way of people. I understand that difference in opinion between me and people in the Tory party, but I would simply say that at some point you have to stop and think about people who are really vulnerable and not allow an obsession with anything such as a tax cut, deficit reduction or a debt reduction to get in the way of your obligation to protect those people.

I want to hear the rest of the debate. I'll probably end up supporting this resolution because of its flexibility. I think the member for Wellington is fairminded and is not obsessed with achieving debt reduction through arbitrary and draconian measures. He has expressed that, as a matter of fact, probably -- or potentially -- at some risk to his own political career, but only events as they unfold will tell us that.

At the end of the day, I'll probably end up supporting this resolution partly because the member for Wellington comes to this place with a view that's not as theological as those his Reform-minded caucus colleagues so often have, as I stand here in my place and look some of them directly in the eye. So I will sit down and allow my colleagues to have some more time to speak.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): I'm pleased to have this opportunity today to speak on the debt reduction resolution by my friend and colleague the member for Wellington. I'd like to reiterate the remarks of the former Minister of Finance and welcome the member's mother and his two children, who have just left, one of whom is just a new baby, and his wife to the gallery to watch him present his resolution.

This government supports, I want to stress, the spirit of the member for Wellington's resolution: to retire Ontario's deficit. We also believe that it's necessary for governments to create plans to pay off debt. However, this government feels that our primary goal has to be, and is, to eliminate the deficit by the fiscal year of 2000-01 and that it is premature now to focus on retiring the debt until this goal has been achieved.

On another point, this government believes that the member for Wellington's resolution, which states, "The government...should commit itself to a 25-year debt retirement plan, with five-year interim targets, such that the province of Ontario is free from its net debt by the year 2025," is too restrictive and might prohibit governments from carrying out their very role in certain circumstances.

We made the commitment in the Common Sense Revolution to introduce "A realistic plan for wiping out the deficit and tackling our debt to stabilize our economy." In his 1997 budget, the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, said, "Once the budget is balanced, we will put in place a program to cut that debt to ensure that our children will have the opportunities they deserve."

There is no question that since this government took office in 1995, we have remained committed to keeping our promise of working to reduce and eliminate the deficit. When we took office two years ago, the government inherited an unhealthy fiscal situation, to put it mildly. The province's deficit was a whopping $11.3 billion, and Ontario's debt had climbed and passed, in fact, the $100-billion mark, which meant that 20 cents out of every tax dollar was going to pay interest on our debt. We recognized that this was utterly unsustainable.

This government took swift action to restore the fiscal and economic health of the province. In the fall of 1995, we introduced a balanced budget plan designed to erase Ontario's deficit by the fiscal year of 2000-01. It wasn't easy. After spending over $11 billion a year more than we were taking in, we had not only to cut back on spending but to look at delivering programs and services differently.

Today, as promised, the government is on track to balance our budget by 2000-01. But we are still facing a whopping $6-billion deficit, and we recognize that we must remain vigilant in ensuring that our balanced budget plan deficit targets are met.

Our government's view in opposing my friend the member for Wellington's resolution is that we believe we must remain utterly focused on ensuring that the deficit is eliminated and that the budget is balanced before we divert our energy to considering the specifics of a plan for reducing the debt. We have to stress and keep that in focus every single minute. I want to remind you again, however, that as Finance Minister Eves pointed out in his 1997 budget, "Once the budget is balanced, we will put in place a program to cut that debt."

Another reason this government is opposed to locking ourselves into a detailed plan to retire the debt by 2025, as the member for Wellington proposes, is that we want to reserve the flexibility to act as a government should and indeed must in extreme cases involving unforeseen circumstances or acts of God.

In closing, this government supports the spirit of the member for Wellington's resolution to retire the province's debt, but we do not believe that our focus today should be diverted while we are carrying such a large deficit, as we are already doing. We feel also that the specific time frame of the member's resolution is too binding for future governments to adhere to their promises.

That said, I would like to thank my friend and colleague the member for Wellington for bringing forward this important resolution. We promise Ontarians that we would introduce a plan to eliminate the deficit and retire the debt, and we're on track to reaching that goal.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'd like to add to the debate as well. First I would like to compliment the member for Wellington for introducing this resolution. I think it is another one of those motherhood resolutions that when it's exposed to the public, again they're going to say: "Oh, sure, great idea. Let's do it." I think we should look towards reaching that particular goal and indeed retire our debt and balance the books as well.

I should say, in the five minutes I have, that in 1989 or so, around that particular time, the Liberals balanced the books. We had a surplus, I should say with pride, without cutting any social programs or cutting the health care system or cutting education or otherwise. We did it.

I think the gesture is very noble, something that we as members of the House should subscribe to. I think it is something the public would like government to look at and accomplish in due course. But if we are looking seriously at the whole issue, it's not as simple to accomplish as we individuals would like. We have to be very realistic. We are talking of finding over $5 billion a year if we are serious about retiring our debt, without adding any more to it, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The Premier should take the content of the resolution to heart and, as we have suggested many times in this House, abandon the promise he has made of refunding a 30% tax cut to the wealthy and not the needy. That is not needed. If you ask anyone, they will say: "Put it towards retiring the debt or balancing the books. We don't need that 30%." I think that's something that we, as government, as legislators, should be looking at. I'm sure the member will continue to impress upon his own government to take those measures.

I don't have to tell you that very often events happen that are beyond our own control, either because of other levels of government or because of the economic situation, which change the income of the provincial government and thus throw our plans and aims out of whack. We will have to seriously consider, if we embark on something like that, when times are tough, are we going to provide bread on the table to many unemployed people or are we going to continue to chop an extra $1 billion?

I don't have to tell you the consequences of this present government. What is it going to do to our provincial debt? It's going to add an extra $25 billion, $28 billion from its present state.

While I admire and congratulate the member, I hope he himself, together with other members, will impress upon the Premier and say, "If we want to be serious and assist our people without cutting programs, without continuously affecting the most needy in our society, we'll look at a situation like this very seriously." Unless we do that, I have to say again to the member, to Mike and to the younger members of the Arnott family, that 25 or 30 years from now we won't have a health care system for those people. We won't have an education system as we know it today.

We won't have programs for our young people to go and meet the challenges of the world. We won't have those programs to provide skilled jobs. They won't be able to afford to enter colleges or universities. Where do we draw the line?

I think it's a very noble gesture to say, "We have to retire the debt and we have to balance our books," but then we have to also ask, at whose expense? I like the flexibility I see in there when we say, "Sure, it's something we have to look at," but we also have to look at the consequences of various actions: either a worldwide recession or the economic situation within our own nation, within our own province, and assess that situation at the time. Governments are here for a very particular reason: To govern on behalf of the people, especially those who cannot look after themselves.

If we were so blind that we were to say, "Let's retire our deficit and debt at any cost," I think it would be a terrible flaw in any government, this one or a future government.

I will be supporting the bill because I think the principle is a sound one. It's something we can subscribe to as present and future governments. I hope we do that, keeping in mind the flexibility that the world changes on a daily basis.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I just want to take a few minutes to add my comments to the resolution from the member for Wellington. The member for Wellington has represented his area competently and diligently. He's known as a hard worker in his riding. I know that, based on my experience here, working with him between the years 1990 and 1995. That's why I was somewhat surprised after the 1995 election that the member for Wellington didn't make it into cabinet. However, we know there are going to be some changes made in the next few months and that's something that may change.

His spouse is here with him today. I don't know what she thinks about that. Maybe we could put the member for Wellington into a position where he may have some power and influence and be able to implement some of the suggestions he's had, like the one he's put forward here today.

When I look at this resolution we have before us, it makes me wonder how we got ourselves into this position. It makes me wonder how Bill Davis could have moved us so far down this road. I suspect that one of the reasons -- if we consider ourselves, for example, how many of us have never had a mortgage? How many of us have never gone into debt so we could buy a house for our family and for ourselves for shelter? The reality is that on occasion governments are forced to borrow money. They do that because there's a long-term payback for many of the things governments go into debt for.

As the former Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, has indicated, he may be supporting the resolution today. I may support it myself, because I see there is some flexibility within this plan. It's a 25-year plan. It mentions interim targets that need to be met as well. It isn't as binding as the resolution we had before us a couple of weeks ago that was introduced by -- I don't remember the member's name, but it had hard and fast rules. It said you have to have a balanced budget or else you need to call an election.

Those are the sorts of resolutions I couldn't support, that bind the hands of future governments and really take away the ability of governments to make those decisions themselves. This one isn't quite as restrictive as that.

The only concern I have about this resolution, however, is the fact that this debt retirement plan begins in the year 2000. The whole premise this plan would be based on is eliminating the deficit by the year 2000. We need to consider how this government is going to reach that point of actually balancing its budget.

As was said earlier by the member for St Catharines, one of the best ways to reduce the deficit is through a strong economy. Right now we're blessed by the fact that we do have a strong and productive economy, but to have a strong economy you also need an infrastructure to support that growing economy. You need improved road and transportation systems. You need an education system that is going to provide people who will turn into a well-qualified workforce to fill the jobs that the growing economy is going to create. You need to have a health care system that is going to provide quality health services at a price that isn't unaffordable for those who may need to access it.

From the Windsor area that I represent, we see the example right across the border in Detroit. We have a big advantage when it comes to the production of automobiles and parts, and that's largely because of two factors: one is the difference in the value of the Canadian versus the American dollar; the other is the advantage we have over the cost of production, and that is because of the health care system we have. In the United States they have to pay additional for that health care coverage and it makes them uncompetitive. I wouldn't want to see us go down that road.

We also need a clean environment so that people will want to live and work and participate in our economy.

Sometimes in order to have that infrastructure and have those systems, there needs to be an investment by the government. Not only is the deficit we have measured in dollar amounts, but we have a deficit that can be measured when it comes to health care, when it comes to education and when it comes to job creation, and that's a deficit we need to keep in mind as well.

Governments often find that they need to borrow money. One of the reasons this government is borrowing money right now is to fund its tax cut. This is an approach that was attempted by Ronald Reagan back in the 1980s. What was found when he introduced his tax cut was that the debt actually went up. This is a concern I have, that by implementing this tax cut we're not only putting a cap on social spending to do that, but in effect we're actually increasing the debt. I know that is something the member for Wellington doesn't want to see happen.

I share some of the concerns that have been mentioned as well by the member for Yorkview. When we're considering eliminating the debt, who is going to benefit from that and who is going to pay? As governments, we always have to be conscious of that and maintain a reasonable balance.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate? The member for Wentworth --

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): Wentworth North. It has been some time.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It has been.

Mr Skarica: My friend from Wellington asked me to speak. I agreed to do so because I respect him as an individual and I find him one of the finest human beings I've met in politics.

The resolution, I suggest, is based on common sense. The resolution indicates that governments should retire their debts. I analogize it to a family. If you're in a family and you plunge your family into debt, a number of things happen, such as the following: You don't sleep at night because you're wondering how you're going to pay the interest that's coming due. If your children want a certain something, a bike or a trifle that they fall in love with, you can't do it because you're now a slave to your debt.

In fact, a prominent book written many thousands of years said that the borrower is a slave to the lender. When the socialists were plunging us into debt in the last five years, what they were really doing was eroding our freedoms and making us slaves to the bankers. I think they would agree that that's not a good position to be in.

This is not a new principle, that if you plunge yourself into debt, eventually you have no freedoms. Thomas Jefferson, who I respect and admire, said 200 years ago that when a government plunges itself into debt, has to pay interest payments, eventually what happens is that it erodes the freedoms of its citizens. Not only does it erode the freedom of its citizens because it makes the citizens slaves to the bankers or whoever holds the debt; it also means it's not able to look after the citizenry.

We've heard that a number of social programs have to be maintained to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. If the government plunges itself into huge debt, like we have -- we're at $100 billion right now, and we're paying $8 billion or $9 billion in interest -- what eventually happens is that you can't help out those people who are poor and disadvantaged.

I was doing the Roy Green show yesterday, and I noted that the education budget is some $12 billion. If we had that $8 billion or $9 billion that we pay in interest payments, just imagine what kind of education system we would have. We could spend $20 billion. We wouldn't have books in the system that are 20 or 30 years old. In fact, there were books I had read. One of the students said he thought he saw my name in one. The only good thing about that is that somebody knows my name.

The member for Windsor-Riverside says that sometimes governments are forced to borrow money. No one is forced to borrow money. You choose to borrow money. We have chosen not well in the past, I suggest. When you're carrying a $100-billion debt, what you've really done is that you've mortgaged the future. You've been selfish. You've said: "I want to live a certain lifestyle right now, and I'll let the future pay for that."

To indicate a real-life example that illustrates that, the Hamilton board of education has a $30-million unfunded liability for teachers' gratuity. I'm not going to make any comment as to whether that's good or bad, the teachers' gratuity. But what I found alarming about that $30-million retirement gratuity was that I said to one of the trustees who was there in the 1970s: "You have a $30-million gratuity and you have no money in the bank to pay for that.

That means that when a teacher retires, they have to pay $32,000 of taxpayers' money that's supposed to go in the classroom today." I asked this gentleman, "How come you put no money in the bank?" He said: "That wasn't our problem. By the time it had to be paid, we wouldn't be in power, so we didn't worry about it." That's the kind of reckless non-thinking that got us into this situation.

A family that functions well and lives reasonably and has a prosperous lifestyle is guided by the philosophy that you will spend no more money than you receive. In fact, most families that do well over time spend a little less money than they receive and save money for the future. I do not see why governments cannot do the same thing.

In fact, Ontario seems to be behind the times in this regard. In the United States, all the states except Vermont already have this type of legislation and have balanced-budget legislation. Four of the provinces and two of the territories have balanced-budget legislation. Basically, they will refuse to spend more than they take in.

I suggest that if you do spend more than you take in and you do get huge debts, what you lose is not your social programs, although you do lose those, but you lose your liberty and your freedom because you are a slave to other people. You are not free to make decisions. You're not free to help those who are less advantaged than yourself. Ultimately, what you are doing by spending more than you have over time is that you are selling the freedoms and the democratic rights of the individuals you are supposedly governing.

I applaud the member for this motion. I said I would speak for five minutes. It appears that I'm lying, because it's been about six minutes, so I apologize. I fully support this motion.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's indeed my pleasure to rise in support of this resolution. I think it is both timely and extremely important that we remind people of one of the underpinnings of the Common Sense Revolution and in fact one of the underpinnings of any responsible government.

In our personal lives, in our business affairs, of course we understand that you cannot spend more than you take in. It's called bankruptcy. At the government level, somehow we went off the rails. In the past, somehow they took on a mindset that it was appropriate to overspend. It was appropriate to mortgage the future. We don't believe that's correct. We believe it's more appropriate to chart a path back to fiscal responsibility.

We're very proud of the fact that one of our very strong commitments in the Common Sense Revolution was a balanced-budget plan. Just to remind everyone, we had committed that even though we were inheriting a debt load of $100 billion and an annual loss of over $11 billion a year, we knew the inherent strengths of the province of Ontario, the inherent willingness of our entrepreneurs to invest and all the employees to work hard and contribute to the rebuilding of this province. We knew that in one term we could turn that around and bring the province back to a balanced budget.

I'm very pleased, as we debate here today, to report that we're actually billions of dollars ahead of our own very aggressive forecasts laid out back in 1994 in the Common Sense Revolution. It's not only appropriate to suggest that the year 2000 will see a balanced budget; I think there's even a chance it may be sooner than that. Obviously, to those who wrestle with the challenges and look at the legislative changes we've brought forward, there's always a need to keep it in the context of what's best not just for ourselves but for the generations to follow.

Surely we don't want to be known as the one generation in Ontario that left our successors with less than we inherited. This plan and this resolution speaks very much to our commitment to making sure the generations to follow will have a strong and vibrant Ontario and they will have all the same benefits in the health care system, in the education system, in roads and all the other services that we enjoyed and our parents enjoyed.

I would like to leave a few seconds for my colleague from Niagara Falls, but I just wanted to register my heartfelt and sincere support for this resolution. I congratulate the member for bringing it forward today.

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): I want to congratulate the member for this resolution, because the resolution has served to reorient all of us about motive. When we took office, we had a deficit of $12 billion. We're reducing that every year, but every year that we have an annual deficit, that gets added to our debt. That means we have more interest to pay.

As Mr Skarica said, we've lost the freedom. Where we spent $8.9 billion in interest when we got into office, now, despite all the expenditure reductions we're making, we have $9.2 billion to spend on interest. It erodes our freedom to spend that money on other programs.

I thank the member for Wellington for the resolution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the member for Wellington, you have two minutes to sum up.

Mr Arnott: I want to thank my colleagues in the House who have spoken to this resolution this morning. I particularly want to thank my friend and colleague the member for St Andrew-St Patrick for the excellent speech she's given and the support in principle to many of the things I'm putting forward today.

Thank you very much to the member for Wentworth North. I must say I admire his courage and his integrity and the way he does his job on behalf of his constituents.

I thank the member for Scarborough East, who was eloquent as always, for the commitment he shows to the principles we put forward in our election campaign, and also the member for Niagara Falls for the short speech he gave and the outstanding contribution he made to the debate.

Thank you to the member for St Catharines, the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Downsview and the member for Windsor-Walkerville also for the points they made. I appreciate it.

Interjection.

Mr Arnott: Did I miss one? Thank you to the Durham caucus, who are here in force, hopefully to support this idea.

There are two points I want to make in response to some of the points that have been made in the course of this debate this morning. First of all, tax cuts. The Premier promised to cut taxes. He delivered on those tax cuts. The majority in this House support tax cuts. I think it's fair to also point out that the Liberal caucus, during their election campaign, talked about a 5% tax cut that was somewhat vague and unspecified, but certainly supported the principle of tax cuts while the deficit was being reduced.

I think it's also fair to point out that the New Democrats, in their election campaign, in their manifesto, promised to balance the operating budget, as they called it, in a three-year time period. So I think there is a general consensus within this House that some of the ideas that I've put forward in this resolution are good ones.

Also with respect to the issue of a possible temporary downturn, of course we know that over a 25-year period there's a very good chance of maybe even two or three recessions, but I had hoped to offer the kind of flexibility within my resolution that wouldn't bind the government to, say, setting aside a specific dollar figure every year, so that in good years we could pay down debt; in tough years we might still have to borrow.

Thank you very much to all members for their participation on this issue.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 95(e), I cannot put the questions until 12 o'clock. Therefore, I will now suspend the proceedings until 12 o'clock.

The House recessed from 1143 to 1200.

VEHICLE SAFETY

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first with ballot item number 103, standing in the name of Mr Martiniuk. Mr Martiniuk has moved private member's resolution number 74. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PROVINCIAL DEBT

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now deal with ballot item number 104, standing in the name of Mr Arnott. Mr Arnott has moved private member's resolution number 72. Is it the pleasure of the House that motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The house recessed from 1201 to 1332.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COUNTY PARK

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I rise today in the Legislature to bring well-deserved attention to a very special group of people in my home town of Thunder Bay. At a ceremony held this morning at Our Lady of Charity school in Thunder Bay, the County Park community was recognized by the Trillium Foundation as the recipient of their prestigious Caring Communities Award. From more than 160 nominations across the province, this County Park community was chosen as one of five winners who will receive a $20,000 grant for further community development.

In a few short years the residents have developed the neighbourhood of County Park into a community of which members are proud and which people want to join. The local community policing officer, Constable Collin Parkinson, Our Lady of Charity neighbourhood school, the community at large and the Our Kids Count organization have all worked together to sponsor an impressive array of meaningful activities, from an annual neighbourhood cleanup day involving hundreds of volunteers, to a community garden and kitchen, sports programs, volunteer street patrols, prenatal and parenting groups and much more.

The residents of County Park have been exemplary in their remarkably successful effort to work together to solve problems and enhance the quality of life for all who live in the community. I acknowledge, admire and applaud the County Park community's creativity, resourcefulness, determination and selfless dedication of time, talents and energy.

The County Park community is a superb illustration of the wonderful things that can happen when hearts and hands work together. Congratulations, County Park residents -- perfect examples of people helping people.

TVONTARIO

Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt): Yesterday the government announced the next step in privatizing TVOntario: a series of public consultations. The government claims they want to hear from the public, yet the minister made no statement in the House, and consultations will occur in only five cities. Actions speak louder than words, and this government is not listening to people. The review of TVOntario does not reach out to the public.

I'm particularly disappointed in the lack of effort to hear from the francophone and native communities. You have released no details about the extent of the consultations, not even who will be invited to the meetings. TVOntario is an invaluable part of these communities, providing a cultural link and valuable educational service. Your consultation

schedule relegates these communities to a sideshow.

People living in remote parts of northern Ontario want to be heard, but your actions prove again that you're not listening. Your one francophone community meeting will be in Ottawa, yet TFO is particularly special to the francophone community because it serves francophones all across the province. How will your hearings consult with francophones outside of Ottawa?

You say you're consulting with TVO's advisory councils, but I understand that those meetings were postponed and have not yet been rescheduled. You're not listening. Don't sell off TVO for the sake of privatization and just to give Rob Sampson and Paul Currie something to do. It's not worth it. Listen to the people.

TEEN RANCH

Teen Ranch is a charitable organization. Kids from schools and church groups come from all over Canada. The excellent reputation of camp director Mel Stevens and his staff has meant campers from around the world come for the unforgettable experience of staying at Teen Ranch.

Teen Ranch recently expanded their facilities by building an Olympic-size arena that can seat approximately 1,000 people. The Ice Corral has already played host to the Toronto Maple Leafs during past training camps.

As unique and spectacular as the facilities are, Teen Ranch is much more than buildings and beautiful scenery. I cannot emphasize enough what an important role Teen Ranch has played to countless families. Mel Stevens has been able to bring together an incredible group of staff that leave campers and visitors with a very special remembrance of their time spent at Teen Ranch.

On behalf of the government of Ontario, it is my pleasure to congratulate Teen Ranch on its 30th anniversary. I wish Mel Stevens and all the people at Teen Ranch all the best and continued success in the coming years.

LAYOFFS

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): Today I rise in the House to illustrate yet another example of the government's failed job strategy. Bombardier's de Havilland plant is the largest employer in my riding of Downsview. Since Bombardier purchased de Havilland in 1992, the number of people working at this plant has risen from 2,700 to 5,600 currently.

The de Havilland plant is an integral part of Bombardier's aerospace operations in North America. Currently, the de Havilland plant is responsible for designing and producing the wing for the newly certified Lear Jet 45 business aircraft and final assembly of the world-renowned Global Express ultrarange business jet. In addition, the Dash-8 aircraft, which is also built in Downsview, will soon reach its milestone 500th delivery as it continues to lead the industry in hours of service and dispatch reliability.

Despite these great accomplishments, however, Bombardier Aerospace has announced that it will lay off 450 people at de Havilland. In addition, Bombardier has announced that it will hire 600 people to work in their operations in Montreal. Indeed, the company says it needs workers in all areas, including engineering, flight instruction, marketing and public relations.

The government has prided itself in creating jobs in this province, but here is an example of its failed job strategy. The government has ignored an opportunity to preserve jobs in Ontario. Where is the leadership on this matter?

BIRCHWOOD TERRACE NURSING HOME

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): The board of directors of the Thunder Bay District Homes for the Aged -- in the riding I represent, that of Lake Nipigon, Homes for the Aged is located in the township of Terrace Bay -- has decided it will close December 31, 1998. The local council does not support the decision made by other people, those of Thunder Bay. Effective January 1, the residents will be asked physically to move from Terrace Bay 120 miles to Thunder Bay.

We've requested that the Ministry of Health place this issue, because of its human dimension, as a top priority. Originally, the Homes for the Aged in Terrace Bay was sold by Kimberly-Clark, which is the larger employer, for $1. Now the council is asking for the same partnership with the Ministry of Health and wishes to purchase the facility for $1.

What's behind it is that people who were born and raised in northwestern Ontario, in our special part of Ontario, have the right to be given the dignity to stay home, not to move 120 miles away against their will.

LEUKAEMIA AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I rise today to advise the House that October 15 is Leukaemia Awareness Day. On that day, research scientists and clinicians from Ontario's foremost cancer institutes will be uniting, together with cancer patients and patient advocates, at Toronto's Princess Margaret Hospital to speak of the need for research into leukaemia.

October 15 also marks the one-year anniversary of the date that Christine Ichim, who is in the west gallery here, a young woman from my Kitchener riding, successfully completed her national roller-blading trek across Canada to raise money for leukaemia research and to give hope to her mother, who suffers from leukaemia. Christine's life experiences with the disease and her determination are well expressed in her own words when she stated: "Since I was 10, I had to live with the fear that any day I could walk home from school and find my mother dead.... I can't let my mother die; I can't let other children go through what I did."

On October 15, leukaemia patients, survivors and family members of those who suffer or have died from leukaemia will share their experiences. Former Premier Bob Rae, who is the national spokesman for the Leukaemia Research Fund and whose brother died of leukaemia, has confirmed his participation.

EDUCATION REFORM

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I rise today because I appreciate the opportunity to be here on National Students' Day. I'd like to pose a couple of questions for the Minister of Education.

First, I'd like to know how the minister would explain to parents how his Bill 160 will lead to greater input for them into future changes in the education system. Your bill will allow you to go to cabinet, get any changes you want passed, and then make an announcement. You don't have to talk to anyone. You don't have to listen to the boards of education, you don't have to consult with this Legislature, and you certainly do not have to listen to parents.

You said that the goal of your bill is to provide "education at a cheaper price." Doesn't this really mean that your goal is to give yourself the ability to take a further $1 billion out of the educational system? Parents have been clear. This is not what they want now and this is not what they want in the future.

I also wonder how you'll be able to say to thousands of concerned students in our province that your cuts and your plans to cut teachers will not affect their education.

You said in a meeting last March that your vision is to have your ministry combined with that of economic development, to have students access their curriculum through their own personal computers and to have self-guided lesson plans. That doesn't sound like a plan for keeping teachers and kids in our classrooms. It sounds like a further confirmation of your plans to cut costs without thinking of who you'll really be hurting.

Students are telling you they want --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Now that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has released his numbers, he sits in this place thinking that he's finally solved all the problems. The reality is, he's just confirmed that these problems are getting worse.

In my home town of Hamilton and in our region of Hamilton-Wentworth, we're looking at almost $70 million being downloaded on to our region and $55 million being downloaded on to Hamilton city council.

Here's what Chairman Cooke had to say in the Hamilton Spectator about these announced numbers: "I think the province has really underestimated the carnage and political fallout that's possible from this."

Mayor Morrow says: "This plan does nothing to promote the liveability of our cities and it has to be protested until it is changed. It's ridiculous as it is."

The fact of the matter is, Minister, that while you're downloading all these figures -- and we know that your intent with Bill 136 was to pay all these costs on the backs of our public sector workers, which you've been forced to back away from -- this means either we're going to have cuts in services or tax hikes in the neighbourhood of $275 at both levels of government, totally unacceptable.

This is happening at the same time your health restructuring commission is looking at closing one or two hospitals in Hamilton. We've got $1 billion in total taken out of education, and Hamilton has had its hit. You want another $1 billion there. At the same time, we're losing decent-paying jobs.

Minister, stop destroying our communities.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): Since this House will be adjourned for approximately five weeks, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to the brave men and women who defended this great nation, Canada, in times of war.

Remembrance Day is a special time to reflect upon and pay tribute to those men and women who served their country with dignity and who sacrificed bravely to keep this nation free and strong. We will never forget those who sacrificed of themselves to protect our nation and to protect our way of life.

I think everyone in this assembly agrees with the sentiment that is engraved on the cenotaph at the Royal Canadian Legion's Coronation Branch 286 in my riding of Etobicoke-Rexdale, which reads: "At the going down of the sun and in the morning we will remember them."

ROSAMOND AUSTIN

Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): Mr Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to pay tribute to a long-standing employee of the Legislative Assembly here, Rosamond Austin.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed.

Hon Mr Villeneuve: I rise on behalf of the government to express our sincere condolences to the family and friends of Rosamond Austin, whose untimely passing is deeply mourned by the entire Legislative Assembly here in Ontario.

All members of the House will appreciate the tremendous support that we receive from the legislative library here at Queen's Park. I cannot begin to recount the number of times that I have relied on it for vital information I have needed and continue to need in my work as an MPP. I often think that, for one reason or another, we do not thank the hardworking members of the legislative library enough for all they do for us so efficiently and often at a moment's notice.

Roz, as she was always known and will be remembered by those of us who were privileged to know her and to receive the benefit of her professional expertise, stood in a proud tradition as a member of the legislative library.

As one goes into the library, there is a framed facsimile of Lieutenant Governor Simcoe's proclamation on the pillar on the left. That document reminds us that our legislative library, like our Legislature, was founded at the time of Simcoe and was formally instituted under a Speaker by the name of the Honourable Al McLean, whose descendant sits among us here today in this House.

Roz's professionalism, research skill and encyclopaedic knowledge of legislative and legal issues were at the foundation of her established reputation and strong commitment to all members of Parliament here in Ontario whom she served so well with such distinction and perseverance.

Her friends and colleagues will remember Roz for her outgoing nature and especially her loving smile, whose warmth was felt by one and all. Her circle of acquaintances was very wide and included her friends from Havergal College and Queen's University as well as her colleagues here at Queen's Park.

Those in the Legislature who, in their wisdom, deigned to go on to other opportunities in the private sector were never forgotten by Roz, who kept in touch with them with her thoughtful notes, cards and letters. It has been said that letter writing is a lost and forgotten art. For Roz, it was a highly developed science with which she continued to communicate her love and concern for her friends and acquaintances.

Roz was an active member of St George's United Church, where she will be buried tomorrow. Roz was a person focused on her worship of a God of love. How appropriate it is that the cross of St George is also represented in the coat of arms of the Legislative Assembly that she served for so long and so well. Her inspired love was readily translated into acts of charity, including the various assembly campaigns, and especially the Canadian Diabetes Association, dedicated to the eradication of the disease that eventually overcame her.

We shall all miss Roz. A spirit as loving and kind and outgoing as hers, however, lives on eternally in God, as she does in our hearts and minds.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and our staffs in extending to Roz's family our heartfelt sympathy on the shocking news that the Minister of Agriculture has reported.

I went into the library on Monday and I knew there was something wrong. I met some of the staff and it was very clear that something terrible had happened. As Mr Villeneuve has indicated, Roz Austin died very suddenly last weekend, suddenly and unexpectedly.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture. I spend a fair bit of time in the library. We are exceptionally well served by Mary Dickerson and her staff, and no one in that library, over all the time I've been here, which is now 22 years, has been a more exemplary public servant than Roz Austin. She was, as Mr Villeneuve indicated, always there, always helpful, very quick to the tasks assigned to her. It was amazing what she knew about Ontario and about the community life of not just the Legislature but the province as a whole.

She had family and friends in Renfrew, and we used to talk about that; her connections to the airline industry; her friends at Havergal; at St George's United Church. Through thick and thin, she was a loyal Blue Jays fan. But most of all, she was a loyal and dedicated public servant. She was the best of the public service.

I just hope all members, as we pay tribute to her today, particularly those of us who had the opportunity to work with her in that library, remember just what an excellent and helpful public servant she was. She will be missed. She was a great friend. On behalf of my colleagues and our staffs, we thank her. We will remember her memory, and we certainly extend our condolences.

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to join with my colleagues the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the member for Renfrew North in expressing, on behalf of our caucus, our sadness at the sudden passing of Rosamond Austin.

Rosamond, or Roz, was, as we've seen and as has been said, a long-standing employee of the legislative library, someone who was interested in the goings-on around this place beyond the library, and kept in touch with members and their activities both here and outside this place.

I guess what she will be best remembered for, beyond her efficiency, was her friendly, outgoing approach. She seemed to be able to deal with an MPP rushing into the library looking for information, probably not knowing what she or he was looking for, and she was able to direct them and perhaps deal with, sometimes, the angst or upset of a member in a rush to find out information and not knowing where to go for it.

She was indeed a dedicated employee, one who is remembered with tremendous fondness by her fiends and co-workers, someone whose sudden passing causes a great deal of sadness.

We owe a great deal, as MPPs, to the dedicated work of people like Roz on behalf of this assembly and the people of Ontario. All of us owe her a great debt of gratitude. I know her co-workers will miss her, as will her family and friends. I would just say, on behalf of our caucus, that we recognize this place does not operate without the kind of work and dedication of a Roz over the years. We appreciate it, and we will remember her for that.

The Speaker: I know I can speak on behalf of the legislative staff in the library to thank all members for their comments. It certainly was shocking to all people in the Legislature, I suppose especially the staff of all members.

I want to add one comment briefly, something I've noticed over the time I've been here. It amazes me how quickly the legislative library and people such as this can turn someone who is elected into an expert on certain subjects so quickly. You knew full well it was the background and research and work and incredible timeliness they provided for all members of this place.

I know the legislative library staff is here today. It hit like a ton of bricks, I suppose would be the simplest way of putting it.

I would like to thank all members for the comments they've made. I will be certain that your remarks and comments are forwarded to the family. Thank you once more.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON .FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Mr Speaker, I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 140,

An Act to establish the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and to make complementary amendments to other statutes.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I beg leave to present the third report 1997 of the standing committee on the Ombudsman.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Does the member wish to make a brief statement? No.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Two quick issues.

On Wednesday, October 8, 1997, the member for Algoma (Mr Wildman) raised a question of privilege with respect to the distribution of municipal financial information by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The member contended that his privileges had been breached because this information was made available to him later than it was made available to government members, certain municipal officials and the media.

I have had an opportunity to review our precedents and parliamentary authorities dealing with generally similar kinds of situations.

I want to draw several rulings to the attention of the House. First, on March 1, 1989, Speaker Edighoffer ruled that there was no point of privilege in circumstances where it was alleged that government members were going to receive a briefing that opposition members were not going to receive at the same time.

Second, on June 8, 1992, it was alleged that an opposition critic had received certain information from a government ministry later in the day than had been promised. Speaker Warner ruled as follows:

"I must regrettably inform the member that while he has not lost a privilege, indeed he speaks of something that could be described as a courtesy, which apparently was not extended to him on this particular occasion."

Finally, the same Speaker ruled on July 8, 1993, that it was not a matter of privilege that a member did not receive a ministerial statement at the same time as it had been distributed to the opposition critics.

Turning to the matter raised by the member for Algoma, I appreciate that the member would have preferred that all members could have received the information at the same time. However, the Speaker cannot require the government to release such information -- or to release it at a certain time. There is nothing in our rules or our practices that would permit a Speaker to control the dissemination of that kind of information. It is clear from any number of previous Speakers' rulings that these types of situations do not amount to a prima facie case of privilege.

Let me make this point, however. In a written submission to me on this matter, the government House leader acknowledged that a more coordinated distribution of the information in question would have been desirable. I agree, and to quote a previous Speaker, these kinds of administrative discourtesies do give rise to "a valid grievance of which the government should take serious note." I am certain that, in future, every care will be taken to prevent a recurrence of situations similar to the one on which I have just ruled.

In closing, I'd like to thank the member for Algoma for bringing the information to my attention.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Folks, this is the last day for the pages we have here. I'd like to thank them for doing such a wonderful job in the Legislature and wish them Godspeed on their way home. Thank you very much.

ORAL QUESTIONS

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier. A few days ago, I drove to the Stony Point reserve, Ipperwash. I talked with the first nations about their growing anger about your personal refusal to call a public inquiry into the tragic shooting death of a first nations person over two years ago. They said to me that everything the government has said about Ipperwash has proven to be wrong.

The government said there was no evidence of any burial ground there; months after the shooting, the government admitted it had evidence in its files. The government said that Dudley George was shot because he had a firearm. The judge at the trial of the OPP officer said, "I find that Dudley George did not have any firearm on his person when he" -- the OPP officer -- "shot him. The story of the rifle and the muzzle flash was concocted ex post facto in an ill-fated attempt to disguise the fact that an unarmed man had been shot." You said one day in the House here that you gave no instructions to Deb Hutton. We found that you did give instructions.

The question is this: In the name of basic decency, will you tell the first nations people today that the government of Ontario will hold --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Premier.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I refer the question to the Attorney General.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The issues pertaining to land claims at Ipperwash have a process that can be followed if a claim is made. No such claim has been made.

In addition to that, there are court cases going on that are determining facts in the given circumstances. It would be inappropriate to discuss that evidence, as it would be inappropriate to have an inquiry at this time.

Mr Phillips: Premier, I demand you answer this question. You're acting in a shameful, deceitful way to the people of the first nations. They want a commitment from you that you will hold a public inquiry.

I'll go on with some more examples of the deceit. You said you gave no directions to the OPP. We find that --

The Speaker: Order. Member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I believe "deceitful" to be unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Phillips: I withdraw that word.

I'll go on with more examples. You said that the OPP were given no direction. We find in the minutes of your own interministerial meeting, "The police have been asked to remove the occupiers from the park." On the day of the shooting the headline in the local paper was, "Queen's Park to Take Hard Line with Occupiers." The government laid 43 charges against the first nations and then was forced to drop them. The government's own lawyers said, "No reasonable prospect of conviction." You said no political interference, and your own MPP Marcel Beaubien was at the police command post four hours before the shooting, saying he had faxed you and was looking forward to your intentions.

You owe the first nations people a commitment to a public inquiry. Will you, Premier, make that commitment today that you will hold a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Harnick: The government has been quite clear and consistent. The minutes of documentation that have been provided to the member indicate quite clearly, first, that the government would not negotiate on substantive issues while the occupation continues; second, that no direction was given to the Ontario Provincial Police regarding negotiations, as was appropriate; and third, that the only step the government took was a decision by me, as the Attorney General, to seek a civil injunction. The documentation that has been delivered is quite clear that this is in fact what happened. That practice is 100% consistent with the practice of other governments in similar situations.

Mr Phillips: I will say to the public of Ontario, we should all hang our heads in shame that the government will not make a commitment to the first nations to hold a public inquiry. I can't look the George family in the eye and explain your actions, Premier. They have seen nothing but lies and deceit on this whole issue.

The Speaker: Order. You must withdraw that.

Mr Phillips: I'll withdraw that, Mr Speaker.

If Ontario wants to restore any credibility, Premier, with our first nations -- I say again, you told the public that the police were returning fire, and then we find that there were no firearms with our first nations. You said you had no evidence of a burial ground, and we find within your own records evidence of a burial ground. You said no political interference, and then we find that your own executive assistant is saying at that meeting, "Premier wants out of the park...nothing else." Then we find that the OPP superintendent at that meeting was on the phone within minutes to the command post.

I say again, what the first nations are owed without a question of a doubt from you, Premier, is a commitment to hold a full public inquiry. Will you make that commitment today?

Hon Mr Harnick: Quite simply, the facts as outlined by the member are inaccurate. I suggest that the member take a look at the minutes and understand exactly what the facts are instead of repeating allegations that have no foundation in fact.

I have said, and the Premier has said, in this House that when the proceedings before courts are completed, consideration will be taken as to whether an inquiry should be undertaken.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I have a question for the Minister of Health. Minister, in August your handpicked hospital destruction commission ventured into new territory: They issued a report to do with the future of the Harris health care system. The report was to tell Ontarians what we could expect in terms of home care, long-term care, mental health care and subacute care. Instead, today we learn from the five nursing organizations representing 143,000 nurses that what you've got in mind for us is no care.

The report you commissioned used data and evidence that were completely unsatisfactory to the nurses of this province. You didn't include, and the commission's report didn't include, people under the age of 75 -- they didn't even include them -- looking at long-term care. They didn't include children under the age of 14 for the mental health system -- left them out completely. They didn't even include the people outside of hospitals for home care. When you leave out 60% of the people who use home care, how can people believe that you're not about to shut a bunch of people out of health care?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): First of all, this isn't our report. It was not commissioned by the government, nor was it a report, in the sense that the honourable member is implying, commissioned by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. It was, as it says on its face, a discussion paper. What the nurses have done today, through their press conference, has been part of that discussion. Their concerns, some of them very valid in terms of some of the directions put forth in that discussion paper, will be taken into account, I'm sure, by the commission, as will the Ministry of Health's comments on that discussion paper.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, you've been very reluctant to tell us where you stand in terms of some of the standards that should exist in this province. When it comes to care outside of hospitals, you're pushing people out of hospitals quicker and sicker. You are doing that, Minister, not a commission, not somebody else. You've cut the money to hospitals. When you're doing that, the care that people can then depend on, either in their home or in a long-term-care facility -- there are no standards. In fact, you've cut what standards there were.

Will you stand in the House today in your capacity as Minister of Health, if you're not simply going to abdicate all your responsibility, and tell us that the standards that people will get outside the hospital will be at least as high as the standards in hospital? Will you make that guarantee? Will you take full responsibility to make sure that happens? Will you do that for us today?

Hon Mr Wilson: First of all, the decision to be in hospital or outside of hospital is a medical decision. Second, I may say to the honourable member that survey after survey, going back to the Davis government, through the Liberals and the NDP, show that people prefer to stay in their homes just as long as they can and as long as it makes common sense to do so. That's why in an unprecedented way this government, like no other government in the history of Ontario, has put 170 million new dollars into long-term-care services.

Today in the province, unlike the situation we inherited two and a half years ago, there are no waiting lists for in-home nursing care in the province in any community. We check that all the time and --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Sir, you must leave the gallery, please.

Hon Mr Wilson: I remind the honourable member that there are some waiting lists for occupational therapy and physiotherapy. I've covered that in this House on many occasions. We're creating over 4,000 new jobs for nurses and home care workers. With respect to standards, these are professional people who provide this care and they will be guided by the standards of their professional colleges in the self-governing model that was set up by the previous government.

Mr Kennedy: Minister, I think it's sad that you wouldn't listen to the Ivey school of business, to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, to your own report on Windsor emergency, and respond directly to what is being asked. We are asking you as the Minister of Health to guarantee some standards.

The nurses who provide the care say there are no standards. This is the message from the front lines. This is telling you as the minister to get on with protecting patients in this province, and for some reason you're reluctant to do that. In this report they say we can't afford to blunder our way to a restructured health system. You seem prepared to do that. It is people who get hurt when we take that approach.

I'll give you another opportunity, on behalf of the 143,000 nurses' concerns, not for their jobs but for the patients they serve every day: Will you stand in this House and guarantee that you won't be cutting standards when you ship people out of hospitals into community care? Will you take full responsibility for making sure that the care outside of hospitals is the same quality as the care in hospitals today?

Hon Mr Wilson: I would be happy to give the honourable member the guarantee that the quality of care will be like it hasn't been in the past. I can tell you that because there haven't been standards set by your government on home care or by the previous NDP government. There isn't a manual, if that's what you're looking for. There are professional standards for the nurses that they have to abide by to maintain their nursing credibility. The registered nurses' association, which we have had very friendly discussion with on many occasions, knows the commission is attempting to write the first manual for standards in home care, which is what the discussion paper is all about.

We appreciate the honourable member's input into that discussion paper. I'm sure we'll get very constructive input from the honourable member.

The Speaker: New question. The leader of the third party.

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question to the Minister of Health as well. Here is the problem you've got: 143,000 nurses in this province have come together to look at the kind of information that your health care restructuring commission is putting out. They have found, after looking at all of the details, that the health care restructuring commission is wrong in many of its assumptions, and that they announcements you've made about health care reivestments are also wrong.

Specifically, let me put it to you: They have looked at the long-term care services, mental health services, at-home care, services for the disabled, the chronically ill and the mentally ill in community settings, and they have found that your announcements of reinvestment simply aren't adequate. Minister, here is the issue: Will you assume your responsibility as Minister of Health?

The Speaker: Question, please.

Mr Hampton: Will you follow up