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

December 6, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

MACASSA MINE

REGIONAL DIALYSIS CENTRE

PART-TIME FIREFIGHTERS

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

WASTE REDUCTION IN BROCKVILLE

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

VISITORS

WCB PREMIUMS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

WCB PREMIUMS

TEACHERS' PENSION LEGISLATION

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

JUNIOR HOCKEY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

CASINO GAMBLING

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

LANDFILL

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ABORTION CLINIC

TAX EXEMPTION

SALE OF LAND

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

TAXATION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

REFERRAL OF BILL 121

TEACHERS' PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (NOVICE DRIVERS), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (CONDUCTEURS DÉBUTANTS)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MACASSA MINE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I rise in my place today to update the House on the events that are happening with the mining tragedy in Kirkland Lake. I'm not usually at a loss for words. I have a sense that I should be saying something about it, and I certainly feel a lot about it. I'm not really quite sure what to say.

I was very deeply moved attending a candlelight vigil last night in Kirkland Lake, where it's estimated 2,000 citizens came out, walking throughout the town, coming to the "tree of life" that is situated at the post office on Government Road in Kirkland Lake. It was a tremendous ceremony, filled with tremendous warmth and hope.

Most of us, unfortunately, at that ceremony hadn't realized the news that the mine had announced a couple of hours beforehand: that it looked like it would be another 30 days before the mine would be able to now recover the miners. This has now changed from a rescue operation, it looks like, to a recovery operation.

It was heartening to see the townspeople come out and lend support for the mining community and the miners and their families who have suffered through this.

I and all my constituents, and I know the government, are encouraging the company and the industry itself to find the reasons for this and to develop the technology in order to detect this and in order to prevent this type of thing from happening ever again.

REGIONAL DIALYSIS CENTRE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Tomorrow I will have the pleasure of attending the official opening of the new regional dialysis centre at Orillia's Soldiers' Memorial Hospital. This new facility is dedicated to the memory of the late Edward F. Monck, who crusaded for a local service to meet the needs of people like himself who had to travel to Toronto General Hospital three times a week for treatment. The service was launched in late 1987 as a small satellite unit of the Toronto General Hospital and now serves 30 patients.

In 1992, the Ministry of Health approved Soldiers' Memorial Hospital's proposal to build a new $1.3-million, five-station unit to serve the region of Simcoe county, Muskoka district and northeast Durham. The ministry has contributed $1.1 million for equipment and will fund the annual $1.6-million operating budget. I want to thank the minister for lending this new regional dialysis centre the appropriate level of support.

It should be noted that there was a great deal of dedicated behind-the-scenes work undertaken that resulted in this project coming to a reality. Robert Kehoe, who has served more than 36 years as a health care administrator and hospital chief executive officer at Soldiers' Memorial Hospital, presented the necessary proof to the county district health unit that this regional dialysis unit was a viable project and that the city of Orillia was the appropriate venue. On behalf of dialysis patients in Simcoe county, Muskoka district and northeast Durham, I want to offer my sincere thanks to Robert Kehoe for a job well done.

PART-TIME FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): It is with great concern that I stand before you today.

Part-time firefighters who are not represented by unions or associations have no protection under the Employment Standards Act. In my riding, three part-time firefighters have been fired and no just cause has yet been produced.

Under current labour laws, our local council does not have to defend its decision. These men have served Stoney Creek with a combined service record of almost 50 years. What happened to these employees' rights: Robert Hicks, 16 years of service; Raymond Elliott, 12 years of service; and Colin Coleman, 22 years on the job?

What would make a person miss those once-in-a-lifetime moments with his family and loved ones? It is not for money, not for recognition, but instead it is for the commitment they have made to their community.

It is time this government started looking at current legislation. As a labour party we should begin to put our efforts into representing the people who have worked in these part-time positions. We must place equal value on their efforts -- the same value we would for a full-time worker.

Let's start working towards legislation that offers protection to all workers.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I want to talk today about a rare specimen from the animal kingdom, a political chameleon. We all know that the chameleon changes its skin colour to blend in with its surroundings.

In this very chamber, we have a living example of a political chameleon, the leader of the third party, Mr Harris. We all know that Mike has changed his colour before. I remember the social contract discussions: yes, yes, and then no; or how about Kim Campbell: no, no, then yes.

Here's a new one to add to the collection: In 1986, when the Liberal government wanted to allow the sale of beer and wine in corner stores, the Tories were in an uproar. In fact, they defeated the legislation with a full whip vote on Bill 135. Mike Harris voted against allowing beer and wine in corner stores. Now he's changed his mind. Just last Saturday during a cable TV show, Mr Harris said he was in favour of beer and wine in corner stores.

Do you believe that, Mr Speaker? Yet another flip-flop. I can hardly imagine what the other members of his caucus who also voted against beer and wine are feeling; honourable members like Ernie Eves, Cam Jackson, Margaret Marland, Al McLean and Norm Sterling. What went through their minds when they saw their fearless leader perform a complicated backflip that he's becoming so famous for? Were they concerned for his safety or just theirs?

WASTE REDUCTION IN BROCKVILLE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On November 25 the city of Brockville won a national award for reducing the amount of garbage it produces by a full 50%. Through a number of very aggressive initiatives, the city of 21,000 has cut its garbage from 40 tonnes a year in 1987 to just 20 tonnes in 1992.

Brockville is probably the only Ontario community that has met the province's goal, set for the year 2000, of a 50% reduction in the amount of waste sent to landfill. Brockville's waste-reduction initiatives now include curbside blue boxes, backyard composters, the banning of certain items at the landfill site and limiting the number of garbage bags residents are allowed to put out each week. As well, the city built a one-acre municipal composting facility and now collects old Christmas trees for chipping and reuse in the city's parks.

As this recent Environment Canada award shows, Brockville has taken the 3Rs seriously and it must be said that Brockville really had no choice. The city dump is over capacity. It has applied to the Ministry of Environment and Energy for a five-year extension at the dump to tide residents over until a regional site can be found. For Brockville, it's been a case of working hard to look good in the eyes of the ministry or risk being turned down for the dump expansion.

Given Brockville has upheld its end of this unspoken game of the carrot and stick, I strongly urge the Minister of Environment to look favourably on the city's request for a five-year dump site extension. Brockville has earned it.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Tonight, the Oshawa YW and local women's shelter, the Denise House, will co-sponsor a candlelight vigil in commemoration of the tragedy of December 6, four years ago. They call on us to follow their lead to first mourn and then work for change. It's highly appropriate that we mark this day, the fourth anniversary of that tragedy.

Both the Oshawa YWCA and Denise House have a proud history of serving the needs of women in our community, especially as havens to victims of domestic violence. They have seen and continue to see in astounding numbers the consequences that acts of physical brutality and emotional manipulation leave on women and children. We are reminded that acts of violence are perpetuated not only through guns and knives but also by fists, by putdowns, by controlling action.

There are many facilities that respond to the desperate plea for help from the physically and emotionally abused and bruised women in Durham region, many of whom have no support system and continue to be victims. They would continue to be victims without the intervention of the Oshawa YW and Denise House.

The Oshawa YW and Denise House have made the issue of violence against women a priority in their programs. Violence against women, whether physical or emotional, degrades, devalues all of us. Violence against women will not and must not be tolerated.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The people of Ottawa-Carleton are continuing in their quest to bring paramedics to Ottawa-Carleton and they will not be satisfied until we join the ranks of the good citizens of Hamilton, Oshawa and Metropolitan Toronto, who have for many years now enjoyed the benefits of paramedics in their communities.

Paramedics in these communities are funded by this provincial government, and I, like the 42,000 people of Ottawa-Carleton who have to date signed our petition cards, can see no justification whatsoever for denying this same funding to the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

Paramedics are found in over 50 Canadian cities and over 2,200 American communities. Paramedics have evolved in order to constitute an important link in the chain of survival for our pre-hospital emergency health care.

In combination with the other two links, early cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, paramedics have proven to be most effective in saving lives of people who require emergency care before getting to the emergency ward if they are to survive.

Ottawa-Carleton has a survival rate for its heart attack victims of 2.4%. This is one of the lowest survival rates in North America. In communities with a full chain of survival in place, the survival rate is between 20% and 30%.

The people of Ottawa-Carleton will not be satisfied until this government funds paramedics for us. Not only is denying Ottawa-Carleton paramedics unjustifiable, it is, given that lives are at stake here, unconscionable.

I want to assure the Minister of Health and the Premier that this issue will not go away. It will haunt them now and, if necessary, at the time of the next election.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): The township of Holland wants to upgrade three existing open roads: a street in Walters Falls, the Holland-Euphrasia town line and the concession road leading to the HollandSydenham town line.

They wish to do this because repairs such as cleaning and reditching are necessary to ensure safety for those using the roads. However, they have been told they cannot do this work without first getting permission from the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Neither I nor the township of Holland nor the township of Sydenham, who was asked for comment, can understand why upgrading existing roads for public safety is any business of the NEC. The maintenance and the upkeep of the roads is a municipal responsibility and should remain that way.

A development permit should not be needed to fix road allowances which have fallen into disrepair. Judge J.F. Laing of the Ontario Court of Appeal recently ruled that although someone had rebuilt an existing laneway in the escarpment area, the work did not constitute a change in the use of the land and therefore no permit was needed.

I would ask the Minister of Environment and Energy to bring this case to the attention of the NEC and remind the commission to stop meddling in areas where it should properly have no jurisdiction.

I agree with Holland and with Sydenham when they say that they object to having to apply to the NEC for permission to undertake municipal road projects and I ask the minister to take strong action in the very near future to ensure that this procedure, which is nothing but a waste of time and the taxpayers' money, comes to an end.

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF DISABLED PERSONS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): The United Nations has recognized December 6 as the International Day of Disabled Persons. It was proclaimed by the UN for the first time last year, marking the close of the Decade of the Disabled.

The proclamation was made worldwide to urge governments and organizations to observe not only the day and promote public awareness, but also to intensify their efforts to improve the situation of disabled persons. I have a personal commitment to see that the government of Ontario continues to keep the issues of the disabled on the legislative agenda.

Over the last three years I have been extremely proud of our government's efforts in producing progressive employment equity legislation and the Advocacy Act. Also noteworthy, disabled persons now have access to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board through the persons with disabilities committee.

Our government set an extremely important precedent in North America with the passing of Bill 4 in July of this year, a bill permitting the use of American sign language, ASL, and la Langue des signes québécois, LSQ, as languages of instruction for deaf and hard-of-hearing students.

I am proud of our accomplishments, but we still have a lot of work to do. Disabled persons need more and better access to education, jobs and training through improved support services. There should be a more systematic approach to compensation issues for persons with disabilities. I encourage our government to take action.

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I believe we have unanimous consent for a three-party statement on the provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am rising today on this most solemn of anniversaries to commemorate the 14 women who lost their lives in the Montreal massacre four years ago today.

Today is the third annual provincial Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. It is a time for us to remember the victims and their families and it is a time to reflect on what this crime tells us about our society and women's place in it.

In the wake of the massacre many of us recognized the killer's rampage as an extreme expression of society's attitudes towards women. We said that this was not the random act of a madman; rather it was a horrifying manifestation of the aggression towards women that we know to be commonplace. Others challenged this analysis and denied the extent of violence against women in this country.

Unfortunately, statistics are bearing out what many women have long said about violence. The federal report on violence against women released last month by Statistics Canada has indicated that the problem is even more widespread than we had feared. As Sunera Thobani, president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, has said, "Violence against women is 'a national crisis.'"

The Statistics Canada survey indicates that more than half of Canadian women have been physically or sexually assaulted, using the Criminal Code definition of these assaults, at least once in their adult lives; almost half, 48%, of women with a previous marriage reported violence by a previous spouse; and women aged 18 to 24 were more than twice as likely to report violence in the previous year than were older women -- 27% of women in that age group said they had been assaulted during the previous year. These statistics are shocking, even to those of us who have worked with assaulted women for years.

December 6 is etched on our national consciousness. Whether we attend a vigil, wear a white ribbon, make a donation to an organization assisting assaulted women or volunteer our time to help push for tighter gun control legislation, we will each find our own way to mark this day. We must remember, we must never forget and we must resolve that it never happen again.

Women across this country have asked that legislators, the media and their community leaders refrain in our statements on this day from mentioning the name of the perpetrator of the Montreal massacre, understanding that for many violent criminals, notoriety is a motivating factor. We believe it is necessary for us to ensure that on this day we remember those bright lights, those 14 bright lights, that were extinguished on December 6 by using only the names of the women who were victimized.

Mr Speaker, I wonder if, through you, we could ask all members of this Legislature to stand as we remember the 14 women who were murdered on December 6, 1989.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members, and indeed visitors in the galleries, to stand for a moment of silent reflection.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Sonia Pelletier, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Michèle Richard, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Maria Klueznick, Annie Turcotte, Annie St-Arneault and Maude Haviernick.

The House observed a moment's silence.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Today we remember the 14 young women gunned down at l'École polytechnique in Montreal four years ago and we grieve with and for their families.

As we commemorate a Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women we must ask the question, were their deaths four years ago a turning point in the battle against violence or were their deaths in vain?

Just a few weeks ago a report from Statscan revealed that spousal violence is so pervasive that half the women in Canada have experienced sexual or physical attack and 60% fear for their personal safety in their everyday lives.

The question is no longer, does the violence exist? The question is now, why does this violence occur and how can we stop it? There is no doubt that we have made progress in offering support for victims of violence and it is very important that we continue to offer resources to those who have broken the silence and who have come forward, but we have to ask the question, are we going to the root cause of violence?

The first step has been to break the silence but now it is imperative that we break the cycle. I believe our provincial government can take specific actions to help break this cycle of violence.

First, I would call on the provincial government to support programs for male batterers so that they can learn to deal with their anger and they can learn to change their attitudes.

Second, often the forgotten ones when we're talking about violence are the children and the impact on our children. I would ask our government to review and support special counselling programs for the children of those who have had violence in their family.

Third, we have to stem the violence in entertainment, which has become all too pervasive. Some of the responsibility in this area does lie with the federal government, and we will be calling on the federal government to join in the cause. But there are specific provincial initiatives which I believe can be taken, initiatives which would help stem the tide of violence in entertainment. We must revamp and review the mandate of the Ontario Film Review Board.

The government must act to curb these violent slasher movies that are beginning to proliferate in our video stores. Our government must protect our children by restricting the sale of killer trading cards. They must act on the matter of violent video games. We cannot afford to wait for other jurisdictions, other governments, to act. There will be those who say that this is government interference. I say that this has reached a state where it deserves government interference.

Several weeks ago my colleague the member for York North, Charles Beer, read a quote from the organizers of the White Ribbon Campaign. They said: "If it were between countries, we'd call it a war. If it were a disease, we'd call it an epidemic. If it were an oil spill, we'd call it a disaster." It is a war, it is an epidemic and it is a disaster. I think the men and women of this Legislature should do everything within their power to see that those 14 young women did not die in vain.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Today marks the fourth anniversary of the murder of the 14 university students in Montreal. While most of us may not remember much about the victims, we all know why they died -- because they were women.

They were part of the everyday violence that, as Statistics Canada has recently confirmed, affects one half of all women in Canada. The Montreal massacre differed only in its magnitude and in the fact that the perpetrator acknowledged his motive. He separated the women from the men and deliberately killed the women.

The Statistics Canada report has only confirmed what abused women and those who work with abused women have known for a long time. Abuse does exist and it is very widespread. Violence does breed violence, and women with a violent father-in-law are three times more likely to be assaulted by their partners. Moreover, unfortunately, most violence does go unreported.

So what do we do? We as individuals, we as members of this House must dedicate ourselves to the task of eradicating violence against women. We must change society's attitude about violence against women. Apart from funding women's shelters and sexual assault centres, providing education programs for judges and police officers and initiating public awareness campaigns such as wearing the remembrance red rose button to symbolize change and awareness, we must start to focus on much more preventive action.

Parents have a responsibility. They need to exercise discipline at home and teach children of both sexes to be kind, gentle, compassionate and understanding. Boys need to know that macho is not cool. We need to let teachers discipline at school to curb some of the tendencies that will grow into behaviour that will later brutalize women.

We must reject sexist language and behaviour which, no matter how casual or seemingly innocent, does contribute to the continuation of violent and abusive behaviour. We must acknowledge and we must deal with the influence of media violence, which we are now seeing in video games as well as in the movies and in the printed press.

These are just a few of the preventive actions that we must act upon. However, if we are ever going to create a culture of safety, equality and justice for women, it is absolutely imperative that men and women work cooperatively together. We need to do more than remember one instance of violence today. We need to take collective action such as I have mentioned so that the day may come when no one, no one in this country, whether man, woman or child, will ever again be abused. Today, as we remember, let each one of us personally consider what we can do to ensure that this tragedy is never repeated.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, we have three very special visitors with us today. They're seated in the members' gallery west. I would invite you to join me in welcoming them both to our chamber and to our province: the Liberal leader from British Columbia, Mr Gordon Campbell, who's joined by two MLAs, Gary Farrell-Collins and Linda Reid. Please welcome our special guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question today is to the Minister of Labour. This morning a number of employer and business groups held a joint news conference to protest the Workers' Compensation Board's job-killing rate increases.

Let me go over the facts again for you, Minister: 145,000 businesses will see their rates go up; over 27,000 employers will have their rates go up by over 25%. In addition to these rate increases, all employers will be hit by the Workers' Compensation Board new 3% surtax. What makes this harder to understand is that these increases come at a time when accident rates have declined by 30%. Accident rates are down by 30% and yet costs are up by over 50%.

Minister, what makes you think that employers can afford to pay these increases? Employers are telling you that these increases will mean thousands of lost jobs. Employers are angry because these increases were imposed at the last minute, with no consultation or study.

My question is, Minister, have you or the Workers' Compensation Board done any studies at all on how many jobs will be lost due to these rate increases?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The member across the way knows very well, because we've indicated it a number of times, that the increase this year is an average 3% across the board. He also knows that there are decreases as well as increases going on over the last two years as a result of the reclassification and that the rates now being charged more closely relate to what the injury rate is in any particular business. The member is well aware of that.

He should also be aware that in terms of the difficult times we're in, it's why the increase was no more than 3%, yet I've heard a steady stream of calls to deal with the unfunded liability. He should also know that for two years prior to this, the board froze the rates where they were.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, pardon me, but somebody is telling an untruth around here and I don't know who it is. We had business people this morning at that press conference telling us and showing us facts that showed increases for 27,000 businesses of over 25%, and yet you stand there and say it's only 3% on average. Their figures come from WCB figures. Either you're misleading them or they're misleading the public. I don't know which it is.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member knows better.

Mr Mahoney: I'm just posing the possibility, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Mahoney: At a time when the Premier talks about creating jobs, the Workers' Compensation Board, headed by your former NDP colleague, is killing jobs. This morning in the paper, who's the spokesman for the government? Leo Gerard -- amazing. We've been getting letters from employers across the province who are upset that these rate increases will force them to lay off staff. This morning, even an injured worker interrupted the press conference to say he supported the concerns being expressed by the business community.

A contractor from Thorold says: "We cannot absorb these costs. We will simply have to consider layoffs." A manufacturer from Brampton says: "Wage freezes have been in effect" --

The Speaker: Will the member place is question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- "for the past four years. An increase such as this one will be fatal. We will be forced to lay off more workers and possibly close down." Finally, an aerospace manufacturer from Simcoe says, "You must reduce these costs or you will have all of my people on your welfare rolls."

Minister, what do you say to the workers who will lose their jobs because of these rate increases? What do you say to the families of those workers who will lose their jobs because of this unprecedented WCB tax hike?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would like once again to point out that the rates were frozen two years ago; that one full year ago there was either a 3% increase or a 3% decrease and it averaged out to no increase; that the average increase this year is 3%; that the differences in individual groups are due to the fact that the classifications have been changed from 109 to 219 categories and some of them came nowhere near their accident rate in terms of what their assessment was.

There is a three-year effort under way -- this is the second year -- to try and deal with the differences between what the accident rates indicate the rates should be and what they're actually paying. It seems to me that's absolutely the fairest way to deal with this issue.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): What are you doing about it?

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre. Final supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: Here are some of the letters, Minister. I'll be happy to share copies of them with you. Maybe you'd be just a little interested in the people who create jobs in this province and what they are saying. As far as average, what's that old saying: "Your head's in the oven and your feet are in the refrigerator"? That's your definition.

Minister, it's not too late to do the right thing. On December 17, the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board will be meeting to review these rate increases. Businesses are ready, willing and able to help solve this problem. This hurts all business, particularly small business. They are asking for the rate increases to be phased in, as was originally promised and planned and then abandoned by the board.

Minister, you say the average increase was only 3%, yet the surtax alone on every business, no exceptions, is 3% by itself. You know that a 3% average is not true. In fact, employers would be happy to live with a 5% cap. These ideas will be presented to the board by employers on the 17th as a way to save jobs, but the employers are deathly afraid that your NDP chair, Odoardo Di Santo, will simply overrule them, as he did when the rate increases were first brought in.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Mahoney: My final question: Minister, will you make sure that the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board puts jobs first at the December 17 meeting and will you tell him and the board to review these rates to protect those jobs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The current rate is $2.95 per $100 of earnings. It goes up to $3.04 with the 3% increase that's there now. If we went for the recommendations that have come from the business community, the current $2.95 would decrease to $2.83. Can I ask the member across the way how he's going to deal with another one of his pet concerns, the unfunded liability, if he's decreasing rates rather than trying to meet it in a reasonable way? An increase of 3% is not unreasonable.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Last week, Minister, as you know, we got the report card on the Rae government's first three years of running the economy. I think any objective analysis would give you an F if you were grading this report card.

The number of people who are unemployed is at a record high in the province: 575,000 people in 1993. In fact, every week you've been in government, another 1,500 people -- every single week, week after week -- become unemployed. Social assistance is at record numbers. Every week you've been in government, another 1,900 people have had to go to social assistance for help. Housing starts are down dramatically. Ontario once had the lowest unemployment rate in all of Canada, and we now find four provinces substantially lower.

I've now heard for three years about Jobs Ontario, about partnerships, about jobs being a priority. I've heard talk, talk, talk. My question is this: Why is it that all of those programs you talk about, now that we have the report card, have proven to be a failure?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite won't be surprised to find out that I disagree with the premise of the question he puts forward. Can I first of all suggest that we should ensure we're starting from the same basis of information with respect to what the economic outlook is and what the facts and figures are right now?

We can take a look at the GDP. During the second quarter of this year, in fact it rose by 3.2%. The member opposite talked about housing starts. Housing starts were up 10% last September. In fact, they were up 29% in October. If you look at exports, exports are up 15.6% in the first three quarters of this year. It's even higher than that in the auto sector.

Certainly we have experienced the effects of this recession in a very deep and meaningful way in Ontario. For the member to suggest that these facts and figures are only occurring here in Ontario I think is not credible with the members of this Legislature or the public. This is something that's been experienced right across this country.

Mr Speaker, as I can see you starting to urge me to wind up my response, I'm sure the member knows there have been real results from the various jobs initiatives, and I believe there will continue to be. I'm sure I can address more of that in his supplementary question.

Mr Phillips: Frankly, that's drivel. If you look at the gross domestic product, if you look at the output in this province, and the Premier should know this, the output in this province in 1993 is way below where it was in 1990. Three years later, this province is producing less than it did in 1990. For the minister to not understand that worries me.

My point is this: I understand, Minister, that you are planning to take the taxes up on business on January 1. If you look at your report card, you will find that the profits of the corporations in this province, in Ontario, before taxes, are about half what they were in 1989. The business community is struggling, yet I understand it is the intention of the government to actually increase taxes January 1.

I might also say that the Fair Tax Commission, that was asked to look at a comprehensive review, is scheduled to release its report in about a week and a half, yet I understand the government is committed to proceeding to increase business taxes in this province on January 1.

Why would you even consider, just when the business community is beginning to get on its feet, struggling to its feet, hoping to create jobs, why would you choose, at that very moment, January 1, to give them a shove right back down the hill with another tax increase?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, I think it's very important that the member get his facts straight and give them straight to the public. With respect to corporate taxes, and I believe this is the area of taxation he is speaking to, let's deal with the manufacturing sector, the sector that's been the hardest hit through the recession as a result of the restructuring of the economy, trade adjustment etc. As of January 1994, our combined taxes will be lower in the province of Ontario than any of the US Great Lakes states which are our main manufacturing competitors. To talk about this from a competitiveness aspect, quite frankly, we are looking good compared to our competitive jurisdictions.

He speaks about a rise in taxes. With respect to the minimum corporate tax which is being brought in and which we hope to have effective January, that is being constructed in a very moderate way. Small business, where we know the growth in employment will come from, is being exempt. It is being brought in very moderately and, quite frankly, it will close loopholes for those companies who have been profitable, who have been managing to write off through different ways and avoiding paying any taxes. It will not affect the overall tax burden of companies here in Ontario.

Mr Phillips: They'll be interested to hear it won't affect their overall tax burden, so I gather it won't raise any more money. I gather what the minister says is that there will be some corresponding decrease, if it won't impact the overall tax burden; I gather it's not designed to raise revenue. It is designed, in my opinion, to give business another push in the face. I think we all know that jobs are created by small business. I don't think there's any doubt about that, that if we look at trying to get jobs created, it is the small business sector that will create them.

The survey among the small business organization in the province suggests that about 20% of the businesses with between five and 19 employees will be hit by the minimum corporate tax, at least the tax that was originally proposed. Everyone, as I say, knows it will be that sector that will create the jobs that will get our economy going again. That tax is hitting 20% of our small businesses, the businesses with five to 19 employees. Minister, why would you choose this time to hit those particular small businesses that will be the ones that could get our job creation going? Why will you hit the small businesses with a corporate minimum tax?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member opposite knows that the majority of small businesses in this province, which, I agree with him, are the generators of jobs, where the growth will come from, will be exempted from the impact of the corporate minimum tax. Let's get this straight, and as we present it to people let's inform them of that.

May I also remind the member opposite that in fact in 1992 we made a change to taxes with respect to small business. In order to be of assistance to small business, we moved the corporate income tax rate down from the level that the Liberal government, when it was in power, had assessed against them. The member conveniently forgets that.

We take seriously the need to help businesses maintain their competitiveness, and I spoke many times in this House around what we're doing with respect to try to keep our costs down in order not to impose more tax increases on businesses out there: with respect to what we're doing in health care and how that's a competitive advantage for our businesses; what we are trying to do in working through the restructuring of the WCB; Ontario Hydro energy rates. I spoke about the combined statutory corporate income tax rates --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- the fact that we are now lower than any of the US states we are main competitors with. I think there is still much to do, but the member opposite does the public a disservice not to set those facts out in a clearer context before he places these partisan questions.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier, and it follows up on the question by the member for Mississauga West. The reason I want to ask you this, Premier, is because earlier this year, and in listening to your statements following the last budget, you seem to have understood that you cannot hike taxes any further without having a devastating effect on jobs in this province.

I have heard you state this, Premier. I have heard your Treasurer state this as well. Premier, I got a sense that you have understood, through the social contract and other areas that have led to immense popularity for you and your cabinet, that to deal with the deficit of the province of Ontario we can't go out there and continue to hike taxes, that we're actually going to have to cut costs, that we're going to have to cut the size and cost of government.

Premier, since the Minister of Labour seems to be defending WCB hiking the payroll taxes once again in spite of all the evidence that this will cost us jobs in this province -- in spite of all that evidence he is defending that -- I am now appealing to you, Premier. There is a meeting, as has been pointed out. On December 17, the WCB will be meeting. You appoint those folks, Premier.

I'm asking you to call those members of the board, explain to them what you have learned through your own budget and the finances of the province of Ontario, and make a last-ditch appeal and tell them: "Board, you cannot continue to hike taxes. You must deal with your liability, your $12-billion deficit, by controlling your own costs."

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: Will you make that call on behalf of businesses in this province and on behalf of those people who are looking to hang on to jobs in this province?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want the leader of the third party to understand that we have been working at the board to streamline administrative and other costs. We have been looking at the problems that we carry. The 1994 assessment rates limit the growth of the WCB's unfunded liability to $133 million, the lowest increase in over three years.

In response to the employers' request, the WCB modified the rate groups so that firms with good safety records would not continue to be penalized by subsidizing employers with high accident rates. The WCB is introducing the new standard rates over a three-year period to make it easier to do it during these tough economic times.

Mr Harris: I am really distressed on behalf of workers in this province, those who do not have jobs, those who are concerned about losing their jobs. General Mills Restaurants Canada estimates the new rates will cost it $1 million over the next three years, which may lead to layoffs. Mid-West Silo Systems of Wellesley is facing a 40% increase in its rates. They write, "If this situation cannot be rectified, our firm will have no choice but to close, putting 14 people out of work."

Minister, for a government which professes to give job creation a priority -- I hear it every day in the rhetoric from all your ministers, and yet you bring forward a policy, when it is well within your purview to begin to attack the costs of WCB, you continue to go out there and hike taxes, which is costing us jobs every day. We don't understand this.

Let me ask you this: In view of the mounting evidence of company after company whose safety record is improving year over year, and yet they're facing these massive increases in payroll taxes and they are going out of business and are laying off workers, why do you continue to bring in a policy that is destroying jobs in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If the member across the way would stop and think for a minute, he might find that the GST and free trade have destroyed an awful lot more jobs than anything we've done to try and bring the WCB costs into balance. If the WCB had adopted the assessment rate put forth by the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, the unfunded liability would have grown by $275 million. Certainly, we would have heard from the member across the way if that had happened.

The administrative proposal adopted by the board of directors offers a workable compromise. In a time when a real rate of $3.20 would be needed to fully finance the system, the employers are being asked for $3.04 and not a decrease to $2.83, which would simply add several hundred million dollars to our costs.

Mr Harris: We heard at a press conference this morning of company after company whose safety record is improving and yet their rates are going up as well. The minister continues to tell us that's not the case. It is the case. We have example after example. Kenmore Developments of St Catharines writes: "Our company has 25 full-time employees. The increase will likely cost in excess of $10,000 per annum." Ameron industrial coatings in Lively says: "You can shear the sheep every year but you can only skin them once. We've now been skinned."

We know there is an unfunded liability of $12 billion, just as the provincial finances have this deficit that must be dealt with. But you continue to advance the case that this deficit can be dealt with by continually hiking taxes and we, and the business community and the brothers and sisters worried about jobs, continue to tell you that the more you do it that way, the more jobs are lost, and the more you defeat the purpose of trying to balance the books at the WCB.

Will you today begin to attack the real causes, the out-of-control costs of the WCB? Will you begin to do that? You can start by firing the chairman and the vice-chairman as we speak. Will you do that?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't find the suggestions from the leader of the third party very useful, but that seems to be par for the course these days. If we were trying to add to the employers' costs, as he says, why did we freeze the rates for the last two years? Why did we come up with a 3% increase on average this year alone? Why did we also take a serious look at the classifications and those who were not paying their fair share and those who were paying too much? That's where the adjustments are going and surely the member across the way is smart enough to understand at least that.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I am asking you why. Do you want me to answer why? We'll be here all day.

The Speaker: Does the leader have a second question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

TEACHERS' PENSION LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a new question for the Premier. This afternoon we are debating legislation, Bill 121, which tinkers with the formula for who is going to reap the benefit of any in-year surplus in the teachers' pension fund. Will it be teachers or will it be taxpayers? We have no actuarial assessment done to date on any potential surplus. Therefore, we don't know, as we pass this legislation -- or you ask us to pass it -- who will benefit from this new formula.

Premier, since we have no way of knowing who is benefiting from this and you tell us you're going to do the actuarial assessment after the legislation is passed, would you not agree with me that we should suspend dealing with this legislation until the actuarial assessments are done so that we have some sense of knowing what it is you're going to ask us to vote on today?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I could just take the question as notice since it stands in the name of the Minister of Education and Training as well as the Minister of Finance, but I guess my basic comment to the member would be that it's my understanding that this bill is going to go to committee and I would think that if there are technical questions of the kind he's raising, those could be raised and handled in committee in the normal course of events.

Mr Harris: I want to impress a few things on the Premier. Number one, the bill is not going to committee. I'm told the subject matter is going to committee but the bill is not going to committee.

Let me refresh the Premier's memory, because I think the Premier will remember something. In 1989, the then Minister of Education, Sean Conway, the member for Renfrew North, brought in a bill. He asked us to pass it, and he went ahead and passed it anyway, in spite of some concerns.

That bill said that the unfunded liability was $4 billion. Then he said, "After you pass this, folks, we'll do the actuarial study to find out what the unfunded liability is." That seemed backwards to me and I'm sure the Premier would have felt that was the backwards way to do it. What happened after that was that after the Liberals told us it would be $4 billion and they passed the bill, then they did the study by Mercer. We found out afterwards the liability was close to $8 billion, yet the Liberals forced this bill through, not knowing the liability.

Given that you have that precedent before you of what happens when you barge through with legislation without knowing what it is we're talking about -- I appreciate you said you'd take it as notice, but we're being asked to debate this bill today -- would you not agree that we should not be proceeding with this bill until the actuarial study is done and we know who it is it's going to benefit, taxpayers or teachers?

Hon Mr Rae: I think it's possible that both taxpayers and teachers will benefit. I'm not sure that one should see those two groups as exclusive of each other. But I would say to the honourable member that it's my understanding that the government -- and the minister, as you know, has carriage of this bill -- has agreed that these issues can be dealt with in committee.

Mr Harris: Given the disastrous record of the Liberals on this whole issue, the legislative changes they made without knowing the cost -- they did this to us as well on the Workers' Compensation Board. Remember? They brought in changes to WCB and then we found out that the changes -- they said they were revenue-neutral -- cost us billions and billions of dollars. They've been a disaster.

Then they did the same thing on the teachers' pensions. They told us it would be $4 billion. I have the press release, October 19, 1989. A deficit of about $4 billion, they told us. Then they did the actuarial study afterwards and it turned out to be $8 billion.

Given what can happen, Premier, when a government barges ahead without knowing the true cost -- you have two or three living examples from the Liberal Party here before you took over this province -- would you not agree that we should now do the study first, instead of making a commitment to do it after, before we finish this bill? Would you agree with that?

Hon Mr Rae: I like those long

preambles, particularly when they involve a major attack on another political party rather than my own, so as much time as you want to go on on that subject. As to any comments you want to make with respect to the sheer profligacy and the political irresponsibility of the Liberal Party of Ontario, I wouldn't want to cut you off in any way.

But I would say to you in all seriousness that in terms of the response to this question, it's my clear understanding that the kinds of technical questions you're raising are ones that will be and can be dealt with directly tomorrow in committee.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. We're quite surprised that you didn't stand in the House today and make a statement concerning the special investigations unit. You know as well as anybody that the SIU is in total disrepute. It is clear that neither the police, the public nor the victims have any confidence in what the SIU is doing, not an ounce of confidence.

Last month a coroner's jury in the Raymond Lawrence case recommended that you fix the SIU and fix it soon. Last week the leader of the official opposition called for the resignation of the director of investigations for the SIU, particularly for his actions in the Vega case.

We now have, over the last several days, an admission from Mr Morton that he in fact told the Vega family that no charges would be laid against the constable involved and did not tell the constable for a period of five months. Can you imagine the unfairness, the gross error in conduct on the part of the director of investigations? So I'm asking you today, will you do the proper thing and replace Mr Morton as director?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Mr Morton indeed has been very clear and has admitted his error in that. He has also explained that this occurred because of the process that had been set up whereby he was unable either to inform the chief of police or the Attorney General until a full report was ready. That was under the processes that had been set up from the beginning of this unit, which, I must remind the member, was set up under his previous government.

When I met with Mr Morton last week and we talked about what the issue was and he explained what the circumstances were, I made it very clear to him that I agreed that that was inappropriate conduct under the circumstances and that we needed to revise that protocol immediately. We did that at that meeting. Henceforth, when a determination is made that an officer is no longer suspect in a case, a quick verbal report to that effect will go to the chief of police involved and to me with reasons to follow, a process that is followed in many complex investigatory cases and court cases. We believe that this will resolve the issue.

With respect to the member's other comments --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have stated in this place very clearly that I agree with him that the processes that were set up under the previous government and have been followed are not adequate. We are working with the SIU and will be working with the police community and the regular community, the community at large, to ensure that those processes are improved.

Mr Chiarelli: The issue here is what you have been doing as a government for the last three years: nothing at all concerning the SIU. The issue is the 16 months of management by Mr Morton of the SIU. It isn't only the Vega case that's in question. In Ottawa there was the David Nurse case where it took 15 months to give a response in the investigation. In that particular case Mr Morton publicly apologized; in this case he's acknowledging a gross error.

Newspapers are rife with what's wrong. You haven't denied what's wrong, including an internal audit which says that Mr Morton is incompetent as an administrator. You can't hide behind a previous government. You can't hide behind "looking into the process" any more. You have to act and you have to act now. What are you doing today and this week to solve the problem at SIU?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is quite incorrect when he says that nothing has been done. When Mr Morton took over this unit, the backlogs were enormous. The vast majority of those backlogs have been cleared and there has been a great deal of work to try and resolve some of the morass of problems that have existed.

The problem remains that was identified in the Lawrence inquest and again in this particular case around the duty to cooperate. That is a very thorny issue and one which we agree must be resolved in some way. But there are diametrically opposed viewpoints on this, obviously, and always have been, as the member is well aware. The police community takes one view and the community at large takes another, as this is the issue of civilian control over police behaviour and how it can best be achieved while supporting the police in their job and yet ensuring that the community has confidence in the accountability of police officers.

So I would say to the member that there are a great many changes that have been done. I've talked about some of those in terms of the increase of resources, the changing of the unit from the Solicitor General's ministry to the Attorney General's ministry --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- the audit which is ongoing. I would say it is important in this House to get on the record that the audit report has not been received. It has been critical of organization but it has not called for the resignation of Mr Morton.

SUPPLY MANAGEMENT OF FARM COMMODITIES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Premier: Over the weekend Ontario's supply-managed farmers received confirmation from both the federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Trade that our system of supply management would not survive the current GATT round. This is a monumental betrayal of agriculture by the Liberal Party of Canada, which promised Canadians during its recent campaign that it would definitely have a supply-managed system after the election.

To date, our dairy and feather industries have not had to rely on government support. If

article XI of the GATT disappears, there will be huge demands for assistance to counter surplus products entering our country and our province, and our farmers in the feather and dairy industries will face very difficult times.

Is Ontario aware of the cost to both agriculture and to the provincial treasury of this betrayal at GATT? Or have we been too preoccupied with free trade and NAFTA to worry about GATT?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the question from my good friend from eastern Ontario. I must confess to the honourable member that I suspect our reactions, his and mine, were very similar to the attitude and to the positions that have been taken by the federal government in this area. I was discussing them in Oxford county, where I was with my good friend the member for Oxford on Thursday.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): What's his name?

Hon Mr Rae: Kimble Sutherland. He's a very fine member, a very hardworking member and a very effective member. I had a meeting with representatives of the dairy farmers at that time. I've met with the representatives of the farm community twice in the last two weeks, at the OFA convention and again at the Vision 2020 conference.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food and I and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and I have been discussing this issue. We are very, very deeply concerned. We've conveyed that concern as directly as we can to the federal government. We are not in support of any move by the federal government to drop

article XI, and strengthening

article XI is a critical task and target for Canada in trade matters. We think this has provided enormous stability for this part of the agricultural economy and it is a fair way to do business in this country. We don't see any logic or any reason for dropping it as a basic element of Canada's trade strategy.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: We would urge the federal government to stay the course for the dairy farmers, for the poultry farmers, for all those people who are covered by a strategy which has worked effectively in this country and in Canada for 25 years.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: We ask the Liberal government to live up to at least one promise that it made to the people of Canada in the last election campaign.

Mr Villeneuve: I and my party have been saying for years that GATT is where the action is, and yet the Liberal Party of Ontario and the government of Ontario have been against the free trade agreement, which is GATT-compatible. Don't they understand it's GATT-compatible?

If the government is ready, perhaps the Premier can provide answers to some very basic questions. Will Ontario and the federal government match assistance that producers receive elsewhere in other provinces? Banks will be greatly concerned with the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been lost in quota value and farm income. Quality standards and food safety tests will have to be instituted for products coming in from other countries. Quebec has instituted already a large support program for its dairy and poultry producers in the event that

article XI did not survive at GATT.

Producers must get answers. What is the government of Ontario ready to do in these areas where other provinces have already acted?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say directly to the honourable member, I have urged the federal government to stay the course and I would urge it to do it again today. I would say to the honourable member, I would hope that he would support us in that and that he would not be announcing today that he's giving up on that question, because, let me tell the honourable member, if he were to give up, if he were to abandon that, along with others, he would know that the impact is not confined to the producers.

What we have built here is Team Ontario with respect to the food processing business in this province. I've been discussing this with the producers over the last two weeks very intensely. We have people at the farm gate. We have the companies that are involved. We have the exporters that are involved. We have all those who are trying to deal with this process of change.

I would say to my friends in the Conservative Party, please stay the course with us in fighting the Liberals in Ottawa. Don't give up now just because it's the conventional thing to do or because you read about it on the business pages of the Globe and Mail. Stay the course on supply management. We will be there. But I want to say to the honourable member, the implications of abandoning

article XI are not confined just to the producers.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: The plan that would have to be produced would have to involve all those people, processors and others, and I say to him, that's the reason why we have attached so much importance to staying the course.

The federal government told us that it was going to be giving up on a number of other areas, in terms of patents and all those other areas, in an effort to get tradeoffs.

The Speaker: Would the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: I must say, I haven't been very impressed by the capacity of the horse-traders up in Ottawa to do a job for the farmers of this province, because I don't think they've lived up to their commitments.

PHYSICIAN SHORTAGE

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Minister, Peterborough county has recently suffered a reduction in physician services because approximately four area general practitioners have for different reasons decided to withdraw from family practice. Unfortunately, they have not located replacements and their patients are being told other doctors in the community are unable to provide service.

The explanations given for this are twofold: We're advised that other GPs have full patient loads and, further, that restraints imposed by the social contract restrict doctors from taking on new patients. It has even been suggested that individual doctors will have to suspend practice for several months in order to meet these restraints, forcing thousands of patients to attend hospital emergency wards for routine treatments. Can you reassure the people of Peterborough on these points?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this issue again, because I certainly know that the member for Peterborough and the member for Hastings-Peterborough have been receiving a lot of calls from constituents who have been worried that because physicians are closing their practices for a variety of reasons there may not be services in Peterborough.

I hope the member has reminded her constituents that physicians are self-employed and make their decisions based on their wishes to retire or to move or to close their practices. I hope also that she will reassure them that the efforts of our government to protect the health services of this province by containing their costs do not justify the kind of fearmongering or mass disruption of health services across the province that are occasionally being talked about by some physicians and by some constituents.

Our government has asked everyone who is paid by the taxpayers to do their share in helping us to reduce costs, and so physicians, as a result of our agreement --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- will find their OHIP payments reduced by 4.8%.

There is no reason for a physician not to take new patients should he wish to do so, and in fact I understand that in the Peterborough area there are some physicians currently practising part-time. I would hope --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- that some of them would pick up the new patients who might be available.

Ms Carter: Sensationalist claims are being made locally about the number of people who may be without medical care in Peterborough, and yet up-to-date figures show average patient loads in the Peterborough area to be well below the Ontario average. Madam Minister, who is responsible for ensuring a sufficient supply of doctors to meet local medical needs?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I said, fee-for-service physicians decide where to open a practice and where not to, but the Ontario Medical Association has taken responsibility to try to help people who wish to find a new doctor to in fact make that contact. I would advise her to contact either the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or the Ontario Medical Association as well as the hospitals, which might keep the kinds of lists that she and her constituents would find helpful.

I must also say to her I am delighted to find that there is a group of citizens in Peterborough county who have been talking with my ministry about the prospect of opening a community health centre, because they recognize that a community-based, community-directed health centre would meet many of their primary health care needs. But in cases of emergency, health care will be provided right across this province to anybody who needs it.

TRADE DEVELOPMENT

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Madam Minister, recently Kenichi Ohmai of McKinsey and Co in Tokyo, a world-recognized leader in global strategy, advised Ontario that it should not wait for a Canadian strategy but in fact should take a made-in-Ontario strategy to reach out to those opportunities that are available to it in many areas of the world, including the Far East.

Could you please tell this House how Mr Ohmai's advice reconciles with your government's stand, where you've closed all of our trade offices around the world, with the advice that he has given that we should be reaching out with an Ontario strategy to improve trade opportunities?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite does know, and I have spoken to him on a number of occasions in answer to questions on other occasions, that in fact we have developed an international strategy, which is an Ontario strategy, to reach out with respect to Asia Pacific, for example.

We have continued relations with the Asia Pacific Foundation, with the Japan External Trade Organization and with other organizations that allow us to continue to develop the connections necessary to develop the commercial intelligence in order for us to respond in a timely and effective way.

We have developed, I think, the capacity within the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade with the various trade speciality areas to respond in a very effective way on a sectoral basis. We've much better information than we had before. We have also gone a long way to work with the federal government to develop a more rationalized delivery of services between the federal government and ourselves and using its resources in the international offices that it has abroad.

Mr Kwinter: Given the minister's explanation of the strategy that they've put in place, it seems strange that at the very meeting of the Japanese society that Mr Ohmai addressed, which was held in Toronto and which was attended by leaders of the federal government, there was a very obvious non-appearance of any representatives from her particular ministry.

This was also the case at the Canada-China Trade Council, another important meeting at which no Ontario Ministry of Economic Development and Trade representatives were there. How can you have a strategy that is supposed to be expanding our influence in areas of the world when at these meetings which are held right here in Toronto you can't even muster the representation to go and put forward Ontario's point of view and at least show to these key markets that Ontario has an interest in their activities?

Hon Ms Lankin: First of all, I should point out that in fact only one of the conferences was here in Toronto. We were aware of both conferences and we made a conscious decision. Let me tell the member why. With respect to the Japan society conference, it was a one-day event. I have the agenda here and I'd be pleased to share it with the member. It was a combination of academic and other speakers.

The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade officials made an assessment that at a $500 cost to attend this conference, there weren't business opportunities to pursue there, there wasn't the need for a representative to be at that conference and that wasn't the place where we should be concentrating our efforts with respect to expanding our representation in various networks throughout Japan.

With respect to the Canadian-China business council conference, the conference he was speaking about was held in Vancouver. Rather than attend that conference, again at a cost of sending people, last week the minister responsible for international trade, Minister Allen, met and spoke directly to a council meeting and met with one of the lead ministers from China, who was over here on a delegation.

You will know that Minister Allen also recently attended with a delegation a trip to China, as did the Premier. We're looking at the Premier going to China again in the new year.

I think all of this speaks to the kind of special attention we have given to the Asia Pacific, including leaving our agent general over there until March, which the member and his party were very critical of as well, I remember.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade as well. We are having a great problem with the collection of sales tax in the Ottawa-Carleton area. We are experiencing a tremendous underground economy in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I am informed by many of the building supply dealers in the Ottawa-Carleton area that the province of Quebec came into their businesses under the understanding that they would be given the right to examine the records of these businesses in order to determine the quantity of business that is being done by Ontario companies over into the province of Quebec.

Under that false premise the Quebec government then came to the Ottawa-Carleton companies, the Ontario companies, and held them responsible for collecting Quebec sales tax,

whereas these companies have never been asked to do so before.

Is an Ontario business legally obligated to collect Quebec sales tax when it sells retail goods in the province of Quebec and, vice versa, is a Quebec company legally responsible to collect Ontario sales tax when it does business in the province of Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I will try and answer the member's question. He asked for an actual legal

interpretation. He will know that the Ministry of Finance is the portfolio responsible, and I have been speaking to the Minister of Finance about this issue. The practice that has been in place for a number of years with respect to the cross-border application of this policy is --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned.

Hon Ms Lankin: My time isn't up yet, I know it's not; I've just started.

The practice is one in which on neither side of the border are companies required to collect taxes. You asked the specific question: Is there a legal obligation? I will have to get back to you on that. What I am very disturbed about is the province of Quebec unilaterally changing this practice, which has been in place and has been respected by governments on both sides of the border for an extensive period of time.

The member will know, I hope, that we have taken steps to try and sort this out with the government of Quebec. There have been meetings that have taken place between revenue officials, Ministry of Finance officials, in both provinces. Those meetings are continuing to try and bring some conclusion to this that will resolve this problem for this particular business and others that may experience this in the future.

Mr Sterling: The province of Quebec came in and looked at the books of 18 building suppliers in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They said to them when they came in and looked at the books that they were not going to take any action. Subsequently, the province of Quebec has now seized the assets of these Ontario firms which are presently in the province of Quebec.

One firm is being asked to pay some $380,000, another around $230,000, and what has happened as a result of this is that the Ontario firms going over into the province of Quebec have ceased to do business over in that area. Some of these firms cannot pay these taxes, plus penalties, which the Quebec government is now claiming that these Ontario firms should have collected from them.

Meanwhile, building supply firms like Pilon Ltd, which is doing $10-million worth of business, I am told, in the Ottawa-Carleton area and advertises absolutely no sales tax charge on materials delivered to Ontario in advertisements, are continuing to come across from Quebec to Ottawa-Carleton every day to ply their trade.

You can imagine that the building and material suppliers in Ottawa are not very happy about losing the business in Quebec, while their Quebec counterparts come across the border.

Minister, under our laws in Ontario you have the right to seize the assets of the Quebec firms.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member please place a question.

Mr Sterling: Will you put our building supply dealers on an even playing field by doing what Quebec has done and seizing the assets of firms like Pilon lumber which are bringing across their lumber here and not collecting Ontario sales tax?

Hon Ms Lankin: The member raises a very good question. It is an area of concern that I share with him, as I do generally the issues with respect to Quebec, Ontario and trade and particularly as it affects the Ottawa-Carleton area.

As I indicated in the answer to the first question, the Minister of Finance is the minister responsible for this portfolio. The question you have raised with me is one that I have already taken up with him and will be continuing to discuss. I believe steps have to be taken to end the practice in Quebec and I think it is necessary for us to pursue the discussions that are ongoing, again, as I have always approached these issues, hopefully with a negotiation to resolve the issue.

I am unable to give you a full answer. I will take it under advisement and I will raise it with the Minister of Finance and undertake to get a response to you.

JUNIOR HOCKEY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. As we've heard, the dispute between the OMHA and the CAHA and the OHF has been ongoing for a while. I want to know, as a parent who has a young child in the minor hockey association -- the dispute that is going on between those two organizations is causing hardship to a lot of families: distance travelled, can't play in tournaments that OMHA supports and CAHA supports. Last week --

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): Jim Bradley asked that question last week.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Hope: It's amazing some of the comments that come across.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Hope: I want you to know that this weekend a lot of the parents around the rinks were talking about somebody getting a resolution to this dispute, so that their children can play in closer communities near them, play in a tournament season that is coming upon them for Christmas.

Madam Minister, last week you indicated that you had put a mediator in place. I wonder if you could report to this House the findings of that mediator and hopefully some information that will be provided to those citizens.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I appreciate the question from the member for Chatham-Kent, because he's one of the members who, along with many other members on all sides of the House, have continued to ask those questions of me. I know that not only the member for Chatham-Kent but many members on the other side of the House will be interested in knowing that, following my appointment of the provincial mediator last week, a settlement has been arrived at between the three parties involved.

The Ontario Hockey Federation, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association worked very hard with the assistance of the mediator and came to an agreement over the weekend that will now mean that all of the boys and girls who play hockey under their auspices in this province will be able to engage in the tournaments following the hockey season.

I want to thank the various parties involved --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: -- because they clearly did put the boys and girls of this province first. They clearly worked very hard to arrive at this settlement. I want to close also by thanking the provincial mediator, John Berger, for his assistance.

Mr Hope: That's all well and good, but my concern is about the deal itself between the two organizations, because we're talking about children here. I wonder if the minister can inform us about the details of the package that was agreed to between the two organizations so that I, as a parent, will know about it, and the constituents in my community and other communities that are affected by this dispute will know a resolution has been put forward.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I believe the parties involved in fact should be able to release what they prefer to release themselves. They are making a separate media statement today with regard to their feelings and what they're comfortable with sharing with the public at this point.

I would like to, just in final conclusion, say I'm very much hoping that the parties will use the good faith they developed in this negotiating process to implement the terms of the agreement they arrived at over the coming months. I think of course, as usual, the proof of the pudding will be in the mix. I'm hoping that good faith they finally developed between themselves will help to make sure that the girls, the boys and the families of this province will be able to truly enjoy amateur hockey throughout this province.

PETITIONS

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition that's been forwarded to me from some of the residents of the Quinte area, in particular members of the congregation of the Hastings Park Bible Church who are quite opposed to Bills 45 and 55. I'd like to submit this to the Legislature today.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It says:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I'll sign this in agreement.

ST GREGORY SEPARATE SCHOOL

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the voters and taxpayers of the St Gregory school community have been requesting funds for a much-needed renovation and expansion of the present facility for 11 years;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board has placed St Gregory school as one of its highest priorities on the capital expenditure forecast list;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to allocate capital funds to St Gregory school."

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? The member for Brant-Haldimand.

LANDFILL

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thought you'd missed me.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Environment mandates that all municipalities, whether upper- or lower-tier, which require to expand or relocate municipal sanitary landfill sites must conduct a waste management environmental assessment study; and

"Whereas it is the policy of the Ministry of Environment to assist in funding these studies at the upper-tier level of local government only; and

"Whereas of the 830 municipalities in Ontario, only 39 are upper-tier municipalities organized at the regional or county level;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to direct the Ministry of Environment to cease this discriminatory policy and give funding assistance to all municipalities that are required to conduct a waste management environmental assessment study, and that this funding be made retroactive where applicable."

It's signed by 265 residents of my constituency, and I've affixed my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a second petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 55 will make it illegal, with fines up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation (still undefined). This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality, for example, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition from a number of people who are concerned about the provincial government providing financial assistance for abortion services. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully request that no public funding from the taxpayers of Ontario be allotted to the building or support of the Henry Morgentaler abortion clinic in Ottawa or any other location."

That's been signed by 182 residents of eastern Ontario, and I have also signed the petition.

TAX EXEMPTION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas museums are an essential part of the community, serving to preserve our heritage and educate the public; and

"Whereas municipal governments should be empowered to provide automatic support for museums by enabling them to pass a bylaw exempting particular museums from municipal and school board taxes;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Leo Jordan's private member's Bill 46,

An Act to amend the Municipal Act to provide for Tax Exemptions."

I have signed this.

SALE OF LAND

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and Joe is going to be taking it to the table:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold $450 million worth of land without public consultation; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has sold the Whitevale golf course, the Seaton golf course, 195 acres of open space in Pickering and 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby; and

"Whereas the government now plans to sell $500 million of our finest jails at the very time of a weak real estate market;

"We, the undersigned, call on the government to halt its sale of golf courses, open space and jails until the Legislature has had an opportunity to review the policy."

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Mr Speaker, I want to correct my own record. With the first petition I presented this afternoon, regarding Bill 45, I omitted to read the last sentence, which says:

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I did read that when I read Bill 55, but I didn't when reading Bill 45.

TAXATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario that,

"Whereas the government of Ontario has introduced over $3 billion in new taxes; and

"Whereas the government has continued to mismanage the economy; and

"Whereas new taxes will only further hurt businesses in Ontario;

"The government of Ontario should cancel any new tax initiatives and place more emphasis on reducing wasteful spending."

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Mr Speaker, on a point of order, if I might.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it petitions or --

Mr Miclash: On a point of order, if I just might correct the record. On Friday, December 3, an

article released by the Canadian Press indicated that in the discussion regarding the casino bill, I indicated that such was the raising of blood money. I have discussed this with the press gallery and they indicated that due to an error in the seating plan, this is not the case, and I just wish to correct the record on that.

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order, and neither is it a petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Daigeler from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 47,

An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice / Projet de loi 47, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 16, 1993, this bill is ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on public accounts presented the committee's report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement, Mr Cordiano?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I would like to say that this completes the works of the public accounts committee on the report on non-profit housing.

The report is a culmination of work, and I would like to thank the efforts of the members of the committee for their input. I think the process was a unique one, given that the ministry worked with the committee to make certain changes in administrative policy and practices which were ongoing as the committee reported.

The process is not complete. The ministry will once again come back to the committee with further reporting, but I would say that the committee, in its unique way, brought the ministry forward in terms of administrative practices and policies, and the ministry cooperated with the committee in doing so.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please move the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Cordiano: I move adjournment of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REFERRAL OF BILL 121

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 22:

That the matter of issues related to teachers' pensions be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice for consideration on Tuesday, December 7, 1993, and that the Ministry of Education and Training provide the committee with a technical briefing on the matter at the commencement of that meeting.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I think the motion is fairly self-explanatory.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We are about to debate the bill on teachers' pensions, Bill 121. This is a companion motion. While we would have preferred actually to have had the bill itself in committee, we were unable to agree upon the abridging of the five-day notice period to prepare the legislative committee for a committee hearing on the Teachers' Pension Act.

We believe there are some very important issues which have to be publicly put on the record, and we have agreed with the government House leader and the Conservative House leader that at least this matter could be dealt with in a bit of a new way. This referring of the matters related to teachers' pensions is actually the substitute reference of the bill itself in the committee.

The Liberal Party believes that there are some interesting features to this bill that should be well understood, that should be well versed in the circles that understand finances. We want to have the technical briefing from the Ministry of Education and Training and from those who are interested in this issue put publicly on the record. Our critic for Finance, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, will have carriage of this matter and will be dealing with some of the salient features that we as a party believe are already included in the Teachers' Pension Act.

With Mr Phillips's attendance in the committee, we will then be able to assure ourselves of the actual effects of the Teachers' Pension Act that are being proposed by the Finance minister, important features indeed that must be publicly on the record. We therefore support this motion.

I think it's necessary for us to say that we would have preferred to have actually had the act in the committee, but this will suffice on short notice. I thank both the member for Hamilton Mountain and the member for Parry Sound for allowing us at least this courtesy to try and get the public record to contain an analysis of the contents of this very important piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

TEACHERS' PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DE RETRAITE DES ENSEIGNANTS

Mr Martin, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 121,

An Act to amend the Teachers' Pension Act / Projet de loi 121, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le régime de retraite des enseignants.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a statement?

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I do. These amendments, which are of a technical nature, are put forward with the agreement and support of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, our partner in the Ontario teachers' pension plan. The government and teachers reached an agreement to operate the teachers' pension plan as partners in 1991. This agreement represented a first, an agreement between government and teachers to work as full partners in the operation of the pension plan, with sharing of responsibilities and rewards.

A key feature of the agreement was to have a transition stage leading to a full partnership after the 1997 valuation of the pension fund. During this transition period, gains were to be shared on a sliding scale. In the early stages of the transition, the government would receive the greater portion of any gains. This allowed us to use the government share of the gains to offset the special payments we are making to pay off the initial unfunded liability of the plan. These special payments were instituted by the previous government in 1989. Under the 1989 Teachers' Pension Act, payments commenced on January 1, 1990.

Now we have agreed with the teachers that we can bring forward the government's share of the gains that would have appeared over the full period of the transition. This agreement does not change the portion of the gains that would have accrued to the government had the agreement not been reached. We expect that this share will allow us to offset our special payments to the fund for approximately three years.

As these special payments have been estimated at $1.2 billion over the three years, this represents a considerable saving to the Ontario taxpayer. It will also allow us to move more quickly to a full partnership with the teachers. Full partnership means that when gains are available, the partners can negotiate the use of these gains. Gains could be used, for example, to improve benefits, achieve temporary reductions in the rate of contribution and establish a contingency fund. The next opportunity for such negotiations will follow the triennial valuation of the fund in 1996.

This legislation proposes an exemption to the Pension Benefits Act to give the Ontario teachers' pension plan board full authority to repay to the government special payments that the government has already made to the plan. The partners have agreed that these payments may be replaced by gains disclosed by a January 1, 1993, valuation of the fund. This does not in any way affect benefits that are payable to plan members. This measure does not represent a failure to make payment; it simply allows the refund of money that has already been paid but that the valuation showed did not need to be paid.

The legislation proposes amendments to change the way in which the special payments required to pay off the unfunded liability are calculated. The new method of calculating payments will provide more flexibility. It allows the calculations to reflect the actual changes in teachers' wages. This will bring government payments more closely in line with government revenues. This change will help stabilize the plan. It is supported by the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the pension plan board.

In conclusion, this legislation is built on the spirit of our partnership with Ontario teachers. It has the support of the Ontario Teachers' Federation. It is a product of our partnership and of our commitment to working together to resolve mutual concerns. I ask all members to support this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Just a question: I've requested for tomorrow's hearings the

schedule of payments that are planned to be made against the unfunded liability and I hope that we can have those available tomorrow. I'd like to also know what the series of unfunded liabilities will be and I wonder if the member can also give us that. At the end of this three-year period, what will the unfunded liability be? Thirdly, why has the government rejected what many people thought was the sensible thing to do, and that is to

schedule a series of lower payments? Why has the government decided to take a three-year holiday from any payments into the special fund?

I wonder if the member might, in his response, provide answers for those three things: the

schedule of payments that will be made over the next three years; secondly, the unfunded liability at the end of this period of time; and why the government chose to take a three-year holiday rather than what I think many people outside of government might have thought was a reasonable proposal, to continue to make a series of reduced payments.

The Deputy Speaker: You have two minutes to reply.

Mr Martin: Just to remind the member that this was a negotiated agreement, a coming together of some groups to find a way to do this in a cost-effective manner that was durable and would have benefits for everybody concerned. On the more technical questions that he asked, I would ask to be able to respond to that at the end of the debate when we wrap up.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to begin the debate on this motion. The member categorized it as kind of technical amendments. I would say, to ourselves at least, that what we're talking about here is changing the planned payments into the teachers' pension by $1.5 billion. This isn't a small little technical amendment. The government is going to take a holiday on making payments against what's called the unfunded liability, a 42-month holiday, I gather, of about $1.5 billion.

My interest in this is twofold. One is that I think one makes the assumption that down the road when there's an election held, there may very well be another party that will be responsible for dealing with this situation, so I'm anxious that we understand what we're getting into with this. I understand that there's an agreement between the two partners, but my judgement is that this is because for one of the partners it doesn't matter too much, I gather, because the taxpayers, the government, are going to be clearly on the hook for this.

What first got my interest in the bill was that the first thing we should realize on this technical amendment is that this bill exempts the teachers' pension plan from the operation of

section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act. Alarms go off whenever I see a bill before the Legislature that exempts anyone from that provision. What is that provision in the Pension Benefits Act? It's what I call the Conrad Black provision, which is designed to prevent employers from taking surpluses out of pensions without agreement and without notification of all the various people who are involved in the pension.

The one the government wants to exempt itself from is

section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act: "No money may be paid out of a pension fund to the employer without the prior consent of the commission." They plan not to do that. "An employer who applies to the commission for consent to payment...that is surplus to the employer out of a pension fund shall transmit notice of the application" to "each member...any other individual who is receiving payments out of the pension fund; and the advisory committee established in respect of the pension fund." There's a series of things here that are required of the employer when it is planning to take money out of the pension fund.

That was the first thing that got me worried about this act. Believe me, if this were Stelco or General Motors or any private sector company that wanted to get agreement to bypass that provision, I don't think there would be an NDP backbencher who would ever agree to it, yet you want to pass a bill that allows you to specifically bypass that.

The second thing is that what I think is planned here -- and let's all of us recognize that there is an $8.8-billion unfunded liability in the teachers' pension. That's straight out of the government's books: December 31, 1993, the unfunded liability is $8.8 billion. There's now been, I gather, although I have yet to see it, although I've now asked two different sources for it, the actuarial report that confirms that it isn't an $8.8-billion unfunded liability, that it's now about $1.2 billion less than that, I gather. So it is perhaps a $7.6-billion unfunded liability.

We have a huge debt and there is only one person responsible for that: the taxpayer of Ontario; nobody else. What are we going to do here on this bill? We are going to take a 42-month holiday from making any payments against that $7.6-billion unfunded liability and it's going to grow dramatically over the next 42 months. I'm anxious and I will be looking tomorrow, I gather, or later today, when the member responds, to what it will be at the end of 42 months. What will the unfunded liability be at the end of it? It will be at least $1 billion more than that $7.6 billion.

I understand completely why the government wants to do it. It allows them to show spending every year about $300 million less than they would've had to do. It allows them to borrow presumably $300 million less than they would've had to do. When bond rating agencies and the public look at it and say, "My, my, how well Mr Rae is managing the finances of the province," it is a mirage, it's purely illusionary, because it's --

Interjection: A shell game.

Mr Phillips: -- a shell game, because that amount of money is running up the unfunded liability, with the taxpayers having 100% responsibility to pay it off. It's hiding the debt, completely hiding the debt and hiding the spending. As you try and get these "technical" amendments through, you may get away with it for a month or two months, but not much longer.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Not beyond the next election.

Mr Phillips: "Not beyond the next election," my colleague says. Let's make no mistake about what's happening here. It's creative and it's interesting. It's consistent with a pattern, in my opinion, of trying to mask the real finances of this province, whether it be selling $500 million worth of jails, which the government plans to do, selling its jails to itself and then leasing them back; whether it be what happened last year on the teachers' pension. Do you know what happened last year on the teachers' pension?

The government was supposed to pay $500 million to the teachers' pension on January 1, 1993. They reschedule it to April 1, 1993, rescheduled it for three months. Surprise, surprise. Why did they do that? So they could show $500 million less in spending last year. Do you know what that costs the taxpayers? It cost $3 million. All we got out of that was the province reported its spending as $500 million less than it really was.

The taxpayers of the province spent 11 1/4% interest on that. The interest penalty on that was $3 million. The taxpayers got nothing. To the taxpayers who may be listening to this, it cost you $3 million for absolutely nothing other than that Bob Rae reported his deficit as $500 million lower than it really was.

Luckily, the Provincial Auditor spotted it.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Oh, come on.

Mr Phillips: Well, ask the auditor. Read your own reports.

Mr White: You were $2.5 billion out.

Mr Phillips: The member across the hall is heckling, but the Provincial Auditor spotted it and refused to give an unqualified opinion on the books, for the first time in the history of the province, because he said, "That's not right." The member is shaking his head, but those are exactly the facts.

For the taxpayers, it cost us $3 million. You know what? You're going to do it again this year. You're going to delay that $500-million payment again this year. The shenanigans are going on.

Mr White: You were $2.5 billion out.

Mr Phillips: The member chooses to heckle, but I think the teachers and the Ontario Teachers' Federation, who are watching this, will want to ensure that we know how to manage this fund and that we don't do what I think is being planned here, and that is to run up the unfunded liability by more than another $1 billion.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): How did Nixon do it?

Mr Phillips: That is what we're talking about here today, is the game that the government's playing. They choose to heckle because I don't think the member across the hall, across the Legislature, wants to recognize -- you would never, ever, ever have agreed to any employer bypassing this provision of the Pension Benefits Act and not notifying the pensioners that you're going to -- do you know what you're going to do? You're taking $300 million out of the teachers' pension. There's only one way you can do that. You have to try and get a bill through the House that exempts you from this -- I call it the Conrad Black provision -- the surplus provision of the Pension Benefits Act.

But perhaps more important is what we are doing here. The government is cutting out $1.2 billion of its planned contribution to the pensions. It's going to let the unfunded liability run up dramatically. We will find out that number tomorrow. Here's the problem, I think, for those who are interested in ensuring that the teachers' pension is properly and adequately funded. By the way, I don't think there is any penalty to the teachers in this.

The problem is that at the end of 42 months, at the end of this program, this unfunded liability, which right now I gather stands at around $7.6 billion, will be at least $1 billion higher than that -- at least $1 billion, perhaps more. We are kidding ourselves by taking this holiday and letting the unfunded liability run up.

I will be interested as well in determining, when we delay the $500-million payment to the teachers' pension, what interest we are going to pay on that.

What started out as small, technical amendments -- I hope we understand we're not dealing with a small, technical amendment; we're dealing with a fundamental change in the funding for the teachers' pension plan. We're talking about the unfunded liability being run up dramatically. We're talking about doing something that I would have thought, for many, was almost the last thing you do.

As a matter of fact, if you read the Agenda for People -- which I do frequently -- you'll find that there's a whole

section on pensions and withdrawal of surpluses, how bad they are and how much the NDP objects to them. Wait a minute; I do have -- this is fortunate -- the Agenda for People. Here we are, "Pensions."

Mr White: Where? Talk about housing.

Mr Phillips: The member wants to talk about everything but the pensions, and I understand why he prefers not to talk about the pensions. But unfortunately for him, that's the act that's before the House, and so we will talk about pensions.

Mr Sorbara: What does it say in the Agenda for People?

Mr Phillips: "Pension 'surpluses' would belong to the members of the plan, not to employers." Here we are bypassing

section 78 of the Pension Benefits Act. Again, I'm not saying that from the teachers' perspective this has a negative impact on them. It may very well be that the government has committed that: "Don't worry. Don't worry that the unfunded liability is going to go way up. Don't worry that we'll take a 42-month holiday for making those payments. Don't worry that at the end of the 42 months the unfunded liability will be dramatically higher than we previously estimated."

Mr Sorbara: The government guarantees it.

Mr Phillips: The government guarantees it, as my friend said. But there is no doubt that all this is running debt off book. Frankly, as a matter of fact, now that I recall the bond rating agencies that looked at the government's finances, one of their concerns was this. One of their concerns was what we're doing with pensions. One of their concerns was that we were running up debt in the pension funds rather than putting ourselves on an orderly stream of payments into the pension funds.

As I said earlier, what started out for me at least as a minor bill, as we get into it and I see the implications for the teachers' pension fund and the implications for those who are managing it, I have increasing questions. I'm looking forward to tomorrow because I very much want to see what the benefits are in this proposal. I see lots of problems. I see a lot of problems in what's proposed here.

The only benefit I can see is that for a very short period of time, until everybody realizes it, the government will be able to say, "We're spending $350 million less than we really are." It's only a matter of time before everybody says: "Wait a minute. We're just kidding ourselves. The real debt is running up in the unfunded liability."

What should be done? That perhaps is the question. I hope that tomorrow we can talk about a different

schedule of payments, where we can say, "Why don't we?" To use the terms of someone who's an expert on this, you can take all of the savings right away.

In fact, if you remember what happened when there was a change in government in Ottawa, the Auditor General -- as they call the auditor there -- indicated his concern with the way that "pension savings were reported federally," and the federal government restated those savings.

I've a feeling that we are dealing with very much the same thing here, where there is a "savings" over the 40 years that the government wants to take all at once, let the unfunded liability run up and show spending perhaps $300 million lower than it is.

The alternative, it seems to me, that one needs to discuss is to do what a pension expert told me. He said the other way of doing it is you simply reduce your annual payments by an appropriate amount. You continue, then, in the books of the province to reflect your true annual costs -- you don't take this 42-month holiday -- and then the province's finances are established in a way that show your true annual expenditures. Certainly if this were a company, I wouldn't think there'd be many companies that would want to attempt to distort their finances to the extent that this will for the province.

We have some severe reservations about it. I understand why the teachers' federation can agree to this, because from its perspective, "You can do it one way, you can do it the other way, you can pay me now, you can pay me later, the government's guaranteeing it." It can accept, I gather, the unfunded liability running up. I have no difficulty with the Ontario Teachers' Federation and its organization saying, "This is fine with us," but we're here representing one of the major funders of the fund, namely, the public.

From the public's perspective, I see some significant concerns in this, not the least of which is that we are not accurately reflecting our annual costs. We're taking a 42-month holiday, and then the costs go all the way back up with a substantially higher unfunded liability.

I hope I've got on the record our concerns about this bill, and they're substantial. I look forward to tomorrow's debate at committee where we'll have a chance to, I hope, get a much better understanding of where the public benefit is in this. I will just say that in my opinion this is going to cost the taxpayers of this province money; it won't save them money. It may be that temporarily we are borrowing less money, in one case, but we're running up a lot more money on the unfunded liability, in the other case, I suspect at a higher interest rate than we could be borrowing the money.

I have a feeling that the taxpayer is out money, and the only possible benefit to the government is the understandable one, and that's the ability to report a lower deficit than it really has.

With those comments, we'll look forward to more detailed debate at committee tomorrow.

Mr Sorbara: I followed as well as I could the comments of my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and I just say to you, I don't think there's anyone in this Legislature who understands these issues better than he does.

There was one point, however, that he didn't make, and I would appreciate from him, if he would, a comment on this. He mentioned the fact that part of what is contained in this bill, if I understand it correctly, is a contribution holiday; that is to say, that the government will not be making contributions to the plan for the next 42 months. It seems to me that this represents a way of spending money now, the money that you would have contributed to the plan, spending that on other programs now and deferring the taxes that you're going to need to raise to make the payments until a later time.

The government did that very same thing, for example, when it changed the driver's licence period from three years to five years. Basically, what they did is they grabbed the money that taxpayers and drivers would have paid for their licences in the fourth and fifth years and they brought that money into revenue in the first fiscal year, so that they made their revenues artificially higher.

Here, it seems to me, one of the other negative things that the government is doing is deferring the payments that it otherwise would have had to have made into this pension plan until 42 months hence. It's pretty obvious from what you hear on the street that 42 months from now the New Democratic Party is not going to be in government and it's going to be for the successor government to have to come up with those new and higher payments to begin to make the plan whole again.

I thought this perhaps was one other aspect of this rather unfortunate fiddling with the teachers' pension plan, as my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said. The teachers have agreed to it, but there is a larger issue, and that is the burden it places not only on taxpayers who are paying taxes this year but the taxpayers who will be paying taxes over the next several years to come.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Martin: I want to make it perfectly clear that the government is in fact not taking a holiday, that rather the government is using gains from this plan to offset payments. Government payments towards unfunded liability will continue to be paid. Nothing in this bill affects the size of this unfundability in any way.

There was a reference to exemption from the Pension Benefits Act. I would ask that the member opposite who asked this question would wait until tomorrow, when that question will be addressed in some detail in the briefing that will happen after the passing of second reading today.

We repeat again that contrary to what the previous Liberal government in this House did on many occasions, we in fact have a deal here that was done with OTF and it's in agreement with these amendments.

Mr Sorbara: Oh yes, indeed you have, at great cost to the taxpayer.

The Deputy Speaker: You had your turn, please.

Questions or comments? Further questions? Further comments?

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to respond to both members. The member for York Centre is absolutely right. What we've got here is a bit like you owe money on your house but you can't afford to make your mortgage payments. You're not making enough money to make your mortgage payments so you say to the bank, "Listen, give me a three-year holiday." The bank says: "Sure, we'll do that, but the interest and principal keeps growing on it. If you can't afford it now, what makes you think you can afford it in three years?" You say: "Just trust me. I'll be able to afford it in three years."

What we're doing here -- there's not much doubt about that -- is we're letting the debt run up on the unfunded liability because we can't afford to pay for it now and we somehow think we can pay for it down there. That's not going to happen. We should be showing our true cost. If we did that, the public would understand our true cost.

I just have a difference of opinion with the other member, the member for Sault Ste Marie. I know the language that's used here. They'll say: "Well, we're not really taking a holiday. It's just that we won't be making any payments into it. It's not really a holiday. We won't make any payments. The reason we won't is because we thought we owed $8.8 billion but we only owe $7.6 billion, so we'll take a three-year holiday." We are playing a semantic game.

The fact is, as I understand it -- and I'll know a lot more tomorrow because I can't get the numbers today; I've been asking for them -- I think that as of January 1, 1993, the unfunded liability was $7.6 billion, and the government plans, as of January 1, to make no payments against that for 42 months. That to me is a holiday. That's a holiday. That's a plan to not spend any money for 42 months and let the unfunded liability run up. That, as I say, in my opinion is potentially dangerous.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I know that the member for London North is going to give a very important speech on this issue. I think it would be appropriate that there be a quorum present in the House for this address.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum?

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): The occasion this afternoon, in December just before Christmas, brings back a few memories of a couple of years ago. I can remember speaking at that time to Bill 66 on December 20, wishing of course that, like all other people who are trying to manage their lives, this Legislative Assembly would not in fact have been meeting two or three days before Christmas Eve at all, because that was not the House rules. We had to break them to continue on.

Secondly, the important business of the House was being discussed at that time with very little time for thoughtful consideration and communication with the people whom we represent. That was the Liberal legislation. It was called Bill 66. It merged the teachers' superannuation fund and the teachers' superannuation adjustment fund into a consolidated Ontario's teacher pension fund. The actuarial surplus in the teachers' superannuation fund was used to offset the deficit in the teachers' superannuation adjustment fund.

So far, anybody who's trying to follow what I'm trying to say will say, "That is pretty complicated, very complicated