Legislative Assembly of Ontario

[Report continued from volume A]

1800

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Continuing the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Mr Conway: Let me also join in some of the criticism that's been targeted at the Treasurer about some of the sleight of hand in this budget. I agree with my friend Mr Phillips, the Liberal Treasury critic. I have the highest regard for my friend the Treasurer. I know him well. I think he is a very straight-shooting and honourable gentleman. But I think this budget was not entirely of his authorship. I think when Mr Mendelson and others had their way with the final draft, there were certain impositions on our honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt that would not have been of his choosing. I will simply cite a couple of examples.

One of them is a bit of an old sore with me, that is, the teachers' superannuation fund. I simply say that what the Treasurer has done is sleight of hand.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's right out there.

Mr Conway: Oh, it's right out there, so in that sense it is not sleight of hand. I accept that criticism.

But he has transferred a requirement out of this year to another year. That requirement is roughly $500 million. I just want to say to my friends opposite and over here as well, that is precisely --

Hon Mr Laughren: Name names.

Mr Conway: I'll mention Bill Davis and Tom Wells and Darcy McKeough in 1975 in a way that will hopefully become relevant in a moment.

But that kind of creative accounting, for whatever good end -- and in this case, one of the ends it seeks to serve is bringing in the in-year deficit below the sacred $10-billion line -- is exactly the tactic that has gotten us into the current dilemma. It is deferring into another year, and ideally into another generation, accounts that are properly due and payable now. That teachers' superannuation account is a good example. I wish I could get Bill Davis and Darcy McKeough back in this chamber today because commitments were made 18 years ago on the eve of an election that we are now grappling with today. They are multibillion-dollar commitments.

I noticed, for example, and I've said this before, I think the Treasurer's latest indication is that in this fiscal year the Treasurer of Ontario, on behalf of the people of Ontario, will pay out something in the neighbourhood of $1 billion as the employer's contribution to the teachers' superannuation fund. That is not a notional account; those are real dollars my honourable friend opposite has had to tax or borrow for: $1 billion, give or take a few million. I just want my friends opposite and everywhere to know that just a very few years ago, that contribution was not $1 billion; it was around $450 million or $500 million. I've got news for you.

Mr Stockwell: It's exponential.

Mr Conway: It is going to grow exponentially.

Two and three and five and seven years from now, whoever among us is the chancellor of the exchequer in this place -- it might be my friend the member for Nickel Belt, it might be my friend from Etobicoke, it might be my friend from Scarborough -- is going to be going to cabinet meetings with an increasingly worrisome problem because that figure is going to go from $1 billion to $1.2 billion to $1.5 billion. That's going to be real money that is not going to be spent on other programs.

I'm not saying that the teachers' superannuation fund is not a highly virtuous account, but I want to tell you, it is growing like Topsy. It is growing because politicians a generation ago made some sweetheart deals that were never properly funded and now of course all that reality is coming home to roost and it is part of what we're here in terms of authorizing billions of dollars of borrowing for today.

I want to say one further thing. I've said this before and this might be a little bit of sour grapes. I can remember trying to make an argument that this was a real and growing problem. I admit that on my part it was probably awkwardly put and incompletely argued but I will say this: Rarely if ever in my political life did I lose a match so completely as that. The proponents of this very generous and significant multibillion-dollar entitlement program won game, set and match. I know when to concede defeat. Boy, was I beaten. I was lucky to have my pants after that hurricane took me to the ground.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll have to let that roll around in my head for a few minutes.

Mr Conway: I was going to say some other things but they were perhaps a bit indelicate. My friend the Minister of Labour said it's probably just as well I did. I just simply say that our friend the Treasurer is here today and he's borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for the exponential growth in that entitlement program, and it is only one.

Let me say something else. My friend Mr Michael Breaugh is in Ottawa arguing a very good case about the entitlements that members of Parliament have with respect to their retirement allowances. In my view, Mr Michael Breaugh and Ms Audrey McLaughlin are right, not because those accounts have the same degree of financial obligation, though the obligation is very considerable when one looks at it on a per capita basis, speaking of the beneficiaries, but I want to tell you there's another entitlement program that is going to cost the hardworking, taxpaying, struggling men and women in communities like Hamilton, Pembroke, London, Lively and Ancaster a lot of money. Part of that money is what we're here to vote on today. We're borrowing a lot of that money because in the current political culture it is easier to borrow the money than tax for it.

That terrible Grit Treasurer, Nixon, took the view that you could only spend what you were prepared to tax for, and he, with the support of other miserable types like his friend Conway, argued, "Let's, particularly in these good times, tax for the spending requirements," and we properly got our share of criticism.

Mr Stockwell: That's what I would do.

Mr Conway: Well, my friend from Etobicoke says that's what he'd do. I guess I put the question to him: What do we do in a democratic society when that fiscal policy is rejected by an electorate that wants, I repeat, by and large more of the high-cost services and that understandably wants taxes held in line, if not reduced?

I am going to mention in passing a couple of articles. In the most recent edition of the Atlantic Monthly there is an article that I would recommend members read. I don't mean to be pedantic in this connection, but it is an article by William Schneider called "The Suburban Century Begins." It is a 15-page essay looking at some of the fundamental changes that are occurring in the American political culture as a result of the now dominant politics, which, he argues on the basis of demographics, are the politics of the suburbs.

I tell you it is a fascinating analysis. I don't suggest that it's accurate in all respects but a lot of it rings true, particularly when I think of the kinds of pressures I encountered as Minister of Education in the growing suburbs of London, Halton, Ottawa-Carleton, York and Dufferin-Peel and Durham regions. I tell you, Mr Schneider makes an incredible argument here about the kinds of changes that are going to be forced on the political élites in the United States by virtue of the rise of what he calls the suburban political culture.

Mr Stockwell: It's a good culture.

1810

Mr Conway: I want to say to my friend, it's apparently a very different kind of culture from the urban culture which the American Democrats so effectively addressed, manipulated and prospered with throughout much of the post-Second World War era.

I want to say very bluntly to my friend from Etobicoke and anyone else who really cares about this subject, what do we do as democratic politicians when we cannot sell the argument that if you're going to consume now, you're going to pay now? For it would be argued by a number of politicians and tax experts that the cruellest tax policy of all is that policy which argues for consumption now and payment later by a different generation. I don't have children yet but many of you do and I think we are engaged --

Hon Mr Laughren: Are you about to make an announcement?

Mr Conway: I'm not about to make an announcement. But what we are engaged in, in this mandate, when we add $35 billion minimally to the Ontario debt for whatever good reason -- and the reasons are many and wonderful standing by themselves -- we are passing on to your children a very significant tax bill they will have to pay.

Interjection.

Mr Conway: And perhaps mine.

I want to digress again for a moment. I said in passing to my friend the Treasurer that I re-read an article just the other day and I'm making some notes, because I think it'll be useful some day for a discussion outside of here.

Hon Mr Laughren: Some university.

Mr Conway: Some university perhaps. This is so much better than any university of my acquaintance, because the politics are so much more civilized and much more pleasant. Is there a politics more fearsome and more everlasting than the politics of the faculty room?

Interjection: No.

Mr Conway: I don't think it exists. But I want to make this point: It's 11 years ago that in a very famous and controversial article which appeared in the Atlantic Monthly of December 1981 we learned of the education of David Stockman. This was the article that was written a year into Mr Stockman's tenure as the chairman of the Office of Management and Budget in the Reagan administration.

Mr Stockwell: A brilliant man.

Mr Conway: A very brilliant man, actually. I think my friend from Etobicoke is quite right.

Mr Winninger: Where is he now?

Mr Conway: He is making a fortune as an investment banker someplace in New York City.

Hon Mr Laughren: Selling our bonds.

Mr Conway: As my friend the Treasurer says, probably selling the bonds of the province of Ontario. This is not an arcane reference, I say to my friends opposite, because what is interesting and what was so controversial about this article was that here you had essentially the budget chief for the Reagan government quietly and privately entering into an arrangement with a prominent American journalist to describe Reaganomics: what it was supposed to deliver, how it was going to be done and how after a year one of its principal implementers was convinced it was largely a fraud.

I'm not going to bore you with it but I look back on it now. I read this now, a decade later, and David Stockman was right. He just underestimated by hundreds of billions of dollars how screwball and cockamamy Reaganomics was.

I'm just going to make a couple of very brief references. Back 12 years ago, Washington was going through a dramatic change in its political culture. Gone were the tax-and-spend Democrats, and Reagan had come to Washington with a mandate to change the way Washington worked. He had this supply-side theory of economics which essentially said: "Let's cut the taxes, particularly on upper-income earners. Let's have a tight monetary policy and let's reduce the size of government while at the same time we crank up our defence establishment to counter the great threat of the evil Soviet empire."

Do all of those things together -- sharp tax cuts for the middle- and upper-income earners but particularly the high-income earners in the United States; a tight monetary policy to protect the value of the American dollar; crank up American defence spending, and reduce otherwise the size of government -- and one would have a new world in which, among other things, there would be more jobs created and the budget would be balanced.

Stockman, in his confessional piece in the Atlantic Monthly, observed in December 1981, a full year into his administration, that it was of course not working. It wasn't working, interestingly, because the spenders, not just the spenders at the Pentagon but the spenders in the entitlement programs -- all of the good social welfare programs, the business welfare programs and a variety of other big-ticket items -- would not be disciplined. The politics of the trough on Capitol Hill militated against making this work.

So what happened? The deficit began to run in a significant fashion. Do you know how bad it was? It was so bad back then that --

Hon Mr Laughren: It became bigger than Gilles Pouliot's riding.

Mr Conway: I think this is important. You see, the point about this debate is in a sense it's a generational debate. If the past trends continue, at least 50% of this Legislature won't be here in five years. We won't be here when the chickens come home to roost. There will be another cadre of very good, hardworking, committed members of the Legislature representing three, four or five political parties, and they will be standing here in 1997 giving an accounting of what was done in their name by their forebears of a half generation ago.

There might be some tiresome, pedantic nincompoop like Conway who has this obnoxious habit of rethrashing the straw of a previous Parliament, to say perhaps nothing of a previous decade. He will of course be written off in a place that now has virtually no institutional memory; it's just some kind of a museum piece.

Back to Mr David Stockman. He said that by 1981 --

Mr Wiseman: That's a good argument for history classes, eh?

Mr Conway: This is not a history class. This is I think a very real issue. It's an issue for all of us here. I have no end of sympathy for the terrible position my friend is in. If I were in his place, I would probably be in even more trouble. We have to go home now to voters and say, "By the way."

At the end of this mandate, make no mistake about it, the Rae government will play out the deficit card to a very substantial extent and its hope clearly is that we will have a recovery that will allow revenues to go up and expenditures, particularly and understandably on the social welfare accounts, to go down. In a different way that was the hope of Reaganomics. What happened?

I want to go back just for a moment to the article. Basically, they were worried a year into the flight that they might be looking in peacetime in the United States, some time within the 1980s, with deficits ranging between $82 billion in 1982 and $116 billion in 1984. Well, my friends, in case you haven't noticed, in Washington today, significantly because David Stockman was right and Ronald Reagan was wrong, the operating deficit in the US federal government is now around $400 billion annually, and there is very little they can do about it.

1820

A final observation about reading material, again from the Atlantic Monthly: Just a couple of editions ago -- I shared this with my friend from Etobicoke, and perhaps the Treasurer might like to read it; it's only six pages -- a couple of economists named Neil Howe and Phillip Longman wrote an essay in the April 1992 edition of the Atlantic called "The Next New Deal."

They point out the hopeless situation in which Washington now finds itself, because they are jammed between this mountain of debt on the one hand and a whole series of entitlement programs that have become part of the sacred trust of America that they can't touch, and an American political culture that is so fed up with the political establishment for not being able to offer what they want there, as we want here, more programs for fewer taxes, that they are now embracing a none-of-the-above candidate like Ross Perot.

I just make the point in this debate that this is not just a problem for the New Democratic government; this is a fundamental problem for the political culture of Ontario, and we've got to start coming to terms with it. I'm telling you, in my next electoral campaign, I'm going to do some things that I've never done before.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Federal campaign?

Mr Conway: In my next provincial campaign. Let me give you one reason why I don't want to go to Ottawa. That's a very good interjection. I am not a candidate for federal office, but I'm going to give you one of the reasons why I don't want to go to Ottawa.

I don't want to go to Ottawa in part, because the business of the Dominion government for the next generation is going to be the painful, miserable task of digging the country out from the mountain of debt that was built up by a lot of my good Liberal and Tory friends over the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. I tell you, I'm a masochist, but I'm not that much of a masochist. I have no intention of going to a place where my input would be even less significant than it is here, to essentially deliver, for most of a generation, bad news to my voters, many of whom depend on the government of Canada for their economic livelihood, because I have as principal employers in my constituency very important, meritorious operations like Camp Petawawa and the Chalk River nuclear laboratory.

But my friend asks, am I not going to Ottawa? The answer is no, and one of the reasons I'm not going is that I do not want, like Sisyphus, to climb that mountain to only roll down and tell my constituents along the way that, "If you think this news is bad, there's more bad news to come."

The reason the article by Messrs Howe and Longman is so interesting is to look at what the politics of these entitlement programs are going to mean as our population changes.

You know, when my friends, particularly in the Tory right, argue for a fairly bloody-minded policy on taxes, whether it's user fees or marginal tax rates, people like me should embrace that, because I would be a winner. But I've got to tell you, Mr Speaker, I think as a citizen I have a social responsibility to ensure that programs like medicare, like training initiatives for young people, adjustment programs for older men and women who've been thrown out of work because of the restructuring Ontario economy -- those are real and significant responsibilities that in many ways attach to government.

But the difficulty the Americans now have is that they have a whole set of entitlement programs --

Mr Stockwell: The wrong people are getting the money.

Mr Conway: -- that are targeted at the wrong people. In the United States, the entitlement programs in the main are targeted at the people who, a generation or two ago, were on average the poorest people in that country, namely, old people. But Norman Rockwell and Benny Goodman are dead, and a new America has presented itself. There, like here, the largest single group of poor people is children, and very few of their entitlement programs are targeted at children.

I look at the teachers' pension fund -- and I'm not here to visit unfairness or injustice on the teachers of Ontario. I look at our own entitlement program for members of the Legislature and I know from personal experience what the reality of public life is all about. I've seen more people walk out of here with four or five years of service and no pension and one hell of a hard time getting back into their old job than I've seen the examples -- and they exist -- of people like Nixon and Welch and Martel and others who walk out of here with good pensions and sometimes government jobs to go with them.

But I want to say to you, my friends, that today we have a taxpaying public out there that isn't thinking the way it once did. It's not thinking the way it once did because times are changing. This recession has cut to the core of this province and of much of this continent. When my constituents in Renfrew county, some person who works in a sawmill in west Renfrew or north Hastings or a single mother who might be working as a retail clerk in Pembroke, look at my pension entitlement and look at my friends who are teachers and their entitlements and look at their own situation and say, "Where is the fairness?" there isn't much fairness. We are going to have to recalibrate the fairness index in this culture over the course of the next few years and it's not going to be easy. I submit to my friends and myself as well that I suspect the courageous people are, in the first instance, probably going to be thrown out of office, locally or centrally.

You know, some people say, "Conway's problem is he's really bitter because he lost the election." I am bitter about some things in the election, that's true, and I'm a very competitive person. But I'm serious when I say that more and more now, I feel like Mackenzie King must have felt in about 1932. I am happy that R. B. Bennett is Prime Minister. In my really rational moments I think, God, to go back into office, should that opportunity present itself later in this decade or later in my life, that is going to be, if it is presented -- and it may not be -- a challenge that I ought to think about if I'm right at all about my analysis.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): That leaves Ottawa out.

Mr Conway: Ottawa is absolutely out, and it's not a laughing matter. I make the point again that this government has taken a small step in this budget to return the seniors' property and sales tax program back to where it was 10 years ago, to a credit basis so the moneys will be spent on a needs basis and not on a universal basis, as it's been for the last seven or eight years. I'm going to be interested to see how you progress with that. I am already getting a flood of critical letters.

Mr Winninger: If you got lots of critical letters, what have you done wrong?

Mr Conway: No, the letters are not critical of me. I'm getting more and more senior citizens writing and saying: "I thought Bob Rae was my friend. I heard Ms Ziemba, who was here the other day. She's a very thoughtful, sensitive person. But I don't now understand. These people seek to take away a benefit."

Then, of course, I am able to make a very detailed analysis on the equity basis as the justification for that policy. I want to tell my friends that if they haven't had the argument, they soon will. It's not always a winning one. You know what? It is just the tip of the iceberg.

We see the Minister of Health in here on a daily basis. I see the Minister of Health and others in Ottawa and I know exactly what they're faced with. I shouldn't say I know exactly, but I've got some understanding of what it is they are grappling with.

But let there be no confusion about what kinds of choices we face. I could tell you this: I have no interest in and no desire for a retaking of office if my colleagues, as a party, make a series of very virtuous, valuable commitments that we either cannot afford or will not tax for. That may be a bit heretical for a Liberal to say, but I am tired of my breed, and that is the breed of the elected politician, having to stand here -- whether it's Bill Davis on separate schools, whether it's David Peterson on Darlington, whether it's Bob Rae on the common pause day -- and essentially say, "I didn't know what I was talking about." It is that kind of flip-floppery, that kind of flim-flammery, however well argued, however well intentioned, that is debasing the currency of our kind.

1830

I don't have very many prized objectives in life but I do have the objective of having some self-respect, and quite frankly I'm getting to the point now that I'm over 40 and I would rather be thrown out of office for saying some things that were right, even though they might have been tough and unpopular, than committing myself and my colleagues to a course of action that is financially ruinous and socially inequitable. I make the point, again, that it's not just in Washington and in America that we have this problem of inequity.

I've said it before, and I don't mean to be unduly partisan when I say this, but the recession of the last 15, 18 months has been gut-wrenching. It certainly has been in the communities of the Ottawa Valley, in communities like the farm area, like Beachburg and Cobden and Foresters Falls within the shadow of Shawville, Quebec, or in the woods area of Barry's Bay, Bancroft, Palmer Rapids. People by the hundreds have lost their jobs. They're either out of work of they're underemployed. They are worried about just paying the bills: the tax bills, the hydro bills, the bills to put food on the table, to keep their kids in clothing and maybe to get their sons and daughters to some college or some university. They are very concerned by some of the trends they see in government generally and, I have to say, by some of the trends they're seeing here.

One of the things I would observe is that if I were to be tough-minded and ask the question "What categories of individuals have done well, relatively speaking, in the past 15 months," relatively speaking I could say, I think -- and not because I'm opposed to any of these people; I'm related to many of them and they're all my good friends in many cases -- I look at doctors, teachers, nurses and public servants in Ontario and they have not done badly. I think the doctors' agreement is, for my friends at the Ontario Medical Association, Brian Harling included, a positive coup d'état. I never thought the OMA could trump Larry Grossman, but it has. They have done a deal with Floyd Laughren that is even a better deal than that day a decade ago when Larry Grossman wrestled them to the ceiling.

Mr Stockwell: They fleeced you.

Hon Mr Laughren: That really hurts.

Mr Stockwell: They did, Floyd; they fleeced you. Seven years' guaranteed increases: They fleeced you.

Mr Conway: He says it hurt. I have some sympathy for my friend the Treasurer. I want to say to my friend the member for Etobicoke West that in fairness this was not a deal that in the main the honourable minister of finance for Ontario had much to do with. He got to pay the bills.

It's the most miserable, unappealing job in government being chancellor of the exchequer because you get to say no to a whole crop of fellow ministers and colleagues whose primary function is to lie to you. It's not in their interest to tell the truth, so they rarely do. They're all good people. The Minister of Agriculture and Food here: He's a good person. But just like David Stockman found a decade ago, there ain't anything in it for ministers or the cabinet secretary to go to the office of management and budget or to the provincial Treasurer and tell the truth, because they are going to be penalized if they do.

I just simply make the point again, however, as we talk about authorizing borrowings in the amount of $16 billion, that we have, in the course of these last 15 months, seen a number of arrangements for a lot of good people -- doctors, provincial public servants, teachers, nurses; wonderful people -- that would be the envy of many of my constituents. Let me use a specific example.

I've been impressed by the Treasurer's diligence this year in trying to correct some of the excesses of last year. I think any government, quite frankly, particularly a group of people who've never been in government before, deserve some latitude for the first eight or 10 months. I've got to tell you that the Peterson government did some things in the first four or five months -- I know I did -- that I would I never, ever have done after the first year's initiation.

But in Ottawa a few months ago we all watched the spectacle as the Ottawa secondary school teachers settled, this year, with inflation --

Hon Mr Laughren: Not with us.

Mr Conway: No, no, I know it's not with you; that's not the point. The Ottawa secondary school teachers settled for, all things in, roughly 4% in this year, when inflation is going to be something in the neighbourhood of 1.5% to 1.8%. That is a very significant victory for the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

Mr Stockwell: It's robbery without a gun.

Mr Conway: I'm not saying it's robbery. I don't think it is. Who am I to say that the OSSTF ought not to do its best in collective bargaining? But I'm going to make this point: That 4% is almost certainly going to come directly out of the hides of the property taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton, because the province pays virtually no grant there and it's going to come out of industrial, commercial and residential assessment.

But I tell you that if I were the federal government, the principal employer in Ottawa, I would be mad as hell, because what do you make of this? You are, again, a single mother working for the federal government. You've accepted -- you may not have liked it -- 0% for this year, maybe on a salary of $30,000. The average high school salary in Ottawa is something like $55,000 or $60,000. So you've accepted a wage freeze this year only to see your property taxes rise by several percentage points to pay for a 4% settlement for people who on average earn twice as much as you do.

There is absolutely no equity in that kind of situation. I'm going to tell you that it's caused a problem in suburban Carleton and it's going to ripple, to some extent, across much of the rest of the province where the Treasurer of Ontario does pay grants in the hundreds of millions of dollars, fully 80% of which go to paying salaries.

I have to tell you that a lot of people in my part of the province looked at that and just wondered what was going on. Fortunately for the government, people aren't going to see a similar kind of profile in-year for doctors in this province, because if they do, the Rae-Laughren administration is going to be running for cover faster than its happy legs will ever be able to carry it.

As we look at this bill and contemplate the massive borrowings that are now required to feed the government's appetite, mindful as I am that the Treasurer has now put before me a sign saying that he's getting hungry -- well, don't we know that the Treasurer of Ontario is hungry? We are here to vote an appropriation, effectively, of $16 billion. I'm going to take my seat shortly because I'm getting hungry too and I'm supposed to be elsewhere in a few moments.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, so you will leave?

Mr Conway: I am expecting that you would leave your very qualified parliamentary secretary to listen to anybody else who might follow me.

But I just simply say to my friends that we are going to have to rethink some of the way we do business, and it's going to hurt and it's going to be not very popular. It is going to be counterintuitive, particularly, I must say, for Progressive Conservatives if there are --

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum in the house.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check if we have a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is not present. Call in the members.

1841

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present.

Mr Conway: I want to say that this changing political culture is going to occasion some very different strategies on all sides and, quite frankly, a lot of this is going to be counterintuitive. If there are any Progressive Conservatives, Red Tories, left, and I think there are a few, any of the old sort of Pearsonian Liberals, and lots of those social engineering New Democrats -- this is going to mean big change and it's already started, as I say.

When I see Frances Lankin going before the camera and talking about all of the things that those right-wing Tory cabinet ministers were talking about a generation ago, I know it is a brave new world in which I now live. One of the happy ironies of this mandate, 1990 to May-June of 1995, will be this: It is going to fall to the Rae-Laughren social democrats to carry the can for some of the new requirements. They are going to be the ones.

One of the most delicious ironies of a previous generation was that it was Dick Nixon who went to China. Only Richard Milhous Nixon could have gone to China. Dick Nixon, by the way, was at the Hollinger dinner in Toronto last night. Can you believe it? Twenty years ago his pals were bugging the bejabbers out of the Watergate Hotel, and 20 years later he's riding a crest of elder statesman popularity.

But as only Richard Milhous Nixon, Red-baiter from the days of Helen Gahagan Douglas, Red-baiter from the McCarthy era, could go to China, in some ways I think it is true to say that only a bleeding-heart, utterly self-righteous, self-sainted Bob Rae could say and do some of the things that will have to be said and have to be done, particularly in the social envelope over the next 36 months. It is going to be ironic; it is going to be delicious; it is going to be entertaining. I'm going to say this: It is going to be absolutely helpful to that group of men and women who, whenever this administration changes to another political orientation, take office.

I was being fairly harsh in some of my assessments around the rule changes here last week and, again, that, in its own way, is Richard Nixon going to Beijing. Who would have thunk it? But there you have it. Am I going to complain substantively to have Bob Rae and this government House leader come in here and talk about the need for modernization of our House rules? Of course not. That I am apoplectic at the breathtaking scope of the volte-face is, I think, quite justifiable. There were not a few hard-bitten, hard-right Republicans who were speechless to hear that Air Force One had touched down at the airport in Beijing. Barry Goldwater must have had more strokes than could ever have been counted.

But I just want to make the point again. We have now seen these latter-day Guy Fawkeses come in and tell us about the need to modernize and render safe against the perils of fire in Parliament those changes that are going to be mandated very shortly. But it's going to be just a few weeks and months before we have the Health minister coming in here and telling us that universality is gone. In fact, it's gone now. We're going to have the Minister of Community and Social Services coming in to make very significant pronouncements around child care that represent a very different position. We're going to have a whole series of significant redirections.

I just want to make one quick comment about my friends at Hydro. The government has a new energy policy. They're entitled to that. I asked for a report from Hydro as to how its 28,000 full-time employees are employed at Ontario Hydro. I just got the list and it's very interesting. Did you know, my friends, that as of May 31, 1992, Ontario Hydro reports 28,838 full-time employees, fully 4,171 of whom are reported as being in the design and construction category? By my rough calculation, that's something in the neighbourhood of 15%-17%.

I just have a question that doesn't need to be answered today. What are these 4,171 people, earning an average salary in that section undoubtedly of $60,000-plus, doing, again as we enter this brave new world not of supply-side energy but of demand management? Forty-one hundred and seventy-one people are beavering away at an average salary of $60,000 in design and construction at the gargantuan utility which has been directed to build no more plants.

Hon Mr Laughren: Moratorium.

Mr Conway: One can be a sophist and say it's a moratorium. It's a common pause about building any new plants. My question remains. I accept your argument around doing it differently. You've won the right to do that and you are apparently, as we go now, doing it differently.

My question -- and here I will play David Stockman: "So, Mr Eliesen, as we enter the New Jerusalem, what the hell are 15% of your permanent employees doing?"

I apologize. I don't want to offend the tender sensibilities of the Minister of Transportation, who is taking on a degree and dimension of ministerialitis that I haven't seen since the days of Reuben Baetz, but I --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation: Get yourself a ring, Bishop.

Mr Conway: I just make an observation. I would observe that he heckles from outside of his seat because I like it when he does that, and he's a very good friend. He's not Marcel Masse. He's an equal-opportunity purchaser of Ontario maple syrup.

But I say in conclusion, let's not kid ourselves about what we're here to do. We're here to authorize the borrowing of roughly a third of the revenue requirements of this government this year, $16 billion.

Hon Mr Laughren: Nineteen.

Mr Conway: Is it $19 billion?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, no, the number of months.

Mr Conway: Sorry, 19 months. But it is more money in one appropriation than we would have spent just a decade ago, and I repeat, it's growing like Topsy, the good programs with all of the advocates in the world. I know there's a new treasury board working away at trying to get at the big spending items, but I tell you, the politics of getting at those entitlement programs are extremely complex and difficult and, in first instance, most unsatisfying.

I say to the Treasurer again that when I see the kind of movement he made with the teachers' superannuation payment, I see some of the old practices that brought us to this current difficulty. I am concerned that as well as having continued to accept some of those practices, we are just falling, all of us, into this incredible pew of accepting a budgetary situation where we now spend about 22% above our projected revenue requirements. That cannot and will not go on. If we are going to avoid the disastrous situation into which other governments have fallen, we are going to have to think seriously, all of us, about pointing this Queen Mary at a slightly different destination on that far shore.

I have spoken too long but I hope what I have said is of some passing interest to my friends opposite and my colleagues over here.

1850

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Renfrew North and invite questions and/or comments.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I listened to the comments made by the preceding member with great interest because I think he raises a point that is fairly interesting, in regard to the whole question of the competing interests that we have within society. The point he made is interesting because it comes down to the whole crux of what's happening in regard to the whole restructuring that we're finding, not only within this economy in Ontario but probably in most of the economies across North America, and I would dare say, in Europe.

Part of the problem that I think most of us, as governments, have is that there is a depleting resource in regard to the amount of money that is available to governments because of the downturn in the economy, and there is a competing interest out there that is competing for those same dollars in a way never before because they're hurt much more severely in some cases than they were some 10 or 15 years ago in the last recession.

The interesting point the member raises -- and it would be an interesting debate to get into in this House -- is how can we as politicians, both members of the opposition and members of government, find a way of getting into dialogue with the people we represent in whatever jurisdiction we're responsible for, to be able to try to get into the discussion of talking about how to try to bring those demands into the reality of where we find ourselves.

I think most of us in this chamber, opposition members or government members, have had people come to our constituency offices and demand or ask or put in a very forceful way that they are entitled to some grant, some loan, some help from the government that maybe we quite support because it's a good project and we think it's something that should go ahead, but the reality of the finances are that we sometimes can't deliver. The difficulty we get into, as politicians, because of the nature of our business, is that we're very reluctant to say no at the very beginning because we don't want to get anybody mad at us. I think that's what the member was talking about.

Somehow or other, if we can go through a process -- and I don't know how you do this -- to try to deal with the expectations so that we can become more realistic in regard to our approach to government money, if we can ever get through that, I think we'd have a better chance of being able to manage the money of the province and of this country more judiciously. With the competing interests it is very difficult.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: I enjoyed that, actually. It was something I agreed with quite a bit, actually, what the member for Renfrew North said. I read a few of those articles or at least one of the articles he quoted from and it was rather interesting, the arguments brought forth, particularly about entitlements in the United States.

I'm not a big fan of entitlements, for the reasons that were outlined, because what happens is they go to the wrong people and the people who need the entitlements don't end up getting them. In a way I can see us heading down that very dangerous path as well. The upshot of it all is that someone like Perot in the United States has been given a very reasonable chance of winning the presidential election with absolutely no policy, no public profile and no positions in his life, which I think is one of the most astounding things.

To comment on some of the other issues that were addressed, I think the point that must be made that I hope is understood by all parties in this province -- and I know Mr Bisson was commenting on it -- is that I think what we all must remember when the next election rolls around -- and I'm quite certain the party opposite has learned this lesson; I'm absolutely certain it's learned this lesson -- is that no longer is it acceptable to travel this province during the month of an election and simply say whatever you think the local constituents want you to say. I think we've fallen into that trap, not just the NDP but all parties in the past.

Yes, I've tried to campaign on that basis that Mr Conway is going to campaign on or may well campaign on in the future, but I think that's one important message. There's no need for dialogue, I say to Mr Bisson, as long as you're straightforward with the public during the campaign. You don't need dialogue because you told them what you're going to do. It's just a matter of carrying those things out.

The Speaker: Further questions and comments?

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I will not pretend that I've not heard before in various formats the speech that the honourable member for Renfrew North gave, but I want to congratulate him on it. I hope he'll spend some time in this debate or in the next couple of weeks or so, as we address issues in the House, dealing with not merely the question of the entitlements but about the problem that is presented by the entitlement issue when you come to raise revenue to pay for those entitlements, whatever they are.

There are basically two acceptable methods of providing revenue for services. One is revenue by altruism. That is the sort of notion that we who have good incomes will pay taxes to develop programs to benefit special groups that have less than we have and who are entitled to benefits in terms of education and services and so on. The other method is revenue by entitlement; that is, that we middle-income payers are happy to pay for entitlements in which we share. What we're learning increasingly as the tax revolution occurs is that revenue by altruism simply isn't going to work any longer at the level of entitlement that is necessary to fund the kind of programs we have.

Mr Stockwell: It never did work.

Mr Scott: Maybe it never did, the member for Etobicoke West says, but in my lifetime for the most part it has until very recently. If you can't do revenue by entitlements, and that's by altruism, you then move to a problem that the Treasurer is going to confront. He's going to find, as the member for Renfrew North has pointed out, over a period of time that we cut back on entitlements on a need basis, move away from universality and therefore create programs for which people who are not entitled to them will not in the same way be prepared to pay as they have been. Middle-income income taxpayers, for example, are increasingly prepared to pay for health services because they are a beneficiary of that program.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Scott: So I hope the honourable member for Renfrew North will take this encouragement to speak later in this debate or in the next debate oncoming on the other part of this subject.

The Speaker: I am afraid the member's time has expired. Further question or comments? If not, the member for Renfrew North has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Conway: I want to thank my honourable friends for their observations. Let me just conclude with two or three quick summary points. I think what is interesting is to observe that over most of the postwar period what has paid for the expansion in the entitlement programs is economic growth. Growth has paid the bill. It paid for a lot of the bill in the Peterson years. We are now experiencing a period of marked reduction in economic growth and we're in big trouble, hopefully only on a short-term basis but it may be on a much more long-term basis. That's my first point.

The second point is that as we look at the big-ticket items, the things that drive the budgetary deficit and then occasion this kind of borrowing, the big spending programs in Health, Education -- including teachers' pensions, public servants' pensions and members' pensions -- and in those kinds of areas, we've got to recognize that we are now experiencing significant demographic changes. I want to come back to two.

1900

It is apparent, according to the political sociologists, that the baby boom generation, of which I am a part, has decidedly different views as to what constitutes the public good than their parents, who experienced the war and the Depression. The boomers have a very different concept of the public good and are behaving in a very different way from their parents.

Add to that the growth of William Schneider's suburban culture, and you get a very different attitude as to what people are prepared to pay and how they are prepared to receive it.

Finally, I make the point that David Stockman observed, as he left Washington, that in the beginning and in the end it wasn't fundamentally a question of economics and budgetary policy; it was fundamentally a question of political will and changing the political system. In the early 1980s, David Stockman left Washington a defeated man. I hope we have a more positive and attractive future before us.

The Speaker: Again I thank the honourable member for Renfrew North for his contribution to the debate and invite further debate.

Mr Bisson: I don't want to take too much time, but I want to follow up on some of the points that were made by the honourable member just before. I think the member in his debate raises some points that are worth going into a little more, because I think they're questions that most of us, as politicians at whatever level, have to deal with at one point, and also the general public, in regard to what's happening with the mood of the people out there.

The member went on at length, and I think it was also mentioned by the member from Etobicoke, about the phenomenon that is going through I think all of North America by the manifestations we're seeing of public support for parties such as the Reform Party or Mr Manning, or what's happening with Mr Perot in the United States.

I think a big part of that is that somehow people are looking for a quick solution. I think most of us here recognize that: The electorate out there, I think for some good reasons, look at us the politicians and say that often we play games and do things they're not particularly happy with, for a number of reasons. I think some of that is true and some of that is very much mystified, and a lot of it is quite accelerated through the media at times, to the point that it is very difficult for us as politicians to bring some sense of debate in the general public to really discuss what those issues are all about. I think what we see out there is people trying to find that quick solution, people saying, "We're looking for somebody to come and solve all our problems, and if I support the Reform Party or somebody like Mr Perot in the United States for the election of the President, the problems all of a sudden will somehow go away."

To a certain extent that attitude might have been there in the 1990 election in the province of Ontario, I think unbeknownst to the Liberal Party of the day when they called the election at some 50% in the polls. They had been running for five years as a government, with polls of 45% to 50-some-odd per cent. I think to a great deal they were victims of that attitude out there, and some of it based on some real things, but they were very much a victim of what happened. People are looking for those types of solutions.

Somehow in this province and in politics generally across North America, especially in Canada, we have to start getting into the debate with our constituents and into discussions and trying to talk a little more about the broader issues. Unfortunately, in this Legislature and other legislatures across this country and in the House of Commons sometimes we think the debate is rather broad, but I think it is rather limited, because we tend to get into the political games we do as politicians and because that is a system we're used to. That system has evolved over 100-and-some-odd years here in Canada and has brought us to this point, and finally people are saying, "Listen, I'm so confused by watching what you people get into," and they're looking for some kind of solution and they turn to those others.

That comes into what this debate is all about, because where we find ourselves today as a government is that, yes, we do have to go out and borrow some money -- there's no question about that, the figures are true; it's $16.5 billion -- in order to be able to shore up the --

I just got slipped a note. This is funny. And I just got another one. I think I'm starting to get the hook here all of a sudden.

I just want to make this particular point. Because of what's happened within our economy, what we've seen happen by the ravages of the free trade agreement and other policies out there, some of them here in Canada, some here in Ontario, and I think generally what's happening within the economy in North America, we're basically seeing provincial governments such as ourselves in a situation that's undesirable for any political party to be in, because out there there is a competing interest of people who want what they feel is rightfully and justly theirs under the system we have.

Nobody, no matter what party, is going to stand here in his place in the Legislature and say that a particular group out there is not deserving of what it's asking for in most cases, companies that are hard hit by the recession asking for help from the provincial government, such as we've seen with Kimberly-Clark in Kapuskasing or what the Conservatives did when they were in power and helping out various businesses, and yes, the Liberal Party. The single mother or the family that is in difficulty because of what's happening in the economy comes to the government in order to get help, and what we end up with --

[Applause]

Mr Bisson: My party is already applauding me and I haven't finished yet. I want to make this point: There are competing interests out there vying for the same few dollars that are in the treasury of the province of Ontario or in the treasury of any province or any country.

It puts governments in very difficult situations, so we as governments have to somehow or other manage down those expectations. I think, if you take a look over the last year, the government's record has been very good in that. We've been communicating directly, by the 1%, 2% and 2% transfer increases to the municipalities, school boards and hospitals: "Listen, this is where you're going to be three years down the road, so start managing accordingly. We understand you'd like to have more, but in this day and age we can't do that." You have to try to manage down that expectation to a certain extent.

If you take a look at the negotiations we've had with the representatives of most of the civil servants who work for Ontario through OPSEU, they're good examples of negotiating collective agreements. Yes, there were some increases, but very small increases. The process was such that the employees, through their collective bargaining process with their unions and the employer, the province of Ontario, were able to come to an agreement and to say, "We have to somehow manage down those expectations."

Take a look at the program reviews that have happened within the government of Ontario since just under a year ago. Reviews have been undertaken in various ministries to take a look at the expenditures of Ontario so we can look at whether we are spending those dollars in the most judicious way possible for the people of this province.

In some cases, yes, that has meant we've had to cut the funding to particular programs in order to allocate those dollars to where they're most needed. That is very difficult for any government, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, because we all want to serve the people we represent and that we were elected to represent; we all want to do the best we can by those people.

It's a question of trying to manage down those expectations, but I think the key difference is in how we achieve that. If we try to achieve that in the cut-and-slash attitude we have seen in some cases within the federal government, what it has done with the cut in transfer payments to provinces --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: Let me finish. It could be quite dangerous for the long-term benefit of the people of this country. If we, as people and as managers of the money we're given just say, "Bang," all of a sudden -- we must try as best we can and as humanly as possible to manage down the expectation but at the same time put in place those programs that are necessary to help people, to make the transition to manage that process over maybe a longer time, and the shock to the economy and the shock to the people we represent will be much less.

I think that is the key difference. We play games here in the Legislature of Ontario like we do anywhere else in any Legislature. When the 1%, 2% and 2% was announced in regard to the transfer payments to municipalities and school boards, the media and the opposition sometimes criticized those as being cuts. I guess it was a cut in the end, if you are used to getting 5% or 10%, but if we're going to try to come back -- there's another hook coming.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): That's the third one.

Mr Bisson: The third one. I can't go any further or else I'll really get the hook. The final point I'm trying to get to is that somehow, if we politicians -- never mind our stripe, whether we're Conservatives, Liberals or New Democrats -- are ever going to get the respect of the people we represent, we have to bring them with us at a speed that is comfortable to them in understanding what we have to do as a government.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just wonder, do we have a quorum?

The Speaker: Would the table count to determine if there is a quorum.

Acting Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Speaker: There is a quorum present. The member for Cochrane South.

1910

Mr Bisson: Just to finish up the point I'm making, if we're ever going to gain the respect of the people we represent so that we're better able to govern and to bring people with us at the speed that is comfortable to them to the solutions that are necessary to deal with the very tough issues we have to deal with in the economy of Ontario or across this country, we are going to have to, as politicians, try to work together a little better to keep away from rhetoric and scaring people for purely political reasons. That's the way business was conducted at one time because that's the system that was. But I would put to you, Mr Speaker, that society is changing very fast and we as politicians should maybe stand back and say we need to catch up.

I will end it there. There are a number of points I made. Like I say, I have three hooks on me and I think I'd better take the time for the debate. But I just wanted to share that because I think it is important for people to realize where we're at.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Cochrane South for his contribution and certainly understand about notes being presented. It's open for questions and/or comments.

Mr Phillips: Just a comment on the member's comments. The raise in expectations: I will say to you with all sincerity that the Agenda for People was a fraud, and you now say we have to bring expectations in line with reality. During the campaign this was waved in my face time after time at demonstrations organized by the NDP to attack me, and you did more to raise expectations out of line with what you promised to deliver. You wonder why people are cynical about you. It's because this is your manifesto. And now we hear that people must get in line with expectations and reality. I will say to the member, it was you people who raised these expectations, who said you were going to deliver on this, and now the expectation is that you will.

The member also said that the federal government is cutting payments. I will say to the Treasurer that last year you said: "It's business as usual. We are going to ensure for our hospitals and our schools boards and our municipalities that we're going to transfer the normal amount, the 8% or 9%. Don't listen to anybody else. It's business as usual in the province." Then a year later you said, "I'm sorry, it's now 1%."

Nothing could be more disruptive to the operation of our schools, our hospitals, our colleges, our universities and our municipalities than one year saying, "Here's how we're going to fund you," and then 12 months later, when many had planned and budgeted for this year, to do a 180-degree turn. Nothing could have been more disruptive. So I say to the member that in terms of bringing expectations in line, you did it to yourselves and do not continue to attack the federal government for doing things you're doing far worse.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I want to comment briefly on the member's speech, and perhaps he could reply to us. He talks about the cutting of federal moneys to Ontario. When you say that, you conjure up the attitude among the public and the voters that they've actually given us less money, that the provincial taxpayer is receiving less from the federal government. That of course is not true. It is just not correct whatsoever. The federal government has substantially increased the amount of money Ontario receives.

This is the problem we have with reality. I think we as politicians have a duty to put forward that reality. The reality is that we are getting more. We're not getting as much as we want, but that doesn't mean we're being cut. The same argument he makes about the federal government can be made by every one of the municipalities, the school boards and the hospitals, and yet we don't expect them to make that kind of argument in these particularly difficult financial times.

I say to the member, do what you ask the municipalities, the school boards and the hospitals to do. Tell the truth. You're getting more money, substantially more money from the federal government. It isn't what you want, but in these particular times we have to live with that. That's the truth, and I would like the member to confirm the increased federal transfer to the province, tell us what it is and tell us what the percentage is, the total amount.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? The member for Mississauga East.

Mr Sola: I'd like to comment on the member for Cochrane South's statement about the quick solutions the public wants. I think the problem stems not so much from the demands of the public but what the politicians produce during election campaigns. I think all three parties present in this chamber are guilty of having done that during the election campaigns, but I think the experience south of the border right now shows that those types of politicians are starting to be swept away by the new type, the one who presents things more accurately.

For instance, I would like to show why people in Ontario have a reasonable expectation of instant solutions by this government. Does public auto insurance ring a bell? During the election campaign when startup costs were mentioned there was always the answer: "Startup costs? What startup costs? No problem. Elect us and we'll get it in. Your rates will go down and there will be no additional cost up front."

Sunday shopping: "No problem. Elect the right party and we'll wave the magic wand and there will be no Sunday shopping. You will have a common pause day." The reality of government shows up differently. Education funding: "No problem. Whatever percentage you want, we'll provide it. Just elect us." Day care: "We'll provide all the spaces you want." They didn't say they would just change it from profit to non-profit. Rent control: "No problem. We have the instant solution." And my colleague here has had a tough time for a year trying to point out that their solutions are no solutions. Labour protection: "No problem. Bring it to us and everybody will be satisfied." Food banks: instant solutions. Garbage problems: Ruth Grier still has them.-

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Cochrane South has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Bisson: I take the two minutes in response to say that I thought I was being conciliatory with my comments in regard to the overall issue. Instead the opposition has chosen to --

Interjection.

Mr Bisson: My members say I'm always conciliatory, and I appreciate that because I think I am.

Interjection: A sense of moderation.

Mr Bisson: A sense of moderation. Thank you.

In all honesty, to be quite serious, I was just trying to make a point in this debate in regard to where we're at. The member for Mississauga East says quite correctly that all political parties have engaged in that situation, elections, where we have promised a number of issues.

The difference is that when we were in the last election we didn't have all the numbers, to be quite just, in front of us in regard to where the economy was at, where the treasury dollars were at etc. We're still saying: "Auto insurance? Sure, we'd love to be able to do it, but we just haven't got the dollars." That's what I was talking about in this particular debate, that we've got to somehow manage down the expectation so we can be in a position to advance on those things that are necessary.

The other thing I want to say is that you're really stuck as a government, because if you're elected and you do exactly what you said you were going to do and you don't change your mind and you're intransigent on the whole situation, you're accused of being inflexible, a government that doesn't listen. I'm sure the opposition would, quite justifiably, do that if we never, never changed our minds as a government and only did what we pleased, and I think the electorate for good reason would say, "We're not happy with that and we want to give you a good boot."

On the other hand, if a government such as this one tries to listen to people -- not to say that the other parties haven't done so, but the point is that when a government tries to listen to the people such as we've seen on Sunday shopping, there has been a total change in attitudes of people on the issue. I, as a member who has always opposed Sunday shopping, have great difficulty in what's happening around that, but the point is that if we are inflexible, we get charged for being inflexible and people get mad at us for that, and if we change our minds, we're accused of other things.

I would just say in summation that we really need as politicians to take a long, hard look at ourselves to be able to respond to the reality and change with the times.

1920

The Speaker: I thank the member for Cochrane South for his contribution to the debate and invite further debate.

Mr Mahoney: I must tell the Treasurer I wasn't going to go on at any length in this debate but found some of the remarks rather tantalizing and challenging and feel that really I have to take this opportunity to express some concerns about this bill.

I'm delighted, I must tell you, that we're finally debating government business instead of wasting the time and the taxpayers' money haggling over rule changes and haggling over what the government House leader has simply been trying to do, and successfully doing, putting the boots to the opposition.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You can "Oh" all you want, but the reality is that the rule changes that are coming into this place that will be debated before the end of this week will affect our ability to deal on Bill 16, which is the bill you want me to talk about. I appreciate that a great deal.

When you talk about a bill like Bill 16 and borrowing $16.5 billion dollars and the significance when that happens, and you put that in the context of today's rules in this place and the ability of members to debate and speak to that particular bill, as significant as it is, and then you compare that to the ability we will have under the new rules, then this government -- any government in fact; make it a non-partisan statement -- any government will have the ability to bring in a bill to borrow any amount of money -- double this, $30 billion dollars -- and simply put a motion on the floor.

The minister -- the Treasurer in this case -- under the new rules could stand up with a bill like this, borrowing an exorbitant amount of money at any kind of rate under any conditions for any use, and he could simply put a motion on the floor to allow for a specific period of debate, to limit the debate, to force the opposition to debate a bill like this in a very specific period of time, and therefore then it is not really time allocation; it's closure. You're ending the debate.

In the future, I say to the member for Cochrane South, who seems to feel we can solve these problems by simply saying that all politicians have to change the way we do things -- the reality is, you're the government. If you get criticized for doing things a certain way, that is part of the burden, I say to the Minister of Transportation, that goes along with the big salary and the limo. That's just part of the cost of being the government. The reality is that you are going to be criticized because of the heavy-handed way in which you're doing business.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I am just sitting here, like a duck.

It's absolutely true, but I am delighted that we got over, perhaps really through acquiescence on the part of the opposition. We had offered 15 bills to be put in Orders and Notices, to be introduced into this place to debate, 15 pieces of government legislation, not our bills, your bills that we had offered in the House leaders meetings. I was there, as the whip. We had offered to debate those things in a substantive way and to get on with the business of this province. Bill 16 was one of them.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're stalling.

Mr Mahoney: I will keep coming back to Bill 16, Mr Speaker, as you know I will. Bill 16 was one of them. We have a lot of concerns about the fact that the Treasurer is in effect asking for a blank cheque in Bill 16. I would tell you, what Bill 16 in essence does is it not only -- let me preface this, because it not only allows the government to borrow money it needs for its operations, which is frightening in itself, but it allows the government to borrow money for nine months in addition that is unaccounted for, an amount of money that we could never, I'm sure, I say to the Treasury critic for my party -- we could never quantify what amount of money it would be that they are simply taking as blue sky, I would refer to. There is a nine-month period that the government is getting authorization to continue its borrowing year without being held accountable, without justifying what it is it needs that money for.

I just don't get the sense that my constituents in Mississauga or any of the people around this wonderful province, I don't get the sense that they have the confidence -- I heard the member for Scarborough North earlier say that he still had confidence in the Treasurer. I take that comment to be a personal comment towards that particular individual as a competent member of this Legislature and I would never suggest otherwise; an honest person.

What they don't -- and I certainly don't -- have confidence in is the ability of this "team" that surrounds that Treasurer within the cabinet and within the caucus of the NDP. I certainly do not have the confidence nor do the people of this province have the confidence that you people have any kind of control whatsoever on your spending, on your financial management, on your fiscal responsibilities, and yet we're signing a blank cheque, the minute we vote on this, to borrow $16.5 billion.

I heard the member for Cochrane South in his speech as well refer to the fact that we can't cut and slash like the federal government did. Well, I will be one of the first to stand here and tell you that the federal government has certainly made some serious mistakes in its financial policies. But to suggest that this government has not been cutting and slashing: May I invite you to attend the meeting of the Peel Board of Education? May I invite you to talk to some of the constituents from Mississauga who call me to say that they're concerned that this minister simply pulled the rug out from under their kids next year going the junior kindergarten.

The issue is not junior kindergarten. In fact we need a full debate on whether or not mandating JK in the future is the way to go. The issue is the fact that the minister, the honourable Minister of Education, Mr Silipo, simply comes along -- I think he took lessons from the House leader, actually, the government House leader, because he just simply came along and unilaterally whipped out from under the parents and the kids, primarily, their opportunity to attend JK next year and the year after.

Then what is he doing? He introduces Bill 20 and in Bill 20 there's a section in there that calls for mandatory JK to be put back in place in 1994. So what we will have is a two-year hiatus, a sort of little burp in time when two sets of children in that community will not receive the same level of service and opportunity in education as the kids before and as the kids after 1994.

I suspect that a substantial amount of the money being borrowed under Bill 16 is going to be allocated to the Minister of Education. He has to make some kind of announcement about capital transfers to the boards of education to build their new schools, to buy more portables, to upgrade some of the facilities that are there. I would assume that some of the money out of this will be used to match the commitment -- it's wonderful to see that the Minister of Education has come in. Obviously he's very sensitive to my very thoughtful comments and has decided to come in in the hope that he might learn something. I'm delighted and I would hope the minister -- I noticed the fact that the government had reduced the contribution to the teachers' pensions by $330 million at the same time as they made a commitment for capital contributions to the school boards of, guess what, $330 million, really a coincidence that it was the exact same amount right down to the penny.

I don't know if the teachers think maybe this government is going to build new schools with their pension contributions; maybe. Or are they doing what my colleagues in the Tory party did for so many years? They created the shortfall in the teachers' pensions. Are they borrowing that money at extremely low interest rates and therefore winding up with a shortfall to the pensioners. Is that what you're doing?

Well I hope that means no and you're not just clearing the air. I would just hope that there's not some playing around with figures. You know the old saying about figures lie and liars figure. I know we don't have any of those here, Mr Speaker, but you can sort of see how that might be interpreted. If I were a teacher and I saw my pension money being slashed like that, and then at the same time I saw an exact dollar amount -- it wasn't $332 million, it wasn't $334 million, it was $333 million.

1930

Mr Phillips: Amazing.

Mr Mahoney: It's a real what you would have to call coincidence. It wouldn't be a trick, I say to my colleague the critic for the Treasury.

Mr Phillips: It's an amazing coincidence.

Mr Mahoney: I can only assume that's what it is.

The school boards are anxiously awaiting, actually, the Treasurer to borrow this money. That's one of the reasons that we -- I as the chief opposition whip and my House leader, the honourable member for Bruce, Murray Elston -- have been pushing the government House leader to bring forward these bills. We want to deal with this. We recognize that it's necessary for the government to have borrowing authority. As scary as it is to give borrowing authority in the form of a blank cheque to the New Democratic socialists, we realize that the Ontario government must have the ability to borrow on reasonable terms.

Otherwise they would not be able to fund the ongoing capital infrastructure and the roads and the moneys the Minister of Transportation needs to four-lane Highway 69 all the way to Sudbury, Mr Minister of Transportation. I see he's talking to the member for Sudbury East, so that's probably what they're talking about, four-laning Highway 69 all the way up to Sudbury, something the folks in northern Ontario have been asking for for some time, recognizing the need for good-quality highways to move goods, transportation, the large trucks etc, and anyone who has travelled on that section of highway in this province knows that needs to be done.

We know that work's in process, and maybe the Minister of Transportation has his dibs on some of this money. I hope you do, sir, because we want to see it finished. My goodness, you travel up there and you narrow the road down as you're going north, and half-finished bridges go nowhere, and piles of rock and cement in Georgian Bay. It looks like somebody has got a big Meccano set and they're trying to build this road. I hope this government knows how to build roads. I assume we have some competent staff. But he probably needs some of the money out of Bill 16, wouldn't you think? That's what I would certainly assume, that some of the money was going to be used for that.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities, if you want to talk about cut and slash, took 10 million bucks out of OSAP. I hope that minister has his dibs on some of this money. I say to the honourable member from Hamilton whatever, Mr Allen, that I hope you're talking and being nice to the Treasurer and to the Premier, who we know is really the guy who makes these decisions. I hope you're going to be nice to him so you get some of the money so you can transfer it, because you know better than I, sir, that there is an increased demand for enrolment in our college system, there is an increased demand for enrolment in our university system, yet they don't have the facilities and they don't have the capital infrastructure they need.

Just to reiterate, to suggest that this is not a government of cut and slash is purely a joke, because that's exactly what it is. But it brings me to the point: What do you borrow money for in government? I was the chair of the budget at the region of Peel, one of the largest regions in the country, for some seven years of my almost 10 on council, and I know from that experience that we issued debentures for capital purposes. We didn't issue debentures to buy groceries -- figuratively speaking, to buy groceries. The bothersome thing about this government is that it's starting to do what the Tories have done in Ottawa. Why do they need all this money, and why do they need a blank cheque, nine months of free borrowing, without us having any opportunity to hold them accountable under Bill 16? Because they have to pay the operating bills.

That's the scary part. They've already talked about selling off the assets, so they sell off the assets to pay today's bills. That is like a bank manager advising a customer that he should sell his house to put food on the table. If you're hungry you may have to do that, but what do you do after you've eaten the food? You don't borrow money to buy consumable products; you borrow money to buy and to build a capital infrastructure that will accrue to the benefit of your family and in this case to the benefit of your extended family, which is the electorate in Ontario. It's one thing to borrow money to build a school that will service kids in a community for 30, 40 or 50 years; it's another thing to borrow money to buy the books for those kids to go to school with.

There are some things in life that you have to pay for as you go, and the reality is that this government has got itself into such jeopardy with its five-year business plan. Picture this: Here's a five-year business plan. They come into government and get the books and say the government is $39 billion in debt. That's a lot of debt. Mind you, it only took nine cents out of every revenue dollar to service that debt. So they take over and what do they do? They implement a five-year business plan that says, on average, that they're going to bring in deficits. A deficit -- I would equate that so the folks at home would understand -- is not supposed to be debt; it's supposed to be overdraft. So it's not supposed to be your mortgage.

So you announce that you have a $9-billion overdraft, and then what does the government do? The Treasurer, at the end of the year, does something I sure can't do with my bank manager, and I don't think the folks at home can do it with their bank managers. The Treasurer doesn't have to go to a bank manager, because he's the bank. He's got all the controls and all the levers and he says: "What I'm going to do is take the overdraft and I'm going to pay it off. Now, how am I going to do that? I'm going to pile it on top of my mortgage. I'm going to pile it on top of my accumulated debt."

Earlier someone in here said he was astounded -- I think it was the member for Etobicoke West -- that the members opposite didn't understand that the deficit was cumulative. So what your five-year so-called business plan does is that it takes the $39-billion debt you inherited that was left by former governments over the years, with nine cents servicing, and it takes it up to -- people get nervous when I say $100 billion, so I won't -- $80 billion to $85 billion. It more than doubles the mortgage on the province of Ontario in five years.

Did these people cause the recession? Some would call it a depression. Obviously, no, they didn't, and I don't think any reasonable person could say that Floyd Laughren is responsible for the recession this province has experienced. But is there any real sense of recovery? Is there any confidence? People are losing their jobs. My colleague the member for Scarborough North gave me some really interesting information. These companies would be delighted if they could borrow some money the way this government borrows money, because these companies have had to reduce their operations and lay off a substantial number of people: Abitibi-Price in Iroquois Falls division -- 100 employees gone. Wouldn't they like to have the authority, the opportunity -- the president of Abitibi-Price would say, "I'm going to introduce a bill in the Legislature that gives me the authority to borrow money to save my company." He can't do that. That's not realistic. These people have to face reality.

1940

This government doesn't know what reality is. The lack of honesty in presenting its budget was highlighted, in my mind, by the greatest land flip I've ever seen in the history of this province. What a hoax this was.

Mr Phillips: The billion-dollar land flip?

Mr Mahoney: It was $1.2 billion, if I recall correctly. In fact, if they had brought in their speculation tax, they would owe the people of Ontario more money under that and they'd have to, under Bill 16, borrow more than $16.5 billion because they'd need more money to pay the debt service on the money they're borrowing. That's what they're starting to get to. It has not happened before in this province. They're starting to borrow to pay debt service. That's irresponsible and the people it's going to hurt in the long run are your kids, my kids and their kids.

Let me go back to this land flip. They're trying to present a deficit that was ironically like a shoe sale: $9.95. The deficit: $9.9 billion. I could hear the directive from the Premier: "Hello, Floyd? This is the Premier calling. Now look, I don't want any deficits that are easy for people to understand, so you've got to keep it under 10. We don't like '10' and we sure don't want to be over 10; 10 billion's got too many zeros in it. We don't like that. People get nervous when they see all these zeros." How many zeros in a billion? Do you guys know? Whoa. I don't know if I can count that high. A lot of zeros in a billion. We're borrowing a lot of zeros here with a 16.5 in front of them.

So: "Hello, Floyd? This is the Premier. Look, $9.9 billion is the deficit I want to see; no more. If you can do it a little bit less, that's fine." Can you imagine saying that, "If you can do it less"? Why would he do it less? If he's given that kind of latitude and that kind of leeway, he's going to grab all he can grab.

He sets the deficit at $9.9 billion and then Floyd calls up his deputy minister and says, "I've got a directive here to set the deficit at $9.9 billion." Appreciate they haven't even drafted the budget yet, but they've set the deficit at $9.9 billion. "How do we do it?" "The government owns a bunch of land and it's held in title by the Ministry of Government Services. What we're going to do" --

Remember that agency the Liberals used to have called the Ontario Land Corp? These guys will start appointing a bunch of their hacks to it. I'm sure John Sewell's reward for his work on the planning commission, in addition to the huge money he's being paid, will be that he'll wind up as a director on the Ontario Land Corp. I'm sure they've created the Ontario Land Corp so they can take some of their defeated candidates from the past -- they'll go around the province and the country and find people who stood for the cause, solidarity for ever, and bingo, they'll put them right on the Ontario Land Corp.

They took all this government land -- I say to the member for Oxford, listen to this, because it was magical. One day -- unlikely, because I don't think any of you guys are getting re-elected -- you may have a chance; one day you could be the Treasurer. Scary thought. Anyway, these are interesting accounting procedures. It's not something you could ever do in the private sector or in running your household or your family.

Mr Phillips: Or a company.

Mr Mahoney: Or a company.

He took all that land, valued it at $1.2 billion and took it from the Ministry of Government Services and sold it to the Ontario Land Corp, an agency owned, controlled and set up by the government, and declared revenue of $1.2 billion -- hallelujah -- and reduced the deficit by $1.2 billion.

When I go home tonight, I'm going to sell my house and I'm going to take all the money my house is worth and I'm going to declare it as revenue, but I'm going to continue living there. I'm not going to let the people I sell it to move in, because it's mine. This isn't smoke and mirrors, this is deceit. I have a lot of respect for the Treasurer, and I suspect he knows it's dishonest accounting. I'll withdraw that. I don't like that word. He knows it's questionable accounting at best.

He was probably uncomfortable doing it, but he had a dictum from the chief in the corner office that said, "I don't want a deficit any larger than $9.9 billion." So we got a shoe sale at $9.95, we got a $9.9-billion deficit. I guess now they have to borrow $16.5 billion because the deficit is the overdraft and they're the bank. They can't go to another bank, so they have to borrow the money so they can then overspend their ability to pay. Understand? It really is a mess. They have to borrow the money so that they can handle their inability to pay, and then at the end of the fiscal year Floyd looks in the mirror and says, "Well, Mr Banker, now I'm going to pay off that overdraft and the way I'm going to do it is that I'm going to pile it on top of the debt." So after year one the debt goes from $39 billion to $48 billion.

Am I keeping you up, Mr Speaker? I'd hate for you to actually fall off there.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: I haven't insulted anybody. What's your problem? I could start, if you want me to get nasty.

It goes up to $48 billion. Then in year two, which is the year we're in now, there's another $9.9 billion, so we're up to $57 billion, so just keep extrapolating it. By the end of year five, where it's somewhere around $84 billion, $85 billion in debt, the potential for debt service will have climbed from nine cents out of every revenue dollar to maybe somewhere around 20 cents, doubling the debt service.

This party, in its document where it told the world all the wonderful things it was going to do -- what was that called? The paper for power or some darned thing; whatever -- laid out all its concerns for single moms and for welfare reform, which we all know is needed and expensive: the SARC report, referred to as Transitions, the concept of giving people a hand up instead of a handout, a policy I totally support. This government knows and this party knows -- if they don't know, they heard it in Hamilton on the weekend -- that it's very important to commit moneys to social programs. For this government, which promised 60% funding for all educational grants around the province, to be reducing transfer payments to 1% is just -- I mean, people just can't believe it.

Anyway, they have all these promises. The reason I cite this is that once you do what Ottawa has done and you increase your debt service payments, then you have less money available to you each and every year to do all the good things I presume they still want to do, even though they've broken all their promises. All of a sudden that money is not available for them to do those kinds of programs.

The other aspect that concerns me a little here is the old economic adjustment that we're all sitting in great anticipation of and waiting to hear about. Do you remember? How many did they have last term? Were there two or three economic adjustments? You know, the Treasurer goes: "Whoops. Oh, my goodness, we lost a couple of billion. I mean, no big deal; we can just adjust it. We'll get out the red ink pen and we'll just write a new cheque."

We haven't heard that. There are billions of dollars in excess borrowing where the authorization is being given for these people to borrow without telling the public what they need it for -- just a blank cheque; there's no other terminology. There's nothing else you can refer to. That's exactly what it is.

I suggest that what we're facing is that about, oh, late September or early October, I would predict, just before Christmas when they're getting ready to do all their cross-border shopping on Sundays, at that point the Treasurer will come along and will announce: "Well, we've got a little problem. Our revenues weren't quite what we thought they were going to be. We've had some further downturn in the economy. We need some more money." He's got a pot here that neither you nor I or anyone around here, except this government, has the control over and he will simply call the markers in. He will phone up his bureaucrats and he'll say: "Send me some more dough. Put it all in a wheelbarrow and get it over here to the park. I need some more dough, because I'm short."

I don't know how many billions that's going to be, but clearly this government has learned one thing: It has learned how to spend and how to be out of control quicker than any government I've seen in history.

1950

One of the other concerns I have, I guess, is a philosophical one that you would expect New Democrats to be against. I can remember speeches on this side of the House when the NDP was in opposition wherein it talked about the blight of lotteries, how we shouldn't have lotteries. The poor are the people who take their $10 to the store because their only hope in life, their only opportunity -- they watch an ad on television or hear it on the radio that says, "Go for the millions," and see somebody driving a fancy sports car. This is the kind of stuff the people on that side of the House, currently the government, led by the current Premier, used to say was wrong.

The government cut out the lifestyle advertising for beer, but it's okay for lotteries. The member for Cochrane South talked about creating high expectations, false expectations that couldn't be lived up to. What do they think they're doing when they set up gambling casinos? Are they creating false expectation and hopes? At the same time, they cut back on the money for Gamblers Anonymous, an organization for a terrible illness, and any family that has had to suffer through it knows about how heartbreaking and gut-wrenching that illness can be and how it can destroy families.

They are changing the landscape of Ontario's society in major, massive ways, with 37% of the vote in their hip pocket. That's all they got. The current polls would not give them anywhere near that amount if we were to go back to an election today. I'm told by the Minister of Labour that they won't make that mistake and call an early election, in one of his rather flippant answers to a serious question from this side of the House.

But the whole landscape of the province of Ontario is undergoing massive change. Some of it may indeed be good. We introduced the use of credit cards for example, to buy Ontario wines in Ontario wine stores. We saw that as a boost to that industry in the Niagara Peninsula, an opportunity to help Ontario wines, and I think it did to a certain degree. The government is talking about introducing the use of credit cards in LBCO stores. I don't know that this is necessarily a bad thing. What really concerns me, though, is they're talking about the use of credit cards to buy groceries. I believe, more than any other issue that I have seen in the 18 months of the Bob Rae government, that epitomizes their financial management, which we are now paying for with a debt load increase of $16.5 billion under Bill 16.

Let me tell you why. I said earlier that the philosophy of borrowing should be based on borrowing the money to put in capital infrastructure, whether it is roads or sewers or new community centres you're giving grants to. I thank the government for a recent grant announced by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation to put an addition on the South Common Community Centre in my riding in Mississauga, built when I was the ward councillor; I think it was $150,000. We appreciate what you're going to do with that money, and if that money is borrowed, that's fine. I'm not against borrowing money. What I'm against is when you borrow it for the wrong purposes.

That $150,000, the cheque being sent to Mayor McCallion and the council in Mississauga to build an addition to a community centre, will see bricks and mortar in the ground, will see a hard asset that the community will have the use of. It currently has meeting rooms and a swimming pool. They have tennis courts; they have a full workout room; they have aerobics classes in the South Common Community Centre. It's a wonderful family community centre, and I give credit where it's due. This government saw fit to approve the grant to build the addition on the South Common Community Centre, and I thank it for it and I will say so publicly, as I do tonight.

They also provided a grant to the Erin Mills Little League baseball organization to build a clubhouse. It's a beautiful, substantial clubhouse with washroom facilities in the park down at the end of my street in Erin Mills. It's called the Tom Chater Memorial Park, after a wonderful man who was the head of the referee organization, who tragically passed on very early in his life but was a great volunteer in the community. The Tom Chater Memorial Park will have a new facility. It's something that will endure for years. It will be an asset that was built with a grant and money raised in the community through bingos, raffles and car washes.

You see, this is what it's all about. You build a facility that's there on a permanent basis. The community can say, "I don't mind that they borrowed the money to build the addition at South Common or to build the Tom Chater facility in the park." That's something everyone will benefit from, and people don't mind that.

Ask yourself one question: How many people do you know who buy a house without a mortgage? Obviously there are not too many of us in a position to pay cash for a house, so we've got to put a mortgage on it. Well, it's the same thing. There's a mortgage on the facility for the Erin Mills baseball association in the Tom Chater park. There's a mortgage on the facility at South Common for the addition. These are hard-nosed things we can see.

What you should not be borrowing money for, though, is to pay off operating accounts. That's where this government has itself in a real tough spot. This is not totally it's fault, but what it has to do is look at how we get out of this. It's wrong to criticize this government for creating the recession, but it is absolutely justifiable, it is absolutely correct to criticize this government for not showing any kind of financial management leadership in developing a business plan over the next two or three years that will see us getting out of this mess, that will see this government investing in infrastructure and creating jobs. They talk about it but they don't do it, and that's what has people upset. Instead, they come out with policies that they're going to ram down the throats of the municipalities.

The Minister of Housing just the other day, the day the House was not sitting, had a press conference and announced that she's going to solve all the housing problems by creating a new piece of legislation that will allow basement apartments to be legal all across this province. Did she talk to the people in my municipality? Mr Speaker, she did not. Did she talk to the people in your municipality? She did not.

What you're doing is taking what potentially could be a good idea and shoving it down people's throats, and they're not going to take it. I spent an hour on the phone just the other night with Mayor McCallion on this exact issue. She's madder than hell and she's not going to take this. I don't blame her, because you have an obligation as a government to sit down with her, sit down with AMO and sit down with all the municipalities around the province and tell them what your plans are.

Don't be so arrogant to simply go to a press conference and announce that you're going to allow the legalization of basement apartments, with no reference to rooming houses; no reference to the blight my community and many others are facing; no reference to the fact that single moms are being housed 10 to a town house, for goodness' sake, living in a small bedroom, less than 100 square feet, with a bathroom shared by four or five other people; no reference to any of those serious, critical social problems. It's just: "I've got an idea. I'm going to legalize basement apartments, shove it down the throat of the municipality, tell them it's my way or the highway and send John Sewell out to deliver the message from the minister." This kind of arrogance is going to get this government and this province into a lot of trouble. There are ways to do these things.

When my wife and I were married 23 years ago, our first home was a basement apartment and it was a wonderful place. We were young and in love; now we are old and in love.

2000

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Was it legal?

Mr Mahoney: Was it legal? I don't even know, to tell you the truth. I wasn't worried about it. We were too busy with other things on our mind, if you get my drift. We weren't too concerned about whether where we were in those days was legal. But I'll tell you, it was safe, it was warm in the winter. We had a great relationship with our landlords upstairs. We got to know the neighbours. It was a wonderful place to live. It was down off Brown's Line, in that part of Etobicoke. You might be familiar with it.

I say to you that whether it's borrowing $16 billion or whether it's shoving a policy of legalizing basement apartments down people's throats without talking to them, this government is getting itself into serious hot water because it's not explaining, it's not being clear about what its agenda happens to be, and it's asking for a blank cheque.

I want to close by referring to something the member for Renfrew North said. The opposition members were chanting for his return a short while ago. He made reference to baby boomers. He says he's one. I'm one too, maybe a year or two ahead of him -- on the long end ahead of him, by the way. He made reference to the baby boomers. We have in our society today a lot of people of 40-something. But the kids are looking for jobs, they're looking for opportunities, they're looking to start careers. They may be finishing up their senior years in high school or into their middle years in university -- two of my three boys are away at university in London and Hamilton and the third one is still in the high school system -- and they're looking for a future with some promise.

I talk to a lot of young people. There's a graduation tonight at Loyola Catholic Secondary School. I wish I was at it. I couldn't be there because of responsibilities here in the Legislature. But these kids who are graduating are looking for some kind of future. What they tell me they're looking for more than anything is leadership. They're looking for somebody about whom they can say: "That government seems to really know what it's doing. They have a purpose. They're outlining their program. They're not bringing in cockamamy amendments to the labour legislation, a piece of legislation that's not broke and doesn't need fixing in the first place. They're not pitting the business community against the union community in what could become an outright war."

These people are saying, "We're looking for a government that has some common sense." Common sense says that you talk to your constituent groups, you talk to your constituent individuals, you formulate plans that make some sense and that people have some confidence in, and you create an atmosphere where there is the confidence to invest in Ontario. If that confidence is there to invest, you will create jobs, and just maybe you won't need to borrow $16.5 billion to pay for the operating costs of the government you're running.

Just maybe, if you create that kind of confidence and that sense of teamwork, those young people will be able to look up to their Premier, which they can't do now. They say: "He seems like a nice guy. Why is he allowing this government to mess up so much?" They don't understand. The member for Oxford, not far out of those university years -- he probably should still be there, for goodness' sake -- understands the concerns those young people have.

I'm sure you have a pretty active youth wing in the New Democratic Party that was down in Hamilton, maybe having a few pops on the weekend with some of your colleagues, and I'm sure they were asking you: "What in the heck are you guys doing? Why are you flip-flopping all over the place? Why are you holding up legislation? Why won't you listen to these guys in opposition who have offered" -- and I see the House leader -- "to deal with bills like Bill 16? They seem like reasonable people, especially that member for Mississauga West." I'm sure they said that. I say to the Minister of Labour, they probably went for a walk in Mahoney Park in Hamilton, a wonderful place to go for a walk, and talked about their fears for their future: their taxes, the taxes their parents were paying, the concerns, the fact that everybody seems to be fighting at Queen's Park. And finally, since the government House leader came to his senses, we have an opportunity to deal with substantive legislation.

I just say in closing that while it is important for this government to borrow some money, I wish they weren't borrowing it to buy food. I wish they weren't allowing credit cards to be used for people to buy food at Loblaws and A&P, yet that's the direction they're going to go. I wish they would live up, even just a little, to the social conscience they so proudly talked about before they grabbed hold of the rein of power, fast becoming a reign of terror. I wish this government, I say to the minister staring me down, would show some common sense and some leadership in this province so we could get the economy rolling again and generate the kind of economic development and growth we need in this community so you wouldn't have to borrow huge sums of money to pay for all your messups and your mistakes, so you could actually say to the young people graduating from Loyola Catholic Secondary School tonight in Mississauga, "You do have a future." They don't feel that. I'm worried that they don't and this government is not showing any sign that it is prepared to provide that kind of leadership, either in policy philosophy or the economy.

The Speaker: I thank the member for Mississauga West for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Tilson: When we hear the theme of these types of debates, when you're asking for authority to borrow $16.5 billion, as the member has said in his remarks, it is a matter of confidence. People watching tonight, listening to the debates and realizing the problems we're having today, whether it's racial remarks, integrity of ministers, labour relations, labour bills that nobody wants, jobs that aren't being kept, people losing their businesses, people moving to the United States because of economic problems, boards of education saying they can't educate our young people on the meagre amounts of transfer payments that are being sent, hospitals that are worried about the philosophy of this government and the de-emphasis of hospital beds, garbage dumps -- in my riding of Caledon where they're putting 16 sites, it's almost a feeling of hopelessness -- when you see a government like this asking for $16 billion and they're coming out with these amazing policies that we simply don't want, it really creates a lot of concern inside and outside this province, specifically with respect to investment in this province.

I congratulate the member on his remarks. I would ask that we perhaps pause a little, as we're voting on this bill, to reflect on the policies of this government and on the lack of confidence that's coming from all across this country, from North America and from all around this world on all of the policies this government is putting forward.

The Speaker: Are there any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Mississauga West has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you to the member from the Caledon area for his comments and remarks.

There was an area I didn't touch on, and that's the health area. I want to say to the Minister of Health that I've been impressed to see some of the encounters you've had on Robert Fisher and other things, and you've attempted to be very forthright. One concern, though, is that the Health ministry capital grants that are being put forward to various hospitals -- Credit Valley Hospital, in my community, received a capital grant, and it is very much appreciated, but what they haven't been told is that they're going to get any kind of correlating amount for operating. I don't know what they're going to do. I don't know if the government expects the hospital to adopt its philosophy and borrow the money it needs to operate the new plant for the expansion the Health ministry is offering. They're very concerned about that, because they know the facility money is there but they're not being shown in any way, they tell me, how they can operate that facility once it's built.

So I say to the Minister of Health that I wish you would review that with them and give them some idea of what your expectations are, not just the Credit Valley, my hospital, but all of them; that if you're going to give this money for the increase in the program they're operating, they have to find some way to pay those bills.

I would just reiterate my concern about borrowing money for groceries, and encourage the Treasurer to sit down with his minions in Treasury and find a way to develop a long-range business plan that puts some kind of confidence and common sense back into the business community. I would ask him to encourage his colleague the Minister of Labour to withdraw his ill-thought-out amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act and to get on with putting some kind of common sense back into the province of Ontario.

2010

The Speaker: I again thank the member for his contribution and invite further debate. There being no further debate, the honourable member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: Despite my copious notes, I won't speak as long as some of my predecessors. There are times in this assembly when I wish more people watched the proceedings. There were a couple of occasions this afternoon, I think, when the member for Scarborough-Agincourt spoke with much lucidity and logic on the budget. While I didn't agree with everything he said, I thought he put his case extremely well, although I hasten to add that I didn't agree with a lot of his analysis because he is very sceptical of what we're doing and the way in which we're doing it. That's his role as an opposition critic, and I think he does a good job as a critic. I don't expect him to endorse what we're doing.

I think where he falls short of a thorough analysis, however, is when he blames us for filling the gap. When the federal government reduced income taxes, he was very critical of our moving in and taking up the room that was supposedly left there, to use my words, not his. To ignore what the federal government has done to us on transfer payments for health care, post-secondary education and social assistance is really to present us with half an equation. Surely that's not an indication of a very thorough analysis. I think to that extent his remarks were found wanting, but on the other hand, as always, he presents his case very well.

There is no attempt to dupe the opposition or to dupe the public. Those kinds of tactics catch up with a government very quickly. The opposition critic, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, doesn't seem to think we're going to be able to accomplish what we've set out this year. Well, we'll see. Events will unfold as they will. I believe we will achieve the goals we've set out for ourselves.

He talks about youth unemployment. I must say, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was very persistent and effective in his demands of us to respond to the youth unemployment question. My sense is that we did respond, and partly because of his urging, because he really was quite persistent in that regard.

Also, knowing I was going to appear before the standing committee on economic affairs, he wrote a letter to the committee. It was very specific in the information he wanted, and that's always appreciated, when you know what it is so you can come with the information the committee seeks. I do appreciate that.

The comments of the member for Mississauga East were somewhat biting, I felt. I would even use the term "acerbic" to describe his remarks; I think that's an appropriate use of the English language. I wouldn't want to tease the bears here this evening, but I think that truly is the case.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): One of your more clever comments.

Mr Stockwell: That's a long way for a bad joke.

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West, I believe, has an interesting view of the world. I think, however, while there have been times in my life when I've engaged in excesses too, they weren't excesses of language. I think the member for Etobicoke West detracts from what would otherwise be valuable arguments and logic with some of the excesses.

Mr Mahoney: You're giving out marks?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I'm just responding to the way members address me. Look, when I sit here for five hours and take abuse, for which I'm paid, I have a right to respond in the way I see most appropriate.

Mr Mahoney: You can only doodle so much.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's right. You can only doodle for so long before that gets boring.

The member for Carleton talked about what a great job the federal government had done on keeping the rate of inflation down. He didn't talk at all about the cost of what the federal government's monetary and economic policies had been, particularly to the province of Ontario. Most fairminded observers would say, "For heaven's sake, don't visit upon this province any more of the federal Tories' economic and monetary policies." That's the last thing this province needs, and he's got a tall order if he thinks he can sell the people of the province on a federal Tory policy as a prescription for this province's ills -- not in a million years.

I really will try not to be provocative or to tease the bears. However, I must say, the common theme that ran through all of the opposition remarks on this loan act, which is to borrow $16.5 billion in the next 21 months, was that we were borrowing too much money; we were spending too much money. That was the common thread. But you know, I really find it strange when I sit in here -- one of the reasons I come into the Legislature almost every day I can is to see what the members are saying. I keep a list of what the demands are from the opposition. This is the same opposition that tells us we're spending too much money; this is what they're doing.

The Conservative member for Simcoe West wants more money spent on health care. The Conservative member for London North wants more money spent on education. The Conservative member for York Mills wants more money spent on municipalities. The leader of the third party wants more money spent on health care. The Conservative member for Waterloo North wants more money spent on colleges and universities. The Conservative member for York Mills, again, wants more money spent on transportation. The member for Mississauga South wants more money spent on -- what was it, transportation? The member for Parry Sound wants more money spent on provincial parks. The member for Willowdale wants more money spent on credit counselling and, of course, I could also read a list of Liberal members who have requested the same amount of increases and expansion.

So while the members of the opposition are on their feet today telling me and telling this government that we're spending too much money, we've got to cut back, day after day they're on their feet demanding that we spend more money on virtually every program in the province. You really can't have it both ways in this world. If the opposition parties will make a declaration that they are interested only in cutting back expenditures in all the programs, at least then there'll be consistency.

I'm trying not to be provocative, but it is difficult to hear the opposition day after day demanding that more money be spent on all the programs in the province. Then, when the loan act comes before this Legislature, which gives us authority to borrow to pay for those programs, what happens? You all get up and say, "You're spending too much money," after demanding we spend more. It makes no sense at all.

Allow me to conclude my remarks, because I don't want to turn this into a filibuster, by simply saying that no one likes to run a high deficit and put all that money out on servicing the interest on the public debt. I don't like doing it either. But I really believe that the legacy this government will leave whenever we're no longer government -- who knows when that will be? -- is that despite the toughest recession since the 1930s, this government protected essential services for the people who are most vulnerable in this province. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

2020

The Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved second reading of Bill 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

I have here a request that pursuant to standing order 27(g), the vote on the motion by Mr Laughren for second reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize Borrowing on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Thursday, June 25, 1992.

Vote deferred.

MINING TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR L'EXPLOITATION MINIÈRE

Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur l'exploitation minière.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr Speaker. This bill, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, puts into place a proposal made in the Treasurer's 1991 budget. It limits the amount of the 36-month tax exemption for profits earned by mining operators from new mines and the expansion of existing mines. The exemption is limited to $10 million of profit per mine earned after April 1991. Profits earned before May 1991 are not affected by the limitation. This cap on the exemption will target the incentives more effectively and ensure that qualifying mining operators will continue to benefit.

Also, Mr Speaker, under the current legislation an operator has to pay back audit costs to the ministry for examining books and records kept outside Ontario. Under this bill, cost reimbursement is required only if the books and records are kept outside Canada, bringing the Mining Tax Act in line with the Corporations Tax Act. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I thank the minister for her contribution. Comments or questions on the minister's remarks? Hearing none, I open it to debate. The member for Kenora.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It gives me great pleasure to make a number of comments regarding what the minister has just introduced, Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act. I feel that a lot of people in the province don't realize how important the mining industry is to Ontario. I must say it's nice to see the former Minister of Mines and the present Minister of Mines and Northern Development here this evening to listen to a few of the points I'm going to make in terms of what the former Minister of Mines often referred to as a cornerpost in the economy of Ontario.

At present, we have 53 mines operating in the province. These mines employ some 21,700 people across the province, the industry of course being much more important to us from the north than it might be to the southern portion of the province. But we have much sad news in the mining industry today. If we take a look at a period between November 1990 and November 1991, a one-year period, we had a good number of closures, which of course led to a good number of layoffs in the mining industry and a total loss of some 1,300 jobs, and we saw a good number of operations go down.

We take a look at what this government is doing and, more important, what it's not doing to the mining industry. It can bring in further taxation, further limitations on the mining industry, yet it cannot come up with any new programs to help that industry, which I indicated is lagging.

Revenue in the mining industry has rapidly decreased. We see great declines. In 1989 we had revenue of $7.3 billion. This is revenue coming in through mining that would add to the coffers of the province of Ontario. In 1990, that drops to some $6.4 billion. We lost $1.1 billion in that one-year period. Then in 1991, if we take a look at the revenues in terms of mining, we have it down to $5.1 billion. The government, especially the ministers from the north -- we do have six representing the north, the area where I said most of the mining activity takes place -- must realize that.

As well, the decline in exploration expenditures, which are very important to the mining industry, which allow it to get out and find new sources of mining activity, has been drastic. In 1989, $218 million was spent on exploration. If we go to 1990, $141 million; in 1991, $124 million -- again, a real decline in the money being spent in exploration in this industry, yet we have a government that does not contribute in any way in seeing exploration go ahead and new development go ahead.

I often refer in this House to a project in my own riding, one that comes under the Consolidated Professor mining corporation, a project at Shoal Lake. This is a project that will bring a good amount of employment and a good amount of spinoff effect in my riding, yet we have a government that just can't seem to get interested in helping that project get off the ground. Some very frustrated people in the mining industry want to get going, yet they can't because of the lack of interest this government shows in that industry.

We have a bill here, Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, that is going to make it harder for that company and for other companies to do business in Ontario. The people who are in the industry speak about the higher costs they are facing. Every time they turn around, it seems they are faced with another cost adding to the burden placed upon them to continue a very viable industry in the province, should this government pay a little more attention to it.

As I travel across the province and visit with various people who are in the industry, I hear them talk about the rising costs in the workers' compensation rates, one thing which, again, the government has taken upon itself not to take a good look at. Their Ontario Hydro rates -- enormous increases adding to the costs of operation.

Finally, we have the topic we speak of today, the tax rates this government is putting on our industry and the current tax rate which the Ontario mining industry is faced with. It is almost making it non-competitive in world markets. We're finding that many of our investors are choosing to go to other provinces, and not only to other provinces but to other countries. I've talked a lot in this House about investors going to provinces such as Quebec and Manitoba, where the government is paying attention to the mining industry and making some concessions to that particular industry and inviting investment in the mining industry to come into the province. Again, in this province we seem to discourage it. This government seems to go to lengths to discourage any kind of flow in that area.

We often hear of Chile and Mexico and the United States, where rates are much more competitive than in Ontario. The industry has been much more successful in competing and getting those development dollars. There are only so many dollars out there and only so many dollars in that area of the industry. I must say that we just see enormous amounts heading out of the country and into the other provinces as well.

2030

Limiting Ontario's three-year tax-exempt period, which was a benefit for after-tax return on investments in the province for both exploration and development, sends the wrong signal. It sends the wrong signal to potential investors, the people we are looking towards to invest in this very important industry. As I mentioned earlier, we had a former minister who came out very strongly in terms of promoting mining across the province, actually promoting the importance of it, but the government seems to have lost that in the past year.

Let me go back to the investment climate in the mining sector of the economy. We know that at present that climate is very poor. We see a good number of mine closures, layoffs. I often think of the people who were employed at the mine in Balmertown, the Red Lake Campbell gold mine. With a job loss of 99 employees there, we saw what kind of effect that had on a very small community in my riding. When you lose a major part of the workforce, it's devastating for communities such as Balmertown.

This government doesn't seem to understand or even care about that. Introduction of more taxation on the mining industry is not something it needed in these very difficult times. I get back to the point that people in the industry feel this government is just not willing to reach out and help the mining industry in the province. The incentives aren't there, and they're finding it much easier to move to other provinces, other countries. Bill 12 sends a wrong message to that industry, which as we know has been battered, as have many other industries, by the worst recession since the 1930s and is going to need a little help. This government is going to have to realize that it's role is to work together with that industry and help it get back on its legs.

I often go back to something put out by the Porcupine prospectors and development association. They conclude their statements in terms of how they would like to see the industry get back on its feet by saying, "Wouldn't it be nice to see something like this: 'Ontario recognizes the vital role of mining to the economic health of the province and to the future prosperity of all the people of Ontario.'" That little conclusion that they often come up with speaks volumes in terms of what this industry could do and the potential it actually has in the province.

Back to Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act: I see this as being another burden on that industry; not an incentive but a disincentive to this very important industry.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Kenora for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I'd like to congratulate my colleague and friend from Kenora for pointing out some of the problems in the mining industry. As a former resident of northern Ontario and Sudbury, I know how important the mining industry is. In many communities it is the only industry; where it is not the only industry, it is probably the most predominant or the most important industry; where it doesn't carry that weight in the community, it does carry the weight of being one of the largest and most important industries. So when the mining industry is not operating at full capacity, the whole north suffers, and when the north suffers, so does southern Ontario, because the end product of the mining industry is raw materials for the industries here in southern Ontario.

To put it in perspective, up north you have no alternative: If the industry you're employed in goes under, then you have to move, whereas in southern Ontario, if you lose one job, you can find employment in some other industry.

Interjection.

Mr Sola: I was distracted by you, Mr Speaker, but --

The Speaker: I'm sorry. We've had technical difficulties with the clock. You have approximately a minute left of the two minutes.

Mr Sola: As I was saying, I think we have to realize that between mining and the forestry industry, there's not much left up north except the seasonal industries which tourism provides, so it is very important for this government to do whatever it can to encourage the mining industry to be as productive as possible. From my own perspective, my father earned his living in the mines of Sudbury and most of my friends earn their living either in the mines or the smelters associated with the mines. As a student, I financed my school and my university by working in either the mines or the smelters. To put things in perspective, in 1972 Inco in Sudbury had approximately 22,000 workers; today Inco and Falconbridge combined have about 7,000. That shows how important the mining industry is and how it has been affected by the economy.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the member for Kenora has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Miclash: I am a little amazed that the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is here in the House with us this evening and yet did not see fit to make any comment on what I said in my earlier comments.

I thank my colleague for indicating how important the industry is to him as a southern member, how the industry affects him as a southern member. He touched on a very important point as well. That's the importance of the mining industry to us in the north. I indicated to you that in my riding in particular, in the Red Lake area, in the Shoal Lake area, we do have a good number of discoveries. This is an industry that is facing very tough times. It is turning to this government for help, but I just don't feel it sees the importance of the industry. I refer back to the comment made by the former minister: a pillar of the economy in this province.

In what we're hearing from across the way, the words just don't match the music and the words just don't match the deeds of the government. We're seeing a lot of that in this particular industry. We're seeing some roadblocks set up, as the member from southern Ontario indicated. This is a very important industry for all of us across the province, but one that continually faces roadblocks and one that this government, particularly the ministers from northern Ontario, and particularly the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, is going to have to pay attention to.

The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Simcoe East.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with regard to Bill 12, the Mining Tax Amendment Act. It wasn't long ago we had the opportunity to spend some time at a reception with the mining association. At that reception there were a lot of people from the mining industry, and it was a pleasure to receive some of their comments and some of their input and the concerns they have with regard to the mining industry.

I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this minor piece of legislation that will have such a major impact on an industry that is already suffering the effects of a number of blows being dealt to it by this NDP government. Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act, follows on the Treasurer's 1991 budget announcement that he would implement a $10-million limitation on the three-year tax exemption for new mines and mine expansions under the Ontario Mining Tax Act. This bill provides the necessary amendments to implement this proposal.

In essence, any profits above $10 million generated by a new site or an expanded site in the first three years of operation will be subject to this Ontario mining tax. Previously, no taxes were paid by new sites in their initial 36 months. The new limitation applies to all profits earned on new mines and mine expansions after April 30, 1991.

2040

In the pre-budget submission to the Treasurer last year, the Ontario Mining Association sent a clear message: "No new taxes." The mining industry has faced rapidly declining world market prices and escalating costs. The introduction of a limitation on the three-year tax holiday was not welcome news for the mining industry. The mining industry believes Bill 12 is counterproductive to the underlying assumption for the original implementation of a tax exemption. The development and expansion of mine sites inherently require large capital investments and high risks. Therefore, the three-year tax holiday is necessary compensation and incentive to develop the industry.

According to last year's budget, the NDP government intended to generate $20 million to $25 million from the new limitations. The mining industry points out that the mining tax before recent amendments produces $130 million per year for provincial coffers. So it should be stressed that the tax is paid on profits and is a levy that is confined to the mining industry exclusively.

The future of Ontario's mining industry hinges on the impact of provincial government policies in four critical areas: energy supply, the Ontario Hydro rates, native land claims, the environment and taxation.

This year the Ontario Hydro rate increased to 11.5%. The high cost of power is quickly outpacing inflation, and the mining industry is worried about the security of the supply of hydro. The former Liberal government's decision to purchase power from Manitoba leaves the mining industry, and all of Ontario for that matter, at the mercy of and dependent on another province. If the mining industry is to contribute to economic growth, the provision of jobs and the creation of wealth here in Ontario, it must have access to a secure and inexpensive supply of power.

The NDP government fails to realize that if a mine closes or faces massive layoffs, the dependent community will suffer a decline in its economic fortunes. So if Ontario's mining industry declines, the province loses jobs and the tax base that helps pay for a social safety net.

The mining industry has suffered the effects of an NDP government that has decided to move ahead with native self-government before actually defining what self-government is. This government has directed business and industries operating in certain treaty areas to undertake communication efforts with the native communities. The government is behind the times, because the mining industry has been doing this for years. In fact, there are at least three mining companies that already have agreements with native communities in such areas as guaranteed jobs and infrastructure improvements.

I am concerned that the provincial government will undertake to sign interim agreements with native communities that would be in place while self-government is still being negotiated, and these agreements could deny access to land for mineral exploration. It usually takes about 10 years from the exploration stage to actual mine development. If exploration companies are denied access, it would delay mine development, which in turn would delay job creation, economic development and new tax revenue.

The current government's environmental initiatives have thrown a pall over the mining industry. Over the past five years the industry has been dealing with the massive costs of implementing MISA, which is the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. So far, the mining industry has spent more than $25 million just on the monitoring phase alone. The industry is concerned that the coming CAP, clean air program, will be implemented in a similar manner and will result in another huge burden in terms of time and money. CAP must be implemented in a more efficient manner than has been the case with MISA.

Ontario at one time enjoyed a competitive edge in the mining industry. Our ore bodies are still rich, but the economic incentives and conditions are becoming better elsewhere. So exploration is increasing in many other jurisdictions. For example, Canadian mining companies are practically falling over each other to compete in exploration in Nevada, where gold mines are abundant. Exploration is also on the rise in New Guinea, Chile, Turkey, the Andes, the South Pacific and south of the border in both Nevada and California.

Statistics for 1990 and 1991 show a 13% decrease in the total number of mining claims, a 59% decrease in the number of claims staked and a 33% decrease in the number of days worked on claims. The Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Mines should be working closely together to ensure that this decline is reversed and that Ontario's competitive edge is enhanced. Instead, the mining industry is getting Bill 12, An Act to amend the Mining Tax Act. Because of this bill, the mining industry could very well suffer a reduction in its competitiveness with other jurisdictions, and it will give them only one more reason to leave Ontario.

Approximately $7 billion of new mineral wealth is produced annually in Ontario. There is no doubt that the impact of this on communities with mining operations and on the entire provincial economy is extremely significant. It is time the NDP government recognized that the profitability and competitiveness of mining must be enhanced if the industry is to continue making a positive contribution to society and the economic community. Bill 12 will do nothing to enhance the contribution of the mining industry to the society and the economy of Ontario.

There is one section in this bill I would like the minister to comment on when she gets the opportunity to:

"Subsection 11(4) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"(4) An operator shall reimburse the minister for all costs incurred by the minister to examine books of account at the place where they are kept outside Canada by the operator and the minister may forthwith take all remedies available under this act or at law to recover such costs."

I would love to hear the comments from the minister with regard to that section.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity, Mr Speaker, to comment briefly on this, as I said, minor piece of legislation which is going to have a major effect in the economy of the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Simcoe East for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Mr Speaker, I want to take a couple of moments to add to your thanks to the member for Simcoe East. I think on behalf of our caucus he did an exemplary job, covering not only the punitive measures in this particular piece of legislation, Bill 12, but all those other measures that have been taken by this government during its 21 months in office that really serve to hurt and hinder the mining industry in northern Ontario.

This particular legislation limits the tax exemption needed by those in the industry, those entrepreneurs and companies that take the risk and spend, as the member for Simcoe East mentioned, up to 10 years from the time of exploration to development and drawing from the ground of actual wealth, those that take that time and entrepreneurial risk. This legislation, along with a number of other measures, including environmental measures that aren't very well justified -- native rights, I think, were mentioned and a tremendous increase in hydro rates that we've seen in the last 21 months -- serves to affect, in a negative way, the mining industry in Ontario.

I find it surprising that this government would be so punitive to the people of northern Ontario, many of whom over the years have consistently supported the NDP. I say to the people of northern Ontario, I hope you'll take a good hard look at the measures taken by this government which hurt the very industry that many people in northern Ontario are dependent upon. It's not just Bill 12, as my colleague the member for Simcoe East just mentioned; it's many other measures taken by this government which are punitive and which are tax grabs and which do a disservice to the people of northern Ontario. As I say, I hope those people will take a good look at the record of this government before they go to the polls, because I think it's important that people not sleepwalk to the polls three years from now, that they take a good look at the actual record of this government. I say to the mining industry in northern Ontario that the best advice we can give you as a caucus of a party is stay alive until 1995, until we bring prosperity and competitiveness back to Ontario.

The Speaker: Further questions and or comments?

2050

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I'd like to comment on section 3, subsection 11(4) of the act. The member across the way asked me to explain the article on "the place where they are kept outside Canada." The former piece of legislation had the word "Ontario" where we now have the word "Canada." We are now making it more consistent with the Corporations Tax Act and therefore giving a break to the mining companies which are operating or have their offices outside of Ontario yet in other Canadian provinces.

I'd also like to inform the member across the way that the NDP government will be alive and will arrive back here in 1995, after the election, on this side of the Legislature.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? If not, the member for Simcoe East has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr McLean: I want to thank my colleague the member for Simcoe West for his comments, and add further to them. I remember some time ago we had an opposition party in this House that was very adamant about lowering and levelling the field with regard to the price of fuel with regard to taxation. I can remember that very vividly. It involves the mining industry very much because of the cost of fuel they use. For the ministry to not look at that very important aspect in the mining industry -- the cost of energy is a major enterprise. What did the minister have to say about the 11.8% cost in hydro this year, when we're looking at flatlining budgets?

As to section 3 of the bill, subsection 11(4), with regard to going anywhere in the world to make sure they can collect the revenues, as you have indicated is needed, do the operators pay the costs if they have to go to Chile, if they have to go to California or to Nevada? Is it the mining company that pays those costs? It says, "kept outside Canada by the operator and the minister may forthwith take all remedies available." Is that another cost to that operator? Minister, you're adding another burden to the mining industry of this province.

The Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I rise as a northern member, a member who represents a community actively engaged in mining, although not nearly so actively engaged as it was some two years ago. I represent the fine people of Elliot Lake, who have experienced some of the greatest layoffs in the history of this province. The House would know that we have lost approximately 3,600 people from our mines in the past two years, leaving about 600 working.

It's interesting when we're talking about this bill to note that this government, by order in council, eliminated 1,100 of my constituents' jobs, directly destroyed 1,100 jobs in Elliot Lake. They did it. It was them. What is strange is that this was the government that promised those very miners time and time again during countless election campaigns that it would purchase all the uranium from Elliot Lake. That's what they said and I think the miners in Elliot Lake recognize this government for what it is.

But, Mr Speaker, to speak more directly -- I know you wish me to -- to Bill 12, I have some questions for the minister as I go through. I would hope that she could maybe help me. This is obviously a bill to limit what some may call a tax incentive to mines, because the first $10 million of profit is exempt for the first 36 months.

What I would like to know from the minister is how many mines her ministry anticipates will be taking advantage of this provision. What is the difference between what was happening before and what is happening now? How much more revenue can the province of Ontario anticipate getting from this tax? I would also like to know what impact the minister sees in terms of expansion of mines in northern Ontario. Does she have an impact study? How has she chosen this specific limit for this specific time frame? What does she think this particular tax will do to those communities?

That is indeed what we're talking about. We're talking about communities. We're talking about workers. We're talking about prospectors. We're talking about people who have made their living and contributed for many years to the wellbeing of this province.

There are currently 53 operating mines in Ontario today: 40 metal mines and 13 non-metal mines. Northern Ontario has the bulk of these, with 39 metal mines and four non-metal producers. There are about 22,000 people in Ontario currently employed directly in mining, milling and smelting operations. But besides those 22,000 people there are the prospectors and there are the developers. If members in this House have been paying any attention over the past six months to a year, they would know that the prospectors and developers, the people who find the ore bodies, are having a very difficult time. It is difficult to find money to finance their operations and that comes from a number of factors. Among them, however, is the fact that Ontario is not being seen as a particularly good place to invest.

I was over, and I think many members were over, to a reception at the Sutton Place. We had some ginger ale, I think, and at that reception there was a slide show put on by the Ontario Mining Association which told us what was happening with costs in this province, told us what was happening with energy costs. Talk about hydro rates going right through the roof: We know that mining is very intensive in terms of energy use; it has to be. Yet this government pursues an unrealistic, high-energy-cost policy which creates great problems for the kinds of industries we are trying to create in this province.

We're seeing Workers' Compensation Board rates, Mr Minister of Labour, that are going right out of the world. They're going crazy. How are we to expect investment in this province and expect jobs in this province if we don't do something to control workers' compensation costs? I really don't understand the direction of this government.

As a northerner I want to see a prosperous mining community, but as an Ontarian I want to see a prosperous mining community because the wealth created in the mines of Ontario has long been a basis for the strong economy we've all enjoyed. It's not just in northern Ontario. If you look around -- and this has been a problem for northerners for many years -- the mining companies have their offices here in Toronto. That's where they are. They're not in Sudbury. They're not in Wawa. They're not in Red Lake. They're here. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of people in Metropolitan Toronto who derive their wellbeing from mining. So it's not just a northern Ontario issue.

2100

I ask the minister, what impact will this have on the industry? How many new mines will not be opened or how many new mines will be opened because you're doing this? I think that is a legitimate question the Legislature needs addressed.

We also want to know, what effect will this have on your revenue, because of course it's the revenue that pays for the good things that are happening in Ontario. Without revenue we can't supply a school system, hospitals and those other things we as citizens take for granted.

I think those are legitimate questions and I did not hear any explanation from the minister about any of that. Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of participating in this debate and look forward to some answers to the questions I posed.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I'd like to inform the member opposite that the three-year time frame for the tax holiday has not changed. The $10-million limit is the maximum profit, after deducting expenses and processing allowance, that may be earned from a new mine when taxes kick in during the first three years the mine is open. The monetary limit of $10 million in profit per mine prevents tax avoidance by companies repeatedly requalifying for additional three-year tax holidays by opening and closing the same mine.

As far as an estimate for the revenue on these changes is concerned, for 1991-92 the revenue estimate was $20 million and $35 million for a full year as revenue gained from the limits.

We don't know how many companies will be affected by these changes. The revenue is an estimate based on the economic climate in 1991. Since then I am aware that the mining industry has faced some difficulties, but that has many other factors involved, rather than just these amendments to this act.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Miclash: The member for Algoma-Manitoulin brings up a good point, that being the impact of this taxation on the industry. He too cited an instance in his riding, one which I said but one which had a greater impact on his riding in the loss of jobs and in a mining company going down, taking its operation out of the riding. I think the minister is going to have to pay particular attention to what the member has said and really actually take a close look at the impact of job loss in this industry, such as he mentioned, such as I mentioned and such as has been mentioned by other members in the House, and how it affects us in northern communities and in communities that depend solely on the mining industry.

From what the minister has just said in response to the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, I feel that there doesn't seem to be enough background on it, enough study into the actual impact this is going to have. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin raises a good, valid point in the fact that, yes, this is going to affect the industry and affect the industry in ways that will affect all of northern Ontario. Again, I would hope this government, with our northern ministers and those people especially close to the mining industry, will take a very close look at the impact of this new act.

The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Brown: I thank the minister for her response. I was not entirely clear about what she was telling me. I take it this will provide $20 million to $35 million additional revenue for the government. Is that correct, Minister?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Yes.

Mr Brown: That may be well and good. That may be fair. I'm not sure, because we don't have any impact statements, but maybe that money should be spent on prospecting incentives, on developing incentives, on getting this industry going. If it's fair to take some money from this industry -- and from what I can gather from the minister, this is really to plug a loophole. What she's telling me is it's a loophole.

Interjection.

Mr Brown: That's what she's telling me, though. She's telling me it's a loophole she's plugging for people opening and closing mines.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's a tax grab.

Mr Brown: It probably is a tax grab, but regardless, the issue here is that we've got, or she's got -- the Treasurer's got -- $20 million to $35 million more. If you pursue this tax, we would like to see that money put into the mining community of northern Ontario to encourage prospecting, encourage development, so that we can see the kind of activity in northern Ontario that will not only create jobs this year and next year but for many, many years.

The one thing people don't understand about mines is that they cost a great deal to find. They're very expensive. They're like looking for a needle in a haystack. But when you find one, generally speaking, for a certain amount of time it's profitable, but from the day a mine is born, it's the first day it's dying also, because you're extracting the resources that make the mine go.

All I'm saying here, Minister, is, if you're going to make this tax grab, if you're going to grab this loot, let's put it back out into the mining community in northern Ontario.

The Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the Minister of Revenue.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I'd just like to close by saying the amendments in this bill involve a capping of the three-year mining tax exemption to target the incentive more effectively and also a technical amendment involving the reimbursement for audit costs outside Canada by the Ministry of Revenue.

The Speaker: Ms Wark-Martyn has moved second reading of Bill 12. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CODE DU BATIMENT

Ms Harrington, on behalf of Ms Gigantes, moved second reading of Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act / Loi portant révision de la Loi sur le code du bâtiment.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): It is my pleasure today to present for second reading a bill to amend the Building Code Act. These amendments are part of our ongoing efforts to streamline the building regulatory system and support the industry efforts to introduce more efficient, safe and innovative building techniques. This bill responds to many long-standing requests from the building industry and the municipalities in Ontario. Having sat on the building industry liaison committee of the city of Niagara Falls three and four years ago, I can tell you that this building code update is most anxiously awaited by many people across this province, so I am pleased today to introduce these new measures.

They include allowing municipal officials to use conditional building permits in special circumstances to speed up construction. This will make it possible for preliminary construction work to begin on certain major projects if all zoning and other critical approvals have been obtained.

It also includes permitting the use of innovative building materials and new construction techniques that have the same level of safety and performance as those currently approved in the building code.

Finally, we are consolidating key building regulations by incorporating the plumbing code, amended earlier this year, directly into the building code. For the first time in Canada, the plumbing code amendments will focus on regulating and conserving water use. This will not only save water; it will help save energy and allow us to make more efficient use of existing water and sewer infrastructure within our communities. These changes require the use of water-conserving toilets, faucets and showerheads. These resource conservation measures for new construction show the new approach we plan to bring to the regulation of buildings in Ontario.

2110

By means of another provision in this bill, we intend to extend the scope of the building code to include regulating our vast stock of existing buildings. The long-term maintenance and efficient operation of these buildings is of vital importance to our social and economic development.

I am confident this bill will be welcomed by all sectors of the building industry. Over the past year I have personally consulted with various groups; to mention a few of them, the building officials organization, the architects, the building operators, firefighters, the Urban Development Institute and consulting engineers. We have welcomed their input and they have been very helpful in pushing this forward. This bill will have many social, economic and environmental benefits including improved safety in buildings and more innovation in the building industry.

I look forward also to consultation with a wide variety of groups with regard to the development of the very important regulations which flow from this bill; that is, the Ontario Building Code.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Niagara Falls for her opening remarks. Are there any questions and/or comments? Further debate.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm pleased to enter into the debate and make some comments about the amendments to the Building Code Act. It's been actually, I think, some 13 months since the then Minister of Housing, David Cooke, introduced the Building Code Act. On the one hand, we have wondered why it's taken so long; on the other hand, I suspect a lot of that time was used in developing the regulations that will attach to this act.

Members may not be aware of it but the Building Code Act is the law that serves as a framework for the Ontario Building Code, but the Ontario Building Code is actually contained in the regulations that will attach to this act. While this act provides the framework, much of the substance will actually come from the regulations. That is something I wish to talk about a bit later.

The interesting thing about the NDP bill is that it bears a marked similarity to a piece of legislation introduced in December 1989 by the Liberal government. There are, however, some significant differences which I will go into a bit later in my remarks. It might help members if I elaborate a little on the remarks of the parliamentary assistant and give you an idea of what this bill is supposed to do and then go on to some concerns we have as to whether this act will actually achieve it and some concerns about implementation of some of these provisions.

The Building Code Act, as I said, is the law that provides for the Ontario Building Code, which is the document that regulates the construction and renovation of all buildings in Ontario. This is only the third amendment to this act since it was introduced in 1974, and the last amendment was in 1983 -- nine years. I think we can all agree in this House that it is time for it to be updated, particularly since we do have new materials, changing technologies and certainly areas of the act that were deficient before that need to be updated.

The main proposed changes to the act are tenfold.

The first is that it will establish comprehensive changes and comprehensive standards for existing buildings covering such areas as maintenance, resource conservation and environmental protection.

Second, and this was one the parliamentary assistant briefly mentioned, it will transfer the plumbing code from the Ontario Water Resources Act to the building code.

Third, it will enable municipal officials to issue conditional building permits to speed up construction. This would allow preliminary construction work to begin if zoning and certain other critical approvals have been obtained. I would like to make a few remarks on that a bit later because there are some concerns I have with the way this has been approached.

Another purpose of this bill is to enable the chief building official of a municipality to allow the use of equivalent materials, techniques and systems not currently authorized, providing they have the same level of safety and performance as those currently approved by the code. This again refers to the technology and the new changing technology I referred to earlier.

Fifth, it will enable the Minister of Housing to issue rulings to approve the use of innovative materials, products, systems or services evaluated by such materials evaluation bodies as may be designated in the regulations.

Sixth, it expands the definition of "unsafe" to cover more situations where the public is at risk. For instance, at present a building inspector cannot declare a building unsafe if pedestrians are in danger of being hit by debris falling from the building. That obviously is a welcome change.

Seventh, it will increase the powers of a chief building official to remedy a situation where a building poses an immediate safety hazard. I think it's imperative that we give the chief building official that kind of jurisdiction and that kind of authority.

The eighth thing it will do is permit a building inspector to obtain a search warrant for premises without the current requirement of having to seize evidence. Currently there are few instances in which building inspectors need to seize evidence to carry out their public safety role. I will certainly have a few comments to make on this and will perhaps compare it to the new Rent Control Act which we just passed in this Legislature and point out a few of the areas where we requested changes regarding warrants and search-and-seizure provisions. The Minister of Housing denied those changes and yet we have the same minister having legislation here with the Building Code Act where they've put in the wording that we wanted in the Rent Control Act.

I think it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing or perhaps the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing, but this is passing strange since it's the Minister of Housing who has both pieces of legislation.

The ninth thing is that it will require a permit to change the type of use of a building if this increases the current hazard level -- for example, change in the use of an office to a shop or factory. Again, this is a safety provision I think many members of this House could support.

Finally, it increases the level of fines for an individual for contravening the building code to a maximum of $25,000 for the first offence and $50,000 for subsequent offences. Imprisonment is removed as a penalty. The fine levels for corporations are also significantly increased to $50,000 and $100,000 respectively.

Those are the main provisions in the bill that is before us today. As I mentioned earlier, a lot of the substance of the building code itself we won't be able to debate tonight because we do not have access to those regulations at this time, and that will be cause for much further debate because a lot of contentious changes, I am sure, will be in those regulations. We must see those. We must have public hearings to examine those regulations because we're making major changes and we must make sure that those changes have a full airing before the public.

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, the Conservatives seem extremely noisy tonight. Maybe it's the late hour. Do you think it could be? Maybe they wake up around this time. I thought most people started to think of sleep around 9:30. Meanwhile, back at the bill, I'll speak a little louder so I can be heard above the din.

I'd like to talk about a few of the controversial parts of this issue and a few of the provisions that caused not only our caucus concerns but concern has been expressed by some of the major players in this industry such as the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the Toronto Home Builders' Association and the Urban Development Institute. I have some comments they've made on the bill which I think will be quite helpful to us.

One of the most controversial issues of the legislation is the sections which enable the development of a code for existing buildings. Again, I hate to go back to the Rent Control Act, but this has elements of retroactivity in it, and every time I think of retroactivity I think of the housing legislation where the government retroactively brought in provisions to Bill 4 which were very damaging to the housing industry.

2120

Under Bill 112 there is an amendment which has a provision to cover existing buildings under the building code, in effect making the legislation retroactive to apply to buildings constructed before the legislation was introduced. This may cause severe difficulties down the line, and I want to develop that a bit later in my speech as well and what impact this is going to have.

Second, we have not received any details yet as to how the government intends to inspect and enforce a code for existing buildings. It would be interesting to consider whether this building itself, the Legislature, would be able to pass all the current code provisions. I would suspect this building would not be able to pass the current code. This is one of the difficulties with going back and bringing existing buildings into the current code, particularly in the case of rental apartments, for instance, where through rent increases they would not be able to to cover the cost of bringing it up to code and yet they are expected to pay for it. That is going to be quite a problematic feature, I believe.

Maybe I should comment on that now, because the NDP has brought in rent legislation that does not allow rent increases where standards have not been maintained. That means that although a rental building met building standards when it was constructed, if it doesn't meet updated code requirements it may suffer a rent penalty. However, if the owner does try to bring it up to standards of the new code requirements the associated cost cannot be passed through the tenants.

On the one hand we have a piece of legislation that is going to encourage landlords to bring their buildings up to code. On the other hand we have a piece of legislation, the Rent Control Act, which is going to discourage them from bringing it up to code, particularly if the landlord doesn't have the money to do it. I think that is the problematic feature.

Again, it seems that although this legislation has been introduced by the Minister of Housing -- the Rent Control Act was a creature of the Minister of Housing -- the minister doesn't always seem to know that there are inherent contradictions between the two.

One item I don't intend to talk on at any great length -- and, Mr Speaker, as a Scarborough member you can probably appreciate best of all why I, as a downtown Toronto member, will not elaborate on this -- is the effect on people on farms. I have a number of my colleagues who have, fortunately, volunteered to fill any gaps in my own knowledge and to speak at some considerable length on this very important topic in relation to people who are on farms.

I refer to the use of ungraded materials. That in fact is the regulation under the current building code which came into effect January 1 of this year; so it was just recently brought in. This has created a lot of problems for people on farms. The fact is that they have to use new lumber; they can't use the ungraded lumber. I know my colleagues from various areas of the province have received a lot of comments and complaints from their constituents about this and will be addressing this at some length.

The situation we're in right now is that a Building Code Act has been introduced that will have a number of strengths but a number of deficiencies. I'd like to address some of those deficiencies right now.

One of the submissions, by the Urban Development Institute, was quite helpful to me because it talked about a major omission from this bill. Under the previous legislation that was introduced by the Liberal government but not passed because somehow September 1990 got involved in the way of progress -- so, unfortunately, the legislation did not have an opportunity to go forward -- there was one provision that is not in this legislation. The UDI --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That's a nice way of putting it.

Ms Poole: The member for Cochrane South gives me a little Brownie point for that one. I don't think too many people noticed I slipped that one in, but at least the din did not noticeably increase.

Meanwhile, back at the bill: Under the previous bill, provision was made for something called a certified professional program. Now, while the details hadn't been spelled out because we really didn't get into the debate on the legislation, the idea was that private sector professionals -- for instance, architects and engineers -- might be specially qualified as being capable of certifying that plans complied with the Ontario Building Code. That concept has been dropped in this legislation.

While there probably would be problems to be worked out with the concept, it had some very appealing features. The UDI pointed out that municipalities will never be able to staff building departments to meet high-volume rush periods and, furthermore, the UDI contends they shouldn't try. Certified professionals would have shifted some of these functions on permits to the private sector, allowing faster permit service in boom periods and saving the taxpayers from employing redundant employees in slow periods. This is something that the UDI has asked for. They've asked that this particular provision be reconsidered and reinstated into this legislation.

I'd like to go through a couple of the specific items in the bill. For instance, section 7 gives municipalities quite wide powers to regulate a number of things: classes of permits, for example, forms of applications, fees, times for notices, conditions for as-built plans and so forth.

There may be some scope for local autonomy, and I'm not saying there isn't, but most of the matters should be consistent and should be subject to consistent province-wide regulation. This is very important. It makes no sense that foundation permits, for example, should be available only in some municipalities or that the criteria as to when as-built drawings should be filed differ from place to place. Some chief building official will tell his council to require such drawings in all cases, perhaps adding $500 to the cost of every house needlessly, while another council will never require them except in special circumstances. I don't see any reason why the times for giving notice cannot be uniform province-wide.

I'd like to go on to section 8 and some of the provisions in there. Clauses 8(3)(a), (b) and (c) provide for the issuance of a conditional permit for any stage of construction even though not all requirements have been met to obtain a permit under subsection 2.

The conditional permit is issued by the chief building official, first, if compliance with bylaws and other applicable laws has been achieved in respect of the proposed building; second, if the chief building official is of the opinion that unreasonable delays would occur if a conditional permit is not granted, and third, if the applicant agrees in writing to assume all risks and expenses related to commencing construction or to removing the building and restoring the site to a specified manner if approvals are not obtained.

I'd like to make a couple of notes about this particular provision. First of all, "unreasonable delay" is not defined, but it's clearly left to the chief building official's discretion. Without an established understanding, this section of the act may be subject to wide-ranging interpretations varying with each chief building official of each municipality. As well, and this does concern me, there is a potential for safety and efficiency standards to be sacrificed for the sake of avoiding what may or may not be unreasonable delay.

Similarly, clause (c) may result in greater inefficiency, making it easier for an applicant to begin construction while at the same time holding him liable should the approvals, which would normally be required at the initial stage, be denied or not obtained in the time set out in the conditional agreement. This could quite possibly result in poor planning, wasted time and property management efforts and unnecessary red tape.

2130

Clauses 8(3)(a), (b) and (c) of Bill 112 lend greater authority to the chief building official and rely to a large extent on this individual's own discretion in issuing conditional permits to applicants. It would seem appropriate, for starters, that "unreasonable delay" be defined in this legislation and be set out by the act to avoid difficulties which may otherwise arise. That's something we'll certainly be looking for.

Now we go on to section 9, which provides for the use of materials, techniques and systems that are not authorized in the building code if, in the chief building official's opinion, such materials, techniques and systems would provide the level of performance required by the building code. Once again, Mr Speaker -- oh, we have a new Mr Speaker. Welcome to the chair tonight. I'm glad you've joined us. Shall we have a hand of applause for Mr Speaker?

[Applause]

Ms Poole: This is for you, Mr Speaker. I've not finished my speech yet. We're just welcoming you to the chair and saying good night to our other Speaker so he can get on to other duties. Now, where was I before I sidetracked myself?

We were talking about section 9 and materials, techniques and systems. Once again, too much is left to the chief building official's own discretion. One might ask, what is the purpose of having a regulatory system if indeed so much depends on the opinion of one individual? Those are two particular provisions which we would like to explore further.

I'm getting to a section now which refers to the amendment proposed to the powers of entry and warrants provision in order to bring the act in line with current practices. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing also had the privilege of sitting on the standing committee on general committee when we went through the rent control legislation, so I know she will be very familiar with the points I'm about to raise.

The first point I'd like to mention is that the amendments provide for an inspection "at any reasonable time," where previously it said "at any time." I think we could all agree that that is a very welcome amendment. It should be reasonable.

Second, the amendments clarify that it is not an offence to refuse consent to enter or remain in an occupied dwelling except where the inspector is acting under a warrant, exigent -- that's good word, "exigent." How many people in the House know what that word means?

They're not paying attention, or else nobody knows what it means.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Or nobody cares.

Ms Poole: Or nobody cares. Yes, that is true. Maybe nobody cares, and I'm not quite sure I do either, so let's go on.

Anyway, where there are these exigent circumstances -- where we are not sure what it means but where they have them -- or prior notice has been given where the entry is to perform certain remedial work, except for those instances, it is necessary for the inspector to act on a warrant.

I get another chalk point from the member for Cochrane South, so that's two for the night. Three strikes, am I out or do I get to go home for the evening?

The third one is authorizing a search warrant with or without seizure under the act and enabling regulations to prescribe the form of these warrants.

The fourth one is providing for entry without warrant or consent of the occupier where the delay in obtaining the warrant would result in an immediate danger to the health or safety of any person. That last one is quite welcome.

But the section of the act I'd particularly like to point out in this reference is section 21. I am going to read it for members because I'm not sure you all have your copy of the Building Code Act with you. I'm sure you haven't memorized it, so I think I'll help you out and read that particular section, because I find it quite interesting. Section 21 states:

"(1) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information upon oath that there is reasonable and probable ground to believe that,

"(a) an offence under this act has been committed; and

"(b) entry into and search of any lands and buildings will afford evidence as to the commission of the offence,

"the justice of the peace may issue a warrant in the form prescribed authorizing an inspector named in the warrant to enter and search the land and building specified in the warrant and, upon giving a receipt therefor, to remove from the land or building any document or thing that may afford evidence of the offence for the purpose of making copies or extracts."

The reason I bring this to your attention is that when we went through the Rent Control Act, the Liberal caucus introduced amendment to the search and seizure and warrant provision in the Rent Control Act to say that inspectors can be sent in where there are reasonable and probable grounds. We had amendments which stated if there are reasonable and probable grounds for the minister to believe there's offence under the act, that inspector could be sent in.

Do you know what? You may find this hard to believe, Mr Speaker, but the Minister of Housing refused to accept those words. She didn't need reasonable and probable grounds. She made it very clear when we were in the debate that reasonable and probable grounds were not necessary. I pointed out to her that this was a standard form of wording used in many pieces of legislation. It's a legal term for protection to ensure that you don't have inspectors going in willy-nilly at their own whim.

It is not too much to ask for reasonable and probable grounds, yet this Minister of Housing, who refused to put it in the Rent Control Act so that inspectors or the Minister of Housing could just act on any allegation -- no substance had to be proven, no reasonable and probable grounds had to be proven -- yet the minister refused to put it in the Rent Control Act. Here I look and I cannot believe my eyes; it is in Bill 112. What is happening here? Can we demand, at this stage, that the Minister of Housing reopen the Rent Control Act and remedy this deficiency?

I hope the Minister of Housing -- who isn't here tonight, unfortunately, or I could ask her directly -- will search her heart for the answer to that question, because as your former colleague, Mr Speaker, Sam Cureatz, the member for Oshawa somewhere --

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): Durham East.

Ms Poole: Durham East. Thank you to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I appreciate that assistance. Sam Cureatz used to say on a regular basis, "Mr Speaker, I find this passing strange." That's what I find about the reasonable and probable grounds section. I find it more than passing strange; I find it downright strange.

I know the hour is getting late, but not quite late enough. We have a few more hours so I would like to expand on a few other provisions. Let's go to section 25, which deals with another thing we debated when we were looking at the Rent Control Act. That is the provision for appeals. Unfortunately in the Rent Control Act there was pretty limited appeal and landlords and tenants were quite upset about that. In fact I think many of the landlords and tenants were quite appalled by the fact that they were denied a right of appeal which they enjoyed under previous legislation.

But back to Bill 112 -- same Minister of Housing but different bill. Section 25 provides for appeals to a judge of the Ontario court, but we have to question the 20, or maybe it was 21, days for appeal. I think the period for appeal was 21 days, if I'm not mistaken. That's almost impossible to comply with, particularly if the property owner enters into negotiation with the department. We really would recommend a much more expanded time for appeal. This would be a very desirable thing. What we want to maintain is due process. How can there be due process if you do not allow a sufficient time frame? We urge the government to take a look at this particular provision and ensure it is remedied.

Now we're going to -- where are we going now? We're going to subsection 34(2). Subsections 34(2) and (3) provide for the development of standards for existing buildings in which current and new standards for structural, fire and life safety and related matters dealing with maintenance, occupancy and repair in existing buildings could be consolidated. In other words, this section provides for regulations establishing standards of maintenance, occupancy and repair of existing buildings.

The consolidated standards could also address matters related to resource conservation, environmental protection -- certainly I think every member of this House would be very supportive of those two provisions -- security and other social concerns such as standards for rent control purposes. Such a code could reduce regulatory overlaps and contradictions and facilitate the rationalization of the regulatory system for existing buildings.

That's a fine idea. The only problem I see in it -- this is certainly something that was pointed out to me by the Urban Development Institute -- is that such standards will exist side by side with all the existing occupancy standards municipalities pass under the Planning Act, or, in the case of cities such as Ottawa and Toronto, special legislation.

2140

Section 35 provides that the act and the Ontario Building Code supersede all municipal bylaws respecting the construction or demolition of buildings. A parallel provision is to be found in the fire code. It is of prime importance that the legislation --

[Applause]

Ms Poole: No, no, not yet. The member for Etobicoke West was kind enough to give me applause for my efforts to date, but there's more.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, is there?

Ms Poole: Yes, much, much more; at least a little bit more. It is of prime importance that this legislation provide that upon adoption of an occupancy code all municipal bylaws concerning maintenance, occupancy and repair be equally superseded. Otherwise the uniform code will achieve nothing and two sets of standards, probably conflicting, will be in place. The last thing we need is more conflicting standards, so I hope we can achieve some uniformity in subsection 34(2), and perhaps we can look at some amendments in that regard.

When it comes to section 36 -- that's the section about increasing fines -- when I first read the legislation I thought, well, maybe it does serve a purpose. Maybe it will encourage people to obey the code, but the point was made to me that increasing fines seems hardly to be necessary because most code enforcement is done by way of orders. When they are ignored they're done by way of court injunctions. The most frequent offenders are small builders, and quite often they might be simple home owners; sometimes they might even have a language problem.

Building officials now seem to have all the power they need to enforce the code with the amendments that are being made, and any contravention of the code is an offence. So a fine of $25,000 for a first offence, $50,000 for a second offence and double these figures for a corporation seems unnecessary and excessive. Particularly when you consider the small home owner who is doing repairs or renovation or construction on his home, $25,000 or $50,000 seems to be an incredible fine. I think we have to examine if that's really necessary. If it is necessary, fine, but let's make sure it is before we put something like that in.

I'm glad the member for Nipissing is here tonight, because I have an article from the North Bay Nugget dated December 1991 and I'd like to read it into the record. I think they bring up a very good point. The title of the editorial in the North Bay Nugget is "Building Code Must be Amended." I'll quote from it:

"It's somewhat disconcerting to think there is no requirement in Ontario's building code for builders to be licensed, since a great many Ontarians regularly put their money and their faith in those people to carry out renovation and other construction work around their homes."

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Now, now. Members of the third party should pay attention to this. This is their leader's riding, and the newspaper from their leader's riding is saying these words. I think they should be respected and listened to.

The North Bay Nugget continues:

"While most builders are highly respected and certainly honourable, there is the rare instance when a disreputable builder reneges on his commitment to a home owner. Such appears to be the case with North Bay resident Isabelle Laframboise, who handed over a $3,800 cheque for the construction of a sun room and never saw either the work completed or the money again.

"Some municipalities have instituted bylaws requiring the licensing of all trades, but North Bay's chief building official, Rolf Vassbotn, says the city does not have the resources to enforce it.

"For its part, the North Bay Homebuilders Association may resurrect a plan to set up a self-regulatory registry of contractors to protect the public from shoddy and disreputable builders and renovators. The registry would attempt to ensure professional conduct among member contractors.

"While the North Bay Homebuilders Association should be lauded for contemplating such a move, perhaps it's time the province considers amending the Ontario Building Code to require the licensing of all builders, just as electricians and plumbers are now required to do."

I found that quite an interesting article. I would certainly welcome the parliamentary assistant's comments on it, or perhaps at a later date the Minister of Housing's comments, to see whether they have found in their experience that other municipalities are finding this difficulty. Every once in a while we hear stories of how a consumer has been fraudulently misled and has paid money for work that isn't done. If there's any way we can remedy that through the Building Code Act, that might be an amendment worthy of our consideration. So that's something for the parliamentary assistant perhaps to take back to the minister.

As I mentioned, the Ontario Building Code is actually the set of regulations that attach to the Building Code Act. The problem with that is that the regulations never come before members of the House.

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, the members from the third party really are very noisy tonight. I know it's good they are awake --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): That's because I'm over here with them.

Mr Stockwell: It was Mahoney.

Ms Poole: Well, maybe it was another member, an unnamed member, who's created the disruption.

Anyway, it's now quiet, so I'd like to talk about the regulations. I don't know if anybody here has -- I'm sure some of the cabinet ministers are involved in this. There's something called the regulations committee of cabinet that takes a look at regulations. When I was a government member -- it's a long time ago, but I have a relatively decent memory, although at times it fails me. But I do remember back to when we were in government. I remember I was a member of the regulations committee of cabinet for a couple of years.

We were sent highly confidential -- in fact, we had to take a oath of secrecy and all that kind of stuff, so this was good stuff that came to us. They would send over a pile of regulations every week, about three inches high. We would go into this weekly meeting and the civil servant bureaucrats would come in and the chair or the vice-chair of the regulations committee, who was the cabinet minister, would say to the bureaucrats: "Okay, tell us about these regulations. What are they going to do? Are they contentious? Has there been any dispute about it?" Then the bureaucrats would take about half an hour to describe what they were all about. "No, there aren't any problems." Suddenly this inch-thick lot of documents that you barely had a chance to glance through -- whoop! -- it went off to be passed as a order in council and it was a regulation.

It gives me some concern because members of the Legislature get very little opportunity to look at these regulations. Here we are talking about the heart and soul of the Building Code Act, the Ontario Building Code, which is done all by regulation, yet are members of this Legislature going to be privy to it? There are two, four -- there are a lot of cabinet ministers here tonight. I guess they were having trouble getting backbenchers in. Anyway, I'm sure the cabinet ministers might see these, but that's if, with their tremendous workload, they ever have time to really look at them. We quite often have to take the word of the civil servants and the bureaucrats, and as well meaning and as hard working as the civil servants and bureaucrats are, I'm uncomfortable with the fact --

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, now the third party is making more noise and there are no Liberal members over there for them to blame. They're doing it all by themselves.

2150

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order. I would like to remind all members that the honourable member for Eglinton has the floor. If you have comments to make you will have the opportunity, immediately after the honourable member has completed her comments, to participate.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member for Algoma said I can't hold their attention. When their attention span is this big, Mr Speaker, that's not very difficult.

When you talk about the regulations, what happens is that we take kind of as an act of faith --

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, this is no time for levity. The Building Code Act is serious legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I realize it's late in the evening and there are some provocative messages being sent, but please allow the honourable member for Eglinton to continue in the debate.

Ms Poole: I didn't think anything was provocative, but I'll try not to be. Anyway, Mr Speaker, what we as members are expected to do is to take on faith the fact --

Interjections.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I know it's late, but we really must take these issues seriously.

We have to take on faith the fact that this pile of regulations reflects goodwill towards the people of the province and reflects what needs to be done, but when was the last time the regulations which comprise the Building Code Act went to committee? When is the last time the public had a chance, in public hearings, to comment on those regulations? I have said that my memory sometimes fails me, but I can't remember this ever happening. Nobody's ever brought to my attention that it has happened.

I think this would be a good opportunity, now that we are amending the Building Code Act, to actually have the government table those regulations with the committee when we go to committee and have some public hearings and take a look at those regulations. Let the experts in the field, the builders, come and tell us in public hearings, not behind closed doors where if the government doesn't like what they say it can shuffle off the pieces of paper and we never hear about it. Let's have it in an open forum. Let's have it in committee and let's have public hearings looking at the actual regulations. If we are doing this, let's do it right.

The act itself isn't the problem. If you look at the act, much of it is supportable. There may be things that need to be changed, but the framework is quite sound. What we don't want to do is to see new code amendments which cost thousands and thousands of dollars that are added to the cost of building a home, particularly right now. When our home-building industry is in the depths of a recession and struggling to get out, that might make the difference between selling a home and not selling a home. Let's make sure those regulations are efficient and practical and that they do not add unnecessary bureaucracy or cost. Let's make sure they meet the safety requirements and the health hazard requirements. Let's make sure those are met, but let's do it right and let's look at those regulations.

I seem to have come to the end of my notes.

[Applause]

Ms Poole: Thank you. A standing ovation would have been nicer, but I appreciate the support.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Could you redo the first part? I missed that.

Ms Poole: Start over? Okay. Actually, the minister wasn't here when I began, so maybe I could start over.

Anyway, Mr Speaker, those are my very brief comments on the Building Code Act. I think you can agree that my comments really did stick to the material at hand and were meant to be helpful. I hope the Minister of Housing will take a look at these, and when we go to committee, will keep an open mind towards some changes to make this the best Building Code Act and the best Ontario Building Code this province has ever seen.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for Eglinton for her participation. Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Simcoe West.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to be brief. I'm aware of what that word actually means.

The member for Eglinton correctly touched upon one of the difficulties I and many of my caucus colleagues have with this particular piece of legislation. It will remove the exemption that currently exists for farmers to use ungraded lumber in the construction of farm buildings.

I just want the farmers in my riding of Simcoe West and throughout Ontario to know that this bill is being sent to committee, I believe, with the concurrence of the government and that I and my caucus colleagues -- I believe Mrs Marland, our critic, will be introducing on our behalf an amendment to the legislation to ensure that members of our farm community can continue to use ungraded lumber.

That's a serious issue in my area and rural areas of the province, because if they were not allowed this exemption, as currently exists, it would dramatically increase the cost of doing repairs and building construction on farms. Just as a point of note, I want to congratulate the member for Eglinton for having correctly raised that and emphasize that my colleagues and I are very supportive and will be introducing an amendment in committee.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I wanted to spend a couple of minutes commenting on Bill 112 and the remarks made by the member for Eglinton. When she raised the subject of January 1, 1992 -- when it came into effect that the farmers building barns could not use ungraded lumber, I don't think there have been many other issues in my riding that have hit the farmers as quickly as this did. I received letters; I received petitions and many letters from municipal councils asking for their support to not have this amendment.

It's put another burden on our agricultural industry which is unnecessary for farmers. When the ministry wants to control everything in the province, regardless of where the building is or what size the building is -- there has been an amendment made that it can be, I think, about 10 by 10. When we look at the definitions, it gives us great concern.

In the exclusions it says, "This act does not apply to structures used directly in the extraction of ore from a mine." An addition to that could read, "or farm buildings of 6,000 square feet or less," or approximately that. If they could put an amendment in on those exclusions, it would certainly help our farming industry.

I must say that I have had more complaints on a bill that will be introduced soon, Bill 162, than on any bill I've ever had to deal with. But Bill 112 -- I hope the parliamentary assistant is listening so it can be amended properly.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I would like to follow through on the remarks made by my colleagues relative to the rural municipalities I represent. Bill 112 has caused more unrest, misinterpretation and general resentment towards government at this level intruding into the rights of the farming community.

The farm community over the years has built buildings in a manner that -- as you drive through the country, the only reason they're not standing is because somebody didn't do the maintenance basically on the roof. I have yet to see a farm building that was not strong enough to stand over the years because of the grade of material used or the workmanship.

At the request of the warden of both counties I held two meetings, one in Renfrew and one in the administrative county office in Perth, to try and clarify for the independent sawmill operators and the farmers the issue that has been brought to light by giving this power to the chief building official.

You can imagine a chief building official of the experience that I've been able to meet to this point just doesn't have the experience that the farm operator has relative to used lumber or ungraded lumber from his own bush. The amendment that we propose, that it does not apply to anything 6,000 feet or less, would be well taken.

2200

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant in questions and/or comments. Seeing none, the honourable member for Eglinton has two minutes in response.

Ms Poole: As a number of my colleagues have pointed out, there really is a serious problem with the ungraded lumber provision. This has been quite detrimental in a number of our areas, particularly to our farmers, and it just adds needless bureaucracy, needless expense. For what reason? If there was a safety reason, if there was a health hazard, if there was any particular reason to insist that they use graded lumber, then one could understand it.

In December, when the government House leader came to our caucus and said, "We want to go to second reading on Bill 112, the Building Code Act," we said, "Okay, on two conditions," and the first was that we wanted the government to delay implementation of these provisions relating to ungraded lumber, to delay implementation because it was to go in very shortly then, January 1, 1992. Unfortunately it was not delayed, but I do understand that the government is now looking at the issue and hopefully will have some amendments ready. If the government does not have an amendment ready, certainly our caucus is prepared to act on that particular one because it's quite important.

The second provision that our caucus had, in order to agree to the government House leader's request to go to second reading in December of last year, was the fact that we wanted the regulations to go to public hearings. We wanted them to go to committee, and we're not talking about long-drawn-out hearings, but just hearings where members of the public who use the Building Code Act, the builders, the various associations such as the Urban Development Institute and the home builders' associations would have an opportunity to make the regulations and the legislation stronger. I hope the government will truly do that.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate on Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to place on record the fact that our caucus supports Bill 112 in principle and we are happy that it's going to committee. The number of areas that we really wish to debate will be done in committee. I don't wish to debate those now at second reading because I think it's redundant when we know the government has agreed that this bill will go to committee. We also want to be sure that we have a response from AMO because as of this date we don't have its response.

Actually there are some parts of the bill that we have had some concern with and those have been addressed by my colleagues, the member for Simcoe West, the member for Simcoe East and the member for Lanark-Renfrew, on behalf of the farming community who have to deal their own particular, specific problems and conditions with the construction of farm buildings on their property. I'm entirely optimistic that the government is going to address those concerns because I know they are shared by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Certainly for those of us who have urban ridings where a lot of construction of homes has been evident in the past few years, where some very overzealous builders and developers in some cases have not been willing to wait for building permits, there have been a great number of concerns expressed by those municipalities that have been impacted by these builders who feel they don't have to comply with the Ontario Building Code and wait until building permits are issued.

We have examples of that in my own municipality. I know there have been some very bad examples of that kind of infraction against the Ontario Building Code in the town of Markham. The problem for the municipalities has been that at present the whole process doesn't give the municipality very much power.

I think when a developer begins construction without a building permit, the building department routinely issues an order to comply and a stop-work order. A builder's disregard of these orders is a civil act. As a result, the building department does not have the power to physically go in to a construction site and stop work. However, if a builder continues to ignore orders, the town can seek a court injunction. It's an extraordinary and expensive last resort, and quite frankly we don't think the municipalities should be forced to spend that kind of money going after people who wish to violate the law.

In some cases where it has ended up in the courts, quite frankly the fines have been so meaningless. If you have builders building homes -- and we do have examples of homes in excess of $1 million -- and they go ahead and build without a building permit and they're fined maybe $5,000 or $10,000 for building without a building permit, those builders just looks at that as a cost of doing business. They don't care. They have a total disregard for the innocent consumer, the innocent home purchaser who goes to buy that home of any value. But can you imagine investing over $1 million in a home and finding out after you've bought it that's it's been built without a building permit?

I think what the public really understands is that a building permit isn't a deterrent to progress in terms of expediting a building's construction. A building permit is actually the certificate given by the municipality to that builder on behalf of the future home owner that certifies that this building meets the requirements of the Ontario Building Code. The Ontario Building Code is there to protect everyone, particularly the person who ultimately purchases and owns that building and lives in it.

The building permit certifies that the building is safe structurally, it's sound structurally. It certifies that the plumbing and heating will work; that if they put a certain size of furnace in, it's going to be efficient and it's designed, through the heating duct system, if it's that kind of system, so that in fact it will heat the whole building. So it stands to reason that even with residential buildings, let alone of course commercial and industrial buildings, the system of mandatory compliance with the Ontario Building Code has to be respected and observed by everybody who's building buildings.

It becomes even more serious when we get into public buildings, where the public is in those buildings. Unfortunately we have had examples, not only around this province but around the world, where buildings have not been structurally sound and people have in fact lost their lives.

2210

So the Ontario Building Code Act is a very significant piece of legislation in the province that all of us want to support, and if there are refinements to be made to that act and enough consultation has gone on prior to those refinements being finalized and third reading, we feel it's just logical common sense to support any amendments that come forward if the parties involved are in agreement, and particularly the municipalities, whose staff have to enforce the building code through the issuance of permits.

By increasing the punitive measures that are given to municipalities that give them more power to deal with people who have these blatant infractions against the building code, such as I've mentioned about building without building permits, this is a piece of legislation, Bill 112, that is to be lauded, because if the punitive fines are increased enough, then the builder will not be able to look at that fine as a cost of doing business and simply add it to the cost of the home or the commercial or industrial building.

I simply say to the parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, who is in the House tonight on behalf of the Minister of Housing, that we look forward to further discussion and debate on this bill in committee, at which time we will bring through amendments, possibly any other concerns we have with this legislation, and we look forward to your inviting the public who are responsible for the implementation of the building code to be part of those public hearings and discussions on Bill 112.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the member for Mississauga South's participation? The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I'd actually congratulate the member for Mississauga South for some well-thought-out comments. I recall full well, serving on municipal council with her for seven of the 10 years I was there, the number of incidents we had of builders who were in fact just simply going ahead and building without a permit.

I would only point out, however, that part of the problem there was the red tape and the bureaucracy and the fact that the builder would wind up with the meter running, so to speak, on approved lots. There was such a huge backlog and the code was so cumbersome, and absolutely every single plan of the same house had to be investigated on an ongoing basis, that in many cases, to avoid serious financial penalty, it led to the builders actually breaking the law.

While there might have been some who did so without any thought or caring as to whether or not they were following the procedures, there were many who did so very reluctantly, I can tell you, Mr Speaker, from having personal experience in representing part of the area municipally, and now in this place, where a lot of development took place, in the community of Erin Mills.

It's time we had some amendments that have brought some common sense to the building code and did things like merging the plumbing code and developing a code for existing buildings and for renovations and things like that. There are problems in other aspects of this government's legislation, such as its rent control, that create problems that may be exacerbated here, but I think the member for Mississauga South highlighted some of the positive aspects of the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I think the member for Mississauga South offered insight that obviously comes from many years of municipal experience in dealing with developers and zoning applications, redevelopment and housing developments etc. There has been a great development in the GTA in general, but I don't think one city has been impacted by development and developers and had the applications or the building that a place like Mississauga has seen.

Coming from Etobicoke we know at first hand the fast growth, the huge development in the city of Mississauga, because every morning they cross the border to go to work. As they drive through the Etobicoke streets, there's amazement, I think, from all people in Etobicoke at exactly how large Mississauga has become and how quickly. There was a time when it was simply a bedroom community. So I would compliment the member on her speech.

Mr Mahoney: He's a little paternalistic, isn't he?

Mr Stockwell: Coming from Metro, we tend to be a little paternalistic towards the region of Peel. We've watched it grow.

Mr Mahoney: A little jealous too.

Mr Stockwell: Jealous? I don't think jealous. We in Etobicoke have a saying that we're the first planned community, and Mississauga has a saying of the first poorly planned community.

I think the member has offered a good insight into the legislation and I think obviously it comes from a vast amount of experience in the municipal field.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I too want to compliment the member for Mississauga South on the very short, concise remarks she delivered, demonstrating a knowledge that I've not witnessed in this Legislature on this issue tonight, anyway, of the difficulties that are being faced and an appreciation and understanding of the intricacies of this particular piece of legislation. We offer our support for both the principle and indeed the recommendations that the member has made to improve the legislation.

I note as well that it is now a quarter after 10 of the clock. I know the member was in her office at 7 or so this morning. I want to make note of that time and get it on the record because I know nobody at home is watching, let alone editorial writers for any Mississauga newspapers. They've long quit work. The member for Mississauga South is still here representing the interests of Mississauga.

I also know nobody's watching because previous to the member for Mississauga South I heard, from the member for Eglinton, the most boring speech I've heard in 11 years of my presence in the Legislature, save and except the comments that she repeated from the North Bay Nugget, which I thought were cogent and deserving of all our consideration. The member for Eglinton was repetitious and boring, and generally the five or six people who were watching, I know, are now watching the Blue Jays.

I thought it appropriate that I get the comments on the record, and my appreciation for the member for Mississauga South for bringing her expertise to bear on all members in this Legislature.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): In response to some of the comments that were made in response to the introduction of the --

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that we're responding to the member for Mississauga South.

Mr Daigeler: That's precisely what I'm in the process of doing. I was rather interested to hear the comments that were offered by the leader of the third party in putting some of his views on the record.

The Acting Speaker: I want to remind the honourable member that you're responding to the member for Mississauga South.

Mr Daigeler: I'm just in the process of indicating that if the leader of the third party wanted to put on the record that the member for Mississauga South is here tonight and to excuse her for using certain privileges of the House, then I think it would have been proper not to attack the member for Eglinton for her presentation. She was equally impressive and has very carefully analysed the provisions of this legislation and has put on the record very important and significant aspects -- and the parliamentary assistant for the Minister of Housing is nodding her head -- and she knows the legislation very well. I think if the leader of the third party wanted to defend the member for Mississauga South it's his right to do so, but it would have been better for him to restrict his comments to that intervention and not to attack the member for Eglinton.

2220

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Mississauga South has two minutes in response.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you. It's Mississauga night in the Legislature.

The point of order I'd like to raise is that I heard the leader of the third party making rather uncharacteristic and rather unfortunate comments about our Housing critic and about her speech, and then the member for Nepean made some comments about the leader. You interrupted the member for Nepean twice in bringing him back to the object, which would be the member for Mississauga South's speech, and yet you allowed the leader of the third party to carry on with some impunity. I think that's unfair, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Nipissing was indeed referring to the member for Mississauga South's comments, and we are indeed referring to the member for Mississauga South's comments. I want to remind you of that.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Mississauga South did not make any reference to my speech and the leader of the third party made some quite disparaging comments about my speech, which had no reference to what his colleague the member for Mississauga South had said, and yet he was not interrupted and brought to order and the member for Nepean was. I really don't think that's fair, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It was not really a point of order; it was a point of information.

The honourable member for Mississauga South has two minutes in response.

Mrs Marland: The one asset we all have in this Legislature is a record of what is said in this House. I think it would be interesting for anyone who is interested tonight to perhaps understand a little of my leader's comments, in or out of order, to review the Hansard of -- I don't have the date -- some time during the past two weeks, when the member for Eglinton actually went to a lot of trouble to research statements and to be very critical of our leader. She actually stood in this House and quoted verbatim things she used out of context, for the purpose of attacking my leader, but I don't think the general public is at all interested in this ridiculous kind of bantering. This ridiculous kind of bantering is not productive. It doesn't do anything about solving the very serious problems the people of this province face every minute of every hour of every day in this province today.

I would simply like to say in closing that I think my leader was referring to what have been a very difficult two days for me. I want to use this opportunity, in response to his comments, to say that I'm deeply appreciative of the support I have received in the past two days from all three parties in this House. I think it speaks volumes about the fact that when it comes right down to the end we are all colleagues in this House.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Nepean had a point of order. Do you still have a point of order?

Mr Daigeler: I just wanted to indicate to you, Mr Speaker, that while I appreciate the comments that were made by the member for Mississauga South and I think they're sincere and I accept them, I think that in terms of a member she certainly has the right and the privilege to speak. But they certainly weren't to the legislation that was before the House, and you criticized me for diverging from the regular orders a little bit earlier.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It's not really a point of order. Really you're commenting on comments and I appreciate that. Further debate.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I am pleased to make a few remarks on this legislation and I'm pleased to follow my colleague the member for Eglinton, who pretty well described the legislation. I didn't think it was as boring as some might have thought. But anyway, I would like to address specific issues in this bill and how it will affect the agricultural community.

Coming from the same area you do, Mr Speaker, I've had many meetings on this legislation and I'm sure you have had the same. I want to talk a little about the agricultural community because I know many of the farmers in our area have their own material. They cut their logs off-season and properly build their dwellings in the off-season too. Many also recycle older buildings and build new and modern buildings for the 1990s. Amendments to the building code will have an indirect affect on the materials that farmers may use to build structures on their properties.

Rural members realize there's been a great deal of confusion surrounding the use of ungraded lumber in farm buildings. I've had many meetings on this issue, almost as many as I've had on the changes to the labour laws. There's confusion in both bills.

I would simply like to reiterate the feelings of many farmers and municipal officials who have made remarks to me on how this would affect them. Because the regulations do not come under the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly, I am concerned at the lack of input from the farmers and the municipalities. Bill 112 is enabling legislation and regulations will likely be drafted within the ministry, and that is of concern to many of us. The details on whether farmers will be allowed to use ungraded lumber are expected in the form of regulation. So far, I have not heard the specifics of what these very important regulations will address. Amendments must be made.

Members will know that at the beginning of October 1990 the Ministry of Housing revised the building code regulations so that municipalities were no longer allowed to exempt farmers from building permits. Prior to October 1990 and still today, farm buildings, like all structures, have to comply with the Ontario Building Code. I would like to ask the government to seek the insight of the chief building officials and the farmers during the legislative process. This is needed so that the Ministry of Housing will be aware of the different interests in Ontario in drafting clear regulations and guidelines. I am speaking of small and large sawmill operators, the municipalities and the farm community.

As a former municipal politician, I am aware of the concerns of municipalities in the graded versus ungraded lumber question, which I would like all members to be aware of. There has been some disagreement over whether safety is compromised by the use of ungraded lumber. I know a building built from ungraded lumber will be around for many, many years, possibly a stronger and a better building than one built from graded lumber. Small sawmill operators may be put out of business. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture as of last week is very confused over what's going on here and has called on the province to allow the use of ungraded wood. Many of the municipalities in my area, the same people you represent, Mr Speaker, the united counties council, the townships of Cornwall, Osnabruck, Finch and many of these others, have concerns about this bill.

2230

Ungraded lumber is stronger than the building code requires. Because of the fact that this confusion does exist, I have tried to have the Minister of Agriculture and Food, as well as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Housing, assure farmers that their unique needs will be met in regulation. As it stands now, I understand that if a building is less than 6,000 square feet and less than three storeys high, the chief building official may choose to approve ungraded lumber if justification can be shown. That's one concern I have: "if justification can be shown." We're going right back to what I said earlier. Many of the farmers in Ontario recycle their buildings, buildings that were built many years ago. They make new and modern buildings out of them. It is very much a concern to me.

However, there are many instances where building inspectors may not wish to approve ungraded lumber for reasons of liability. I have also heard that municipalities in eastern Ontario have been very vocal in expressing their bewilderment on the subject of ungraded lumber. I understand many municipalities have approached the Ministry of Housing for clarification on the ungraded lumber issue. As critic for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and having been involved in agriculture all my life, I am aware of the serious financial difficulties many farmers are in right now. In the event that the chief building official is not aware of how to apply this complicated regulation, the farmer will be the loser.

In conclusion, I hope this bill works its way through the legislation and that there will be many amendments in an effort to meet with building officials, municipal councils, sawmill operators and farmers to clarify what is now a complex set of procedures.

The Acting Speaker: I'd like to thank the honourable member for Cornwall for his participation. Questions and/or comments?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I compliment the member for Cornwall on a fine presentation on behalf of the farmers of Ontario. I represent a part of the north that has an experience much like Mr Cleary's area, where the farmers in my area build many of their buildings and their storage sheds from ungraded lumber. As a matter of fact, I would be hard pressed to go through my riding and find one that was built from graded lumber.

Mr Speaker, you would be aware that we've had a very difficult week in Algoma-Manitoulin and that we've had quite a dramatic wind storm. We've lost about 30 barns. I'm sure my farmers will be very busy right now concerning themselves with how they will store their hay etc through this coming winter, so they'll be thinking about barns. We would like to see, as our critic has so ably pointed out, a situation where ungraded lumber can be used for these because it has been the tradition, and certainly the buildings I have seen built from these materials are as good as any.

I want to compliment the Agriculture critic for the Liberal Party on his fine presentation and take a moment to also compliment our Housing critic, the member for Eglinton, who has made what I would consider, although perhaps maybe not the most exciting speech I've heard in the Legislature, one of the most comprehensive speeches in this Legislature on second reading.

It is not important to be exciting in here; it is important to bring forward the relevant points of legislation. I think the member for Eglinton has pointed out the deficiencies in the legislation and the points of concern to the people of Ontario. I congratulate her for bringing forward so much good information to the members here tonight.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Ms Poole: I too want would like to commend the member for Cornwall for his very thoughtful comments and for very succinctly putting the case of the farmers of this province who are quite distressed about the regulation regarding ungraded lumber. He made a number of very important points.

First of all, he reinforced the point that these regulations do not come under public scrutiny. He said furthermore that he's concerned that farmers and the municipalities may not have an opportunity to comment and to comment publicly on this particular aspect and on other aspects of the Building Code Act.

Because the subject of ungraded lumber and the exemption of farmers from building code provisions is extremely crucial to the farm areas, and also because, of the seven members who have spoken in the House so far tonight, six of the seven have mentioned the subject of ungraded lumber and the devastating impact it's having on our farmers, I wonder if perhaps we could call upon the parliamentary assistant to give a very brief response and let us know whether indeed the government is considering amendments.

My understanding is that the government has also been approached by many of the farmers, who have expressed their concern, and that indeed the government has made some commitment to looking at it and bringing forward an amendment. If this is true, I would like the parliamentary assistant to comment on it and perhaps give us a time frame, if there is an amendment, of when we might be expected to see it and whether we could perhaps have some input into the development of that particular amendment and that particular subject. I would be most appreciative if the parliamentary assistant could share her thoughts with us tonight.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to commend the member for Cornwall for what was evidently a very sincere critique of the legislation. His concerns are real and it's obvious that his criticism was not criticism for criticism's sake but because he wanted to see changes made that would benefit his constituents and the constituents of all of Ontario.

I am not very familiar with the effect it would have on farmers except from the mail I get. Being an urban member, all my familiarity with that aspect of the legislation is strictly through the mail, and I'm very happy that we have a member who is well versed in the concerns of farmers and is able to present them so distinctly.

May I say that the member for Eglinton, prior to him, gave an overall critique of the legislation that is very important for the government to take seriously. Knowing the member for Eglinton, I know she does her homework and that when she speaks, she speaks to represent the concerns not only of herself or of this party but of all people in the province, because she has, as we all do, the interests of everybody at heart.

Often we get lost in partisan politics, but I think in this case this is not partisanship. This is concern for very real concerns expressed by people in the province, hoping that the government will be open to changes, that the government will prove it can listen and can adapt when it is presented with sincere efforts on the part of the opposition. So I do hope the government will react to the member for Cornwall's concerns.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the honourable member for Cornwall has two minutes in response.

Mr Cleary: I would like to thank my colleague the member for Eglinton, because I think she made a fine speech. She pointed out some different things that I was attempting to do, but I still think she shed light on a lot of issues. Also the member for Algoma-Manitoulin; I share his concerns, and just on what he had told me this week about losing all the barns, I'm sure someone will be building barns back there. Knowing the material that farmers use to build their barns, when they cut a two by six, it's two by six. It's not 1 3/8 by five; it's a real two by six. So there's a lot of strength there.

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Mississauga East for his remarks, and I would also like to mention some of the issues that some of my Conservative colleagues brought up earlier. They were absolutely right in what they said about the farm meetings they've had. I know I've had many. I hope that when this legislation gets to committee, some of the issues will be straightened out. If we're going to be in the business of agriculture, I think we've got to work with the farm community and we've got to listen to it more, not only on this but on some of the other labour legislation that it seems it is going to be faced with shortly. It will be very hard on them and maybe even put some of them out of business.

Once again, I hope that when it gets to committee we'll come out with something that will be suitable to all in Ontario.

2240

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to join this debate because Bill 112 has a provision that has occupied a great deal of my time over the past winter, and it's something my friend the member for Cornwall and the members for Eglinton, Simcoe East and Lanark-Renfrew, among others, have addressed here in the debate this evening.

I just want to add some comments, because I know it must strike some of the urban members as a bit peculiar that the ungraded lumber issue could be as important in rural Ontario as it has been. I just simply want to say that through the January, February and March season in my constituency, a large slice of rural Ontario north and west of Ottawa, there was no other issue in the rural community that occupied as much space in our municipal halls and in our weekly newspapers as the provision around ungraded lumber.

It's interesting that my friend the member for Cornwall made the comment that people have been talking about farm buildings. I'm here to tell you that where I grew up, in the village of Barry's Bay and in the entire surrounding district, until very recently you built your house with ungraded lumber. Many of my friends are still doing it and I would do it without giving any thought to it for a whole variety of reasons.

My friend the Minister of Labour, who has a cottage in the area, probably would at least consider it in this sense as well, that in my part of rural eastern Ontario, where there's one of the oldest lumber cultures anywhere in the country, the countryside is full of farmers and sawmillers and others who produce their own sawlogs, who cut their own lumber and who sell it at very attractive, affordable prices to their families, to their friends and to some of their relatives from places like Hamilton, Oshawa and elsewhere.

The idea, in a place like Wilno or Palmer Rapids or Barry's Bay, that you would pass up the chance to go down to Donnie Etmanskie's mill and buy top-quality ungraded lumber, to go an extra few miles and pay a substantially higher price for stamped lumber from Georgia Pacific would be perfectly outrageous. I wouldn't do it and I wouldn't recommend to any of my friends in the assembly that they do it. It's not because I want to recommend that something unsafe be done. Donnie Etmanskie knows his lumber, and you make a quality judgement in those small towns. My friends opposite know -- the minister of highways knows it well -- that this is part of the reality, particularly in communities like Renfrew county where for six generations the good Polish people of Wilno know this like they know the back of their hand.

I repeat, I'm not here just talking about farm buildings; I'm talking about houses, I'm talking about cottages and I'm talking about farm buildings, to be sure. But this is a very real issue about life in rural Ontario and particularly that part of rural Ontario where you have, as in Renfrew county, a very significant lumber community and forestry culture. To be told by officials that there was a very intensive, long-running process, initiated I gather by the Peterson government and culminating in the term of the Rae government, that was going to somehow strip out the possibility that had existed -- and how it had existed was not exactly clear, as the several meetings to which I was invited in the winter of 1991-92 made plain.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It's got nothing to do with this act.

Mr Conway: I want to tell my friend that I am here tonight because if I got one instruction, and I know other members did as well, it was, "You better hustle yourself to the Legislature, and if you don't do anything in the coming session, you better talk to the building code when it's brought forward." I'm told of course now by some that it has nothing to do with this act. That's not what the very good officials from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs told us at the several meetings.

One of the reasons I'm on my feet tonight is to give thanks and congratulations to the excellent public servants working in the ministries of Housing and Municipal Affairs who came to some extremely heated public meetings in my constituency just a few months ago. In fact, I want to particularly thank Mr Ali Arlani, the manager of the Ontario buildings branch at the Ministry of Housing, because he did an excellent job of explaining what was happening and what could in fact be done to address the concerns not just of farmers in my constituency but of many people living in the rural community who want the right to continue, under certain reasonable circumstances, to use farm-run lumber or lumber that is produced in many of our local mills and that is graded by a knowledgeable individual but not someone who has the papers.

I just simply want to say that this was a very interesting experience. I want to say parenthetically that we are now engaged in another one, and it's not proper for me to engage that tonight, but I'm going to say, as I hope others will, that the discussion paper on the new Trees Act is the same kind of issue all over again.

I will say to my friends in the government, particularly the Minister of Transportation and others, I hope you have a chance to talk to the Minister of Natural Resources and to dissuade the honourable minister from putting us through a similar kind of song and dance, which is only going to anger and annoy a lot of the farmers and rural folk, at least in my part of the province.

If there is an issue and a concern, as there probably is, in the rural counties of the southwest, so be it; let the government go forward and address that problem. But one of the issues that the building code amendments brought forward was the way in which we advertise not just some of the changes we are going to make but in fact how the act operates ordinarily.

There were people around who were very concerned about the extent to which the politicians knew what these changes were doing. My guess is that the current Minister of Housing, a very bright and capable person, like most people in the cabinets I have known, wouldn't have had a clue as to what these changes could or would in fact mean in the rural community because, as people undoubtedly have indicated, the Ontario Building Code is like the old Eaton's catalogue, and the regulations that go with it are even more voluminous. It's not the business of the legislators to understand that in all its specificity, to use that wonderful Joe Clark word.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of the confusion seems to have been created when the government did not advertise the exemption provision that apparently has been in the building code for some time, that is, section 9.3.0.1, which has long allowed a municipal building inspector to approve or to allow substitute materials which, in the view of the local building inspector, meet the requirements of the situation.

It was very interesting, because as we got into this debate and as people got progressively more angry about what this building code amendment was doing to the use of ungraded lumber in rural communities like Renfrew county, it was very interesting to me that nowhere along the line were people saying:

"By the way, did you know that? There is and has been for some time an exemption provision in the code, and that can be used to allow M. Villeneuve, if he is in the townships of Hagarty and Richards and he wants to build a cottage, to go to his friend Conway, who's got a custom sawmilling operation and who's been known to supply very good quality material" --

2250

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I'm sure. Conway knows his lumber.

Mr Conway: And Conway knows his lumber. It's the only honest work I've ever done actually. You laugh, and again I didn't know very much about this, but I tell you, I got my marching orders from hundreds of people who were -- and I won't use the vernacular, which is what I'd like to use -- just royally ticked off. I mean, this became for them a metaphor of what's wrong with government.

I went to a meeting at the Opeongo High School in Eganville, and it was plugged with hundreds of people, fuming mad, just absolutely furious about this, because to them, this meant they could -- these are farmers and rural folk, unemployed, underemployed, stressed out with this recession in ways that most honourable members can understand, and now government was telling them:

"We have news for you. We're going to stop you from using local lumber in the construction of your pole barn, your addition to the cottage, your house, and we are going to make you go down the road and buy stamped lumber" that in many cases was of lesser quality than what they could get themselves and at a much higher price.

Hon Mr Pouliot: How do you protect the consumer in Toronto, Sean?

Mr Conway: My friend the minister of highways makes a perfectly good point. How do you protect the consumer in Toronto? Do you know what? It is not an issue in Toronto. To a large extent it's not an issue in the city of Pembroke, where I live. It's like the Trees Act. As one of my friends likes to say: "Conway, just answer me this. What is the problem for which this is the solution?"

All of us have got to start thinking about some of those questions, because my friend the minister of highways is absolutely right, it is not a Toronto problem. But I'm going to tell you, all the Toronto people I know in cottage country in my county are lined up at my friend Donnie Etmanskie's sawmill, including some of the good people who work for the Ministry of Housing, and they're there for all the right reasons.

My point, and my criticism -- and I want to say again that the officials from Housing and Municipal Affairs were extremely helpful and in my view went a considerable distance to allaying the concerns and provided for my constituents a good sense of how this could be resolved. But when I look at the problem and say, "What could we or ought we have done earlier?" there was clearly one element we could have done, and I don't know where this blame attaches. Quite frankly, and I hope I don't sound too critical, there was an element, I think, of credentialism in this little problem. The exemption clause in the code is there for good reason. It's part of the genius of lawmaking in this province.

My friend the Minister of Education is here tonight. He supervises an act that has got several of those little adjusters in it, and that makes that act bearable. Les Frost used to say that the law of Osgoode Hall was not necessarily or always the law of Killaloe. And you know what? He never spoke a greater truth.

In this particular code, there is and has been for some time an exemption clause. I repeat, it's section 9 of the code, which allows a local building inspector the right to approve substitute materials -- for example, ungraded lumber from Donnie Etmanski's sawmill back of Wilno -- if, in the view of the local building inspector, past practice and experience with that kind of material gives the building inspector a sufficient and adequate degree of comfort that is safe and practical.

I repeat, I grew up in a village where prior to a very few years ago you could count on one hand the number of people who actually built their houses with graded lumber; the idea that you wouldn't get your own from suppliers -- and bad suppliers just didn't last. They were run out of town, because you were dealing -- unlike Toronto, where of course busy people working for the banks and the insurance industry and the government of Ontario wouldn't, by virtue of their experience, daily work or general orientation, know a great deal about these things. But people in Barry's Bay and Killaloe and Beachburg understand. They understand intimately how this works. Because their rates of pay are so much lower than they are in places like Toronto, Hamilton, Windsor and Oshawa, they have to make these kinds of adjustments and decisions to survive.

You cough? You just call the treasury branch and ask for the data and you'll cough no longer.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I live in Manitouwadge, Sean. That's fair. Go to it. We dump on Toronto every second day, too.

Mr Conway: You live in Manitouwadge, and I want to tell you, in Wilno they would die for the salaries that my friend the former mayor of Manitouwadge took as a given. I remember when my teacher friends came down from Manitouwadge to try to teach me something in high school. They observed the differential pay scales between that wonderful resource community in the northwest as compared to a poorer part of eastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Back to building the houses.

Mr Conway: Back to building the houses.

My point is simply this: When one lives on the kind of incomes many of my constituents in those rural communities have, you have to do what governments don't generally have to do, and that is budget very carefully.

In this connection I ask the question, why didn't we make a better job of advertising the exemption section of the code? It wasn't done, for whatever reason. It has in recent times been done to a greater extent. It seems to me that if an effort had been made -- whenever, but certainly earlier in the process -- to tell the farm community, to tell the farm press, to tell municipal building inspectors that this section was there, it was there for a reason, and it could and should be used, then I don't think we would have had quite the whirlwind of protest and concern we had.

I simply want to say that ungraded lumber was very much the talk of my constituency. Mr Arlani and others came and expressed a helpful point of view. One of the things I was able to do was get Mr Arlani to put in writing -- I won't read it but I have a much-cherished two-page letter outlining what Mr Arlani interprets the code to allow in this connection. I expect it is going to be proceeded with in accordance with that direction.

2300

I expect as well that local building inspectors are going to exercise good judgement. I am not here, and I have said this in my own constituency, to argue the case for bad judgement and "Let anything pass." That is clearly not in the public interest and it would raise very serious issues of public safety. It is interesting to know, by the way, that under this exemption, substitute materials can be used for any building up to something like 6,000 square feet. I think 600 square metres is the conversion. That covers a lot. It covers most of what many of my constituents would expect to have covered and they are not making an argument for irresponsible action.

I simply say to the parliamentary assistant that there has been some discussion around an amendment to make plain what the very helpful officials of her department made plain under difficult circumstances at the meetings in Renfrew, Douglas and Barry's Bay just a few months ago. I would strongly encourage the government to bring that amendment forward. If it is as I have been told it might be, I expect it would be both helpful and very well received.

I would ask her again on my behalf to thank her officials for their helpfulness in this connection and to simply suggest to some of the managers that, as we look to some of these changes, it would be useful to advertise some of the flexibility in the law that allows for the kind of regional variation we've simply got to have, to recognize the long and sensibly good conduct of people in the rural reaches of the great county of Renfrew.

Mr Daigeler: It's always a pleasure to hear from the member for Renfrew North, because first of all, we get a good geographic lesson as to the parts of eastern Ontario he's from. I certainly can vouch for the in-depth knowledge he has of that area and I don't need to remind members of that.

What he is talking about are deeply held concerns which the people of that area have, but not only the people of that rural part of eastern Ontario. I represent a very urban riding, Nepean. I do have a few farmers left but not many. Still, as an urban member, I have received, as the member for Renfrew North said, some very irate calls on the question of ungraded lumber. I must admit, before that was brought to my attention, I really had no idea what my constituents were talking about. Until now, I didn't fully understand what was getting people so worked up about this issue, but I certainly understand it more now and I am pleased to hear that apparently the government may be willing to consider certain amendments that will address the very legitimate concerns and fears that have been expressed by the rural community. I'm very pleased to hear that.

You can be sure I will dig out the names of those constituents who wrote to me at the beginning of the year and who called my office. I will convey to them the Hansard record so they will see that we're all concerned about this issue and that perhaps there will be appropriate changes made to the legislation that will satisfy their concerns. I was very pleased to hear that, because this is an issue that has been brought to the attention not just of rural members of this House but also of urban members.

Mr Sola: I'd like to congratulate the member for Renfrew North. If anybody can make ungraded lumber an interesting topic, it's the member for Renfrew North. As the member for Nepean has said, you not only get a geography lesson but you also get a history lesson of the province of Ontario, and in this case a lesson in economics. Despite the fact that his eloquence and sometimes flamboyance may almost detract from what he's saying, because it makes it sound too political, I think the sincerity in his speech was just as evident as the sincerity of the member for Cornwall. Speaking on behalf of all the constituents of Ontario -- and I think perhaps the only person who could give him a run for his money in eloquence in the topic would be the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, except he'd probably do it on a higher decibel level and maybe in the other official language. But I think --

Ms Poole: Flattery will get you everywhere.

Mr Sola: Yes, I think flattery will sometimes work, but I would like to thank the member for Renfrew North for increasing my awareness of the importance of this topic. As I said, being from Mississauga East, which is a completely municipal area without any farm land whatsoever, makes you less aware of some of the concerns that may seem trivial to city people unless they have cottages in rural areas. I think topics like this have to raise the very real concerns of us municipal people because of the economic factors that we often forget once we leave areas where the economy was weak and go to an economy that is strong like southern Ontario's. It's important to keep the differences in mind.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Renfrew North has two minutes in response.

Mr Conway: My friend from Mississauga East reminds me of a famous line from Governor Adlai Stevenson, who once said that flattery was fine as long as one does not inhale. I shall try not to inhale.

Just two things: The parliamentary assistant made a good point privately to me. I don't mean to embarrass her, but she says, "Didn't people know about this two years ago?" It's probably a very good question. I have no idea why it didn't rear its head earlier. All I know is it was a sleeper until about November of last year and it just blew up at once.

I was saying to my friend from Rexdale that I took more abuse over this issue than I've taken over just about anything in the last 10 years. That's a good thing; I'm not complaining, but it was a real lesson to me. Part of the reason people were so upset is that for a farmer in Ross township in Renfrew county who wants to build a pole barn, this is a matter of thousands of dollars for no good reason.

Some of you have cottages. I don't mean to put anybody on the spot, but I suspect I know that you probably built your cottage something like some of the rest of us built our cottage. I'm probably getting into really dangerous territory here, but it is a matter of a lot of money. We're all well paid. But if you're an unemployed or underemployed sawmill worker in Killaloe, Round Lake, and you can't access your father-in-law's woodlot to get at some very good low-cost lumber because of this apparent regulation, and you're going to be made to go down the street and pay thousands of dollars that you wouldn't otherwise have to pay because of this kind of regulation -- oh, were they mad. But they are happy that we're going to get legislative clarification that reinforces what I was saying earlier.

2310

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, would the parliamentary assistant want to summarize?

Ms Harrington: It seems to have been quite a long two hours here. I would like to thank the members for their contributions, which, for the most part, I was going to say earlier, have been quite helpful. I wanted to specifically thank the member for Eglinton for her thorough examination of the bill. She did go through all 10 important changes that are being put forward so that I didn't have to do that. She noted the similarities with the former bill, Bill 103, and of course the differences. We have definitely put our stamp on this bill. The chief building official in the city of Niagara Falls liked to call this the son of Bill 103, but I told him that this was in fact the daughter of Bill 103 and it was different.

The member also mentioned that regulations are the key part of the implementing of this act. As everyone has stated, the building code is like the Bell telephone book. When we are formulating and updating those regulations, yes, we do have to consult with all those stakeholders that are involved.

In dealing with this bill over the past year we certainly haven't come up against the question of ungraded lumber, but here we do have it before us. I would like to make a few remarks with regard to that.

First of all, we are aware it is a difficulty, especially for the rural members. The member for Renfrew North certainly explained explicitly how the many members of his riding and his constituency have been most concerned about this. I want to make it very clear that this is not in the act. It is a regulation.

I want to make it very clear also that the removal of that exemption for the use of ungraded lumber for the agricultural people was something that was initiated, implemented and changed by the previous Liberal government. That was two years ago. It happened to come into force in October 1990, as the member for Cornwall read into the record about half an hour or more ago, so it is really passing strange, as they say around here, how this happened to explode at this time. But certainly these things do happen and we want to deal with it. It just seems to be, obviously, another example of a mess that in fact we inherited and we now are in the process of cleaning up. We do this, I guess, quite regularly. But I won't get into that.

The member for Renfrew North also noted that our ministry people have been hands-on in dealing with this in a most helpful way, and I intend to certainly continue with that. I would like to let you know right at this moment that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has been consulting widely on this and that we want to take into consideration the concerns of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the small sawmill operators and all those other rural people who have expressed all these concerns. We are committed to reaching a compromise solution on this issue. We want to work with you and all those people. If you bring your suggestions forward to us, we will work with you.

I want to mention that we are also concerned about the uniformity of enforcement of the building code across this province. This is something that was mentioned earlier and it is a very legitimate concern: that something in one area is not dealt with the same way in another part of this province.

Let me reiterate: We want to streamline the process; we want to eliminate red tape. That's the purpose of it. We want innovation in this province yet we want to guard the safety of the public. That's of course why the act was brought forward in the first place many years ago. It is the first of many changes we intend to make over the next few years, but we want to get this one through as quickly as possible.

I would like to thank the opposition for its general support overall and its concerns.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

Mr Allen moved second reading of Bill 23, An Act to amend the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la négociation collective dans les collèges et la Loi sur le ministère des Colléges et Universités.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable Minister of Colleges and Universities have a few short opening comments?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. At this hour of the night, it would be nice to have a subject that one could mix with nostalgia and geographic reflection, and just simply indulge in the niceties of cottage life and what one builds one's cottage with and that kind of thing. But we've had an exercise in that, and perhaps that is our entertainment for the evening, mixed with very substantial comments about a previous bill.

A little more than a year ago, I stood in the House and told members about the government's intention to proceed with some legislation that arose out of a past study, a report that was commissioned by the previous government, affecting the colleges collective bargaining process in the Ontario college system. Last month I kept that promise by introducing the Colleges Collective Bargaining Statute Law Amendment Act.

This act implements some of the main recommendations that come out of the 1988 Gandz report, a commission that was established by one of the previous ministers of Colleges and Universities, Mr Greg Sorbara. This commission was established to assess the ongoing suitability of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act to the current and future needs of the college system.

It was not, of course, born full-blown out of Mr Sorbara's activity, because indeed the roots of this go back into the previous administration with the responses of one Bette Stephenson, a former minister of fond memory, who in the wake of a 1984 strike began to wrestle with some of the problems of collective bargaining that had grown out of that particular event. There followed, of course, the Pitman report that did some further reconstruction with regard to the capacities of the Council of Regents for the college system, moving it more to an advisory capacity from an operational capacity. The Gandz report carried that process further with respect to its recommendations touching the collective bargaining responsibilities of the Council of Regents.

There are three basic points that I would like to address that form the essence of this act and that come directly from the Gandz recommendations.

The first is the extension of bargaining rights to all part-time staff working on a regular and continuing basis in the college system. In his findings, Jeffrey Gandz stated, and I find this a very appropriate and fundamental kind of comment which leads into the bill:

"The colleges, as leading educational institutions and as publicly funded organizations, have a responsibility to be model employers. They must recognize the changing social conditions regarding part-time employment and acknowledge that part-timers are vulnerable unless they have some form of collective representation, particularly when there is a union actively working to protect the rights and security of full-time employees. Disqualifying them from seeking the certification option is simply to perpetuate the disadvantage.... Finally, the extension of bargaining rights to less than full-time employees may relieve some of the tension between the parties which has surrounded previous discussion of bargaining unit jobs and security."

What we are doing in this legislation is extending the fundamental right to participate in the collective bargaining process, a right that has been denied under the current legislation to more than 14,000 part-time workers. I pause on that figure, because that is a very large number of people to be working within our college system and not to have collective bargaining rights. It is an unfair exclusion that is out of step with the situation that generally prevails in the public sector, including the Ontario public service.

Related to the extension of bargaining rights, this legislation proposes that two new bargaining units be formed, one for part-time academic staff and one for part-time support staff. The reason separate bargaining units are being created for part-time staff is that there are few common bargaining interests between full-time and part-time staff. Secondly, sometimes their interests actually conflict. What's more, the legislation only gives part-time staff the right to bargain and whether they wish to be certified will be their own decision. This, I'd like to point out, is consistent with the proposed reform to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. In any event, provision will be made in the legislation for a possible future merging of the part-time and the full-time units, should a majority of the employees in each bargaining unit so choose.

2320

While we're on this topic, I want to point out that the legislation will fold sessional staff, defined as "full-time academic staff employed up to 12 months in 24 months," part-time counsellors and librarians into the existing full-time academic unit. The reason for this is that there is a general consensus that the greatest community of interests for the sessionals and the 40-odd part-time counsellors and librarians lies with the full-time bargaining unit.

I'd like to turn to the second major thrust of this legislation, the creation of an employers' association. Once again, Dr Gandz's recommendations spelled out a number of significant reasons why an employers' association should exist. He stated:

First, that the bargaining agent for the colleges should be the acknowledged and legitimate representative of the college administration;

Second, that the ownership of the collective agreement should be enhanced by putting the responsibility for its negotiations firmly on the colleges themselves;

Third, that the maximum participation in the negotiation and the ratification of the collective agreements by the college should be encouraged so that everyone understands the agreements in their letter and spirit;

Fourth, that whoever appears at the bargaining table on behalf of the employer has the authority and the mandate to negotiate in good faith and reach a binding agreement.

In keeping with these principles, this legislation proposes the establishment of a framework for an employers' association which will be composed of the chairs of the boards of governors and the presidents of each college.

The establishment of the employers' association responds to the Gandz recommendation that a healthier college bargaining environment requires that college management assume a greater sense of ownership in the bargaining process. In my view, the creation of an employers' association should lead to a more effective and efficient negotiation process.

I want to emphasize that this legislation establishes the enabling amendments for an employers' association. The timing of a fully operational employers' association will, however, be worked out in consultation with the groups affected by its implementation.

The last point that I want to touch on before I conclude my remarks is the transferring of the responsibility of the Ontario Council of Regents for Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology for collective bargaining to the employers' association.

Once the employers' association is operational, responsibility for collective bargaining will be transferred to the association from the Council of Regents.

Under the proposed legislation, the employers' association's terms of reference will be limited to collective bargaining and other matters related to employees' terms and conditions of employment as assigned by the minister. I would like to point out, however, that the Council of Regents will retain its responsibility for the college pension plan.

I strongly believe that this legislation will lead to better labour relations in the college system. It's legislation that many will say is long overdue. It is legislation that will promote good labour relations which are of course essential in helping the revitalization and reshaping of our colleges so that they will continue to provide the education and training opportunities we will need in the future.

I look forward to the comments and observations on this second reading of this bill from the members of the opposition, particularly my two critics in this portfolio, namely, the member for Nepean and the member for London North.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments on the minister's opening remarks on the second reading of Bill 23?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm a little too close to this to make much of a comment and I certainly won't say what I think -- except this. In my time in this Legislature, I don't know a place where collective bargaining has been a bigger mess, a total jackpot. I guess I'm partly responsible for that, so I'm very excited that a new day is about to dawn; that Paddy Musson and friends will be singing hallelujahs till kingdom come with the passing of this legislation. I am very hopeful and I'm very expectant that those unbelievable labour disputes in the community college system of the 1980s will now be history, and that we will enter into a very calm, placid, peaceful and productive era that will have no end, because I can't imagine that with the acceptance of the Gandz report, as it has been accepted in this legislation, that any other outcome is possible.

Hon Mr Allen: I think the point is equity, not utopia.

Mr Conway: I'm all for equity -- boy, am I for equity. What I say is, in my view, a criticism of government, of the council, of OPSEU and of the chairs of the various institutions. I heard what the minister said and I wish him well, and I hope that the public interest is going to receive some attention as we make these changes.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I've got a question. Actually, I want some elaboration from the minister. I think he said that different bargaining units will be available for part-time and full-time employees because, if I understood him correctly, sometimes their interests clash. If I got that part of the statement correct, I'd like to ask him what will have precedence: Will Bill 23 override Bill 40, the Ontario Labour Relations Act, or will it be the other way around? My understanding of the OLRA is that part-time and full-time employees will be able to belong to the same bargaining unit. So in the one instance, according to the government, belonging to the same bargaining unit is in the best interests of the workers, yet according to Bill 23 belonging to different bargaining units is in the best interests of the employees.

That warrants some elaboration. I would, first of all, want to find out whether my understanding of the minister's explanation is correct and, second, if it is, which will have precedence, Bill 23 or Bill 40?

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? We have no further participation. The honourable minister has two minutes in response.

Hon Mr Allen: Do I understand then, Mr Speaker, that there is no further debate on the bill and that I might wind up?

The Acting Speaker: Yes, there is further debate. We are now asking for a two-minute response to the participants in questions and/or comments. Would the honourable minister have a two-minute response?

Hon Mr Allen: No.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

2330

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Even though it is rather advanced in the hour, the minister is quite correct that this is a very important topic that we are discussing. I think this bill has the potential of significantly altering labour relations in the college system in the province, hopefully for the better. I think we would all be in support of that. It also has the potential of having very significant effects on the Treasurer of Ontario, and in that regard of course on the taxpayer. From that financial perspective it is also a matter of substantial interest to the people of Ontario.

Seeing that this matter is of such importance, I must say I was very surprised that the minister only about two weeks ago introduced Bill 23 for first reading, even though, as he just said in his opening statements, he announced his intentions a full year ago. In fact, it was in May 1991 that the minister pretty well said the very same things he said tonight and in his press release on the introduction of the actual bill at first reading. It was a full year ago that he said he was going to do what he did a year later. I wonder what took so long to bring in that legislation, since most of it was in fact recommended by Mr Gandz, who prepared a report for the previous government.

Then I was even more surprised when I saw on the so-called "must have" list -- and I will explain what is meant by this "must have" list -- that the government House leader, I presume on the instruction of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, wanted to have second and third reading right away, before the House adjourns. The "must have" list is the list of legislation -- this is for the benefit of the viewers who may still be up watching us instead of the late-night show -- the government is particularly keen on passing before the House adjourns for the summer recess. This legislation, according to the government House leader, is one of top urgency and top priority. I'm seriously wondering why all of a sudden that urgency. Frankly, I think I've found the answer.

Perhaps I'm being a little sceptical and somewhat sarcastic, which I don't like to be, but when I heard that the NDP was having its annual convention in Hamilton last weekend, I wondered whether perhaps the minister was particularly keen to at least keep the promise of introducing legislation to some of the very strong NDP support groups that admittedly are union members. I must say I have a sneaky suspicion that the urgency all of a sudden of having this matter passed came from the approaching convention in Hamilton. At least when it came to the accountability session, the Minister of Colleges and Universities could say, "I have introduced this particular bill," which is of such keen interest to the union movement, in particular in the college system. At least he could say, "I've introduced it for first reading and here it is." So much for the urgency of this matter. That's why I don't see how we could pass this bill, all in one swoop, from second to third reading.

In terms of urgency, there are other matters that relate to the college and university system that are at least of equal importance. For example, he has introduced legislation on university crown foundations. He has the support of all three parties in the House on that; I think he could have introduced this particular legislation for second and third reading as well. Perhaps the opportunity to do that will still present itself. I'm sure that legislation would be very welcome to the university community, as this particular legislation would be welcome to the teaching and support staff at the community colleges.

In terms of the actual content of the legislation, I did in fact bring with me a copy of this Gandz report that was referred to several times today. Frankly it took me a while to get a copy of this report. It's a little bit faded already. Sometimes I wonder. There are a lot of studies being done by government and a lot of money being spent. Perhaps it keeps some of our university professors busy, because this particular report was in fact prepared by a university professor.

It's a rather thick report, not as thick as some of the other reports; in fact one of them we got today. Sometimes you think, "Will these reports ever be of any use?" But I have found now several times in my legislative career, which now spans almost five years, that these reports do have a rather long life and at various times of the legislative development they do come back to the attention either of a new minister, or in this case of a new government. So for those who prepare these reports and who I'm sure spend a lot of time and a lot of effort putting them together, there is hope that there will come a day when some of their recommendations are seriously introduced and looked at by the Legislature. This particular Gandz report, which was completed in 1988, is now in fact being looked at and its main recommendations are being proposed by the government as the policy of this Legislature and of the government.

I would like to start by making reference to the concluding comments Mr Gandz put together in this report. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I would like to quote. It's a bit lengthy, but given the fact that Mr Gandz did put together a report of some 300 pages and perhaps thought his report would never see the light of day, I think it's worthwhile to put some of his overall reflections on the legislative record. I think they are still valid today, and valid not just for this particular legislation but for the community college system in general and for higher education. He wrote as follows:

"For Ontario, the challenges of the next few years are going to be enormous. The need to be increasingly competitive in an era of technological innovation and expansion of the global economy has never been greater. The colleges have an important role to play in preparing young people to meet those challenges and in re-educating and retraining adult workers to lead satisfying and productive lives by mastering new technologies and building their skills in developing sectors of the economy."

Frankly, my point here is that these are very significant insights that are worthy of being repeated here because they're still extremely valid. I go on in quoting, "Whatever direction the colleges develop in, it is hard to imagine our society being able to build its base of valuable human assets without major contributions from the college sector." I certainly agree with this particular statement.

"This kind of challenge should make the years ahead exciting ones for those who are involved in education and training" -- and it should make the minister proud of being able to be involved in this particular challenge. "There are real opportunities for innovation. The colleges, with their orientation toward the workplace and the community, their flexible structures and their relatively responsive governance systems, should be exciting places to work and build satisfying careers.

"While technology is increasingly having an impact on the way students learn and are taught, no one is forecasting the demise of the skilled and motivated teacher. Teaching is a people business, and it is of critical importance to recruit, select, train, develop, reward and nurture those who teach in the colleges, the support staff without whom education and training could not be delivered, and those who manage and administer the system.

2340

"It is the excitement of this challenge" -- and I fully agree with the description and the importance of this challenge -- "which makes the existence of poor union-management relations so disheartening. There is a significant opportunity lost when so much energy and talent is spent fighting each other instead of working together to improve the quality and reliability of education and training.

"Where the relationships are good" -- and there are many colleges where they are excellent -- "people report that they have the opportunity to earn a living doing something worthwhile." Surely that is worth a great deal.

I'm skipping a few paragraphs here because time is moving on. Mr Gandz continues in his concluding remarks: "No one who has observed collective bargaining in the colleges can doubt that there's a need for change. The recommendations of this commission," the Gandz commission, "are designed to promote improvement in these relationships by removing some of the obstacles and impediments to constructive collective bargaining."

I have quoted these concluding remarks of the report to give a bit of the overall objectives and goals and purposes under which Mr Gandz was preparing his recommendations. I certainly, as I've indicated already, subscribe 100% to the overall goals that Mr Gandz has spelled out, and I'm sure the minister shares these goals.

The question now becomes, however, whether the recommendations that are being put forward that now form the core of Bill 23 before us in fact do meet this challenge that Mr Gandz has put out in front of us. Are we in fact going to give the college system, through this particular legislation, the tools and the ability to fulfil its vital role in higher education? I think there are some legitimate questions that can be asked around these particular recommendations whether in fact they will achieve these objectives. I think the member for Renfrew North has already put a few of them on the record.

One of the key concerns obviously is the cost that will be associated with this particular legislation. Again to refer back to the Gandz report, when Mr Gandz was explaining the need for extending bargaining rights to part-timers -- and it's part-timers, in fact, who teach less than six hours per week. Currently part-time people who teach more than six hours a week are already included in the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act. They have the right to organize. We're talking about the ones who will be teaching less than six hours a week.

What Mr Gandz is saying is that: "The issue of part-time employees has been a continuing source of frustration for the union and a recurrent problem in collective bargaining. Although these employees are not union members or members of bargaining units represented by OPSEU, the union has felt compelled to try to represent them."

The following sentence I think is very important: "While some of this is motivated by genuine concern for the plight of part-time and sessional employees, it is also motivated by healthy self-interest."

I don't think we should overlook that. I think it's quite fair to say, especially when we look at the overall economic climate out there, that there is definitely a trend by employers to hire more and more part-time people, and through that perhaps avoid some of the benefits that legitimately accrue to workers, to which they should be entitled. Certainly my party and I would not want to fall into the trap of not giving legitimate employee benefits to part-time workers.

On the other hand, we must realize that unions, when they strive for the bargaining rights of part-timers, are motivated, as Mr Gandz said here in the report, not just by concern for the part-timers and their wellbeing, but also, as he says here: "by healthy self-interest. If part-time and sessional employees are less expensive to employ because of lower salaries and benefits, or if they can be used more flexibly because they do not have access to layoff and recall procedures, then the employer is tempted to convert more and more positions to part-time status and to staff new positions with part-timers or sessionals. Without extreme vigilance on the part of the union, this would lead to a leakage of jobs from the bargaining units, a threat to their members' job security and a loss of union dues revenue."

As we can see here, the reason OPSEU has for quite some time been very forcefully pushing the government to extend the bargaining rights obviously relates to its own self-interest because it is concerned. If colleges are able to hire too many part-timers, then their own salary negotiations and benefit negotiations will not be as powerful as they could be if they're all members of bargaining units.

So obviously then what we expect from this particular legislation -- and if the bargaining units are established at the colleges, as the minister has indicated, it is of course the employees themselves who have to request certification; it's not automatic -- eventually, I'm sure, we will see an increase in the overall costs to the college community. Of course, since the college community for the most part relies on the provincial Treasurer to pay its bills, we will see increased costs to the public purse. In fact, I spoke with several college presidents and administrators, and that is a very sincere concern they have.

That concern is even stronger now because we have seen, as you know, Mr Speaker, a severe cutback in the increase of the transfer payments to universities and colleges. We know that while they have experienced a cutback in transfer payments they are at the same time experiencing a tremendous growth in enrolment, so the financial pressures on the college community are already extremely strong. In light of that, one has to wonder whether an initiative is timely that has the immediate potential to bring in additional significant costs to the college community.

Perhaps in his response later on as we continue to debate this bill the minister could indicate to us whether he has any idea what the cost to the Treasurer might be of this particular provision. I would be most interested to hear the minister's comments on this.

Seeing that we're getting very close to the time for adjournment, I did want to put on the record a few comments that were passed on to the minister, I'm sure, and also to me, from the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. These comments refer to the other aspects of the legislation, because there are two dimensions to this legislation. There is the dimension of extending bargaining rights and there is also the dimension of establishing an employers' association that will do the bargaining for the colleges in the future rather than the Council of Regents.

ACAATO is in support of the establishment of an employers' association. In principle it is in favour. However, again, it has a serious concern about the funding of this new organization. As Keith McIntyre, the chair of the Council of Presidents of the colleges, said, "as long as this new agency is properly resourced."

2350

They have expressed the very serious and I think very legitimate concern that moneys for this new agency will be taken out of the existing budget of the colleges and therefore there will be less money available for the department work the colleges are already doing right now. They are making the recommendation, "Please make sure that our funding is not reduced in order to establish this new employers' association."

Also, they recommend very strongly -- and I'm sure the minister will be open to this -- that this new employers' association work very closely with ACAATO. In fact, in this memo I'm referring to from Mr McIntyre, he is offering the office facilities of ACAATO for the use of this new employers' association to keep costs at a minimum.

Finally, they also make the point that, before we move to a strike situation in the negotiations that may be taking place between the employers' association and the bargaining units, the final offers of both parties should be provided to the entire bargaining unit by the College Relations Commission before any strike vote is taken. In view of that very strong recommendation, I think the minister should pay attention very carefully to this request by Mr McIntyre. We all know that.

The former Minister of Colleges and Universities, the member for Renfrew North, has rightfully pointed out some of the very -- "disastrous" is perhaps too strong a word -- negative consequences of some of the strikes we have seen in the community college system. I have Algonquin College in my own riding and I received many calls a few years ago when we had a strike at Algonquin College about the impact of that strike on the students.

The college presidents are extremely concerned to make sure the final offers of both parties are presented to all the bargaining unit members for their full information, so that all members of the union are speaking from clear, objective information. ACAATO feels the College Relations Commission should be given that responsibility. It would feel much more comfortable with this legislation if this provision was looked into.

Just to be very clear again, I quote from the memo from Keith McIntyre to the assistant deputy minister:

"Such an important issue as a strike vote should not be allowed to occur in the college sector unless the information from both college management and union on which the important strike vote is being taken has been presented in a totally objective, unambiguous and impartial manner to the bargaining unit members."

Again, I should indicate that the general principle of the establishment of an employers' association does not seem to be a contentious issue. I've spoken with quite a few people, and if there is enough funding for this new organization, which of course is a big proviso, the community would be happy to see the responsibility for the bargaining move from the Council of Regents to this new employers' association. Mind you, it is a question as to who establishes the members of the employers' association, and we haven't really touched on that yet. I rather wonder what the minister has in mind there, because a concern of the college community is who will in fact represent them on the employers' association.

I wonder what will be left to do for the Council of Regents once the new employers' association has been established. Obviously, up to now they have been involved in a very major way in the development of negotiations, and that was a very major part of their responsibility. What is the responsibility of the Council of Regents once that employers' association is set up?

I see that some of the members opposite, not sitting in their seats, are trying to draw all kinds of sign language to me. Oh, I think I understand now. The Minister of Health is trying to indicate to me that some of the other members will want to speak. I'm sure that in due course they will be given ample opportunity to speak to this legislation, which is a very important, one, but I still want to put on the record a few aspects which are very important about this legislation.

One, in particular, is what I consider somewhat excessive powers that are being given to the cabinet. When I look at the bill and section 94, it isn't really the bill that establishes the bargaining units and it's not the bill that says part-timers should have the right to bargain collectively; it is:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- in other words the cabinet -- "may make regulations,

"(a) prescribing one or more bargaining units of employees;

"(b) authorizing the Ontario Labour Relations Board to combine designated bargaining units into one unit upon such conditions as may be prescribed;

"(c) governing the continuation of the status of a bargaining unit when its composition is changed; and

"(d) governing the continuation of the status of a bargaining agent for a continued bargaining unit."

That gives tremendous power to cabinet. In this House, very often the deep concern has been raised that the government, through its regulations process, is given an inordinate amount of responsibility without the control of the Legislature. Certainly with this particular provision, the minister very much falls into that very dangerous trap.

We have seen no regulations at all yet. He's leaving himself any kind of option open. He says, "Give me the authority and I will act in your best interests." That's fine, but unfortunately, as an opposition, we're just not as credulous, you may call it. We have the responsibility to be critical about the actions that seem to be taken by the government and that it may very well use not in favour of the people of Ontario but in disfavour of the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. When we next reconvene to debate Bill 23, the honourable member for Nepean will have the floor. It now being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until later today at 10 of the clock this morning.

The House adjourned at 2400.