Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM

CONTENTS

Tuesday 5 November 1996

Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism

Hon William Saunderson

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC)

Mr GillesBisson (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

*Mr JimBrown (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L)

Mr TonyClement (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

Mr JosephCordiano (Lawrence L)

*Mr AlvinCurling (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Mr MorleyKells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)

*Mr E.J. DouglasRollins (Quinte PC)

Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Mr FrankSheehan (Lincoln PC)

*Mr WayneWettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance /présents

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr MonteKwinter (Wilson Heights L) for Mr Cordiano

Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC) for Mr Clement

Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC) for Mrs Ross

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Franco Carrozza

Staff / Personnel: Mr Steve Poelking, research officer

Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1542 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): We can start the estimates for the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. We'll have a 15-minute rotation, and we will start with the Liberals.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I guess this could be directed to the minister. An individual who lives in the riding of S-D-G & East Grenville has approached me on an idea of how to increase German tourism in eastern Ontario. This individual, Mrs Anna Marie Lehmann of Morrisburg, believes that Ontario could benefit significantly by encouraging German tourists to explore our province. An employee of an agency of the ministry, the St Lawrence Parks Commission, as well as being a German translator, Anna Marie brings experience and knowledge about tourism, and she has some proposals. Therefore I have already forwarded several requests to officials on her behalf, but I would also like to ask you if there are any avenues or contacts within your ministry that might assist her in her endeavours. I would also appreciate hearing any comments you might have about Ontario being in a tourism partnership with Germany.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): I'm happy to respond to that. When I was in Germany last winter, we met in Frankfurt with Mr Mangum, who has a company there that we work with to publicize Ontario as a tourist destination. They do advertisements in tourist magazines within Germany. As a matter of fact, I think tourism traffic from Germany is up in the neighbourhood of about 13% this year, so they do a good job. That's how we are attracting German tourists.

I think I mentioned in one of our previous sessions the fact that we have these fly/shop trips to Toronto and to Ottawa, and also they are coming up to northern Ontario for the wilderness experience. Of course, between Ottawa and Toronto would be where your person could fit in. I guess you would like to know how this person might be able to work with our group.

Here is the magazine, Mr Cleary. It's Geo Saison Deutschland and there's a big article here on Ontario with, as you notice, the leaves changing. It has Algonquin Park, the Bruce Peninsula, Point Pelee, land of the Mennonites, Niagara-on-the-Lake, the Ottawa region and Toronto, and there's a write-up on each of these sections. If you would like, we could take this person's name and be in touch with Mr Mangum. Would that be good for you?

Mr Cleary: Certainly.

Hon Mr Saunderson: All right. Could you give that information to us please, and we will pass it on to our tourism people.

Mr Cleary: The other thing, I've been approached by a person in eastern Ontario and he said that some German company was interested in putting four -- I don't know whether you call them cruise ships -- in Ontario somewhere and he asked me what I knew about it. He said the smallest one would accommodate seating for 135 people at a banquet and the rest were bigger. He wanted to know what I knew about it or what I had heard about it, and he's going to be getting more information to me on that. That just happened in the last three or four weeks.

Hon Mr Saunderson: By the way, I just want to mention that we work with the Canadian tourism council and they have a German campaign as well, so that just adds a little bit more information to you on that. I'm sorry, what did this person want? How did the question begin?

Mr Cleary: This was a gentlemen who has a business. He's got a German background and he just came into my office and asked me if I had heard about these four tour ships they want to put in Ontario. I don't know the background on it. I just wonder if there was something going on through the ministry.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I don't know have any knowledge of it, unless our tourism people do. They are shaking their heads. They don't think they know anything about that.

Mr Cleary: I will get more information about that.

Hon Mr Saunderson: If you could get a little more information about that, we could look into it for you.

Mr Cleary: The other thing that I'm sure you are aware of is Statistics Canada, which puts the unemployment rate in our area at 20.2%, and that's why I've been pressing so hard about these parks. You may not like what I'm saying, but we've got to get them open somehow to get some jobs in eastern Ontario. Anyway, this translates into approximately 5,670 people searching for jobs in a workforce of 28,000.

We're all trying to work very hard on job creation in our area, and that includes the provincial government, which leads me to the rumours I've heard: Ministry officials are currently examining whether your mandate should include training programs. People involved in the training sector say the two should be going hand in hand. Your ministry is the vehicle for economic development, working towards creating a skilled labour workforce in Ontario. Obviously a skilled workforce is an economic reality. So that's also frightening.

A second local study determined that 70% of the people in eastern Ontario who are relying on social services declare themselves to be unskilled, meaning they consider themselves to be of little or no value to business or industry. If this is their interpretation of their own skills, one can only wonder how local employers perceive them. Minister, will you please outline how your ministry will become involved in the training tool to economic development?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I share your concern about any unemployment in the province anywhere. As a matter of fact, in parts of eastern Ontario, it is much better than your particular region. In Ottawa in the last quarter, the end of September, there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15,000 new jobs, which I thought was very good when you consider that the federal government had been laying people off. I think it's a sign of the resurgence of the high-tech industry in the Ottawa-Carleton region.

1550

Moving to your area, 5,700 out of 28,000 being unemployed is a reasonably high statistic. It is 20% exactly. You asked about training. Yes, we would like to, and we are working to do this. If we can help in training that helps an industry or a sector of business, then we hope to be able to become involved with training. It would be workplace training, really, so we want to help with workplace training. Our idea is that we will lever increased private sector investment in workplace training, along with money that we might put into it ourselves.

We are no longer giving grants to business, as you know, but we feel that we can help with training, particularly people on the job to benefit from changes in manufacturing procedures, that type of thing. There is a fund that you know about, and it was announced in the budget. It is a partnership for jobs and growth, and that's where this money would come from. We are working with the Ministry of Finance to see how best to use that money, but we would not want any one company to benefit; we want all the companies in a sector to benefit. It would allow people to have mobility within an industry or sector of industry. That is where we see ourselves helping out in training.

We would not be training people who are on unemployment, but rather we would be training people who are working so that they can improve their skills to carry on where they are, or else to be mobile and move about. The automotive industry is a classic example where there is that mobility. That's our answer on the training as far as our ministry is concerned, but we would like to be involved in the way I just described.

Mr Cleary: Have you met with the municipality of Charlottenburgh over leasing those parks that I've been taking about?

Hon Mr Saunderson: No, I haven't.

Mr Cleary: I sent a request in that had been sent to you earlier.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, I know. You and I have been talking for about a year on this thing. Quite frankly, as I said to you in question period today, I was in the Kingston region a couple of weeks ago. I might say it was all for good news, because what got me there in the first place was the opening of the new addition of Celanese Canada's fibre plant. It's an almost $200-million addition to their plant. It is a very good news story in that they chose, in competition with other plants within North America, to locate in Canada and particularly in Ontario this new addition. It saved about 350 jobs and it has created some 50 to 100 new jobs, and it will create more in the future.

However, that got me down to Kingston and it gave me a chance to meet with the St Lawrence Parks Commission board. We talked about all of the area there, and I brought to their attention that if they could get more private sector money, just as they are getting it to help Fort Henry -- they are hoping to raise $200,000 for Fort Henry from the private sector. I encouraged the board of the St Lawrence Parks Commission to try to do more of that so that we could, with private funds, along with our own, open the parks that you are thinking about and also maintain in a better way all the other facilities in the St Lawrence Parks Commission area. I don't know if that's the answer you want, but that's the best I can give you at this stage of the game.

Mr Cleary: Was there any reason why you wouldn't have met with the Charlottenburgh municipal people? Because they said they would come here to do that.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I would be happy to meet with them. It just so happened that my day was taken up first with Fort Henry, then with the St Lawrence Parks Commission board, and then with the opening at Canadian Celanese. I was basically there for not even a whole day. But I'd be happy to meet with them.

Mr Cleary: Because you're always talking about partnership, and they seem to have a little nibble on at least one of the parks right now.

Hon Mr Saunderson: That's what we're looking for, Mr Cleary. We would like to see them open, as we would like to see anything open that's closed, because it creates jobs.

Mr Cleary: You have another maybe half-decent proposal in there too. I guess it would be a joint education and federal government project that was sent to you back a considerable time ago. We haven't heard too much on that either. We have all that stuff in our office.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I can't give you a specific answer on that particular subject. My ADM is here with us and we could look into it for you. Maybe you could write to us. I have never had anything cross my desk on this subject.

Mr Cleary: Is that right?

Hon Mr Saunderson: That's what surprises me.

Mr Cleary: We'll make sure that it'll be hand-delivered to you.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Would you do that, hand-deliver it to Marjorie in my office? That would be the best way to have it handled.

Mr Cleary: Because they've been asking me about it too, you know.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, I understand.

Mr Cleary: We've got to get some jobs there in eastern Ontario. It's a shame, what I see at those parks there. I don't think it would be too late for next spring yet, but if we let it go too much longer, it will be.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I understand. I said it again today: We need partnerships with the private sector. If we can help do that and try to make that happen, fine, but until that happens, we just don't have the funds to do it on a standalone basis.

Mr Cleary: Do you mean, as with this one project that they have been working on with the school board there, that there would be federal money involved in that?

Hon Mr Saunderson: If we could get the federal people to put money in, that would be fine, but it would have to be their money.

Mr Cleary: Anyway, I'm going to gather up what I can. I think we're missing next week and coming back on the 19th.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, probably.

The Chair: We could try tomorrow too, anyhow.

Mr Cleary: Are you cutting me off?

The Chair: Yes.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Can I just respond, though, to say that I want you to understand, when I respond to you in the House and say we haven't got the finances to do this because of our drive for fiscal responsibility, that it's in no way a personal attack on you, and you know that, or on the people from your constituency. I wish it wasn't so that we had to say a lot of these things, but I do think sometimes, if it's possible, if we can get more partnerships with the private sector, then this government is much happier to work with things such as those parks.

We are in the process of being able to make some announcement about how we would like to market Ontario, not only from the tourism point of view but from just the business point of view of attracting businesses here. All the time, we're trying to get the private sector to work with us. If you want, I can elaborate on that later on.

I just wanted to draw your attention to an article in the Globe and Mail today in the financial section. It talked about how if you can get your finances in order as a province, and they were referring to some of the maritime provinces and Saskatchewan and Alberta, what a tremendous advantage it is, because then you have so much more money to use in a sensible way.

1600

The Chair: Having said that, Minister, you're not going to have a lot of time to respond. Mr Martin.

Hon Mr Saunderson: That's all right. I'm finished anyway.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Minister, the last time we met, you, in your brief to us and in comments that you made, talked about how well Ontario is doing, how you're out there around the world selling Ontario and that investment in Ontario is up. We should, I suggest, consequently all be doing a lot better because of that.

I am trying desperately to get a handle on just exactly what the truth is in all of that, because on the other hand, I read reports coming out now on a fairly regular basis from a number of organizations that suggest to me that we're not doing well and that a whole sector of our population, a very important sector to me, and I hope to you, are in fact doing worse.

Groups such as the Canadian bishops, although not probably by profession economists, tend to, by way of the tentacles they have out into the communities and neighbourhoods of our province, know what's going on in the lives of the people they work with. They are saying to us that what you're doing in Ontario is equivalent to a bad case of child abuse for a whole lot of children in this province because of your policies and the fact that you're throwing a whole lot of people out of work and not increasing opportunity for all of the citizens of Ontario to participate in this renewal that you speak of. I'd like to know what you think and say and feel when you read these reports from groups like the Canadian bishops, when they accuse you of child abuse.

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, I count the Anglican bishop of Toronto as a friend of mine, and I am still allowed to sit on the board that manages the funds of the Anglican diocese of Toronto.

When I go to those meetings of the board, I don't have people telling me that we are doing a bad job. As a matter of fact, this committee of the Anglican diocese of Toronto, all appointed by the bishop of Toronto, Mr Finlay, tell me that they approve of what this government is doing, and they approve of it because they have investments, bond investments, equity investments, and some of these investments are based solely in Ontario and these investments are doing very well.

I have to say that if I were to talk to the Canadian bishops, there are a lot of things I could tell them, but I don't think we're throwing a whole lot of people out of work. We actually have created approximately 100,000 net new jobs since we were elected. I know we have talked about this before, Mr Martin, how the tide ebbs and flows on employment numbers, but the overall trend is up and continues to be up, and I have a lot of confidence, the way the economy is going in this country and in this province, that more jobs are going to be found.

I know we always have the debate about whether we're going to create 725,000 new jobs in our first term. I say we are, because I think we're setting the right climate. I have here a list, and it goes on and on, but just as an example, in Hamilton, Camco is going to put in a $38-million investment to create 200 to 300 new jobs, and that's to create some new home appliances.

Longo's in Burlington is planning a second store, expected to employ 150 to 200 full- and part-time staff. McDonnell Douglas in Mississauga is going to invest $15 million over the next two and a half years on new equipment. The company also plans to hire 200 new employees by the end of the year. There are going to be 91 new constables starting with the Metro police. This list goes on, which I'm very pleased to see. I'm glad it is so long, and if I read it, it would probably take too much time, Mr Chairman. But the bottom line is that no matter where you go, no matter what industry, there is generally a trend upwards in employment and a confidence of investment.

I read the Diane Francis article in the Financial Post today. She just went on to say that of the millions of dollars that have been invested -- I'd like to read this to you. There's something in the neighbourhood of $60 million. I'll just read you something here if I can find it.

"Ontario was a mixed bag, underperforming under the hideous governance of socialist Bob Rae and grabbing more than its share once Mike Harris took power. In 1995, Ontario got $10.4 billion of that year's $17.7-billion total, or 59%," of what foreign companies wanted to invest in Canada.

"It wooed only $5.5 billion in 1991, $5.6 billion in 1992, $4.3 billion in 1993 and $6.3 billion in 1994." So it has gone from $6 billion to $10 billion. That is a dramatic increase.

"These figures are greatly overstated because Ontario lost untold billions of dollars worth of capital and investors due to the Rae regime.

"Even without those losses subtracted, the province underperformed and got only 43% of all foreign investment between 1991 and 1995 compared to Harris's 59% in 1995."

The bottom line is, what's happening is that the foreign investors are looking at Canada and they're saying, "Where is it friendly for us to invest?" They're saying Ontario and Alberta, to name the major provinces that are industrial provinces.

With this list that I just spoke to you about, plus an article like that, which has some very good statistics in it, I think that we're not throwing a lot of people out of work. We're creating jobs. We're creating the right environment. If we didn't have the right environment, why would these companies be coming to us?

I want to say that there was a very good study performed, and it's what top firms want when they're looking for expansion. Let me read through what they look for, and then you see how Ontario fits into what they're trying to look at.

The first is availability and skill of labour force. We know that we have a very skilled labour force, so we rank well there. The second thing is that government is pro-business. Just think about that: Government is pro-business. We certainly are pro-business. We could name all the things we said we'd do in the Common Sense Revolution, which, by the way, we have done and are doing.

1610

Third, the corporate income tax: I think our income taxes are fair in Ontario. There might be some tax credits that might be introduced, but at the present time I don't think corporate income tax is driving investors away from Ontario.

Modern highway and mass transit system: I think we've always had that in Ontario, to give all parties who have governed this province some credit, over the years. But there it is, they're looking for good infrastructure.

Real estate prices and property taxes: We're having a look at property taxes, this government is, right now in Ontario, but our real estate prices are good value, particularly when Americans come here with a dollar that's worth 75 cents.

The sixth item is quality of elementary through high school education systems. I know we've been through this one before, because we do have a good system; we're just trying to make it better. I discussed this I think with you last time.

The seventh item is personal income tax. It says, "Management is sensitive to factors that affect their personal bottom line." The personal income tax, as you know, is starting to drop quite substantially in Ontario and it's happening in three stages; The first one was July 1, the next will be January 1, 1997, and again six months out. But the bottom line is it makes our taxes competitive with any province in Canada.

Proximity to current/future customers: We are within a day's drive of 120 million people. One of the great things we have to stress about Ontario is our geographic location. That's another thing; no matter what party's in power, that geography never changes. It's the economic and business climate that they look at.

Number of colleges in our vicinity: We have, as you know, a fine number of colleges and universities.

Proximity to key suppliers: I've already talked about that.

A healthy and vibrant downtown area: We've seen what the National Geographic and Fortune magazines think about the Toronto area -- and proximity to competition, because people competing with each other spur each other.

But in that list there's nothing about financial assistance, which everybody thought you had to give to get business. Do you know that in a few years from now, about four years I think it is, Alcoholics Anonymous are going to come to this city and hold their annual convention? That is one of the biggest conventions any city could get in the world, something like 50 million people. It will fill all the hotels.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): Fifty million -- give me a break.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Fifty thousand, excuse me. I'm so used to talking about employment figures, but I'm glad you brought me up.

Mr Kwinter: I can see when you're drunk it may seem like 50 million.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I promise you this is only -- it says here -- pineapple-orange juice.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): If we send Sid Ryan to count it'll be 50 million.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Anyway, it's 50,000 people coming to Toronto. When they first came to see us --

Mr Kwinter: And I wasn't even paying attention.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Money has always made you wake up.

That means we're going to have a big convention here, but it also means that when they came to ask us could we do something for them financially, we said, "No, we can't, but here's what we can offer you: a quality of life that this city has and this province has." So there's a lot going for this province. I just wanted to say again to you that I don't think we are putting a lot of people out of work, which you implied, or as the bishops are thinking.

The Chair: With that long answer, Minister, I think it's time for the Conservatives.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): Minister, you talk about the advantages we have in this province: quality of life and the benefits to attract business and investment. I want to kind of switch back to the importance of attracting visitors and tourists to our province as well. I'm thinking more specifically of the tourism potential in my riding, and so much of Ontario has really an untapped potential to attract visitors. My question relates to the need for a coordinated effort to inform travellers of attractions.

My riding has several fishing towns, tourist towns. Duck hunting is very important. There are three provincial parks in the riding. It's an area known for its agricultural fairs and a myriad of weekend festivals. Municipality by municipality, these various events are promoted and the various business establishments promote their attractions. The Ontario government is involved and other government agencies.

But I'm wondering to what extent there is a problem with the various players really working in isolation from each other and to what extent advertising, dissemination of brochures or the developing of marketing plans could be better coordinated. I don't know whether we would look to the Ontario government to do this kind of coordination of publicity dollars or planning dollars to better enable communities, not only in my riding but across Ontario, to attract visitors. What role does the Ontario government have in attracting tourists to Ontario?

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, Mr Barrett, I want to say what a great organization your riding area showed when it held the most recent International Plowing Match, although I didn't think you arranged the weather too well at the beginning. We had to cancel the opening. But apart from that --

Mr Barrett: That attracts a certain kind of tourist who likes mud.

Hon Mr Saunderson: That's right. But apart from that, I know about your riding and also other ridings nearby and you have a lot to be proud of.

I'd like to tell you a little bit about what we're doing for tourism in Ontario, if that's okay with you, and how to attract. I might say right off the bat that I find one aspect of tourism which is the hardest, and that is there is a lot of duplication in tourism as every area tries to attract people to it. We try to attract people to Ontario through literature and advertising etc in magazines and we produce books like this. You've seen those, Trip Planner and Only in Ontario, and that goes around the world in different languages. Then your area also puts out tourist publications and a certain home or other attractions put out their own brochures as well.

I don't think it's wasteful, because I think it's one of those things that has to be done, to bombard people with information. First of all, we have to do it out of the country and then when people get here, the districts have to take over. But I have noticed, Mr Barrett, that many of the maps that are put out for your region -- and, by the way, I have a map up in my office of your region because it was put out for the plowing match. I would imagine that most of that map -- well, all of it -- was paid for by the advertisements and the advertising that went in. So there's a way that you're community partners with the private sector and it's a win-win situation when that happens.

I have to say to you how important the tourism industry is to the province's economy. It's our fourth- biggest export and I think it's about our eighth-biggest employer, so it obviously is a big industry. I mentioned earlier how we try to promote aggressively abroad, particularly in Germany, the United States, Japan and the UK. Those are our biggest sources of tourism to Ontario. We will, as I've mentioned, soon be able to announce our Ontario marketing plan, which will not only be for attracting business and industry and people to do business here but also be for attracting tourism.

1620

I have called for the establishment of a tourism marketing task force, and that is to take a hard look at the tourism industry in Ontario. We had the Ontario tourism commission from the previous government and it made a proposal for a not-for-profit corporation as a remedy to our tourism concerns. We found that unacceptable and we felt we could not give all of our tourism marketing money to a group like that, so that's why we're coming out with appointing this tourism marketing task force, which I will be able to announce soon. I have already spoken to the person I want to chair this and to the vice-chair as well. We actually have a very good number of individuals who represent all aspects of tourism in Ontario and I think they will do a very good job for us.

We are divided into 12 tourism regions in Ontario and we have corresponding travel associations, often referred to as OTAPs. I think you've heard of that. I haven't got a map with me, but I can read them to you.

They start out with the Southwestern Ontario Travel Association. That's pretty self-explanatory. That's into your area, by the way, Mr Barrett. Then Festival Country, which is Niagara and Mid-Western Ontario Travel Association. Lake Lands, which is up around Barrie. Metropolitan Toronto. Getaway Country; that's down in the Peterborough area. The Ontario east, which Mr Cleary would be interested in; it's administered by the Eastern Ontario Travel Association, which takes in Cornwall-Ottawa. Then the Near North, which is the Almaguin-Nipissing Travel Association; that's obviously the Lake Nipissing area. Then there's Rainbow Country, which is around Sudbury. Then number nine, Algoma Country, Sault Ste Marie, Mr Martin. Number 10, the James Bay Frontier, all the way up on the Polar Bear Express to Hudson's Bay. Then North of Superior, which is Lake Nipigon north of Thunder Bay. Then Sunset Country, which is the western extreme of the province, taking in Kenora, Rainy River and Fort Frances.

Those are the regions that we have in Ontario and I think they provide marketing assistance to the members. We try to provide marketing assistance to the members of the tourism industry in those areas.

We have a field staff of tourism industry consultants who evaluate the marketing and the financial plans of their respective associations. All of these are reviewed by the regional director and general manager. We recently had a meeting with all the OTAPs and discussed their marketing plans and issues facing them. You'd be interested to know that we had into Toronto a few weeks ago our field staff, which includes our tourism people. The message I wanted to give them was that they really were our people in the field to market Ontario and everything that is so good about Ontario, including the tourism. They had a two-day session in Toronto to help them get to know that we're coming out with this tourism marketing task force. They went away, I think, really enlivened about what the prospects for the province are as far as tourism is concerned.

I think I've answered that, but you might have a supplementary question.

Mr Barrett: Yes, I agree that the Ontario government certainly shouldn't be coordinating everything and a little bit of competition between towns doesn't hurt either. You get a much better show depending on what kind of festival or attraction they're trying to develop if they're competing with the neighbouring town or the county next door.

As far as coordination is concerned I think in this committee we've talked a little bit about the need for coordination with respect to highway signage across the province. You mentioned a few minutes ago Ontario is a day's drive for something like, I think you said, 120 million people. Once they get here, we've lured them in, what progress has been made in setting up a coordinated system of highway signage on our provincial highways? I understand there is a proposal and I want to get an idea what progress has been made as far as design or setting up partnerships with private tourism-based business establishments that could use this kind of direction.

Hon Mr Saunderson: We did have a competitive tendering system to get a proper signage system in Ontario. A company called Canadian TODS was chosen by competitive tender. They are to finance and deliver a new system. When we were looking at the tenders, this company showed that it has very good experience implementing systems similar to what we would like to have in Ontario. We felt they were the best able to meet our needs, and I think you'll be pleased with them.

This company is an American company which has incorporated a Canadian company, and there will be very significant Canadian content in their program. Ontario companies will be used to make and install the new tourism signs, so all of the making and installation will be done by Ontario companies. We're just in the process of negotiating an agreement with Canadian TODS and we hope to have the system up, and I know we will, by early 1997.

There have been some model signs introduced in Ontario, and you may have seen some of them. One of them is on Highway 401 between Brockville and Cornwall -- that's a freeway corridor, obviously -- and on secondary highways up in Muskoka, Highways 118 and 169; and there's been some special theme signage regarding St Jacobs. Wayne, you might know about that in the St Jacobs area near Kitchener-Waterloo.

We've been working with the Ministry of Transportation to develop a good signage system that will give a broad range of tourist attractions and services on provincial highways in a consistent manner. If people wish to participate, they will pay to have their sign. If you are a resort or if the St Jacobs area wants to do this, they will pay for this and it will be no longer at the taxpayers' expense. There's no doubt you have to have good signage if you're going to accommodate tourists.

Mr Kwinter: I was hoping that I was going to be able to leave the subject of VLTs, but unfortunately I have to come back to it. Could you tell me your perception of what a video lottery terminal is going to look like and how it's going to operate?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I am happy to say that I have actually gone and played a VLT, if that's what you call doing it, at the Winnipeg airport. I actually won 25 cents before I was finished.

Mr Parker: Did you get hooked?

Hon Mr Saunderson: No, I didn't get hooked. It doesn't turn me on, as the expression is. What does it look like? I'm trying to think, what was it we all played in the old days?

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): Pinball machines.

Hon Mr Saunderson: No, not pinball. You pull the crank --

Mr Kwinter: Slot machine.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I guess it was a slot machine at some of the resorts. What you do is you put your money into this machine and if it comes up three apples you win, something like that. But you just put your money in and there was a button you pushed and then it happened. If you won, you won and some piece of paper comes out and you take the piece of paper to a cashier and the cashier pays you whatever the money is that you won.

1630

They're not big machines, if you're wondering how big they are. Probably if you squared that name plate, that would be about what a machine looks like, a little bit bigger maybe, but not much. Where I saw this was at the airport in Winnipeg, and there was a cordoned-off part for presumably people of drinking age, I think 19 or over, to go and sit at. That's what it was like. It was not a crank machine like you get in the casinos, and I think there was little bit of discussion in the House about that today. That's my observation of those.

Mr Kwinter: The reason I asked the question is that I was trying to determine -- you've answered the question, but I'd like you to expand on it a bit. How do they differ, other than the fact that one has a crank and the other you push a button? Are they basically the same type of operation? As a matter of fact, you actually referred to the fact when you mentioned it was like a slot machine.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It's not like the slot machine of old. That's the best way to describe it.

Mr Kwinter: What about the slot machine of now, the ones that are in the casino?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, I've seen those. I've toured both the Windsor casinos and the Rama casino. There are many games you can play on the VLTs, nine games or something like that. You pick which one you want to play, whereas in the slot machines it's just one game you're playing to get certain things to match.

Mr Kwinter: Let me explain the reason for my questioning. Today in the House the Premier stood up and in response to a question said -- he changed his nomenclature as he went along, but when we first started out he said VLTs will only be in the Windsor casinos, the Rama casino and the new Niagara Falls casino. There was lots of hooting and hollering about, "You've suddenly changed your mind." Then in the next response he started differentiating between slot machines and VLTs and said, no, the slot machines would only be in those casinos but the VLTs would be in other controlled areas, they would be in permanent charity casinos that were being set up, and he actually stayed away from talking about whether they'd be going into restaurants or bars.

What I'm really trying to determine is, other than the mechanics of how they work, would you not agree that the slot machines in the casinos and the VLTs are basically the same kind of apparatus? You put money in, something comes up and if you get the right sequence, you win money.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm not an expert on this at all. I think the Premier meant the slot machines would be in the casinos. Yes, I think that's what he meant. Slot machines are different, but there is a similarity between them, I suppose, in that they're games of chance. They're not new because we had slot machines for a long time when we were all a little younger. I don't know what more I can say to you. They are somewhat similar but, as I said, slots are one game. I don't buy the argument that these things are so addictive. I think people will play them but I can't see them staying if they aren't having a good day. People will say they have so much money and they'll play them.

Mr Kwinter: The reason for my questioning is that when you talk about VLTs a lot of people think you're talking about a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, but you're really talking about the same animal as a slot machine, yet there's a negative connotation when you say "slot machine." There's either a neutral or, if people really get into it, maybe a negative. But the point I'm making is that when you refer to them as VLTs and the Premier seemed to switch to say, "Slot machines are going to be in the casinos, but the VLTs are going to be in these other areas," basically they're the same thing. They really are the same thing. They may take a different form that one turns out money and the other turns out a voucher or a slip that you can cash in, but they're basically the same kind of thing.

All I am trying to really get on the record is that the government is contemplating taking slot machines, VLTs, whatever you call them -- I think they're the same animal -- and expanding their use. I have no problem with that. I shouldn't say that. I have no problem with the government saying that if that's what they intend to do, but I do have a problem when there seems to be an effort on the part of the Premier to try and differentiate and say, "Yes, but we're keeping the slot machines in the casinos and we're going to the VLT" -- as if it's something else and something different -- "and expanding the proliferation of those." That's really all I'm trying to determine.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Well, the VLs, as they're being called, are going to be -- and we heard this today. They're going to go first at the racetracks and, on the subject of the racetracks, that's a great source of income for the racetracks, which have been suffering of late. The fact that they're going to be able to be at the racetrack is a big help to the horse racing business. I know Doug would agree with that. They were suffering, so it's going to help them economically.

Then once they're installed there will be a determination made of charity gaming halls, how many there should be and where they should be and that type of thing. That will be the next thing and every way along the path from racetracks to charity gaming halls there's going to be a very good look to make sure these things are being run properly and only the people who should be playing them are playing them. When it's decided that the system is working properly, then they will go to licensed establishments.

I think it was wrong today for somebody to ask the question about, "Oh, they'll be going into all licensed establishments." There are going to be 20,000 of them installed. The racetracks will be the first ones, and I don't know if we have a note on how many will be in the racetracks -- it's 3,500 to the racetracks, then in the charity gaming halls 5,000, and that leaves roughly 11,500 to go to licensed establishments.

Now, I don't think you just put one in these licensed establishments; you put more than one machine, up to a maximum of five, I'm told. So five into 11,000 is about 2,300. It looks like about 2,300 different establishments, and it could be two in one, I suppose. So not every licensed establishment is going to have a VL. That's my understanding of it.

Mr Kwinter: Let me tell you where the major concern seems to be. You heard the results of the poll. You heard that there are 50-plus communities who have passed bylaws outlawing them. Again, I may have a feeling about VLTs in a general sense, but in a specific sense the genie is out of the bottle and there's no sense fighting it. We've got casino gambling. We've got all these things.

Certainly if you put it into a racetrack, whether you've got live horses running and you're betting on it or whether you've got a mechanical device that's giving you the same kind of odds, I have no serious problem with that; nor do I have a serious problem with setting them up in controlled charity gambling establishments. There are all sorts of games of chance going on there; this is just another form. Where I do have the problem is when you get outside of those controlled environments. To suggest that once you get into these licensed establishments they're going to be controlled as well, that is where we have the problem. We have lots of controlled establishments, supposedly, where there are all sorts of abuses with the serving of liquor, things of that kind.

The other problem that I really caution you to take a look at is that at one time -- and I remember in Toronto very vividly that the very first licensed establishment was the Silver Rail restaurant on Yonge Street.

1640

Hon Mr Saunderson: We all remember it.

Mr Kwinter: We all remember that; it was a big deal.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It was a long time ago.

Mr Kwinter: In those days -- and I don't want to cast any aspersions on any previous governments -- you had to know somebody to get one. It was something you got, it was a privilege, and if you knew the right guy at Queen's Park and you did the right thing, you might get a licence to run a licensed establishment. That has evolved, and now with the liquor licensing board you get it by right, not by privilege. If you meet the criteria and if you have your public hearings and as long as there isn't a very serious objection, you get it.

If the liquor board turns you down -- and I have one just across the street from my riding, it's a cause célèbre at the moment, where they were turned down and they're going for judicial review. I predict that they will get it, because they got a building permit to do it, they went and they got all the approvals. The only thing that stopped them was there was a strong objection from the neighbourhood. But it would seem to me that the authority should have stopped it long before they built this thing and not at the stage they did. As I say, it's going to judicial review and we'll have to see what's happening.

The reason I tell you that is that to suggest that some will get these video lottery terminals and others won't is going to create a problem for you, because how do you arbitrarily decide, "You can have it but this other person can't," if they meet the criteria? If they're a licensed establishment and their competitor down the street gets one, why and how do you justify denying them having one if they meet the criteria? I can see you saying, "Sorry, you don't have the controls, you're not a licensed establishment, you're not this, that and the other thing," but if they are a licensed establishment in good standing and there are no infractions and they are conducting their business in a businesslike way, in a responsible way, I don't know how you arbitrarily say, "You get it, but you don't." I don't see how you can stop the proliferation. I'd love to hear your response to that.

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, if a licensee has VLTs in his or her location and obviously under-aged people are allowed to play, just as if he or she gives under-aged people alcoholic drinks, then people lose their licence. They would lose the ability to have VLTs and also to have a liquor licence. There is that protection.

Mr Kwinter: That's not the question.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I know.

Mr Kwinter: The question is, how do you get it in the first place? I have no problem with them having it removed because they violate it, but you're saying not everybody is going to get them.

Hon Mr Saunderson: What we have done is put out for tender for a group or company that will advise us on how to allot the VLTs. We're waiting for that report, and when that comes in it will be public knowledge and you will hear. But it's now out and I don't know when they're to report back. It's Mr Stackhouse, a retired partner at Price Waterhouse.

The Chair: It's Reg Stackhouse.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It's not Reg, and it's no relation to him, by the way.

Anyway, there is that report, and when that comes in then we'll decide how to allot these VLTs. That's all I can say at this stage.

Mr Martin: It's good to get a second question and to suggest that the answer to my first question was, at the very least, disappointing. It suggests to me that you don't really understand the connection between the way you manage an economy and the impact that has on the people who work and live within the jurisdiction that economy is engined to by way of creating work and generating wealth and contributing to quality of life.

Your answer also suggests to me that you obviously give more credence to the writings of people like Diane Francis than you do to reports written by organizations such as the Canadian Catholic bishops, who are part of a larger ecumenical organization, who have made similar statements over the last few months about the impact of the decisions that your government is making on the lives of those people they are closely connected with in the communities and neighbourhoods where they do their business.

Your government, by way of its activity, is participating in a global revolution reality that, according to the statistics, has the world's top 200 corporations controlling more than a quarter of the world's economic activity and over 75% of the trade. These 200 corporations have sales equal to the combined economies of all but the world's nine richest countries. Of the world's 100 top economies only 49 are countries; the other 51 are individual corporations. Wal-Mart is richer than 161 countries, including Poland, Israel and Greece; Mitsubishi is wealthier than Indonesia, the world's fourth most populous country; General Motors is bigger than Denmark; and Ford is larger than South Africa. The top 23 corporations, with a combined revenue of $70 billion, have almost twice the economic clout as the bottom four fifths of all the people on earth. This is the kind of evolution your government is contributing to and buying into. I asked you last round your response to the manifestation of the impact of this kind of complicity on the ordinary people in the cities and towns of Ontario.

The bishops accuse Ottawa and the provinces of child abuse. It says here, "`Canada's failure to eliminate child poverty is akin to child abuse by federal and provincial governments,' say Canada's Catholic bishops." They got some backing in that from the Washington-based Bread for World Institute. It released a study that shows that among the world's industrialized countries, Canada is tied for second with Australia behind the States in having the worst record on ending child poverty. I've heard over and over again how your fearless leader, Mr Harris, is on a track to emulate what's happening in the United States.

"In the toughest statement any mainstream Canadian church has made in more than a decade, the bishops say, `Women and children bear the brunt of government social and financial policies.

"`Governments are pursuing the elimination of debt, deficit reduction and debt repayment,' say the bishops, `but there's no doubt that poverty must remain the top priority.

"`To think that almost one Canadian child in five lives in poverty in one of the richest societies in world history is nothing less than a damning indictment of the present socioeconomic order,' says a 12-page pastoral letter" that was released on that particular day.

"The bishops' letter, titled The Struggle Against Poverty: A Sign of Hope for our World, attacks not only the dismantling of Canada's social security system, but also suggests governments must spend more on education and health. This was the key to eliminating poverty in 11 countries studied by the United Nations, say the bishops."

1650

A colleague of mine, Mr Kormos, whom all of you around the table will know, suggests that if the kind of agenda this government is on by way of economic activity and stimulation, which is the reduction of regulation and the turning over of more and more of what government does to the private sector, and taking money out of health care and education and social services is the panacea for the future, then Third World countries would be booming, because they've been at that down there for a long, long time. We all know the result of that kind of economic stimulation: It's that the rich get richer and there are fewer of them as time goes by, and the poor get poorer and there are more of them.

The bishops' letter goes on to suggest that in all age groups poverty rates for women are higher than for men and the group with the highest poverty rate was single-parent mothers with children under 18. Solving the problem of poverty among women is the key to eliminating poverty in Canada, according to the pastoral letter. The Bread for World Institute survey put the child poverty rate at 22% for the United States; Canada and Australia at 14%; Ireland at 12%. Canada's right up there in that statistic.

There's also a statement that has been put out just recently by the Daily Bread Food Bank here in Toronto, to bring it a little closer to home, that says:

"To speak of hungry children in Toronto is not to tug at heartstrings but rather to indicate the unavoidable facts. Children are overrepresented among those who suffer from being poor. Persons under 18 constitute 25% of the population while, as mentioned, they are 43% of those benefiting from food banks and 42% of those supported by social assistance benefits in Toronto. That children with little or no control over their circumstances should be at twice the risk of adults to need food banks is a great risk to public interest. It is not just children's personal vulnerability as innocent dependants that the larger society should be concerned about, but also the vulnerability of families generally in this day and in this age."

Minister, with all of this information available to you, to me, to us, and the statements that are coming out ever more increasingly with each week that goes by from organizations such as the bishops' conference and others, at what point do you and in what way do you determine when your policies are contributing to a breaking down of our society and an increase in poverty among women and children?

Mr Rollins: As soon as you started the casinos.

Mr Martin: That's a simple answer and it's not that simple. There are two casinos in the province. The fact that you took 22% in income away from the poorest among us in the towns and cities in Ontario, you think that doesn't contribute to an increase in poverty, that kind of fiscal policy somehow doesn't contribute to an increase in poverty and a reduction of the economic activity in our communities?

Mr Rollins: When did you think that welfare --

The Chair: Let's not have a discussion.

Mr Martin: Mr Chair, it's indicative of the very sort of off-the-cuff, back-of-the-hand answer we get from these folks when we present them with the real facts, with the stories that are happening out there.

I drove into Toronto this morning. I flew in from Sault Ste Marie and drove up University Avenue, and I'm beginning to see again people sleeping in the bus shelters. Last winter in this city we had more people sleeping on the streets of this city --

Mr Rollins: Shelters were here five years ago.

Mr Martin: -- the city that was pointed to by Fortune magazine as the best in the world, than we'd had in the history of this city.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): The shelters were full, Tony.

Mr Martin: The shelters were full --

Interjections.

The Chair: Let's have some order.

Mr Martin: The possibility of a TB epidemic raised its ugly head for the first time in Ontario in a long, long time, and I suggest to you, watch this winter and see what happens because your policies are being piled one upon the other and they're damaging almost irretrievably some of the good families who live in this province and were so proud to call it home.

I ask you again, Minister, what do you say to the Canadian bishops and the so many others in this province who have become increasingly concerned as each day goes by about the wellbeing of those among us who are most unfortunate and the poorest?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'd just like to first of all say that I, like you, am very concerned about any kind of poverty. I have a daughter who is a paediatrician in a part of the city where she sees a fair amount of poverty and neglect and all of that. So I'm quite aware of what goes on. She's in a Toronto; that daughter is Janet. Then I have a daughter Pamela, who's a child therapist in the Kitchener-Waterloo area, and she sees a lot of abuse and things that turn people's stomachs. We regret that these things have to happen. So what do you do about all of this? Hopefully we educate people in such a way that they don't want that to keep on happening. Also, what we're trying to do, this government, is to create the jobs that will provide people --

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I hate to interrupt, but can you find out why the House has recessed?

The Chair: Yes, I'm just going to find that out.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think there may be a vote. I thought I caught --

The Chair: There's a recess.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Oh, a recess. Could somebody find out for us?

Mr Kwinter: Yes, that's what I'm asking.

Mr Parker: All I know is that Kormos was speaking and --

The Chair: We'll find that out. Good point, Mr Kwinter.

Hon Mr Saunderson: So the purpose of our government is to create jobs, create the right business climate that we will get the jobs created. As I said earlier, we're doing that.

I did take some exception to the statement that all we were concerned about were the 200 large corporations in the world, which in the opinion of Mr Martin and the bishops have too much financial clout, I guess. He mentioned Wal-Mart, he mentioned Ford, he mentioned General Motors. Ford and General Motors happen to be two of the three companies in this province that are the leaders as far as employment is concerned. The other is Chrysler, and of course we have the Japanese manufacturers as well.

The Chair: Could I just interrupt, Minister. I understand that the recess has been called because there's a closure motion been called on the casino debate and the Speaker decided to take a recess to consult whether there should be a closure on this. So I think he's coming back later on to make some ruling. You may proceed, but we have about a minute to wrap up Mr Martin's question.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Okay. All I can say to Mr Martin is that we don't like any form of poverty. As a government, we're doing what we think is the right thing and that's to create the right business climate so that big business and small business can thrive in this province and create jobs and therefore give people a leg up and a job, and that is a very honourable way to spend one's life -- in a job.

But when you talk about big business, let me tell you a little bit about small business. It represents 98% of all Ontario businesses. It represents 41% of private sector employment. We are seeing approximately 100,000 new businesses registered each year. So we are not worshipping the big companies alone; we are supportive of any business, large or small, which creates jobs for people and gives them dignity and a way to raise their families and lift themselves out of difficult financial straits with a proper job. I think that is a very creditable position for this government to take and we've done it with many, many changes to what we found when we became the government in June 1995.

The Chair: Do you mind if we take a five-minute break?

The committee recessed from 1700 to 1706.

The Chair: We'll resume again.

Mr Rollins: There are a couple of things that I might be able to shine a little bit of light on. We were out on the VLT or Bill 75 hearings all summer. One of the things that my colleague from the opposition mentioned was about the slot machines and the VLT machines. Slot machines per se are a machine that you can pick up and carry and you can put it in that corner of the room or in this corner of the room or downstairs, wherever you want. The VLT machines are hooked up to a terminal and they're hooked up into a computer system and hooked together so that those VLT machines are such that, as people are playing them, whether they're in a location at Sudbury or a location in Belleville or a location at London, they're hooked up to know that those machines are being activated at that time. So there's where the difference is as far as your video lottery terminals, a difference from your slot machines, where your slot machines are basically your old one-armed bandit. Those are the ones that are in the casinos at the present time and they are strictly a game unto their own. It's a programmed game that's put in there and that's it. Your video lottery terminals have a combination of eight or nine games, they can increase that or decrease that from the master plan of the terminals, so you can choose what game you want to play. Whether you're playing three in a row or whether you're playing a baseball game or whether you're playing a horse race or whatever it is on the machines, that's the difference in there.

One of the things also that they were concerned about is the availability of who will get them. A long time ago in our liquor licences, we used to have a lounge licence and you used to have a bar licence, a beverage room licence. A beverage room licence, going back to my earlier days and probably yours also, was where you had to be of a certain age to get in there and there was no other person allowed in that establishment. In the last few years we've evolved into a position where we have a dining room and a liquor licence combination where you can bring little kids into that dining room and everything and there's still liquor and there are still beer and spirits served there. That is the difference of those two licences. What it'll revert back to, the VLT machines will be eligible to be installed, will be in an area which is strictly restricted to entrance to that age group only. So they'll have to be liquor licence age to be able to play those machines.

However, if a person was wanting one of those restricted areas in a hotel or in a restaurant, if they had a restricted area where they could restrict one room off by the side and put those in there, then only of-age people would be able to go in there. They would not be allowed to have younger servers and things of that nature in those areas to play those machines. So that would be a controlled access. The same at the racetrack. It'll be a controlled access. Those machines will not be available to a kid that's 17 years old at the racetrack. He will have to be of age to be able to play video lottery machines.

One of the other things that we got from the minister last week was the request for this information that we received today. I want to congratulate him on making this available to us, because I think there's a pile of information in here. One of the other things I can observe is that there's already somewhat of a decline as far as the Ontario Lottery Corp sales are concerned on certain games. So I want the record, Mr Minister, to state that those declines were there before the VLT machines are brought on to the market, because I do know from talking with the people from Alberta, because I was lucky enough to be down to Fredericton a couple of weeks ago representing this legislation and was talking with different people from Alberta and also from the east, that they also had shown some signs of decline before they brought the VLT machines in, but they related the declines in terms of their break-open tickets and things of that nature more to a downturn in the economy, that with a decline in the economy there was a decline in people playing those machines. I hope that gives you a little more insight as far as the machines are concerned.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Thank you very much for that. It is helpful to have that explained.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Minister, in the figures we were given on the Ontario Lottery Corp today, and for which I thank you very much, I noticed that the business plan the Ontario Lottery Corp had a couple of years ago, which they produced themselves, didn't seem to have a handle on the salaries compared to the actual salaries that were spent. They had an increase of some $2 billion over their own business plan. I wonder if there's going to be any recourse on those in charge at the Ontario Lottery Corp for what is a rather severe overexpenditure.

Hon Mr Saunderson: As you know, we are doing a review of the Ontario Lottery Corp to see what savings can be had. I think we mentioned earlier that there were savings found last year of about $36 million. But this a more intensive review, which I think was needed. We're trying to review all our agencies, boards and commissions and have a look at what might be done with them. Certainly there's no desire to change the OLC, but you do want to have a look at these ABCs, as we call them, to make sure they're being properly administered and that (1) we're not spending more than we should and (2) we're realizing as much revenue as we should be realizing from them. The report will be back in about March.

Mr Cleary: I wanted to get back to what I had spoken about earlier. I went and got my letter, the Anna Marie Lehmann letter. She said she had returned from a trip to Austria and Germany and she wants to work with the federal and provincial governments to promote tourism in Ontario and Canada. I have a copy of the letter that I'll give you.

The second thing I want to mention is the municipality of Charlottenburgh, where those parks are, a request I made to you on March 6 to meet with that municipality to discuss those closed parks. I have a copy of that letter too and the request from them that I will give you.

I also have a copy of one proposal that a group, headed by the T.R. Léger alternative school, had made for Charlottenburgh Park. It consists of a community partnership to provide a youth entrepreneurship program. The partners are the Ministry of Community and Social Services, Human Resources Development of Canada, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the Workers' Compensation Board, the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry social services department, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry public school board, the T.R. Léger alternative school and the Cornwall handicapped club. The proposal here is that they wanted to lease one of the parks, and they also have a commitment from the federal government for some startup funding. The one thing I must say, to be fair to everyone, is that I have sent the letter to the Honourable John Snobelen, the Minister of Education. I have the proposal here that I will leave with you.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Fine. We will respond to you.

Mr Kwinter: I would like to go back to the minister and discuss the situation that came up last week, dealing with Bombardier, de Havilland and the province of Ontario. Last week, in an article that appeared in the Globe and Mail on October 31, there was speculation that notwithstanding that when Bombardier entered into a contract with Ontario under the previous government to effectively save the jobs at de Havilland, in which Bombardier invested $51 million for 51% of the company and the provincial government of the day invested $49 million for 49% of the company and there was a provision that was included in the legally binding contract that at any time up until five years from the date of the original signing of the deal Bombardier had the right to exercise its option to acquire the province's interest in de Havilland for an amount of $49 million -- subsequent to that, Bombardier has informed the government, it's my understanding from my conversations with them, that in fact they are going to exercise that option. As I say, I've had this confirmed by them. They feel it is a very straightforward provision and they are going to exercise it. Notwithstanding what they say the provision is, the minister has been speculating in the media that maybe he wants to renegotiate the deal. All I want to know initially is, under what authority and under what provision in the contract is there an opportunity for you to renegotiate the deal?

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, we have a very good relationship with Bombardier/de Havilland. They're a big employer in Ontario. They employ somewhere between 5,300 to 6,000 people and they have a strong order book. As you know, the Dash-8 is being bought with great regularity around the world. Bombardier has a very strong management team at de Havilland.

To go back to the transaction that happened in 1992 with the previous government, in summary, there was a grant of $200 million, and other grants totalling $100 million were done in conjunction with the federal government. That's a $300-million grant by the province and is not refundable. That's money that is gone or is in the process of going to de Havilland. Also, Ontario invested $49 million for 49% of the common stock of de Havilland and Bombardier put in $51 million for 51%. We are not at odds with Bombardier and de Havilland on the situation, which comes to a conclusion, as far as a buyback is concerned, on January 31, 1997.

I was somehow taken out of context by the writer for the Globe and Mail, and I guess that happens, but in no way are we at odds with Bombardier and de Havilland. I don't want to negotiate in public. We know what came out in the media last week about what Bombardier said it intended to do. We don't intend to remain a permanent shareholder in the company. We are not at odds, as I say, and Bombardier can buy our stake back by January 31, 1997, for $49 million.

That's really all I want to say at this stage of the game. That is what Bombardier's saying at this time. We have been discussing with Bombardier the termination or the end of this investment. Really, I don't want to say any more than that. I think that's the way I'll leave it.

1720

Mr Kwinter: Let me tell you my problem. In the article you're quoted. This isn't someone saying they "think." You're quoted as saying, "We have the right to negotiate another arrangement." It says, "I suppose we might want to stay in."

Where I have the concern is that the day this appeared, if any of you were watching Canada AM, the woman who does the business section made a comment that the government of Ontario was contemplating reneging on a deal it had made with Bombardier. This was quite unusual for her, to make a kind of political statement. She went on to say -- and I'm just paraphrasing because I don't know exactly what she said, but I was watching it -- that this is going to send a terrible signal to people who are doing business with the government, that if you enter into a deal, somehow or other they can come back at the end and say, "Yes, we had that deal, but we are not happy with it and we are going to renegotiate it."

My question, really -- I'm not trying to put the minister on the spot, and I take his word for it when he says he may have been misquoted, but I just wanted to make sure that when you said, "We have the right to negotiate another arrangement," under what authority you felt you had that right.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think I'll just respond by saying I was misrepresented by that comment taken out of context. If de Havilland wishes to pay us $49 million on January 31, 1997, we must accept that.

Mr Kwinter: That's fine. I'm delighted to hear that, because in my conversations with them before and after I asked you the question, they said: "We have no idea what they're talking about. It's quite straightforward. We have a deal and we plan to exercise it. If they are contemplating reneging on the deal, we would really like to know that." They were quite upset. They said -- and I asked the question in the House -- they haven't been negotiating: "There's nothing to negotiate. This is the deal. We're exercising it. That's it." I'm delighted that you've responded that way. I'm sure they will be delighted to know that this is what's happening and, as I say, the matter can be at rest.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes. I have spoken to them and they know from past conversations that that's the way it is.

Mr Kwinter: Let me go into another area of genuine concern that I have. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, it's often been said, is the vehicle of the government to promote high-tech activity in the province, to promote trade, to do all the things that really make this province the kind of economic juggernaut it is. When you consider that fully one third of all our economic activity is on the basis of trade and when you consider that in order for us to be globally competitive we have to really have the technological competence to compete with other jurisdictions that are very, very competent in these areas, and when I take a look at the book of estimates and I take a look at the cuts that have been made to this ministry, it really is disturbing. Let me just, for the record, outline some of the things.

If you were someone who was looking to invest, and the minister is fond of saying that Ontario is open for business, but if you were to look at the estimates book and you saw what has been cut in this first round -- and I shudder to think what is going to be cut in the next round at the end of November -- but let's take a look at what they've done. Aerospace assistance, $11 million gone. RADARSAT, a high-tech device for tracking trucking literally anywhere in North America, terminated. That's $400,000. The industry research program, $7,659,300, terminated. The technical personnel program -- a program that was meant to take small businesses and allow them to hire technical people to make them competitive -- that one, $3,112,600, terminated. In your reduction measures, for CSR and ORT reductions, phase-out of the sector partnership fund, a program that was put in so that various competitive sectors that needed help could get to the point where they could become globally competitive. Terminate the technology adjustment research program. Another program gone. Reduce support for international agreements: Here we have a jurisdiction that is so dependent on our ability to enter into these international arrangements gone. Reduce the support for science and technology awareness grants, gone. Terminate the university research incentive fund, gone. Terminate the community radio Ontario program, gone.

Reduce support for centres of excellence. That is one that is particularly galling because, on the one hand, the minister is saying that this is really the jewel in the crown of how we are going to get our research, universities and industries to jointly develop the kind of expertise that's going to make us globally competitive. Support for that is gone. It has been reduced rather dramatically and I predict that in the next round of cuts it will be reduced even further. Business assistance programs, terminated. Eliminate direct client services.

So we have a whole range, and that's just part of them -- I will go on a little later on and tell you about the other programs that have been cut. So what happens is, on the one hand, you're trying to portray this government as saying: "We're open for business. We're encouraging all of these things." If you saw David Crane's column over the weekend -- and David, notwithstanding that he writes for a paper that some of the people on the other side of this room might not be happy about, is a very, very bright guy, and I don't think he's particularly partisan, he's their technical writer, and he wasn't just critical of Ontario -- oh, you've got it there, great.

When you start doing these kinds of things what happens is you suddenly lose your competitive edge, and it is very disturbing to me because what is happening is that I get the impression that there isn't somebody standing up to make the case why these kinds of programs are critical. This isn't window dressing, this isn't corporate handouts, this isn't welfare bums getting something. These are programs, when you have a province that's got 10 million people competing against jurisdictions -- California, that's got 33 million people, or some of these other places -- unless the government is a player, we are not going to be able to compete. Particularly when the trade barriers are coming down, when other jurisdictions are going to be able to bring their expertise and really knock some of our companies out of the ballpark, I think it's critical that someone stand up. And when the people who are coming in and saying, "We've got to cut, we've got to cut, we've got to cut," I have no problem. I have no problem with cutting various programs, but surely the programs that I've just described are so critical and so important to our competitive edge that I think it really does border on criminality to have those things reduced.

1730

The Chair: I'm going to have to cut you off.

Mr Kwinter: Oh, I was just getting going too.

Mr Martin: I'd like to take up on that, maybe, and run with it a little.

We'll move away from the poverty issue for a second, not to suggest for a second that I don't think it's really, really important and one of the critical issues of our day, the kind of poverty that's being created by the decisions that are being rendered by this government and the impact that it's having on people.

If you take away government's facility to work with the private sector and to be out there in the global economy as a partner competing, I don't know where we're going to end up. I suggest to you, Minister, that if you had been in power over the last five or six years in northern Ontario, places like Algoma Steel would be gone or significantly different and downsized; and operations like St Marys Paper would be gone. There was just no saving it, except the government came in and gave some leadership and participated in a very aggressive and progressive way. Up in Thunder Bay there's an operation that was saved by a partnership of government and workers and management and financial institutions. Kapuskasing, Spruce Falls: Where would it be? There's a company in Sturgeon Falls that makes cardboard. It would be gone.

The whole economy, the whole primary industrial base of northern Ontario would be gone or so significantly downsized as to be insignificant as far as creating jobs is concerned, and we'd be nowhere. As a matter of fact, on Friday my colleague Bud Wildman, the member for Algoma, and I had a meeting with the management team of Algoma Steel. They couldn't believe that this government was getting out of the things that Mr Kwinter just mentioned and then some, because they see the need for bringing all the resources that this province has to the table in our attempt to compete in the global economy.

What they suggested to us, because they're out there too, is that we lose by not having government at the table with us as partners, because other jurisdictions do. We think of many of the states as this sort of right-wing, free-enterprise bastion, but I don't think there are many of them that aren't, in some creative way, involved directly and significantly with government. The businesses in those jurisdictions are working hand-in-hand with government to create a climate that both attracts investment and also allows for that investment, then, to sell its product abroad.

I'm wondering, Minister, what you've done with the department. This was a question that came to us in conversation with the management team at Algoma Steel, who, by the way, are very excited with the results of their last quarter and are working diligently to bring to fruition the new investment that they're about at this particular time. For those of you who don't know, Algoma Steel is now investing close to half a billion dollars. It's new technology which will give them an edge, when this is done, in any steel market anywhere in the world. They want to know what happened to that department of your ministry that one Mr Peter Tanaka belonged to that used to be able to come in and work with industry such as Algoma Steel to restructure or fix up different problems that people got themselves into or that presented themselves.

My first question is, what happened to that department? Apparently it has been decimated and it's not there any more.

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, it has been reduced in numbers of people and spending, but it has not been decimated. We are no longer making grants to business. Now, you know that; you've heard us say that. We said it in the Common Sense Revolution: We were not going to favour businesses by giving them grants. To favour one business over another is not fair. I say that usually the ones that get the money are the ones that are reasonably successful and have the time to apply for money; at least that's what I've been told in the past. That's over with now. I just want to make that quite clear: We are not making grants to businesses.

We are, sure, very much in the promotion of the high-technology sector which Mr Kwinter talked about. The inventive companies, the wisdom exchange which was started by your government, Mr Martin, has been expanded upon by us. So now we have these very aggressive, small companies, and we are helping them by having the wisdom exchange more often now in this area; also, we're planning one in Ottawa. I think I've said this before.

We are certainly there to help out business. What I'm saying now, and I've said it before, is that the ministry is very much like a management consulting firm. I know Peter Tanaka, a very respected individual. There are other people like Peter Tanaka in our ministry who can come out and help businesses when they need help. Business advice, whether it's a marketing plan, a business plan, you name it: We've got the people in the ministry to provide that kind of help. I think, when you have a chance to see our announced way that we are going to market Ontario, you're going to see that we are definitely standing up for businesses in Ontario to make the climate right and to get out and sell our province around the world as a place to come and do businesses or make an expansion of existing plants.

I might say that nowadays you just don't go out and attract businesses from around the world. You don't only do that; it's a competition now among the big worldwide companies that operate in various jurisdictions. It's an internal competition, whether it's in the automotive industry or the petrochemical industry, as to where is the best place for us to set up a plant. Then it is up to the management in Ontario to go out and sell what's available in Ontario, what's the business climate here. I'm happy to say that we are getting more than our fair share, as I referred to earlier, of foreign investment coming to this province. It's coming because what's already here is doing very well because of this new business climate.

To say that the cuts are disturbing, we have not had any businesses come to us and say that they are unhappy that we have cut giving grants to business. Most people are saying to us in the business community -- and I was at the launch of National Small Business Week just a couple of weeks ago. I spoke about this and I got applause. They don't want that. What they want is to get the government out of their way, which we are doing, making them more competitive so they can get their businesses to expand here in Ontario.

I want to make quite sure that we're still an economic giant. We're becoming much more of an economic giant than we were in the last 10 years. That's partly because we're getting out of a recessionary period, but it's because of this new government approach that we are open for business.

I want to spend a little time talking about centres of excellence. We are great supporters of the centres of excellence. I have toured many of the centres. As you know, the centres aren't necessarily standing there in seven buildings, because there are seven centres of excellence now which we will be combining into four. We are rationalizing the centres of excellence. They are very much in the forefront as far as our budgeting is concerned for this year and other years. We are very conscious of the importance of those centres of excellence, which Mr Kwinter mentioned; I don't disagree with him on that. But they are still getting our undivided attention.

We are out to sell Ontario, to market Ontario. The cuts we have made are essential in our ministry. When I appeared in my ministry after being elected and appointed to the cabinet I was told there was a political staff of 34 people in our ministry. I'm happy to say my political staff numbers 10, which is leading by example. I can't believe that any minister would have needed 34 political staff to run that ministry. Granted, there was more money involved and more people involved, but there was no way that could be justified. So we are making these cuts, which we think are essential.

1740

Mr Martin: The minister rambles on about a million things, and I just --

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think --

The Chair: He wants to ask the question before his time is up.

Mr Martin: We know that you're selling Ontario. You're actually selling Ontario down the river.

Hon Mr Saunderson: That's not true.

Mr Parker: Did it take you all afternoon to come up with that line?

Mr Martin: No, it didn't. Actually, it just came to me as I listened to the minister.

Just in case you don't know, this year we have record bankruptcies in this province, record numbers of small businesses going bankrupt. Do you know why they're not coming to the minister's door? Because they know this minister doesn't give a damn. He doesn't care.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I have to say to you, on this bankruptcy thing, bankruptcies can be extremely distorted.

Mr Martin: Do I have the floor or not?

The Chair: Minister --

Mr Martin: Look at the time I've taken so far and the time he's taken.

We have record bankruptcies in this province right now. The reason they're not coming to this minister and he doesn't know about them is that he's not travelling in the right circles. He's going to banquets at $150 a pop to raise money for the Progressive Conservative Party. He's going to organizations that we all know support your approach to life in this province.

I've suggested to you in the days we've had together over the last few weeks that you need to get out and talk to some ordinary folks in this province. You need to get out and talk to some workers, you need to get out and talk to some small business people who are struggling like crazy to keep their heads above water. They're too busy doing that to seek you out and they know you've cut your office in half, you've cut the number of people who work for you, so there's no way to get hold of you anyway. There's nobody answering the phone.

I wonder, Minister, if this trend of record bankruptcies continues, what you're proposing to do.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. Your time is up.

Mr Rollins: I'll give him more time.

The Chair: There are some very cooperative members on this side.

Hon Mr Saunderson: They're very esteemed colleagues.

All I can say about the bankruptcy situation, which we talked about the other day, is that bankruptcies can be extremely distorted. If you have a large number of companies, of small companies, ill conceived and not well financed, you're going to get bankruptcies from them.

The very fact that the job numbers are up is what I take heart from. I don't want to get into this mud-slinging about going to banquets for so much a plate and all this stuff. All I can say to you is that I spend a great deal of my time attending sectoral dinners of the various industries in this province. Whether it's the clothing industry, the retail industry, I'm out there listening to what's going on with these sectors. That's where we want to spend a lot of our time: out listening to what the sectors are concerned about. That's my answer to that.

About talking to ordinary business people, I make it my point to go and visit small businesses. I guess I see more small businesses than large businesses and I think that's important because, as I've said to you, small businesses create a large number of our jobs, well over 80%, almost approaching 90% of jobs in Ontario. One of my goals every month is to have a dinner meeting with people from big business, small business, medium-sized business, various interest groups, various sectors, and I think that's an important way to keep in touch with the business community.

Mr Martin: But what's your plan?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm talking now and I'm telling you that I have to go out and listen to what people who are running businesses tell me. I want to find out what we are doing that they are not happy with, what we are doing that they want, what was done in the past that they weren't happy with. That's what we have to learn. That is why I am doing my best to be very accessible to all sectors of the business community.

I'll turn it back over to the other group.

Mr Parker: Minister, did you want a minute to flesh out an answer to an earlier question or has that been dealt with?

Hon Mr Saunderson: No, I'm happy.

Mr Parker: Thank you very much for this opportunity.

The Chair: Are you talking about Mr Kwinter's question or Mr Martin's question?

Mr Parker: I'm happy to leave it to the minister to make whatever comments he thinks are appropriate or merited.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm happy.

Mr Parker: I want to take this opportunity to bring a question to you on behalf of one of my constituents, actually, a Mr Joseph Cooper. He is an exceptional constituent of mine carrying on a very active correspondence with me. I think he works off a computer and is a sort of cyberconstituent. Every once in a while I get a fax from him and he delves deeply into a question.

The Chair: He's real, though.

Mr Parker: I presume he is. He asks very good questions and puts me to the test from time to time. Most recently he sent me a fax -- actually, this is dated today. He asks about the government of Ontario TAP program and has a few comments on it, then he's included a newspaper article which I can't read. I suspect he scanned this into his computer and then faxed it straight off his computer and it didn't reproduce all that well. I can't tell you what the newspaper article says but the headline says, "Ontario Taps Local Business for Info Highway Schemes." In his covering note to me he just summarizes his understanding of the program as follows:

"Twenty million dollars in total is being offered to the public and private sectors as a partnership in investments of up to $2 million per project. The purpose of this is to strengthen Ontario's image as a leading information jurisdiction."

He goes on to say, "I have not come across any information that would lead me to believe that this is a loan, but rather it is a cash infusion into business-based research. The program will continue to make calls for proposals until all the money has been handed out."

Minister, I know nothing about this program. I'm not familiar with it. I wonder if you can fill us in on it and just tell us what your ministry is doing, if anything, with respect to TAP, apparently telecommunication access program.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It was announced in the budget last May and it was $20 million for telecommunications access partnerships, or TAP. It allows a maximum investment by the government in partnership with the private sector or communities of up to $2 million, and it's over three years. It was announced by me in Ottawa on August 29 this year that we gave the details of what this partnership is about, and we issued a call for proposals because it means that communities and corporations get together and make a proposal to access some of this $20 million, up to $2 million per proposal.

It really demonstrates our commitment as a government, that was made in the budget, to work with entrepreneurs, sectors and communities to improve Ontario's competitiveness through advanced telecommunication networks and applications thereof.

We've had some 35 proposals come into our ministry, and one of the things I find when I'm out talking about Ontario is that people in every country ask us, "What is the infrastructure like?" Of course you immediately think of highways and train tracks and that type of thing. But what they're also asking is: "What is the telecommunications infrastructure? How can we be in touch with our home base if we set up a plant in your province?"

1750

When we were in Germany last year we visited a company, Boehringer Ingelheim, which is a major pharmaceutical chemical company in Germany. When they heard about what we were doing in Ontario they decided they would have all their communications infrastructure based in Ontario, in Burlington, by the way, and that means about 50 very high-technology, high-paying jobs for that company to look after all telecommunications within North America for their branches. So it is important that we have a good telecommunications infrastructure, and that is one of the reasons why we set this program up.

We feel that TAP, if I may call it that, is going to contribute to job creation and economic development in various regions. One of the problems is that smaller communities are not able to afford some of the telecommunications systems that the better-placed regions are able to do in this province, therefore it's one way to get telecommunications out and made available to smaller communities and regions in the province.

It's interesting that you can do a lot of health diagnostics on telecommunications. For instance, you can do electrocardiograms for heart trouble by telecommunications infrastructure, and that is something we're looking towards helping the smaller communities with. When you're way up north and you're in a snowstorm, you can't get out, there has to be some way for communities to communicate with health centres. It can be done, we hope, through the telecommunications access partnerships. We know this is available through the University of Ottawa, as an example. They have a very fine heart institute.

We're going to strengthen our competitive advantage on the information highway and we're also, in the process, going to be helping the communities or regions that need help in this area. It may surprise some of us to know that not all telephone systems in Ontario are digitalized. Bell Canada is having a program to make sure that happens, because once you have touch-tone phones you can do a lot more rather than the old dial phones. We all take it for granted. It's not always there in the small communities.

I think we're going to be bringing people together through technology with the telecommunications access partnerships. I'm looking forward to being able to announce the first few partnerships from the proposals we've received so far.

Does that give you an idea about TAP?

Mr Parker: Thank you very much. That's all good news. As you know, my community is actively promoting the notion of a new media industry.

Hon Mr Saunderson: That's on Laird Avenue.

Mr Parker: It's in that area of Laird, Eglinton, the old Leaside industrial area, which is still an extremely viable and thriving business area, but the old heavy industry is moving out. Light industry is doing very well in that area but the old, large-scale heavy industries are moving out. We heard just recently that apparently Wabash plans to move out of that area, and that's going to be a serious loss to us. Canada Wire announced earlier this year that they would be moving out, and I think they've closed their operations now. We are hoping there may be some future for the new media, high-tech telecommunications-type industry to move into some of the space that's being vacated. In our community we see some real potential there.

One of the factors that we think gives our area a competitive advantage is the bandwidth that is available to our telecommunications system through there. As it happens, there is a large bandwidth telecommunications capacity passing through the Leaside industrial area. This was discussed at a public meeting last week. I was very pleased that your ministry was prominently represented at this meeting and I was pleased to attend myself.

The concept of bandwidth was explained very succinctly by one of the members of the committee that's pushing forward the new proposal. It was expressed simply in terms of how much information can be pushed through the system at a time. Over a normal telecommunications line there is obviously a very distinct limitation to how much information can be squeezed through at a time, and it was expressed in terms of a computer disc. To transfer all the information loaded on a typical computer disc would take X period of time to pass through the standard telephone wire. I think it was expressed in terms of the many minutes or hours it would take to transfer that amount of information through a telephone line. But with enhanced bandwidth and the telecommunications system the entire contents of a computer disc could be transferred in a second. The consequences of that are staggering and of course extremely important to anyone who wants to make an investment in that field and set up a business where they are dealing in transfers of large amounts of data.

In the field of new media, where you have animation and movies and cartoons and other information beyond merely numbers and letters on a printed form, the amount of information that is involved in that type of operation is staggering. For a movie production house that works digitally to operate, transferring information back and forth from a specialty house that does some of the animation work to the main studio where they will do the editing and splicing and so on takes a lot of data. The more data that can be transferred over a given period of time the better it is and the more viable it becomes for the industry community that's involved in that process.

It's important to us in our community that we exploit that bandwidth and have that bandwidth available generally in the area so that businesses assisting one another in carrying out a project can communicate electronically rather than constantly downloading off their computer on to a disc and shipping the disc next door or across town to the neighbouring business which does its thing to the product and then ships it back physically on another disc. The more that can be done electronically through the wires, obviously the better. Bandwidth is the key if we are to achieve that, otherwise we are at a disadvantage to another jurisdiction that does have the bandwidth where media studios can set up and they can communicate readily back and forth by wire rather than having to go physically.

Having the infrastructure in place with the necessary bandwidth to allow the electronic transfer of data is critical to this booming new field which we see as very important to our area. I'm very pleased to hear your comments this afternoon when you tell me that your ministry is pursuing some initiatives in this area and is seeing to it that we establish ourselves with a strong foothold, not only to meet the needs of today but also to anticipate the needs of tomorrow and attract businesses from around the world to locate their data processing operations here.

The Chair: Having said that, Mr Parker, it's now 6 o'clock by my time. We stand adjourned until tomorrow after routine proceedings.

The committee adjourned at 1800.