Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM

CONTENTS

Tuesday 22 October 1996

Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism

Hon William Saunderson

Mr Brian Wood

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 JackCarroll (Chatham-Kent PC) for Mr Clement

Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC) for Mrs Ross

Mr MonteKwinter (Wilson Heights L) for Mr Cordiano

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND) for Mr Kormos

Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:

Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Franco Carrozza

The committee met at 1536 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, TRADE AND TOURISM

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): I call the estimates committee to order. Just to deal with a couple of housekeeping items, the Ministry of Health has an hour and 29 minutes remaining. We had a letter from the chair of the Health Services Restructuring Commission that they'd be here to make a presentation at 3:30 pm on Wednesday -- that is, next week. Also, I have a letter from the minister. He said he'd be here also for that time. It's just a matter of notification that was confirmed by both. That is in regard to health.

In regard to the present estimates before us of economic development, trade and tourism, there are 12 hours and 44 minutes left. We're going to ask for unanimous consent for early adjournment at 5:30 this afternoon. Have we got the consent? Fine.

When we left off last week -- I understand the rotation would now be in the hands of the Conservative Party. Do they wish to lead off? Fifteen minutes' rotation.

Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): Do you have updated figures for those figures in this book? This is all history -- 1995-96, 1994-95, and I've got some pages of 1993-94. Am I missing something?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Could you ask specifically your question again? I didn't hear it.

Mr Sheehan: My question is, what's the relevance of these figures?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I think the clerk should have given you the updated ones, Frank. I think Mr Wettlaufer asked this same question last week. I think that's the old one. I don't know why you haven't got the new one, Frank.

The Chair: The clerk would like to make a comment.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): The first document that you have received was sent to every member of the committee when it was first received from the government House leader. The second document, the clerk does not have a copy. It came from the ministry to the members directly. It did not come through me, so I cannot help you in that case.

The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee to have documents available?

Mr Brian Wood: We filed with the House leader. Our instructions were to file with the House leader; then they move them across to the clerk. So if the copies are missing, we simply will go back and generate copies right now. That seemed to be the confusion of last week. They were all filed on the day they were supposed to be filed, in our instructions to the House leader, and they turn around and give it to the clerk.

The Chair: You have to speak into the mike. Just identify yourself and speak into the mike, please.

Mr Wood: It's Brian Wood, the assistant deputy minister of corporate services and agency relations. We filed on the date -- I can't give you the specific date -- the ministry's estimates for 1996-97. They were filed to the House leader's office, and our instructions were that they would be provided to the clerk. Now, if something's obviously not correct and the estimates books are not here, Diane will go across and definitely get copies printed as we speak and get them across here within the half-hour.

The Chair: Could we have that, then? It seems to me the request --

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): On a point of order, Mr Chair: Just so I understand, is the book we're talking about that is not here different from what's in here?

Mr Wood: No different; it's the same book.

Mr Kwinter: It's the same book. I don't understand why people don't have this book, or was that just provided to the critics?

Clerk of the Committee: No, every member of the Legislature has a book like that.

Mr Kwinter: This one has the figures?

Mr Wood: Yes, that's the book.

Mr Kwinter: Okay, that's fine.

The Chair: But Mr Sheehan is not talking about that book.

Mr Wood: The only difference, Mr Kwinter, is that in this one we go with detailed program descriptions. This actually has the financial statements. That one has a description of the activities.

The Chair: Could we have a copy for each member, then?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I have one.

The Chair: You have?

Mr Wettlaufer: Yes, a couple of us have it. What happened was, they were distributed at the opening of the meeting last week, but Frank wasn't here at that particular meeting.

The Chair: I would ask that we get a couple of copies, maybe 10 or so.

Clerk of the Committee: You were the only one who got it.

Mr Wettlaufer: I was the only one who got it?

Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

Interjection: No, I got one.

Clerk of the Committee: I didn't get it.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Could we just proceed, please? You have a copy and you can proceed, Mr Wettlaufer.

Mr Wettlaufer: Minister, relating to tourism in particular, I've noticed whenever I pick up magazines, and I do a fair amount of reading, that many areas in North America will attract writing by professional writers, without having to pay those writers, on the advantages of a particular area. For instance, two weeks ago I picked up a magazine, and I don't even remember which one it was; it was one of the Canadian magazines. Virginia had an article in there written by a Canadian writer outlining the beauty of Virginia in the fall, the colours. I thought, it's very interesting. We have far more colours in Ontario than they have in Virginia, and yet we aren't promoting, through private means, the beauty of our province. I was wondering if there is any intention on the part of the ministry to use that means of advertising, which wouldn't cost the province a cent, rather than increasing our own expenditures through direct advertising.

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, Mr Wettlaufer, we do generate articles like that. There was a trip we made to New York last year, in April, and the purpose of it was to go and meet with the media from the United States travel magazines, and also newspaper sections on travel. As a matter of fact, last year Ontario hosted the dinner at this marketing event. It was very successful, I might say. All of the provinces were there, so we were part of the teams, and Ontario had one of the biggest contingents there. I had a chance to discuss Ontario or meet some of the writers who were circulating around the various tables set up by the provinces. Ontario had a floor space about half the size of this, I guess, in which various regions of Ontario had set up desks.

The Niagara Peninsula was one, I remember well; the Peterborough region. I was shown an article that was printed in the Detroit Free Press a year ago, and they used it as an example of just how good the results were that we got from being at this event. It was basically in the travel section of the Detroit Free Press and talked about how easy it was to get on Highway 401 and get to Peterborough and subsequently the locks and into the Great Lakes system. That was a good example of what we are doing, and in fact we bring people up to Toronto. They have these fact-finding trips, and a lot of the travel agencies bring their people up and we can cooperate with them.

We were very helpful as a ministry when dealing with the National Geographic because, as you know, it came out with a big article on Toronto. We talked about that today in question period. Monte said he looked forward to talking in estimates about this. There also was, of course, the article in Fortune magazine, and we were helpful in getting those articles produced.

From time to time, we pay to invite journalists here to look at our facilities. As a matter of fact, this previous weekend there was an article in the New York Times travel section about the colours in Ontario. That came out of information that was provided by our ministry to the New York Times, and if I recall, it talked about the Muskoka region and how the colours were much better here because we're further north and that type of thing. So yes, we do cooperate to get articles like that.

The last event that I talked about was in New York City, and my deputy has indicated to me that the next meeting will be out on the west coast, probably in Los Angeles. This year, we intend to be there. Those things are called tourism marketplaces and they are indeed excellent events to attend. As I say, we sponsored the dinner at that event, so we were the host province. The cost was negligible when you think of the benefits you get. We also showed a movie that we had designed, and that went very well.

You might also like to know that we had during the summer -- it was shown in early July -- a video. It's the marketing video channel, and it was a chance for us to get some great free publicity for the province. It went into all regions of the United States. It's called QVC Home Shopping Channel, and we generated from that over 440,000 sales in 18 Ontario-based companies that advertised, that were able to show their goods for free on this television show.

1550

I'm happy to say I had a chance to give the opening introduction to this. I talked about Ontario and what we have to offer here and a little bit of our history, and there was a video shown at the beginning of this. But 50% of those 18 companies that had their products reordered have been retained for future QVC programming, so it certainly worked for us. That's the type of thing that we're looking for always, to get those what you might call freebies as far as marketing Ontario, not only our goods but our tourism facilities as well.

The cost, by the way, of that television show, as far as we were concerned, was $19,700. I shouldn't have said it was completely free. There was some cost to us to put ourselves in a proper light.

Mr Toby Barrett (Norfolk): You mentioned the goal, in part, of this ministry to market Ontario, and of course, you are rubbing shoulders with entrepreneurs and startup businesses and the private sector. The other reality is our requirement to balance the books, and there's going to be pressure put on this ministry again this year to cut back on expenses.

My question relates to -- I would like an explanation of any opportunities within the ministry to gain non-tax revenue. What opportunities are there? Given the close relationship of this ministry with the private sector who are providing the service, it must be worth something. In the long run, it's worth something to the province, because jobs certainly enhance tax revenue to government. But what opportunities are there, whether it be fees, royalties, arrangements, fees from some of the parks commissions, for example, if they are in some cases or in some areas turning a profit, to have an input on the other side of the ledger and to have this ministry bring money into government, very simply?

Hon Mr Saunderson: The best and most profitable, I guess, and really only profitable tourism facility that we are involved with is the Niagara Parks Commission. We all know that the Niagara district has a great deal to offer apart from the Niagara Parks Commission itself. Therefore, we have worked very closely with them to try to get them to maintain quality as far as items that are sold, packages they make, facilities they offer, like the bus that runs completely through the Niagara Parks Commission roads.

We've also encouraged them to come up with new facilities that attract tourism, and they will be announcing and I will be opening a new facility, an indoor butterfly emporium, I think it's called, and I'm told every breed and kind of butterfly will be in that emporium. This is a great drawing card for people, naturalists and the like. So this is an example of what we're trying to do over there.

Also, as you know, if you've got a region that has one of the seven wonders of the world in it, you want to play your strengths. The Niagara Parks Commission has always been a moneymaker for the province of Ontario, and I think it's a natural thing that it should be, but I've always felt that it can always do better. That's why we're trying to encourage these new facilities.

As you know, all the gardens in the Niagara Peninsula park are maintained by the students at the college. This I think is one of the great gifts that the government of Ontario has always made, regardless of party. They have given this excellent training at a very reasonable price. Those people work very hard to maintain those gardens, but once they have graduated, every one of them gets a job immediately all around the province, so that is something that I think really helps the economy.

I just wanted to go on a little bit --

The Chair: Not too long now.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I won't be too long. I wanted to give an example to the member of something that we have done and that is that we have in effect privatized the reservation system for our tourism industry in Ontario. In an arrangement that we made with Bell Canada, they will invest up to $10 million to handle the inquiry and reservation system when people call in to find out what's available in Ontario and where they might stay to participate in the various activities. That is really the first privatization that we've really seen in this government.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, I apologize for not being here on the first day of estimates. I was out of the country.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Beer business?

Mr Kwinter: Beer business, yes. Promoting trade for Canada in Russia. But I did have a chance to read through Hansard, which allowed me to really get a chance to see what was said. I hope you don't mind if I just go over it a bit because I wasn't here and I wasn't able to comment, but it did trigger a few comments that I'd like to make and then I can go on to some new material. So I apologize for rehashing things that may have been dealt with last week.

Before I do that, I just want to address the issue that came up in the House today when a member of the government side asked the minister a question about Fortune magazine designating Toronto as the number one city in their list of great cities of the world. I commend the ministry if they got that article placed. I think that's wonderful. What I objected to is that the question was asked of the minister, "Wasn't it great that that article was placed?" but the question was implying that "we" were able to make Toronto the number one city in the world, the feeling being that this government was taking credit for the city of Toronto. I found it quite humorous that they're able, in one year, to produce this great metropolis in the province of Ontario. So that was my concern.

My other concern was the juxtaposition of the government crowing about that article on the same day that I got a call from a friend in Washington telling me that he was scheduled to come to the Breeders' Cup, but had cancelled. The reason he cancelled is because he had read in the papers in Washington that the airport was going to be closed down, the transportation system was going to be closed down and there's no way that he was coming to Toronto for that event.

Also, if someone had dropped down from Mars and landed in Toronto, they'd pick up the paper and they would read about strikes, they'd read about the doctors withdrawing services, they'd read about school boards complaining and encouraging people to contact the government to tell them to stop doing what they're doing to school boards, to stop what is happening to health care, hospitals being closed, and the impression that would be conveyed is an entirely different one than the one that was conveyed by the article in Fortune magazine.

Today the minister responded and he talked about all of the great things that are happening in Toronto and again implying that it was as a result of his government's activities that the cultural activities were prospering and that all these wonderful things were happening when in fact, when you talk to the people in the cultural sector, when you talk to the people in education, when you talk to the people in health care, when you talk to the people in law enforcement, when you talk to all of these areas and you talk to labour, virtually to a person they're complaining about what is happening in this jurisdiction, a jurisdiction that we all agree is a wonderful one. As I said last year at estimates, the only good thing we've got going for us is that this province is so strong that it will withstand any government that comes through. I mean, it really will.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It's done that.

Interjections.

Mr Kwinter: What you do is you find that different governments of different stripes come through and they nibble on the edges. They bring in their own particular ideological bent and they do things and everything else, but time passes and time overcomes everything else, and we go on.

1600

But it's sad when that happens. I just wanted to really address that because I felt that the impression that was conveyed is that this government was taking credit for the fact that Toronto was named number one. I think they should take credit if they did it, and if they did, I commend them for it. If they got the article placed, that in fact conveyed to anybody who reads that magazine that Toronto is the number one city in the world, and as I say, I think that's a wonderful thing. I do, though, want to just make sure that credit goes where it is due.

The other thing I'd like to talk about is an issue that I brought up at last year's estimates, and I read the minister's response, and I felt that he was selective in his memory and his quote. One of the last things I addressed at the time as we wound up estimates -- and as it turns out, it's quite an interesting coincidence because we're debating it in the House today -- is the whole area of VLTs.

At last week's estimates, the minister said in response to my colleague Mr Brown, when he asked about VLTs: "I'm happy to respond to that. Last year, when we had the estimate debate I said, and I quote, `To date the decision of the government is that there will be no VLTs. We keep all the doors open, as I've said many times, but to date, there was no different decision on VLTs.' I think that was very true then. We were keeping the doors open and we eventually decided that we would implement VLTs. So I think I answered very honestly at that time. But I can tell you that we think that VLTs, as they are now called...if they're implemented within tight regulatory controls and in limited-access environments, we think they meet a legitimate entertainment demand and they provide additional resources for charitable organizations across the province."

What I take exception to is that when you go back to Hansard and when I asked the question, the minister responded. The minute I asked the question, he interrupted to say to me that in fact there was no reason for me to really pursue this because VLTs were not going to happen. If you'll just bear with me for one minute, I just want to find this quote.

The estimates were held on March 8, 1996. The budget of Ontario was tabled on May 7, 1996, exactly 60 days from the date that we were at estimates. And when I asked the minister what he had to say, he said:

"Well, we do have the responsibility of the Ontario Casino Corp so it's a big responsibility. As far as the VLTs are concerned, obviously the government's going to weigh all of the factors, but right now I just have to say again that there are no VLTs on the horizon, as far as I'm concerned."

That was 60 days before the government announced that it was bringing them in, and at estimates the minister said, "There are no VLTs on the horizon." That's a pretty short horizon, because not only that, but the Premier responded in a letter to someone who asked him, on May 16, 1995, as the leader of the third party said:

"`A Harris government will not move on VLTs until all sectors have been consulted, all impacts are assessed and an agreement is reached on the distribution of revenues.' This was a letter from Mike Harris to John Chalmers, the chairman of the Charitable Gaming Alliance, on May 16, 1995."

My concern is that the minister who is in part responsible, because there's a dual jurisdiction on this issue, on March 8 announces that there will be no VLTs, that it isn't even on the horizon, and 60 days later they announce in the budget that there are going to be VLTs.

I would suggest that I cannot imagine that if the minister, who has shared responsibility for this particular activity, on March 8 says, "Don't even talk about it because it's not going to happen as yet; we're looking at it; it's not on the horizon," where did all of this consultation take place? Where did this happen in this 60-day period when, as I say, the minister didn't even know -- I shouldn't say he didn't know -- suggested that it wasn't even on the horizon? That creates a real problem for me, because it indicates that somewhere along the line -- and this happened, I have to say sadly, with the casinos by a previous government. Just by coincidence we have the deputy minister here who had that responsibility, and I think I'm not speaking out of turn when -- she probably heard about it the same time I did, when it was announced in the budget, and that's just another indication where suddenly someone decides, "This is a way that we can raise some money; let's announce it and we'll worry about it later."

That is the debate we're having right now, and that is the concern I have. I just wanted to address that because the minister did bring it up in his discussions last week, saying that in fact they had looked at it very carefully and they finally made a decision that this was going to happen. As I suggest to you, I find that very, very difficult to believe.

Another area I want to address, and Minister, could you just respond to this when you get a chance to --

Hon Mr Saunderson: I hope I do.

Mr Kwinter: I'm sort of jumping around because I'm responding to what was said last week. But one of the things that I found of interest is that when the minister was talking about international marketing, he says:

"We are marketing Ontario as a place for investment and travel. That doesn't mean that just I'm marketing it or the Premier is marketing it or other ministers or MPPs who travel are; we want all Ontarians to market Ontario. Therefore, we will be announcing very soon our business ambassador program, or trade ambassadors. That means anybody who wants to do this in the province, we haven't got any fancy selection system here. Anybody who hears about this and travels somewhat will be a trade ambassador for this province."

I have some serious doubts as to whether that's going to work. My only concern is that I expressed those same doubts a year ago, and I should tell you that in estimates of last year, the minister in a response to a question I had, on March 8, 1996, said:

"The other thing I wanted to mention, Mr Kwinter, was the business ambassadors again. I want to mention it as often as I can." He sure is doing that, because he did it last year, he's doing it this year, but so far nothing has happened.

He said, "I'm very enthusiastic about it. I think with them and with the federal government and with the communication systems available to us, we will be able to overcome the fact that those offices were closed by the previous government."

Again, I would like to understand what has happened in that interim from last year when you appeared before this committee and said that you were very enthusiastic about the business ambassadors program, that it was going to do all of these wonderful things, and then again last week you came here and announced it as if it's happening for the first time. You already announced it last year, yet it still hasn't got off the ground. In the meantime, we're now several years since the closing of the trade offices around the world and I have some very serious concerns about that.

How much time do I have? I don't have any more time?

The Chair: You've got about 10 seconds.

Mr Kwinter: We've got 13 hours to go. We've got lots of time.

The Chair: The minister was quite anxious to respond to you. However, he may get an opportunity when it comes around.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Excuse me; I just want to get one thing clear and understand it. Last week, we went through our opening addresses, which were half an hour long, and I did have a rebuttal, and then we got into questions and answers. I understand that each party can have 15 minutes of questions, is that correct?

The Chair: They can use it any way they want. They can either put questions forward or comments. They can put questions forward and there's no time to make a response. That's the way estimates operate. Maybe you could be creative in your turn, when it comes around, to respond to those questions when other people ask you, but that's how it is, Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Fine.

1610

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I would suggest to you that we will probably ask a lot more questions if we get answers to the questions we in fact ask.

Last week, you'll remember, those of you who were here, that in trying to make a point re the need for government intervention and government support and leadership by government in facing some of the challenges that some of our industry goes through from time to time in dealing with a global economy and the complications that that creates, I was trying to get the minister's attitude and approach and view of that. I talked a bit about, in my community, Algoma Steel and St Marys Paper and the Algoma Central Railway and some of the work that was done there to rightsize those operations and put them into a position where they're now viable again.

In your response, Minister, you, according to Hansard, made reference to companies being viable. Actually, it was in response to my questions, and the question I was asking was very particularly about those industries and the approach and the leadership that government gave in that respect. You said, "as long as a company is viable." I read that to mean that you were questioning the viability of those particular industries. Then it says, "We're not sure if some of those companies that you've talked about, in the long run, are going to be viable." Then, down a little further in Hansard on page E-707, you say: "I don't think you should prop up businesses that are going to fail in the long run. I think that's what's happened in the past."

I'd like some clarification from you on just what your position is re the involvement of government in the restructuring of some of the industries that so many communities depend on for their livelihoods, so many people depend on for their livelihoods, and whether you think just because government was involved in them -- and certainly in northern Ontario there are myriad examples of that kind of leadership shown, particularly in the last five years by the previous New Democrat government. I just have to mention, of course, as I said before, my own community, but places like Thunder Bay, Kapuskasing, Sturgeon Falls, Atikokan; there's quite a list.

What is your view of that kind of involvement by government? Do you really think, as you suggested in your comments last week, that when government is involved, that somehow jeopardizes the viability of that particular operation or enterprise?

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm going to use the time that I've got to respond, first of all, to the question from Mr Martin, and then I will come back to what Mr Kwinter said.

Mr Martin: Excuse me. You'll have to help me here, Chair, but it seems to me, in my 15 minutes, that he's to respond to my questions, and in the 15 minutes that the Liberals have, he's to respond to their questions. Is that not correct?

The Chair: You have 15 minutes to put either comments or questions. If you leave time for the minister --

Mr Martin: I have some more questions.

The Chair: Yes, you can still ask. You get a complete 15 minutes to do that.

Mr Martin: I'm hoping the minister wouldn't first answer my question and then answer a question from --

Hon Mr Saunderson: All right, fine, I'll do that. I'm happy to do that. First of all, I believe that all governments can and should promote investment in Ontario. When I was talking about the Algoma-area businesses that you talked about, I was not saying that there was any problem with those companies as they exist at the present time, and I believe that. I think if our government was faced with the situation that you were faced with with those companies, we would have gone to the private sector and not had government dollars invested in those companies. I think we would have worked with the private sector to have it help out in those situations, not the government.

However, I think the question is, if you believe government should help, how should it help? You have to get a very clear understanding of the proper role that government should have in economic development in order to answer that question.

As I said last week, I don't think experience shows that cheques given to business are really necessary. Over the last 15 or 16 months since we have been in power -- I shouldn't say "in power"; "in government" -- we have closed the ODCs and are winding them down gradually. Frankly, we've had no complaints about this. We stopped making strategic investments and we haven't had complaints about that once people understood what this government was trying to do. Yet investments are continuing to be made in Ontario at a faster pace than anywhere else in Canada. I think I went through last week in my opening address that I had been at seven plant openings or expansions in the last three weeks prior to my address.

We think government can make a very significant contribution to economic development without giving big corporations or small companies money. There are other things we do in our ministry and as a government to make economic development happen in Ontario. We think we're creating the proper networks and the proper partnerships in various sectors. We pursue supportive trade policies, obviously, and we are supporting Ontario's science and technology infrastructure. We support training and skills development strategies. We encourage the development of advanced telecommunications infrastructures. I think these activities constitute the substance of the proper role of government in supportive economic development.

In carrying out its role, my ministry brings to bear not just money, but information and intelligence and experience about the business climate, the Ontario business sectors and the relevant supportive infrastructures that are available. We also bring to bear our connections with business development experts.

I feel that the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism now is really a very productive and competent management consulting operation with very experienced people to help out the business community in various ways, whether it's marketing or financial planning or business plans. That applies all the way to tourism.

I think it's a surprising view that the only constructive thing that governments can do is hand over the taxpayers' very hard-earned money to businesses. It's even more surprising to hear it expressed by members of this committee, because I think, over the long run, the private sector should be left to operate on its own, but left to operate on its own in a very fine business climate that helps business do its job.

On one hand, the view is expressed from the party that coined the term "corporate welfare bums," and I remember that back in a federal election. On the other hand, the view is expressed by a member of a party that campaigned in its red book on eliminating grants to big business. So I think we're doing the right thing, because we feel that both parties in opposition, quite frankly, are now seeing that what's happening in Ontario is a result of what we're doing. That's for Mr Martin; I'll come back to Mr Kwinter later.

Mr Martin: That's interesting. You obviously have worked this over well. You have all the right words and certainly are saying what we would expect you to say, given the track record so far of your government in government. I would rather say, actually, "in power."

Hon Mr Saunderson: Pardon? I didn't hear that.

Mr Martin: You suggested that Algoma Steel and St Marys Paper and the ACR were invested in by government. In fact, they weren't. There was a bank guarantee in the Algoma Steel situation. There was no money by government put into that restructuring. There was some money put into training but there was no money put into St Marys Paper or the Algoma Central Railway, either, in the restructuring exercise. We knew as a government that if we did that, we immediately would have countervail action against those companies particularly by the United States of America, so we didn't do that.

1620

We brought to the table all the players, including the private sector, to find a way to restructure these operations and at the end of the day thought we'd found a nice balance, a good partnership, and I think indicated by that piece of work that we didn't need to turn companies into corporate welfare bums. The "corporate welfare bum" handle came out of an experience that all of us still continue to be amazed at, which is the ability of business and corporations to avoid paying taxes. That's what it was about, for your information, and that continues to happen.

As a matter of fact it's one of the biggest concerns we in the social democratic movement have at the moment re the whole question of who pays their fair share and how we continue to be able to afford the kind of activity that presents Ontario, no matter where you go -- today in the House, as was referenced, Toronto, the capital of Ontario, was highlighted as the best city in the world. Ontario, I suggest to you, is probably right up there with it. That's because we have a way of life and a standard of living and education and health care systems and an infrastructure that have been invested in over a number of years by government, the private sector and others.

In light of the glowing picture you paint of everything being rosy, and what we read in the paper about there being record bankruptcies in Ontario and in Canada over the last year -- you mentioned seven openings that you were at -- I wonder how many bankruptcies you have presided over. I would suggest to you, and this is from my own experience in my own community, there now are a number of particularly small and medium-sized operators in Ontario that are going under. If you read the reports in the media over the last few days, I suggest to you that what they're saying is absolutely right, that there is an air of nervousness, particularly in the retail sector.

My question to you is, what indicators are you looking at? They're certainly different from the ones that I'm looking at. Why is it, when the economy of this province still continues to sputter along, when small and medium-sized businesses close their doors and turn in their keys under the guise of bankruptcy in record numbers, that you can find anything positive to say at this particular time in our economic history? What are the indicators you are looking at?

Hon Mr Saunderson: First I'd just like to make a comment about the guarantees you talked about that were made regarding some companies we have already referred to. A guarantee is a contingent liability for the guarantor.

Mr Martin: But it's not an investment.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I said it's a contingent liability.

Mr Martin: Okay.

Hon Mr Saunderson: It has to be noted on corporate and government balance sheets in the financial statements. It has to be noted in the financial statements, therefore it becomes part of the government debt, in effect, or the corporate debt.

In the St Marys Paper arrangement, just to clear this, that guarantee actually cost the taxpayers of Ontario $15 million. These guarantees do come home to haunt you. That was the point I was making the other day: Although they're always noted in financial statements, they get called from time to time, and there was this call on $15 million for St Marys Paper. Because of the guarantees the Ontario Development Corp has made over the years, particularly in the last few, that's one of the reasons we stopped ODC's actual operation and we're winding it down.

I want to say one last thing about bankruptcy figures. Bankruptcy figures can be very misleading. Sometimes, in the worst of times, bankruptcy figures can be very low because nobody is trying anything. Sometimes when times are getting better, people irresponsibly get into business when they really shouldn't, and you get bankruptcies being higher in good times. It's an anomaly in the economic livelihood of any jurisdiction. I'm not saying they aren't serious, because they are serious.

The Chair: Thank you, Minister. I understand that the Conservatives would like to give the time you have to respond to Mr Kwinter's question. If there is any remaining time, Mr Kells is quite ready to go forward and do the rest, so you may respond in any way you can now. The 15 minutes are yours, leaving some time, of course, for Mr Kells.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'm going to do all I can.

First, I want to congratulate you, Mr Kwinter, on being back here. I know you were doing good business for a company that makes beer in Ontario and elsewhere, and I think it's good that you're out there helping to sell Ontario companies. I think we would like to make you a business ambassador so that when you do other travels you can represent the province -- but you do that anyway. I'm being a bit facetious here. It's nice to have you back with us.

When I talked about the city of Toronto in the House today I said, and as you know, I read very particularly my notes in the House, that it was good news and that the article noted we were one of North America's safest cities, that we had an excellent transportation infrastructure, that we had superb cultural and theatrical facilities, an ethnic diversity, a superior quality of life, that we were clean -- Toronto is clean, it's green and it's comfortable -- and that I felt Toronto is a reflection of Ontario and what this government is accomplishing. I didn't say we had made all that happen in Toronto, but I thought it was a reflection of the climate we're creating in Ontario at the present time. If you take offence to that, I'm sorry.

The supplementary was, what were we going to do to make sure the greater Toronto area stayed this way? I just said we were going to stay the course no matter who tries to disrupt it. That was a subtle remark about what's going on in the city this week. I think it's unnecessary. I said we were going to hold to our objectives and continue to do what we promised in this province.

I referred to other articles on Toronto, the National Geographic, and to the United Nations statement about Canada just so I wasn't too parochial, and I feel all of us in the House should be proud to be Canadians and Ontarians and Torontonians, those of us who are, and try to make sure that those jurisdictions stay the great places they are. That's the gist of what I said. I don't think anybody could take offence at that; in fact, we should all be proud of what has happened.

I would also like to say a little something about the Breeders' Cup, because it was mentioned. As 20,000 people are going to come to the greater Toronto region in the next few days and television from foreign countries will be reporting on the Breeders' Cup -- it's a great opportunity for them to showcase the region they're operating in, just as they did and still do at World Series or Super Bowl games or whatever -- my sorrow is that what's happening in Toronto, for whatever reason, is going to be marred by people marching around and in some cases closing down services illegally. I think that's unfortunate.

The leader of the Ontario Federation of Labour, Mr Wilson, said back in the summertime, when it looked like we might not have the Breeders' Cup, that they would not interfere with or do anything that would adversely affect the Breeders' Cup. I think interfering with the proper transportation facilities in this city is not living up to that agreement. That's very disappointing and is not serving the province, city or country, for that matter. It's a black eye, or it could be a black eye.

1630

Something was also said about doctors when Mr Kwinter was reflecting on what people might see if they came to Toronto. It so happens that doctors and the Ministry of Health are working very hard to come to an agreement. Though it hasn't happened yet, I'm cautiously optimistic that there will be a proper agreement reached whereby the medical system will continue to be the great system that it has become.

On education, I go out and say, as I'm sure all of us would when we're speaking about Ontario education, that we have a good system, but I think the good system could be better than it is. Therefore I think there's nothing wrong with having teachers belong to a teachers' college where they are monitored and where they have to show that they are equipped to be in the classroom. That's no different from lawyers, accountants, doctors and other levels of work. If people do not measure up, they're told to measure up, and hopefully they do, or they have to find a job elsewhere. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a teachers' college.

As far as other things that are being done in education these days, I have nothing but applause for the Minister of Education and Training's insisting that there be proper testing of our students. We haven't had proper testing. Parents don't know how well students are doing and where they rank. I think we have to look for and promote excellence in education and in everything else, for that matter. I feel that proper testing on a uniform basis throughout the province only means that we will get better students, better university students and then better people in the workforce who are best equipped to keep up with what's going on in this world.

I have felt, as I have been involved in this ministry and reflected on what's gone on over the years, that there have been three major watersheds in the world over the last 400 or 500 years. The first was the Renaissance, which ties into the Reformation, the second was the Industrial Revolution, and now we're in the information and technology, or high-tech, revolution and this is the biggest revolution of all. If we don't have students who are properly grounded and educated to face crises and be competitive, they won't be able to maintain the pace, in this very highly changing world, in the information and technology area. Therefore our good education system has to become the best education system there is.

I was in California on a trade mission with the high-technology industry a couple of weeks ago. There was no doubt that when California let up on their education system they did a disservice to that high-tech industry, and they've changed their mood now. We're keeping up with California but we're going to have to work to compete around the world.

There was some mention about culture. Our ministry contributed about $45,000 to the film festival that just concluded in Toronto. I think we have excellent cultural facilities in this city, and that hasn't changed over the years. The film festival is one of the top three in the world. I noticed that CJRT, one of the very good cultural FM music stations on the air, was cut back by about $1.3 million by this government. They are keeping up and staying on the air, fund-raising from the public as they always did. They're just doing more of it. That comes back to doing more with less, which is one of the mottos of this government.

Also new openings. I have been to many new openings of companies, as I mentioned last week in the opening address, and I think that's a reflection of what's been going on in this province.

So if somebody dropped down on Toronto, as it was suggested that person might do, he or she would find all of those situations that I just talked about and would conclude that this is a pretty healthy city. I think it's a reflection of what this government is doing.

I wanted to talk about the business ambassadors for just a minute. We talked about that last February or March when we had very brief estimates. We already have people as business ambassadors and we do have kits handed out to those people. We have not made a major announcement because we are tying it in to our marketing plan, which is a responsibility of my ministry. That marketing plan will be presented very soon, but part of that marketing plan -- I'll give you a bit of a heads up -- will be a formal announcement of the business ambassadors program.

The other thing I want to say is that as far as I'm concerned, the best business ambassadors you can have are people who run a business in our province of Ontario. That is why I have tried to take people with me when I have travelled, as I did the petrochemical industry to Houston in early September, and subsequently to California when we took the high technology, our own people from our own silicon valleys.

I wanted to respond to Mr Kwinter about the questions he raised, and that is all. I'd like to turn it back over to my own side.

The Chair: You've got about two and a half minutes, Mr Kells.

Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): There's not much that I can say in two and a half minutes.

The Chair: Oh, we can do a lot.

Mr Kells: It's with some trepidation that I follow the minister, who has travelled across the fields of history. He's managed to touch on most of the responsibilities of the ministries. I fully expect in the next day or two in the House he'll be taking questions for the Minister of Education. But I do think it's a noble effort. I think the minister did a great job of expounding what a great place we have to live in here in Ontario, and he did it in a nice way and covered off the responsibilities and the achievements of the ministries.

I have a couple of things, but I'll just do one quickly. I don't think I have time to do it, so I'll come back to it. I wanted to talk about the St Lawrence Parks Commission, but I'm sure I'll get a chance to do that later.

In the one minute I have left, I would like to say that I am one person who is willing to give up my time at the Conservative convention and I'm going to the Breeders' Cup championship. That's my contribution to keeping this province moving.

I do see that there was a one-time grant of $1.45 million. The minister might not want to comment now, but I'm sure in due course he would be able to give us some pretty good figures as to exactly what that was directed towards, the overall benefits to certainly Metropolitan Toronto and particularly the hotel and convention industry here in Toronto.

So in the short time I have left, I'll be happy to be back next week and report on what a success this championship is going to be, and I'm sure the minister will give us the details of just what it's meant in monetary rewards to the people of Ontario.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I could tell Mr Kells in about 15 seconds that there was a grant made by the previous government of $1.5 million to the Ontario Jockey Club to assist in general expenses related to the event. I don't quarrel with that because I think the economic benefits are quite dramatic to the province and to the city.

The Chair: You're a great ambassador, Mr Kells.

1640

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I have two points of concern. The first one is on tourism, because this is the part for which I'm critic at the present time. Just lately I've received a letter from the National Capital Commission chair from Ottawa, Marcel Beaudry. He was telling me that MTO has sent him a letter that the 1988 agreement doesn't stand any more on the signage project.

The national capital region attracts anywhere from 9 million to 10 million visitors a year, and now the MTO has told them just lately that this agreement doesn't stand any more and that the national capital region will have to foot the bill for the signage on the 401, the 416, the 417 and also the 17. This really bothers me, because when we talk about tourism, it's not only in the Niagara area or the Toronto area or the Muskoka area; we have to look at the eastern part of Ontario too.

I wonder if the minister is aware of this. I know we've been talking about user fees all the time, but in this case I wouldn't call it user fees because this money, every time we get tourism from the States or from overseas -- according to the figures we have here, from the States we get over 25 million visitors a year coming into Ontario, not counting from the rest of the provinces of Canada, and 2.4 million from overseas. When those people arrive, let's say at Mirabel in Montreal, they take Highway 401 or 417, and it is very important that those signs be there to tell the people that the national capital region is a tourist area. I don't know if the minister is aware of this letter we received just a couple of weeks ago from the NCC chair.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I'd be happy to respond to that question now, if you'd like.

Mr Lalonde: I did send a letter to the Minister of Transportation, Mr Palladini, last week, but if you want to answer that one now, I'd be happy to hear about that.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Fine. First of all, yes, signage is really important, and I can understand how any area is concerned about having proper signage to direct people to the national capital region or wherever. What we are doing now is a new system. We're creating a modern highway sign system that I think is going to satisfy the tourism industry.

We had a request for proposals for the private sector to do signage. There is a company called Canadian TODS that was chosen through a competitive tender system, as I said, and it is to finance and deliver a new system. They showed us that they had a great deal of experience implementing systems similar to what Ontario wants to have and are, we thought, the ones best able to meet the tourism industry requirements. They will offer a wide range of pricing that is accessible to a wide range of operators, so the operators or the local areas or whatever will pay for the signage; the government will no longer do that. The signs will be maintained by TODS, but for fee-for-service.

This proposal that won, by the way, has significant Canadian content, so Ontario companies will be used to make and install these new signs. This will be starting at the beginning of 1997. We are just in the process of negotiating an operating agreement with Canadian TODS which will satisfy that start date.

We've had some model signs installed in three demonstration areas, and they are the freeway corridors on Highway 401 between Brockville and Cornwall; the major secondary highways up in Muskoka, Highways 118 and 169; and special theme signage for the St Jacobs area near Kitchener-Waterloo. The new sign system has been developed with tourism industry reps, and we think it's going to satisfy people like the NCC, but no longer will the government be paying for these signs. But I think they will be satisfied. In fact, we know that they are satisfied because of these trials we have made.

Mr Lalonde: So really when I refer to page 54 of your estimates 1996-97, the third point, "Implementation of a new tourism-oriented directional signage system," you didn't refer to any specific money to be referred in that area?

Hon Mr Saunderson: No.

Mr Lalonde: My next question is concerning small business. I've tried to find in this booklet that we got last week any reference to small business help or investment that the Ontario government intends to do. I didn't see any. But yesterday when I got back from my riding, I had this on my desk, dated October 17: "Ontario Investing $1 Billion To Start New Businesses." Immediately I was extremely happy to hear that. They referred to the minister releasing a new business startup statistic on the eve of National Small Business Week, starting yesterday, October 20.

But to my big surprise, when I called back the people who had called me previously, in I would say the last year -- I kept telling them that the budget hasn't come in front of the committee yet, even though the budget was announced earlier in the year. I thought this was a true figure. I have to say that this was misinforming the public. There's absolutely nothing in there, because this project even refers to new ventures. New ventures has been discontinued since April or May, I believe. At that time, when the new ventures program was discontinued, people had gone to register at the bank. They had paid their $75 to go back to school for that special training to qualify for the venture. After they had completed their training, they went back to the bank and the project was discontinued because of lack of funding. But we turn around just last Wednesday and we state, "Ontario Investing $1 Billion To Start New Businesses."

Talking to some of the people you referred to in the communiqué, the Ottawa office and also the Hawkesbury office, I called them today, because I referred to the people to attend the October 24 open-house press conference that they will have at 2 o'clock. The answer we got: "Mr Lalonde, we are expecting to come down and explain what is going to happen." I said, "What do you mean?" They said everything that was announced in there -- there's nothing new in there. There's absolutely nothing new here. You're talking about the jobs that you say you have created in the past year, but there is absolutely no penny extra that was announced last Friday. Those people really told me: "You might as well call back the people. If they want information, we'll give them information, but there's definitely no money available for anyone." Can you answer this one, Mr Minister?

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, I will do that. Small business is very important. As you rightly pointed out, this is National Small Business Week. By the way, I would hope that all members of the committee had been invited to the board of trade reception that is going on this evening. I was under the impression that everybody had been invited to it. There is a reception at roughly 6 o'clock at the board of trade.

Mr Kells: Because of it, we're supposed to get out of here at 5:30.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, we are going to leave at 5:30. Those who want to may attend this reception at the board of trade, which is in First Canadian Place, entry through the Adelaide Street entrance. They will be honouring the new members and small business. That is why we're leaving a little bit early tonight, to do that.

Obviously, entrepreneurs and the small business community play a very big role in creating a dynamic and innovative economy. We're very much aware of that and we're very supportive to the point of view of creating the right business climate and making sure that entrepreneurs get the help to do proper business planning and all the other things that must be done to start a business. I mentioned earlier that our ministry is available to help people start.

1650

Small business represents 98% of all Ontario businesses, which is based on businesses that employ fewer than 100 people, and 41% of the private sector employment comes from small businesses. We're seeing about 100,000 new small businesses being registered each year.

I don't think any other business sector demonstrates the need for the information, education and support as much as startup businesses do. Over 225,000 small business people utilize our ministry's entrepreneurial services each year so they can properly research, plan, start and finance their enterprises.

We also have business self-help offices. Joe Spina, my parliamentary assistant, was an integral part of getting them started. Those are provided for everybody's riding office in partnership with local municipalities, which jointly fund some self-help offices in communities across Ontario. I think there are 31.

In your region of Ottawa-Carleton there is the entrepreneurial centre, as there is an entrepreneurial centre in London, Ontario. These are things we have to encourage more of so that entrepreneurs in each region can meet with people who have been successful and get help to start their own business.

I was at the Ottawa self-help centre, or entrepreneurial centre I should call it, back in July and was very impressed with the people who have come in there. They have a 90% or better success rate of people who have come in to start as small business people.

I think we are doing a great deal for small businesses. We can go back and talk about things the government has been doing in its budget, but when you start lowering the personal income tax rate, that's a big boost for the small business person. If you eliminate the employer health tax, as we have, on the first $400,000 of payroll, that's a very big boost to a small business person.

Having the red tape commission, which Mr Frank Sheehan has been chairing, gets government out of the way of small businesses. If we can get regulations off the books, I think it makes it a lot easier for people to start businesses.

We've frozen your hydro rates for five years, and we've changed the Labour Relations Act so that we have replacement workers for strikes; these things are good for small businesses because they create a business climate that enables them to do well, I think.

The very fact that the government is getting its fiscal house in order sends a message out to anybody wanting to start a small business that this province is business oriented, particularly toward small business. I have nothing more to say on that.

Mr Lalonde: I don't know if you answered my question, Mr Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I could go on and on.

Mr Lalonde: I was just saying that after the news release, everybody thought you were putting on a new program for small business people. That was definitely misleading people.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Excuse me for that. The press release, as I read it, says, "Ontarians are investing up to $1 billion to start up new businesses this year." I didn't say that Ontario was doing that. Business people in Ontario are investing up to $1 billion to start up new businesses this year. Then I released statistics about what was happening in the province.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Lalonde. Just be careful about how you accuse anyone of misleading.

Mr Martin: Just so we have the record straight and people who might take time to read Hansard and may have an interest in this understand, at St Marys Paper the government did participate. I just phoned the people running St Marys Paper.

Under the new regime the government agreed to pick up 50% of the cost of training for employees in the mill. It's over now. The money is finished. The company and the government each put $2.3 million into training. I would say that's a good investment in skilled professionals in a business that is turning some significant profit compared to what they were doing before the restructuring.

The other thing, Minister, is that you would lead us to believe that somehow this mill was hooked up to a money intravenous that kept it going. In fact, that's not the case. The government put up a $10-million loan: $5 million at the closing out of the old deal and the opening of the new deal, then a $5-million working capital loan to the company, at a fixed interest rate of 6.5%. So you're actually making money on this company right now. This company will pay that money back.

In the instance of Algoma Steel it was the same thing: a guarantee that the company would ultimately pay back, and training money that was put up to backstop that restructuring.

It's interesting to note that since the restructuring, this company has reinvested $65 million of its profit into new technology so that this company would be viable and profitable and a very positive and constructive player in the economic future of this province.

To suggest for a second that the government's being involved in restructuring this company is somehow a negative and contributes in some way to a dependency that in the long haul will hurt the people of this province is patently untrue. You ought to be somewhat apologetic about any comment you might make in that direction. This is a company that's doing well now. It's turning over a significant profit and reinvesting that profit in new technology and in training and retraining employees so they will have a future.

I participated about two weeks ago in a ribbon cutting ceremony at St Marys Paper, where a new piece of equipment was started for the first time and will contribute to the economic wellbeing of that particular company.

In light of the questions that were asked by Mr Lalonde from the Liberal Party re your contribution and the tourism industry, which is, as you suggested yourself, a very important contributor to any economic future we might have, going into the estimates briefing book, it doesn't matter what graph you look at here: money under marketing and trade development, down 25%; business development and tourism, down 49%; strategic analysis sectors and technology, down 26%.

The one that concerns me the most in northern Ontario, because small and medium-sized communities there depend very much on the contribution of economic development offices and officers, is that your budget for community economic development, according to this booklet, will be down 84% in 1996-97. I don't know how you propose and plan, as a government, to be a partner, to be a leader, to be involved, if that's what you're doing, that substantial a decrease in your involvement.

1700

I have to go back to the question I asked you before because I really didn't get an answer. Besides going to New York and California and Europe and Japan and all these places and rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty in those circles, what indicators are you looking at that give you the impression, that smug satisfaction, that somehow the economy of this province is doing better? We talk to people when we go back on a regular basis to the communities we represent, we walk down the malls and main drags and we see that unemployment and bankruptcies are unacceptably high. As we move towards the part of the year where people in the retail sector ought to be excited and motivated because there's a big selling opportunity coming, a big opportunity to move some product and make some profit, we know that if they miss that piece, the Christmas rush, they're in bad shape.

We know from reports we get from newspapers and from people who look at the numbers and from our own presence at some of those local small business people and retailers that they're very worried and anxious and do not share the same sense of optimism you present here at this table today. What indicators are you looking at? What is giving you this sense of confidence that somehow in your world, in our world, Ontario, things are getting better?

Hon Mr Saunderson: First I just want to conclude the St Marys discussion. I heard what you said about training. I think training is a very important thing for any industry. The working capital loan is still a contingent liability, Mr Martin, on the government's books.

Mr Martin: It's going to be paid back at a 6.5% interest rate.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Yes, but if we are guaranteeing it, it has to show as a contingent liability. I'm just saying that's what it does on the financial statements. I'm glad that St Marys Paper is very successful. I hope it continues that way, as I do Algoma Steel and any other company in Ontario.

You asked me a little bit about tourism. I just want to let you know that I'm meeting with the field staff of the ministry tomorrow. There will be something like 90 of them in Toronto for a planning meeting and all that. I intend to meet with those people at a convenient time and I'm going to say to them, just so you know in advance some of the things I will tell them, that I know what it's like to have to go and market a product, a company or whatever.

In this case it's marketing our province, our ministry and the skills in that ministry to help companies that need some assistance. I'm going to ask them to be more aggressive and knock on even more doors than they do now to find companies that need some guidance. We have the people to help them get that guidance. I'm going to say to them that there's lots of business out there to drum up and encourage. I think it's important for me to speak to what I might call the Ontario sales force or consulting people who can help small business particularly.

You alluded to travelling around the world or in the province and rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty; I think that was the gist of what you said. Yes, I suppose you do. You meet the leader of a country or an industry when you make these trips. Mr Kwinter has done them as well. It's important that you actually meet these people because these are the shapers of thinking that goes on in other countries and other countries' industries. If we can go to those people and say to them when we meet them that Ontario is open for business, providing the right climate for business, then I'm doing my job.

We met with the Keidanren, which is like the big chamber of commerce for Japan, and told them about Ontario. They're going to go back and they're going to write the book for Ontario and other places they visited, and that's going to be on file for a few years. They liked what they heard. I'm going to be back to see them in Japan in the middle of the month and when we go over there it will be a chance to firm up the work we've done in this province.

I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that, but there's another aspect of finding out what's going on in industry, and that's getting out and being on the plant floor and talking to people at the gate. I've done that. I've been to major automobile manufacturers in Ontario. I've been on the floor, talked to the shop stewards and the management as well, down in Windsor with Chrysler, with General Motors. I've been up to see the automotive manufacturers and been on the floor of Honda and Toyota. That's not just rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty. That's asking people on the floor how they like their job, how things are going for them.

It's important that I do that, and as I say, many people in the government who are elected can do this as well. I know that my fellow MPPs who are in this room today from my party constantly keep in touch with the businesses that are going on in their ridings and they come back and tell me what they're finding out. We were down in Mr Barrett's constituency at the plowing match, which unfortunately had a rain-out.

Mr Barrett: A mud-out.

Hon Mr Saunderson: A "mud-out" is what they say. But we did have a chance while there to talk to people and to find out how their economy is going.

Brant-Haldimand: I was in that riding in the summertime. I had a chance to talk to people down in that area, to tour plants, to climb around and get dusty and all that stuff. I like that. It's for our ministry important to do that. Yes, I travel a lot, but it's not just rubbing shoulders with the high and mighty, I can tell you; it's getting down on the ground.

You asked me for some statistics that we're talking about. Just today the Toronto-Dominion Bank said that among the Canadian provinces Ontario is expected to show the strongest economic progress in the next year, followed by British Columbia. We have a list of business openings which I could go through for you, and I won't, but I'm happy to table it for you and also to say that there's lots of good news and indications that things are looking up. Yes, I read about the retail situation today. It doesn't help to have a major company and its union on strike. That hurts people's confidence.

But overall, when we look at the Ontario employment, 105,000 net new jobs have been created in Ontario since the election in June 1995. The youth unemployment rate fell sharply in August, probably partly a reflection of people going back to university. In the first eight months of 1996 the private sector created 89,000 net new jobs, and that more than offset a 15,000 decline in public sector employment in the province. Social assistance caseloads continue to fall; it happened in August. These are significant drops and I have to assume that because of the increase in jobs those people who were on social assistance are getting into the workforce.

We are leading the provinces of Canada in plant and equipment spending for 1996 and we account for well over half of the manufacturing sector.

I guess you believe what you want to believe, but what I'm looking at and believing in is current hard copy that says things are going well in this province.

1710

The Chair: A quick one.

Mr Martin: Just to respond, I don't for a minute suggest that it's not important that you make trips and talk about Ontario and work with business people from around the world. That's important, but it's equally important, and sometimes even more important, that you spend time on the streets of communities and talking to people who are out of work, who are struggling because of the economic climate in small business. They'll tell you a story that is quite compelling and troubling at this time.

It's one thing to dish out and play with numbers and statistics. We can make them say anything we want -- I can do it, you can do it -- but it's another thing to talk to people. Yes, you present the Toronto-Dominion Bank saying one thing. I could show you a report two or three weeks ago from the Conference Board of Canada that suggested that it's not so rosy and that we're heading for really tough times. There's a direct impact on that by some of the decisions that you're making in the public sector to downsize and get out of places that government has traditionally been in. That has contributed very significantly to some of the plaudits we're getting now around the world for Toronto and Ontario.

Just one other point, if I might, Chair, before I close: If look at some of the statements that are coming right now from some of the leaders in the church communities, they'll tell you a completely different story, very compelling, about a group of people we should all be very concerned about, and that's the poor --

The Chair: Thank you.

Hon Mr Saunderson: I just have one thing quickly to say, and that is that I do find out a lot of what people and the problems they have are all about in my own constituency office, as any other MPP does. Go ahead.

The Chair: Mr Kells.

Mr Kells: Actually, I think it's only fair that Mr Martin has that much time and Mr Saunderson uses so much time to answer his questions. I think it's really only fair.

Anyway, I have a personal inquiry, if I may. Back in my first tour of duty here in the Legislature, from 1981 to 1985, we used to have the opportunity to visit Upper Canada Village. They were kind enough -- I guess there was more money in government in those days -- to allow MPPs to stay one day or one weekend in the guest house down there. I used to really enjoy Upper Canada Village, the amenities and the whole presentation, and I got to be quite interested in it. As a matter of fact, I went back three years running.

When after 10 years I took the opportunity to go again, it did not surprise me that we're being charged now; that seems to be reasonable. As we toured the village, I was somewhat saddened to see that the village, which had been kept, in my estimation, in tiptop, old-time shape, was now slipping badly. There didn't seem to be as many staff around. They made it real and live, and were in costume and performed in the various locations. Even the buildings themselves were showing signs of wear. The whole situation wasn't kept up to the standards of old.

In the course of being there, my wife and I talked with the staff who were putting on demonstrations in a very real-life way. We learned that, like any other government agency, they're struggling to make ends meet, but they had extreme concerns -- and this is what I would like to pass on to you -- that there was going to be a change in direction, a change away from this demonstration of what life in a rural village was like in the 1800s, and that steps were being taken that would change dramatically this whole presentation. Of course, these steps were to be taken to raise money. I guess maybe the one that's probably most shocking for me was that they were going to put in an automatic machine that pitches baseballs and you bat the things. It seemed to me that it's rather a strange device or fund-raising facility to be putting into a tourist attraction of the calibre of Upper Canada Village.

There were a few other changes that fell into what I'd call a commercialism mode. I've noticed that there is a deterioration in quality and upkeep, even though, as you know and I know, the upkeep is done right there on the premises, and then this blatant commercialism is creeping into the operation, which gives me some concern. Even in these days of retrenchment and cutbacks and a total review of how we operate each and every facility that is publicly owned, maybe we could take another look at how the village is operated, with a thought to not detracting from what we've had there over the years.

I notice in the budget that there's a 12% increase to the St Lawrence Parks Commission. I didn't notice when I looked through exactly what that was going to be directed to, but I want to pass on to you my concern for what's taking place down there.

I've got a second thing; you probably can answer them at one time. The second thing is that I noticed -- and this goes back to my previous incarnation also -- that the Urban Transportation Development Corp had an actual of $23.8 million and now there's one of $8 million, and I catch up to it as an adjustment. I would like you, if you would, to enlighten me. I thought that erstwhile organization had left us, but I guess it left us with some entanglements. I was wondering if you would bring me up to date on that too.

Hon Mr Saunderson: First of all, I'd like to respond to Mr Kells on Upper Canada Village. I, like you, think it's a great facility and a great memory of our past. I would share your concerns that the village would not stay as it is. It is going to stay as it is, I want to assure you of that, but we do charge at the guest house now, and I think you're aware of that.

Mr Kells: That's not my complaint.

Hon Mr Saunderson: No, I know that.

We're appealing to a bigger cross-section of people. You have only to see the makeup of Metro Toronto to understand that there are many more from various parts of the world now living in Ontario. Therefore, I say that times have changed a bit. We have a real cross-section of people to appeal to, so they are going to be setting up the amusement facilities that you suggested. They are not going to be right on top of the village but will be a separate area. I want to assure you that we're not going to change the character of the place. What we're trying to do is, firstly, appeal to a bigger cross-section of people and, secondly, be more revenue-positive. That's why the change that you talked about is there.

I know that community is very concerned, because we all get letters, and I've had lots of letters from down there. You'll be glad to know that I'm going to be meeting at breakfast on Thursday morning in Kingston with people from the St Lawrence Parks Commission, dealing particularly with Fort Henry and the guard situation. That's a case where I'm quite convinced and certain that the private sector is going to step in. They are working with the private sector regarding the St Lawrence Parks Commission to come up with proper solutions that make it sensible for us to keep involved there.

There were funds provided by the ministry to the St Lawrence Parks Commission in 1994 to undertake a business-planning exercise. They worked with a consultant. The commission sought input from a large number of people and sources. The commission kept the community and the tourism stakeholders involved and provided lots of communiqués and informal presentations throughout 1995 and 1996. I was briefed by the commission on its proposed directions in the spring of this year. They subsequently submitted a five-year corporate plan in July and expressed the desire to proceed with the program review as quickly as possible.

In June, my deputy and the assistant deputy responsible for tourism visited the St Lawrence Parks Commission and discussed the program review process with the chair. At the end of July, beginning of August, some 80 people attended a public presentation of the plan they have come up with. It includes highlights to keep developing Fort Henry and Crysler Park as major destinations, as well as Upper Canada Village.

We are very aware of your concerns. We are handling it to the best of our abilities, keeping in mind the financial situation the government has found itself in. We are trying to get the private sector more involved. Quite frankly, I hope to hear that that's about to happen with the St Lawrence Parks Commission when I meet with them on this Thursday morning down in Kingston.

On the second question, about UTDC, there is an investment that UTDC owns. It is the OBI investment that the previous government made. That is why you see that amount. In effect, the government is the shareholder of UTDC. At this stage of the game, OBI is hopefully going to be in a profitable situation. We're working very closely with the partners of OBI to make sure there's proper protection for the interests of the taxpayers. We're going to keep the jobs going. We have some guarantees with OBI, again contingent liabilities of the government.

We would not have negotiated the OBI deal. It has cost us something in the neighbourhood of $100 million. Our liabilities are in the neighbourhood of $20 million to $25 million. You might be interested to know the date of the signing of this agreement. It was June 7, 1995, one day before the election was held. I found that somewhat hard to believe when I inherited this situation. But at this stage of the game we're honouring our obligations because it's the least costly option for taxpayers and we're hopeful that this will be a workout situation. We have had numerous meetings with the company that now owns OBI, Western Star. Mr Terry Peabody is the president and our ministry people continue to meet with him. We work very closely and we're happy to report that there are substantial sales of buses, but we have a contingent liability there. Hopefully, we will be able to part company in a sensible way.

Mr Kells: What is the ongoing exposure?

Mr Wood: I'm Brian Wood, assistant deputy minister of corporate services and agency relations. It varies. The transactions are broken down into three parts. The government has warrants, and then there's the bonding and then there are the warranties. At this time we're managing the warranties down. It was estimated to be around $30 million. We've got it down to around $17 million. We're managing it through UTDC and it's managing very effectively. The exposure of that is always there, but that was part of the transaction as we set it up, the part of the transaction as it was approved by the previous government.

The Chair: It seems we've run out of time. We stand adjourned until after routine proceedings tomorrow.

The committee adjourned at 1725.