Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

AFTERNOON SITTING

CONTENTS

Thursday 14 February 1991

Ministry of Treasury and Economics

Afternoon sitting

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln NDP)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Ward, Margery (Don Mills NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Bradley, James J. (St. Catharines L) for Mrs McLeod

Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre NDP) for Mr Lessard

Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North L) for Mr McGuinty

Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP) for Mr Lessard

Haeck, Christel (St. Catharines-Brock NDP) for Ms M. Ward

Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP) for Ms K. Haslam

Mammoliti, George (Yorkview NDP) for Mr G. Wilson

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West PC) for Mr Carr

Also taking part: Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton PC)

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

Staff: Campbell, Elaine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1008 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS

The Chair: I would like to call to order the standing committee on estimates for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. We have completed almost two full hours of our allocation, and I believe that at this point we are going to commence a regular form of rotation, if that is comfortable with the committee. However, if the committee wishes to --

Interjections.

The Chair: At this point, we are establishing the ground rules for the balance of estimates, so if I had your attention, I would not have to repeat it. I am asking you for concurrence with how we will proceed with the remaining time. Do you wish to have a caucus allocation or do you wish the Chair to ensure that the discussion, which can pass from any number of individuals, be equitably distributed?

Mr Perruzza: Caucus allocation.

The Chair: I did not ask everybody at once, Mr Perruzza. I recognize Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: I think that the balance of this week, the early part of this week, worked very well with a caucus allocation and rotation of 15 minutes each. I think it is easier for the Chair. Otherwise, we might end up with an imbalance at the end, so I suggest that we do that.

Mr Daigeler: I agree with that.

Mr Hansen: We agree also.

The Chair: Very good. The Chair will be so guided. There are four votes to be completed, and I wish to be guided. If you wish to stay on certain vote areas, it is generally helpful to the Treasurer.

I should advise committee members that the Treasurer and the deputy contacted me a week ago and the Treasurer has an unbreakable commitment this afternoon and therefore has advised me that he will be unable to be with us this afternoon, but his parliamentary assistant will. I share that information with the committee simply so that those wishing to ask questions directly of the Treasurer in each of the four vote areas might do that this morning. Does everyone understand what I am suggesting? Very well. Then if you wish to be guided by the votes, indicate which vote area and, if not, that is fine as well.

Mr Stockwell: If I can just ask a question, Mr Chairman, maybe I am out of order and you can correct me, but I understand that it is possible for us to call people for this afternoon to answer some questions as well. Is that correct?

The Chair: It is if the Chair is given sufficient notice so that the clerk can determine if those persons you wish to call can conveniently attend.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe the clerk can investigate. My request is for someone from the Dome negotiating committee. It does not have to be the chairman; it can be any one of the members. But I think it would be of great interest to the committee and the people if we could just find out how it is going and I would like to ask some questions to whoever it may be. Hopefully, it is our chairman representing us; if it is not, then whoever is most able to come forward.

The Chair: I could ask the Treasurer or the deputy if it is possible to have someone who is currently engaged in the Dome discussions, which you referred to yesterday, to respond to questions in that area. That was the question and request of Mr Stockwell.

Hon Mr Laughren: Do you want me to respond, Mr Chair?

The Chair: Yes.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a very unusual request and one that I think you should reconsider. In the middle of negotiations between the negotiating team and the consortium -- and I mean in the middle of the negotiations; they are meeting on a regular basis -- I think it would be very unfair to the process to ask them to come in and come before the committee. If the deal was done, that would be one thing, or if they had not started, it would be another thing; but in the middle of negotiations, I urge you to reconsider that request.

Mr Stockwell: I appreciate the comments from the Treasurer and I certainly do not want to jeopardize the negotiations that are taking place, but considering that it has been struck now for four months, that it has been announced and really there has been no update, I do not feel that I have a great comfort level on what is going on and what has taken place. If there are any questions that anyone considers to be probing or publicly could embarrass someone, then I suggest they can simply say, "This is not appropriate," at the time. But there are some concerns that I have. I appreciate what the Treasurer has said, but I would request that it stand and, if in fact some questions get to the point where it is a little too inquisitive, then just say so.

Hon Mr Laughren: May I make a suggestion that Mr Stockwell put his questions to myself or Mr Davies, who knows about the negotiations as well? We will do our best and we will see how you feel after that.

The Chair: Very good. Mr Hansen.

Mr Hansen: I would rather have the vote at the end on all four votes and that gives the opportunity to the opposition -- I know Mr Bradley wants to ask the Treasurer questions on quite a few of these different areas. If we lock ourselves in while the Treasurer is here, then the opposition will not have a chance to actually forward those questions right to the Treasurer, so we would go with being wide open and would take the four votes at the end.

The Chair: It is hard to imagine that Mr Bradley has any more questions but, be that as it may, it is a good suggestion. Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, I wonder if, through you, I could ask the Treasurer -- I understand what you are saying, Treasurer, about the people who are negotiating and I accept that argument about the Dome. But I am just wondering if there is not someone else on the Dome Corp board that we could talk to. I respect the answers that you and the deputy can give. But I think that because of the situation with the Dome, which you have referred to in a very sincere way on a number of occasions about your concerns, that some of the questions we may want to ask are maybe not fair even to ask you because you have just come into this five months ago.

There may be questions that we might like to ask even about where they have been coming from philosophically in the management or non-management of the Dome. I think if there are questions, as Mr Stockwell says, that are simply inappropriate, the person who would be responding would say, "Well now, that is an item that has now been negotiated." But because it has got a tremendous impact on where you are with your money, I think it would be very worth while to have someone from the corporation's board here from that very narrow perspective and that long-term experience with the corporation.

The Chair: If I might just offer some clarification, our House rules indicate that during estimates we cannot discuss matters that are currently before the House. It is from that loose interpretation that the Treasurer has the right to express some concern with respect to the uncompleted nature of the discussions. He is prepared to discuss those -- that is what I understand -- to the extent that he is able.

I can also say from precedent, when I was not in the chair, I requested that John Kruger attend to discuss some matters that were rather delicate. The Chair and minister of the day were agreeable to Mr Kruger presenting himself to the committee for my cross-examination. I think at this late hour, though, perhaps your staff might check on the availability of these individuals, but in the meantime we could proceed with questions in this area to the Treasurer and his deputy.

Hon Mr Laughren: Could I add one --

The Chair: If we could proceed on that basis, then we can get into the question and answer. Treasurer, and then Mr Daigeler.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will take your direction without prolonging this debate, but I think if it was a case of wanting to talk to the chairman of the Dome, that would be one thing. If that was the case, it would be better before the standing committee on government agencies, where I think they have appeared in previous years. I see no problem with that, but I am really worried by the request to involve yourselves in the negotiations, because presumably you would want to ask them about the negotiations. It is why you want to have them here. I find that --

Mrs Marland: No.

Hon Mr Laughren: Why else would you want the chairman of the negotiating team here if you did not want to ask him about negotiations?

Mrs Marland: Well, I say, with respect --

The Chair: Excuse me. I have Mr Daigeler and then Mrs Marland.

Mrs Marland: The Treasurer just asked me a question.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mrs Marland is being argumentative.

The Chair: Mr Bradley asked extensive questions but he will get answers in proper order. Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: I think we should be permitted to comment from our point of view. I agree with the Treasurer that the purpose of this committee is to review his estimates and his work, and if there are questions with regard to the SkyDome, I think, as he indicated, either public accounts or government agencies would be the proper committee to do so.

With regard to the negotiations under way, again I agree with the Treasurer that they are obviously highly sensitive and if there are any questions with regard to government policy, I think the proper person to direct that to is the Treasurer. Unless the Treasurer feels that useful information can be brought forward with regard to his own perspective by representatives of the SkyDome, I do not see the need to in any way, shape or form engage in a discussion of the SkyDome at this committee.

1020

Mrs Marland: I really do not see very much difference between having somebody here from SkyDome in the Treasury estimates than having the chairman of Ontario Hydro here during the Energy estimates. For that reason we are requesting that at least we find out who is available, and we would expect that there would be no discussion in the area of negotiations. We did not discuss the area of the environmental assessment hearing in terms of Ontario Hydro so --

The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Marland. I think the Treasurer has indicated that his staff are checking availabilities, and in the meantime he and his deputy will do their very best to respond to your questions directly. I would like to proceed if I may. Mr Daigeler, I am going to ask you a sensitive question. Would you like to yield and I will return to your time spot?

Mr Daigeler: No, I think we will start out --

The Chair: Very good. I am sorry. I just wanted to take your guidance on that. Please begin, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: First of all, Treasurer, I am rather appreciative of the fine line that you have been walking with regard to the deficit that we are facing. Up to this point, I think you have been rather circumspect in the way you have phrased this without necessarily blaming the previous Treasurer or, on the other hand, accepting too much responsibility yourself. So I am thankful in that way.

The press has not been equally careful in where to put blame. I think you have been clearly saying that there are elements of the $2.5 billion that are clearly due to your own decisions. In fact there are some very substantive figures here that can in no way, shape or form be put on Mr Nixon's shoulders. However, it is kind of convenient for the press to say, "You inherited a $2.5 billion deficit and therefore you cannot do very much about it."

Let me ask, first of all, why was it so absolutely necessary to retire that $400 million debt for the Urban Transportation Development Corp? As far as I understand, that was not needed at this point yet. Why did you decide, when you knew that the recession was coming on, to spend $400 million on that particular matter?

The Chair: Please proceed.

Hon Mr Laughren: You want a response to that?

Mr Daigeler: Yes.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, I suppose the argument could be made that we did not have to. On the other hand, the debt was there. It is a clear obligation. The interest payments were ticking away at about $1 million a week as I remember, and paying off the debt would effect savings in the interest payments. To have that sitting there, just as a crown corporation with only debt and no assets or no revenues, made no sense whatsoever, it seemed to me. It is not as though we created it, but we moved something forward that was just sitting there waiting to be paid off, with the interest payments just ticking away. I just could not see how that made any sense.

Second, I would use your argument about the deficit that, if the deficit was what it was and getting bigger, it seemed to me the sooner we paid it off the better. I had no hesitation on that whatsoever. It seemed to me that that was obviously a judgement call, just like the previous government made a judgement call not to put it in the books. But I felt very strongly that it made a lot of sense to pay it off. What purpose was served by having this shell there with no purpose in life, just a $400-million debt? It made no sense at all to me.

Mr Daigeler: I have no objection to retiring the debt eventually. I question the timing however. You say: "Well, it has been sitting there. Why not pay if off?" But you knew that things were turning quite dramatically downwards. I question the timing of it on top of the other $500 million that you are forgoing now and this time every year by not charging the provincial sales tax on top of the federal sales tax.

Again, this is a decision I respect. You have been elected to do that. From a philosophical point of view you disagree with doing this and you have that right.

However, at the same time, you said yesterday that welfare loads have increased by $500 million, and you yourself said this is a very substantive number. So why are you forgoing as Treasurer $500 million every year and blaming everybody else, including the federal government, of course, for not having enough money? I have a very hard time understanding that you, as Treasurer, because of what I can only call ideological reasons, are forgoing that kind of revenue when the needs are so pronounced at all levels of our society. And I refer as critic for Colleges and Universities to the terrible transfer announcements you made with regard to that sector, which in fact is the lowest of all the transfer agencies.

So here we are. You gave $400 million for the Urban Transportation Development Corp, and then $500 million annually by not collecting a revenue that was already in place. I can only conclude from that that you are planning to raise that revenue through other taxes somewhere else in the budget. I am quite nervous about what you have in store, because ultimately revenue has to come from somewhere. Again, other than for party policy reasons, why did you forgo the $500 million every year?

Hon Mr Laughren: What better reasons could there be?

Mr Daigeler: Better reasons would be the needs that are so crying across the province.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I do not want to be frivolous about it.

First, I want to go back to your question about the UTDC, if I might. By paying it off -- the interest that was being paid, the bank rate, was higher than what our costs are for interest, for our borrowing costs. With the deficit, obviously you can look at it as a package, if you like, which I think is what you are doing. The estimates we had were that we would save about $2 million a year by paying off the UTDC obligation.

On the retail sales tax being applied on top of the goods and services tax, that was one of those issues on which, quite frankly, we campaigned, and knowing you would be highly critical of us --

Mr Daigeler: Those are promises you did not want to break.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- if we broke a single promise from our campaign, we thought we had better live up to that one.

Mr Daigeler: Did you read the newspapers today?

Mr Sterling: Which one was that?

Hon Mr Laughren: Never mind. On the other hand, it is a fact that by not charging the RST on top of the GST it does leave in the pockets of Ontario citizens almost $500 million a year. Next year, because of the decreased economic activity, it is around $470 million, as I recall, but that is close enough. It is almost $500 million. But it does leave more money in the pockets of citizens who we want to be spending money in 1991-92. Also, the fact that we had campaigned very hard against the GST and did not want to come in and just slap the RST on top of it as one of our first acts as a government -- to be quite blunt with you, that was why.

I appreciate the fact that it is $500 million, believe me, that we are not collecting. I understand that.

Mr Daigeler: I hope so. Do you have any calculation of how much money you have lost to date by not charging the provincial sales tax on top of the GST?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I do not. I do not know that answer.

The Chair: Is there someone on staff who --

Hon Mr Laughren: Give me in terms of January, February. It would not be very much at this point because of the numbers. We do not even know what the numbers will be. It will just be January.

Mr Daigeler: Let me move on to another subject. You mentioned yesterday the possible impact of the Gulf war on your fiscal position. I have some difficulty, quite frankly, in seeing how that could affect the Ontario economy significantly. Could you explain this a little, what might be a possible impact?

1030

Hon Mr Laughren: I was referring to, and it may be more than what I was referring to, the price of oil. If the price of oil goes very high, there is a projection of what the cost to the Ontario economy is if the price of oil goes over a certain level; I think it is $30 a barrel. If it goes over $30 a barrel, it costs the Ontario economy so much in terms of jobs. I do not have that number in my head. If somebody from Treasury does, I would appreciate that number for Mr Daigeler, but that was what I was referring to.

Mr Daigeler: Rather the reverse has happened.

Hon Mr Laughren: Exactly.

Mr Daigeler: So hopefully it will have a positive impact as well.

Hon Mr Laughren: Right. That depends on the length, I think.

Mr Daigeler: Talking about the tax commission that Mr Stockwell was quite concerned about yesterday and the appointments, let me say first of all that I strongly disagree with Mr Stockwell in terms of not appointing people other than from Ontario. I personally feel that the position put forward by Mr Stockwell shows what is wrong with our Canadian system. At a time when we are supposed to break down barriers, I do not want to criticize at all the appointment of someone who does not live in this province. I do hope you are looking at the expertise the person brings. As you are a fair-minded person, I hope that is what you are looking at -- at least you claimed that was what you were looking for. In fact, I would have no objections to bringing experts from other countries who can give us good perspective on what a proper tax system is.

However, certainly in my area there have not been that many complaints -- perhaps the reason is that there are not many NDPers in my area -- about the fairness of the system. There have been complaints, yes, about the level of taxation. I do not know who you have been listening to about that great hue and cry across the province --

Interjection: Bob White.

Mr Daigeler: -- that the system of taxation is so unfair. What I have been hearing is the high level of taxation, and people are very concerned that you are going to increase tax rates substantially. I would like to hear from you who these people are who have been crying so loudly, other than your own party members, to reform the tax system in this province.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I appreciate very much your comments on the appointments to the tax commission and the fact that one of the commissioners lives in Hull. I appreciate that perspective very much. I agree with you that it is important that the people who are appointed to the commission have a variety of perspectives on the tax system and some expertise as well, and I think we have a very good mix. I feel very good about that.

You ask who is complaining about the tax system? I think most people in the province do not think we have a fair tax system. There are those at both ends of the income scale who do not think we have a fair tax system. I hear it all the time. I hear the business community tell me it is not a good tax system either.

I think that built into your question was the assumption that the only purpose of the tax commission is to raise taxes, rather than perhaps shift them around and, in some cases, benefit someone. I do not know. I do not want to presume the conclusion of what the tax commission will recommend, but I do not think I am referring only to, as you call them, party members who are concerned about the tax system. Talk to anybody out there and they will tell you they do not like the tax system, so I do not think it is fair to imply that it is only a certain group of people who are opposed to it.

The Chair: You have about a minute left, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: I will take the final minute. We are coming back to this: One of the great concerns we have, obviously, and I am sure you share it, is the recession and what we are doing for the people who are suffering, who are beginning to be more and more out of work. In my area, the region that has been most affected, in fact before the recession set in, is Cornwall, and I am wondering whether you have looked at that area. What are your plans for eastern Ontario in particular? Can you be more specific on how you are fighting the recession and the layoffs in particular?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not have the breakdown of all of the $700-million anti-recession package with me, but I can tell you that one of the things -- I mentioned this yesterday -- that we tried to be very sensitive to was the level of unemployment in various communities across the province. There is no question that communities that had a higher level of unemployment, welfare case loads, were given a higher priority than those communities that did not. That was a tough job, because there are a lot of communities in the province hurting; Cornwall too. I appreciate that. So that was one of the things --

Mr Daigeler: Can you give us a breakdown by region of how this is being allocated?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think we can. As a matter of fact, so far I know that approximately 30% was in northern Ontario. I would have to get help on that, but I think there is a breakdown somewhere so far of the allocations. They are not all complete, but I think we can give you that as of today. As of today there has been $84 million in announcements made already under the program. We will try to get you that breakdown by region, because I think it is a fair question because we were worried about that.

Mrs Marland: When you announced the transfer payments on Monday, there was quite a glaring omission, that being the transfer payments to the conservation authorities. The conservation authorities are very concerned. They have been waiting with bated breath, shall I say, to see what the new government is going to do for them. They certainly had some cause for concern based on where their transfer payments have been in the last few years. They have a tremendously important role and responsibility in the province, as you are aware. Certainly in the region of Peel, the Credit Valley Conservation Authority, under the excellent direction of general manager Vicki Barron and an equally excellent board, has a tremendous amount of work to do that is actually mandated to it provincially, and that is the same with every conservation authority in the province.

With the responsibility, on the one hand, that the provincial government gives them to protect and preserve and make sure our watersheds continue to function, while dealing with new development in those water courses and preserving the adjacent properties from erosion and downstream damage from upstream development, etc, etc, the programs of the conservation authorities are very extensive and very important to all of us, and we would like to know why the transfer payments were not announced with the other transfer payments this week.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is my understanding that -- and I am just learning this -- the grants to the conservation authorities are part of the conditional grants announcements that go to the municipalities and that they were not announced. They are being worked on, because there is a lot of detail involved in those. That is part of the delay we have been going through. That is why. There is no other reason. Right? The same reason that the conditional grants to the municipalities were not announced applies to the conservation authorities, because they are part of that.

Mrs Marland: So when can they expect the announcement?

1040

Hon Mr Laughren: I think not before the budget.

Mrs Marland: When is that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hate saying this because -- by April, I hope. That is our goal, to bring the budget down in April. There has been no date set or anything like that.

Mrs Marland: Is that before you file your income tax return?

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, leave me alone.

Mr Stockwell: I just want to deal with a statement you made yesterday and trace it back to the election. It is a little more political, maybe personal.

You add the nuts and bolts of the budget itself. I would like to know whether you personally find it difficult now, considering that during the last election the then Premier, Mr Peterson, went on the campaign trail and said to you more of the same, etc, and your leader took Mr Peterson to task for not fulfilling all his campaign promises. I do not like using this word, but this is the word that was used: They called him a liar, which is very harsh and to the point.

The Chair: It is unparliamentary.

Mr Stockwell: I am not using that word. I am not calling anyone a liar. I am just repeating who said that. Having said that, your comments yesterday were very clear that you do not think or you are almost certain that you will probably not fulfil all your campaign promises this term. With all due respect, your leader did not say that in the election. There was a certain immediacy attached to the Agenda for People. Considering that your Premier called the previous Premier a liar for not fulfilling all the promises, how do you rationalize in your own mind not fulfilling your campaign promises this term?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sure you would be the first to beat us up, verbally of course, if we did fulfil all those promises at this point. I cannot imagine what your reaction would be if we said we were going to implement the Agenda for People in our first term.

Mr Stockwell: Probably very true.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are fearful of your reaction.

Mr Daigeler: Are you so scared?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are, we are. But I am not kidding when I say what the reaction would be if we said we were going to implement the Agenda for People. It would be very costly, and at this point in time we simply cannot do it. There is nothing strange or mysterious or dishonest about that. We have not gone back or reversed our position on any of the principles in the Agenda for People. I have not heard anybody in government go back on the principles involved that were outlined in the Agenda for People. If, on the other hand, we said, "Oh, that was just election rhetoric and we're not going to do any of those things, forget it," that would be inappropriate. But we have not revoked our belief in any of those. Many of the principles in that Agenda for People are principles which this party has stood for for many, many years and we are not about to reverse our position on those principles, but I think the people of Ontario understand very clearly that we cannot implement the program of Agenda for People in this term. I think there is a clear understanding of that. I do not think they want us to or expect us to.

Mr Stockwell: It is very interesting that when the previous government did it your leader accused them of being liars, yet when you do it you are responsible. It is kind of an interesting interpretation on what you have in the way of campaign promises.

There is a little bit -- more than a little bit, there has been a lot of talk about the future of this country and how we are going to continue on, and in exactly what capacity Canada will be in the future. I have some concern with respect to the federal debt and who is responsible for the federal debt, should that uneventful day come when we start splitting up the debt.

Mr Curling: Mulroney.

Mr Stockwell: Apparently. Well, frankly, I would be perfectly happy if he were responsible for the $380-billion debt, but I do not think he will be. We have somewhere around a 43% responsibility from a financial point of view in this province. Has anybody anywhere in -- it is PD day for the Treasury department.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is PD day for the Treasurer.

Mr Stockwell: For the Treasurer. Have these people here thought about what kind of debt responsibilities we would absorb should it come to that, and what kind of revenues we would get, or increase, become responsible for, and how that would reflect in revenues and debt? Because I have great concerns. It seems to me we are going to be around $180 billion to $200 billion in debt that we would have to absorb, and if that is going to come down the road in a year or two, I kind of would like to know if anyone has even examined whether or not we are capable of carrying that kind of debt load.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not like this kind of discussion, although it is totally legitimate -- I am not making a comment on your question, Mr Stockwell -- because it almost implies an acceptance of, or the inevitability of things happening which most of us very much hope will not. I remember a scientist telling me one time that when you observe some matter, it changes just by the act of observance. I get very nervous about trying to do an accounting of what will happen if Quebec separates, so I try and avoid the unpleasantness of that kind of examination.

I am not sure how helpful it would be to have a discussion about the accounting that would occur if that did happen. I do not want to get into a debate on what happens if Quebec separates, because I think there is that sense of assuming it will when we start engaging in that kind of debate and I do not want to make that assumption.

Mr Stockwell: Certainly I do not want it to happen either.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, no one was suggesting that.

Mr Stockwell: But I tend to be somewhat pragmatic about these things, and money tends to come down to a lot of important issues when you are dealing with these kinds of difficult problems. I could only ask that someone in your department could at least reflect on that and suggest what we would be looking at, because I think we are in for a very, very difficult financial period. I do not know if that is a reason to stay, if anyone would consider that a reason to hold or bind us together or not. Maybe it would be, but I think it would be difficult for the people in this province. I think we as a responsible government should be addressing things that I think are at least within reason, and that to me appears to be within reason today.

Hon Mr Laughren: To be fair, the Treasury is looking at the whole question of the cost of --

Mr Stockwell: Okay. I would be interested in seeing what the response is. That is basically it. The Fair Tax Commission I was pretty clear about yesterday, and we have a fundamental disagreement. That is life.

The Dome: The Dome has been on the back burners now for some four or five months. I still recall the throne speech and the comments from your Premier about fair and open and accessible government and I think there are some people who still believe him.

So I would ask you, the domed stadium is probably the most secretive of all information I have investigated, of all the information I have tried to extract from the bureaucrats, etc. Really, what I would like to know is, when is the Dome deal going to be tabled, the history, what the deal for the consortium members are? When can this be so public that I am allowed to review it and see what kind of decision or what kind of mess, maybe, the Liberals got us into, or the Conservatives before that? I am not sure.

Mr Curling: That's where the mess starts.

1050

Mr Stockwell: But the question needs to be asked. You are out there negotiating a new deal, or people who are representing you. You are out there negotiating a new deal. I do not know what the old deal says, so if you come back to me with a new deal, how do I know it is any better than the old deal? Because nobody has told me what the old deal is. So I would ask, (a) when do you think this will become public and (b) when will you at least give us some kind of interim report on whether or not we are going to have a new deal? Frankly, I do not think we are, but from the limited bit of information, I cannot give you a qualified judgement on it. Those are the questions on the Dome.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I do not see any problem with sending you a package of material which does explain the deal that was there. I cannot think of any reason for not doing that.

Mr Stockwell: I could not get it before, I will just say that. I phoned and asked for it.

Hon Mr Laughren: I cannot think of a reason. Mr Davies is closer to it than I.

Mr Stockwell: I find I get a little more information at these meetings than I do just making phone calls anyway, so that is good.

Hon Mr Laughren: We will try and put something together for you, because I am inclined to agree with you that it was a public deal, if you will, and there should be access to it.

On the negotiations, all I can tell you is that I am not personally doing the negotiating. We have appointed that negotiating team and I think you know who is on it. It is Bob White, Bruce Kidd, Paul Morton, who is chairman of the Stadium Corp of Ontario now, Richard Peddie and Ronald Fournier. Those are the members of the negotiating team and they are working away and doing negotiating. That is all I can tell you. I do not know whether we are going to come up with a satisfactory arrangement either, but I can tell you that the sooner we can do it, the happier we will be to get that whole deal behind us.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I appreciate the information that you could send me, and yes, I do know who is on the committee and it will be interesting to hear the report out. I guess my time is closing in.

The Chair: We have expanded to 20-minute segments.

Mr Stockwell: Just for us. Thanks so much.

The Chair: For everybody. You may lose it if you refer to it that way.

Mr Stockwell: Personally, I kind of get the impression that your government is dragging its feet on this one because it does not want to be known as "Buyout Bob." You know, you have a lot of background on corporate buyouts and government involvement and you have kind of sold out, I suppose, when it came to Consumers' Gas.

You took an about-face on a couple of issues. Varity was the hold-the-door-open-and-let-them-go while they passed you $50 million on the way by, so there is a certain degree of uncertainty as to what your party's policy is with respect to government takeovers or assistance.

It is now getting down to the short strokes and I still see some muddling, some different ideas being floated by your government, your Labour minister. I think they are saying one thing and your Premier is just basically not saying anything, which is really unusual because he has never been at a loss for words on any issue, except since he became Premier.

My question is, where are you on Algoma? When will you have a response? When will you let the people of the Sault know what the heck you are doing? You seem to be wallowing around on this one quite badly.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is one of those issues that causes a lot of anguish. As you know, I think, Algoma has a debt of about $800 million and Dofasco has said it is writing it off. They have a particular cash squeeze now and they are looking for money. As a matter of fact, it was in the Financial Post this morning, a story about Algoma looking for $60 million to help it over a short-term cash squeeze, a temporary cash squeeze they call it, and they are looking for money, things like loan guarantees, because they are in the process of selling a coal property in the United States for about $100 million. That is the public number they are using, which I assume is correct. And they are looking for help from the federal and provincial governments.

As for the federal government, Mr Bouchard has announced that it is going to make a decision soon, which I think is this week. I cannot speak for Mr Bouchard, but I think he said they wanted to make a decision soon on it.

I think you are correct when you talk about not wanting to be seen as bailing out companies, because where does that end? So we feel that there is an obligation on the part of Dofasco and the banks to help in this process and to help in the restructuring of Algoma, not just a temporary measure that keeps Algoma afloat but one that helps it restructure so that it, I think, inevitably will be a leaner organization and a smaller, downsized organization.

So that is where we are now. The negotiations go on and we are trying very hard to get the banks to play a larger role in the restructuring of Algoma.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you. Basically there is really nothing more to add at this point in time.

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Stockwell: It seems incredible. I firmly believe that if you were in opposition at this time, your leader would be in the Sault probably organizing marches to have the government buy this operation out.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is the role of the opposition.

Mr Stockwell: Is it? My goodness. I cannot believe that.

Hon Mr Laughren: I expect you to keep the heat on.

Mr Stockwell: What a role reversal.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is called honourable opposition.

Mr Stockwell: Honourable opposition. Okay, then we will try to be honourable.

Hon Mr Laughren: Loyal opposition.

Mr Stockwell: The other question is on the $700-million capital works program that you boost to $1 billion with local municipal taxes.

Hon Mr Laughren: If they wish to.

Mr Stockwell: If they wish. Of course if they are going to participate, then they have to kick in their share. I think I understand that.

I talked to a few municipalities, at least within the Metro region. Now your Treasury department is talking about spinning out of this recession by the second half of 1991, potentially the fourth quarter as worst-case scenario. I am not so sure how much stock you can put in Treasury numbers, but pretty much everybody has in fact suggested that. I am not suggesting that they are incompetent. I am saying one party. There is a whole series of parties who are saying the same thing.

The capital works project: I talked to local municipalities and they are putting these numbers into the capital works program. I spent eight years on local council so I understand pretty well how those capital works programs work. You get them approved in February and March. You have to go to the Ontario Municipal Board and get them approved, so you will not get them on stream until April or May, just to go to engineering, architecture, etc. So that is going to take probably the summer.

Most of the people I talked to in local government, which includes the chief administrative officers, etc, do not believe that any of these programs or projects are going to hit the works, are going to be involved in actually hiring people to construct these projects at least until the end of 1991, if not early 1992.

Now, can you give me some actual data or actual jobs that are going to take place previous to September 1991 -- I mean physical construction take place? The only thing that is going to be helped out, I think, under your program will be engineers and architects because they are the only ones who are going to be working on these projects previous to autumn. Can you tell me what makes this project so different that it can speed up the capital works programs of municipal governments, because I do not know anyone who has a capital works program in year 1991 approved and construction that takes place in the same year. Very, very difficult. I have not seen it too often.

Hon Mr Laughren: I wonder if you would allow me to ask Mr Christopherson, who serves on the operations committee that is allocating the programs. Could you speak to that?

Mr Christopherson: Certainly. Thank you.

One of the criteria for approval in the program is that the projects have to be ready to go, that there does not need to be any OMB approval, that there needs to be no permit approvals that would hold up the project. In fact, a number of projects could not be considered that were very exciting and fit every other criteria because indeed they would not be done in the time frame that we have targeted. So your point is correct if we were looking at new projects, but these are projects that are on the shelf, that would ordinarily be done in the course of time but that we are accelerating for the purposes of the goal of the antirecession package.

1100

Mr Stockwell: Can you give me an example?

The Chair: I am afraid your time is up, but if the Chair may be permitted a minor moment -- Mr Hansen is just recognized next -- Treasurer and Mr Christopherson, yesterday before this committee on estimates a question was asked of the Minister of Community and Social Services with respect to what percentage allocation her ministry would garner from the total package, and she informed this committee that that decision had not yet been made. Perhaps on behalf of the committee it could be asked when you will determine the allocation by ministry, or if you have a plan to have a schedule of allocations by ministry. I am just asking that on behalf of the committee since it was raised from our previous estimates, and it was referenced that it should be put to the Treasurer, as I recall.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. Really, that is my question. Give me an example.

Mr Christopherson: Well, I do not think it is appropriate for me to give an example of a specific project since those decisions have not been finalized and gone through cabinet and ready for public release.

Interjection.

Mr Christopherson: No, I think that is fair, because as I understand cabinet procedure --

Mr Stockwell: No. I did not know that it did that. I thought that was the process.

Mr Christopherson: The other thing is that it is my understanding and expectation that at the time the program is announced, there will also be announcements by ministry. So the breakdowns will be available at the time that all the public announcements are made, and I expect that very soon.

Mr Hansen: I see it is Valentine's Day today. I wind up at a point that I look at my own family, and when I came back from Christmas, I had my Chargex card, and it wants 22.5%. And if I did not have enough money in my family to pay all the bills, I would have wound up going back and maybe borrowing money from the credit union at a lot lower interest rate. I think this is exactly what this government has done, if that is not the reason for the Dome, etc; that this money was refinanced in a different area. I think we look at this as consolidating debts, so we know where we are at, paying a lower interest rate, if I am right.

I do not call my wife a financial wizard, but she looks after most of the bills. And I did not mean that you are a financial wizard, but I think that you have come up with that and we have to take a look sometimes and take a look at the figures. They always take the zeros off the end, so $1 million is only "1" and then an "M" after it. It comes down to the same thing.

There is a question I have. I believe in 1980 or 1981 the former government brought out a program of reducing or taking off the sales tax on certain sectors, with the auto or furniture, to stimulate the economy here in Ontario. Not knowing all the results, just as the consumers at that time, I purchased furniture. I purchased a new vehicle. I took advantage of that, which actually spurred the economy.

And we take a look at Algoma in Sault Ste Marie, which at one time -- and I do not know exactly yet if they make a plate for auto bodies. We have to take a look at getting the economy going, kickstarting it. If we had a period of time -- and we are talking about these grants coming in now -- if we had something else kickstarting it also.

There is another concern also. There are three of us sitting here I know who are near border towns, and that 8% that is not being collected at the border is hurting the merchants in our particular area. If we did come in with some program like this, it would give an advantage to the border communities at this time if they were buying in Ontario. Can you make any comments on it, if there are any plans to kickstart the economy as it is right now in this area?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sure Frank Miller would be happy to hear your comments because he brought in that program of selected retail sales tax cuts. No, there are no plans. On the other hand, I hasten to add that that would be a budgetary measure which you are referring to and we are just starting that process now. We wanted to get the major transfers. Now it is behind us and now we are starting to get serious about planning for the budget and any kind of tax measures that we might take. I cannot give you an answer, not because of budget secrecy or anything like that. Simply, we just have not started that process yet.

I appreciate your comments on the cross-border shopping. Every time I go to a caucus meeting on Tuesday evenings, I get beaten up about cross-border shopping. We have looked at that problem, and we are working with the Ministry of Revenue and hoping the federal government will tighten up its collection at the border, to start with. I would be happy if it would also collect the 8%. People are supposed to pay the 8%. It is like an honour system. While Ontario citizens are honourable indeed, they sometimes forget to send in their 8% on the purchases.

It is a concern in the border communities, there is no question about that. But it is very complicated in trying to resolve that. I am not sure how to do it. If members of this committee have some advice, quite seriously, I would like to hear it. To set up a parallel tax collection agency at all the border crossings -- I think there are 14 in the province -- would cost us a lot more than we would ever collect, so that would not make sense. On the other hand, if we could talk the federal government into collecting the 8% when it collects its tax, it would be helpful. But why would it do that? It is one of those issues that bedevils us, but if committee members have some advice, I would sure listen to it.

Ms Haeck: My worthy colleague from the other part of St Catharines raised some rather interesting points yesterday. One of them that has always been interesting to me is to hear about how the budget is put together, that there are various groups that come to you and consult with you about how the budget should be framed and what the final figure should be. From your comments, I take it that in reality you try to see as many people as possible, but I think this would be an opportunity to reconfirm to everybody how consultative you have tried to be in this particular event.

Hon Mr Laughren: We are trying, but to be fair, previous governments went through that process as well. We are trying to see as many as we can, and I also see the Fair Tax Commission as being a major part of that whole consultative process. I look at the American model, not of government so much but its budget-making, which seems to be much more open, with all parties involved, compared to our system here. I do not know how to do that. This year there simply was not time to change the budget-making process very much. I have always wondered about the necessity for so much secrecy around the budget. You have to be careful on some things, where somebody could take advantage of a tax measure and so forth, but generally I have never understood why there is so much secrecy.

The other thing is wrestling with the role of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs: What is a more meaningful role for that committee to play? I have said that to the committee when I have gone before it, because traditionally I am not sure it was that meaningful a role. I do not say it in a mean way; I just think it was not that meaningful.

I do not have the answer at this point, but I would like to find a way to make that committee more meaningful, perhaps put questions to the committee, for example, to say to the standing committee: "You know we have a problem with revenues and expenditures. What is your advice to us on any tax measures you propose for revenue purposes, or tax cuts, or what expenditure cuts should be made, or what new expenditures should be launched?"

I am not trying to abandon responsibility of government or Treasury in this regard, but simply to get more advice from members of the Legislature, from all parties. In the end, responsibility of government and cabinet is to act, but I do not think there has been enough advice sought from the standing committee over the years, and I would like to see that changed.

1110

Ms Haeck: In that process of receiving advice, do you use that in prioritizing, say, where moneys are transferred? Obviously, there has been some concern within the opposition about, say, the amount of transfer payments received by some areas. Mr Daigeler talked about colleges and universities; somebody else may raise the issue about health. Is that consultative process used for setting priority?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hate to use the phrase, but in the world of politics there is that old expression that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and you do not like to fall into that trap. At the same time, when members of the Legislature bring matters to your attention that are really important and make their case well, of course you have to and I think should consider that.

The Chair: That occurs in cabinet.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, that certainly occurs around the cabinet table as well. So yes, it does make a difference. When I was in opposition, I never felt it did, but I really think it does.

By the way, if I might digress a moment, Bob Welch Sr said to say hello to you. I saw him this morning.

Ms Haeck: Thank you very much.

Mr Hansen: As the minister is only here for a short time, we will relinquish our additional questioning time and hand it back to the opposition.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thanks a lot.

Mr Hansen: Jim Bradley had 27 questions yesterday. I do not know how many he has today.

The Chair: The Chair appreciates that direction. I would like to recognize Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Before I launch into my questions, a matter of procedure: I am not trying to be miserable this morning; it may look that way. I do not believe estimates should be done with a parliamentary assistant. I understand the minister has other obligations. I think the committee should meet those obligations or accommodate them. I am quite willing to do that, but I am not willing to participate in estimates with a parliamentary assistant. That is a departure. I have never seen it done before. I understand that in bills it is done that way, I understand that in the House it is done that way, but I certainly do not think a parliamentary assistant should be answering the questions for Treasury. I am willing to accommodate the schedule of the Treasurer in any way possible. I do not want him to have to cancel something to be here.

The Chair: The Chair would like to apprise the committee that it has been done before. Mr Bradley has shared his discomfort at the process, but I must assure the committee that it is a process which has occurred. I know personally that the Treasurer has difficulty responding to questions when the person who asks the questions may not be able to be in attendance at that time as well, so it does work both ways for all parties. The Treasurer did advise --

Mr Bradley: Except that when you are a cabinet minister you are paid to do that.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr Bradley. Certainly in the previous six years we have seen occasions when members of a previous cabinet had to act in a similar fashion, and the Chair and the committees have always been flexible and respectful of that. Would you wish to proceed with questioning or do you have another procedural comment?

Mr Bradley: I will proceed with my questioning.

The Chair: Thank you. Then proceed.

Mr Bradley: The first is on the issue of free trade and what you are going to do about free trade. The gentleman who is now the Premier of the province indicated that he would put the blocks, in any way he could, to free trade between Canada and the United States, that he would not implement anything under the jurisdiction of Ontario, and gave an indication, certainly previous to assuming his present office and perhaps even a few days after, that he was going to block free trade, that is, American-Canadian free trade. I want to know what you are not implementing and how you are blocking the implementation of the free trade agreement.

The second thing I would like to deal with is the issue of the Mexican free trade. Once again, the Premier has indicated he is strongly opposed to it. He was the person who called the last Premier a liar because he did not fulfil, he said, the promise to block free trade. He ridiculed this circumstance. What are you and your government doing to block free trade with Mexico as well?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a federal trade agreement --

Mr Bradley: Oh, yes, federal. Funny that you did not say that before.

Mr Daigeler: Even Floyd is smiling. It must be tough to say that.

Hon Mr Laughren: We have announced as clearly as we can that we are opposed to the North American free trade agreement. Having seen what we have seen already with the Canada-US free trade agreement, we are very worried about bringing Mexico into it as well. While I would not put all the blame of our recession on the free trade agreement -- I think that would be simplistic -- I do think that the restructuring that is going on, with companies leaving and so forth, can be partly attributable to the free trade agreement, and that will continue if we bring Mexico into it as well. I am concerned about it and we have said very clearly that we do not want the federal government to negotiate this agreement.

One body of opinion is that we should be at the table simply to protect our interests as a province. I do not think we would be invited anyway, but I do not think that would be appropriate even if we were, so we are doing what we can to convince the federal government that there should not be a North American free trade agreement.

We know that there are some external studies going on concerning the North American free trade agreement. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is more involved with this than we are. I know there is a proposed study being co-ordinated by the Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto and that Industry, Trade and Technology is also doing a study -- I think they are finalizing it now -- a survey of labour and business attitudes on the North American free trade agreement.

It is hard on that one, because there are no terms we can study. There is nothing at this point that we can comment on with any kind of detail, because there are no terms that are available. No one has any illusions about where we stand on the Canada-US free trade agreement. We took a position in fierce opposition to it and your government took a position of some opposition to it, so it is a matter of degree, I guess.

Mr Bradley: I interpret the answer as being that you are not doing anything to block the implementation. All the rhetoric of your Premier is exactly that, rhetoric, and you are not going to do anything to block it.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, that is not fair. You are being terribly partisan. If you are talking about the North American free trade agreement -- because you are talking both. I do not know if you are switching back --

Mr Bradley: I am talking about the US one. You are not doing anything to block the implementation.

Hon Mr Laughren: If there is anything more we can do, we would sure like to know. We would seek your advice on that, Mr Bradley, because we still believe it is not in either the country's or the province's best interest. We feel very strongly about that.

Mr Bradley: I will interpret the answer as I see fit, and I have interpreted it in the way I have indicated to you, that you are not doing anything to block it, that there was rhetoric on the part of the Premier. That is my interpretation. I understand yours may be different.

I want to go to the NDP tax commission for a moment. To go back to that --

Hon Mr Laughren: It is not the NDP tax commission. It is the Fair Tax Commission.

Mr Bradley: How can you expect to get a fair result from the NDP tax commission if it is so stacked in favour of people who philosophically think the way you do and belong to your party or are supporters of your party? If you really wanted a commission out there to -- you would have a better cross-section, I suggest to you, of the province of Ontario. If you do not, that is fine. When you win, you have the right to implement. I do not deny that, and I think you have every right to implement whatever you want.

My criticism of the Fair Tax Commission, as it is with the government agencies committee, is that you give the appearance of doing something different from what people have done in the past. This commission, if it is stacked with people -- I am not saying they all have that point of view; they do not. You have put your token people with the other points of view on it, but if generally the majority think the way you do and your party does about the tax system in Ontario, how are you going to come up with a fair tax result?

1120

Hon Mr Laughren: First, I would like to know your interpretation of a stacked committee. What numbers would make you feel more comfortable?

Mr Bradley: I just think that if you had, first of all, a geographic cross-section of the province, it would be useful. Eight of the 10 members either work or live in Toronto. As your leader said some time after meeting with Metropolitan Toronto, he said something about, "There's a world outside of Metropolitan Toronto." That is not to denigrate people just because they live there; do not get me wrong. But I think there is a danger, that all governments can run into, of becoming very Toronto-oriented.

Hon Mr Laughren: I agree.

Mr Bradley: You can call it the province of Toronto instead of the province of Ontario. I am concerned about that aspect of it. Second, from the people we have interviewed in the committee so far, there is a pretty strong socialist strain in that particular group. I am wondering how you can expect to get all points of view equally put forward if you are going to have that strain of socialists. I do not say "socialists" in a negative way.

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, no.

Mr Bradley: It is a legitimate party. You have been a socialist for years and I have admired some of the things you have done.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, you are making an assumption that the commissioners are going to bring to us their ideas on the tax system. The tax commission is going to be structured in a way -- I want them to make the announcement of exactly how they want to break down the commission and the kinds of groups they will have working on various issues, because they have some ideas of their own in that regard and I want them to do that. But I can tell you that there is going to be an enormous amount of consultation and working with the various sectors out there, so it is not simply a case of -- even if they were all New Democrats on the tax commission. I would be surprised if half are, but I do not know that, I have not been at the committee and I have never asked the question.

Mr Bradley: I have.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sure you have. You are much more partisan than I am.

It is not going to be their views that come up to Treasury; it is going to be the ideas of the commission as a whole as it worked across the province and got views from the various sectors out there. When the whole thing is seen to be at work I think you will be pleasantly surprised about how consultative it is, and how it is not a stacked commission. I know you think it is. I think you genuinely believe that; I do not think you are posturing for one minute. I think you really believe it is a stacked commission, but I tell you it is not a stacked commission. We worked very hard to make sure it was not. I think you will see that as they do their work across the province and as they engage in a process, I would be willing to bet they will be more consultative than any tax commission has ever been in this country. I have no hesitation in saying that.

Mr Bradley: I am glad to see you are an optimist these days rather than a pessimist.

Looking at tuition fees, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Colleges and Universities is here. She no doubt would agree with my --

Ms Haeck: Thank you, do not put words in my mouth.

Mr Bradley: Although I should not put words in her mouth, she would no doubt agree with me that the NDP has talked about abolishing tuition, having free education from cradle to grave or somewhere close to that. We now see with their transfer payments this year that there is going to be an 8% increase in tuition fees. How do you square that with your philosophy of free education for almost a lifetime?

Hon Mr Laughren: Philosophically, I have no hesitation in saying that I have always felt that, just as years ago we removed barriers to secondary education, it would be nice to remove the financial barriers to post-secondary. It seems to me that society has evolved to a point where that is where it is at. At the same time, I know the cost of running the post-secondary system is high and that what we ask the students and their families to bear is about -- I could be out on my percentages -- 17% or 18% of the cost of education. I think it is below 20% of the cost of a post-secondary education, and in some cases I would think it is less than that, in some of the professional schools. I do not have those numbers in my head, but I suspect it is less. I think it is a case of walking that line of the proportion that students and their families pay and that society as a whole pays.

I have always felt that the progressive tax system is the answer to post-secondary education, not tuition, because everybody out there benefits from an educated workforce, whether they have been through the post-secondary system themselves or not. There are lots of people out there who have done very well in Ontario, but who themselves do not have a post-secondary education and that is the way it should be.

That is why I lean towards that kind of system, but I think there are people who will make the argument on the other side, that the people who go to university generally tend to be people, a lot of them at least, whose families can afford to pay tuition as long as we have in place a system of assistance, the OSAP student awards program, that is strong enough to help those people who do not have the financial wherewithal to pay their way without an enormous amount of hardship.

I think that as long as we have a good OSAP system in place, which probably needs reforming quite frankly, and I think we need to give the minister a little bit of time to do that, I do not fret too much about the fact that there are still tuition fees that pay for less than 20% of the costs.

Mr Bradley: And if those fees continue to increase?

Hon Mr Laughren: They have not continued to increase as a percentage of the cost of a student's education, to be fair.

Mr Bradley: The other issue in education is that your party said it was going to pay 60% of the cost of education in the province of Ontario for boards of education, no matter what the cost was. I never heard you or your party ever put any qualifications on it. All I heard was 60% of the cost of education. So when my local Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation representative asked about this, saying that the NDP was prepared to do this, I guess that representative believed that you were actually going to do that. Could you tell me what your latest definition is, now that you are in power, of 60% of the cost of education.

Mrs Marland: The Liberals said that too, did they not, in 1987?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a moving target.

Mr Bradley: I have heard that answer before.

Hon Mr Laughren: At the local level -- I am trying to remember the answers that came across from the other side --

Mr Bradley: That is right.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- when we asked the questions of the former government, which also made that promise, as I recall.

Mr Bradley: Yes.

Mrs Marland: And did not keep it, as I recall.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is right, they did not, and I remember that --

Mr Bradley: But you are different, you see.

Hon Mr Laughren: I remember --

Mr Bradley: The whole point is that you people have --

Interjections.

The Chair: The Chair cannot handle all this additional help at once. Could we please let the Treasurer let us know his version.

Hon Mr Laughren: I certainly do not regard that as a mischievous question, Mr Bradley, for the simple reason that you made the same promise yourself, so I know it has caused you some anguish to even ask it, but it is a fair question.

Mr Bradley: That is right. You see, I look upon you as having a halo. That is what I heard on the government network, that you have a halo.

Hon Mr Laughren: Really? Not me.

Mrs Marland: It is the reflection from his silver hair.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is getting worse.

Mr Mammoliti: It is better than having horns.

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no question that I could not tell you what the cost of going to 60% would be, but it is in the billions, and I feel the same way about education as I do about post-secondary, that most of it should come from the broader tax system. I do not think that we are going to do it in the next couple of years. That is obvious, I think, because of the problem.

Mr Curling: You need two terms.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes. I never thought of that actually. The people had better elect us --

The Chair: The Treasurer may treat that as an offer.

Hon Mr Laughren: The people had better elect us for more than one term if they want to see that -- no, I had better not say that.

Mr Bradley: It will be in the paper.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, that is right. But I do not know when we will be able to do that. I think you appreciate the fact that we certainly cannot do it, given the economic times in which we find ourselves.

The Chair: Mr Bradley, to help you, you have about five minutes left and Mr Curling had a brief question.

Mr Bradley: Thank you.

1130

Mr Curling: Minister, through the Chair, if there is anyone in the NDP caucus or government, or any minister whom I have a great respect for, it is you, sir.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not want to hear this question.

Mr Curling: We have sat together in committees and you have chaired committees and I tell you that you have handled it exceptionally well and fairly. When the people's agenda, that is, the Agenda for People, came out and I saw the words "principles" and "realities" -- or the budget came out; well, the throne speech where it appeared -- I thought you had a hand in that, with those two words, "principles" and "realities." Then I gathered too that it seemed to me realities took over principles and principles seem to have gone out the door themselves, with the reality you cannot honour some of the things you have done. In general, in a percentage way, do you feel that the realities now have completely wiped out the principles? It is right, as Mr Stockwell said, that because of some of the statements that were made by the previous Premier, he was called a liar. Do you think some of your realities will come up to the fact that we will almost say the same conclusion, that you may not honour 75% or 80% of your agenda?

Hon Mr Laughren: Let me assure you, Mr Curling, that reality has not wiped out a single principle contained in the Agenda for People -- not one. What reality has done, however, is make us realize that we cannot implement that Agenda for People as we thought we could or when we thought we could. There is no question about that. To pretend otherwise would be simply foolish. I am sure you appreciate the fact that we, and I, regret that very much, because there is nothing in there that we would not like to do and do not intend to do when we can. But it is not fair to say that reality has wiped out those principles. That is not fair, because we still stand by the principles that are contained in the Agenda for People.

Mr Curling: I want to put a specific question here now. You said that in a budget presentation or so there should never be any secrecy or -- I mean, there should be some to protect us from the economic realities that could happen. During the last couple of months, listening to the landlords and tenants and listening to some of the groups that have come before us, some of your ministers and members and even your Premier had stated that it is the intention somehow that for those landlords who are in trouble, quite possibly you could buy out some of those landlords who have difficulty.

The question I want to ask is twofold: Do you see the private sector playing a role in housing, especially in the rental market? Do you see the private sector playing a role here? The second part is, is it your intention to buy out all these landlords whom you perceive to be in difficulty and increase your stock? As a matter of fact you are now the largest or the second-largest landlord in North America. Do you intend to increase your stock by buying out the private sector?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we certainly do see a major role for the private sector in rental accommodation. I do not think the government wants to squeeze out the private sector. I think that would not be appropriate. Our goal is not to impose some kind of rent control system that makes buyouts attractive. That is not the goal of the government. The goal of the government is to put in place a rent control system that is fair to tenants, that is designed in such a way that it also encourages investment by developers in the rental accommodation sector. We feel very strongly about that.

I know, from having travelled the province with you on rent control legislation on a committee, that you have a feel for this that a lot of people do not, and I suspect -- if I recall some of your comments in the committee -- that you share my view that tenants do need to be protected in the market, particularly when there is a supply problem.

I hear the argument sometimes that the reason there is a supply problem is because there are rent controls. I have often heard that argument. But I would remind you that there was a supply problem which caused rent controls to be brought in in the first place back in 1975, I guess it was. So that argument, to me, does not hold too much water. But it is important that any kind of rent control system is not so punitive or draconian that it discourages investment in the rental accommodation sector. I feel strongly about that and I know the Minister of Housing does as well.

I do not know whether this committee is hearing from the Ministry of Housing or not.

The Chair: Unfortunately not.

Hon Mr Laughren: I was going to urge you to save some more specific questions on rent control for that ministry because it would be more appropriate. But anyway, that is how I feel about rental accommodation and rent control.

Mr Curling: Thanks.

The Chair: Treasurer, it was raised at length with the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the Social Assistance Review Committee recommendations, which found some difficulty with rent control legislation and its attention to poor tenants in the province. There was a discussion with the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mrs Marland: Treasurer, yesterday afternoon in response to my colleague Mr Stockwell, who is the Treasury spokesperson for our caucus --

Hon Mr Laughren: I know.

Mrs Marland: I want to give him his full title in Hansard because he works very hard and very conscientiously in that role and is very capable.

In response you said that you would not flat-line the budget and I can understand your response. I understand where you are coming from on that. When government is faced with the kinds of situations your government is now because of external forces over which you have no control, I am wondering what assurances you can give us that you will prioritize in terms of human need first. I can give you some examples that I found particularly appalling in the last three years of government in Ontario where we had new programs introduced, very expensive programs, I might add.

Perhaps one example might be where class size was reduced for grades 1 and 2 across this province while over half the population in the two school boards in the region of Peel -- I do not have the percentages for other school boards, but certainly the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board in the region of Peel -- is now in some form of temporary accommodation.

In Mississauga South, we have an older elementary school in the separate school board, St James School. If you were to tour that school, and I will be extending an invitation to you and to the Minister of Education, as I did to the former Minister of Education and Treasurer -- excuse me, they never did extend the courtesy to those parents who wrote hundreds of personal letters. They did not just sign petitions; they handwrote the personal letters and the children handwrote personal letters. I am quite confident that at least, I think, you will be willing to come and visit that school and I am optimistic that the Minister of Education might as well.

1140

If you were to see this school and the conditions under which the teachers have to operate and the students have to attend their daily classes, this school looks more like something that would be a temporary school in a summer camp in northern Ontario where children would come in the summer to go to school and it was not the permanent school. I feel, if we are going to recognize that Queen's Park is not a money tree, and I think in fairness all of us do -- we recognize the nonexistent money tree here and the whole financial structure down here is as much our money as yours, and if it is not there or it is needed it still can only come from you and ourselves and our other taxpayers.

I think what the taxpayers are saying in Ontario today is, "We know you can't be all things to all people." I think that is where the former government failed in not being able to set priorities in terms of human need. When I listen to some of the examples, as a matter of fact, that all three parties gave earlier this week to the Minister of Community and Social Services about tremendous needs in that area, we can all add the human face to those needs in Community and Social Services because every one of us in our constituency offices and our offices down here at Queen's Park receives those calls on a daily basis.

Whether we are talking about the unemployed father of three or the single mother who has just lost her job or, as an example, of Gregory, which I gave yesterday, who is a 10-year-old young boy in my constituency who does not walk or speak, is in diapers and cannot even feed himself, and for two years has been identified as needing a residential setting outside his home -- this is worth repeating to you, because I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services listened yesterday and she said while it depends how much money she gets, she will do as much as she can for every single child.

I just want to tell you of this example because in this case we have a family which has never asked the government for anything and they have looked after this child for 10 years. Finally, because the child is 10 and is obviously larger and heavier, he is getting beyond the family's ability to meet his physical needs. Yet although he was identified two years ago and the ministry under that government acknowledged he should be in a residential setting outside of his home, he is still in his home today.

For those of us who have ever had to make the emotional decision of having to admit that we cannot care for someone we love -- looking around this room this morning, it may not be the experience of many of the members where they reach the point where they can no longer look after an aging parent -- but I want to tell you, when you reach that stage where you are finally reaching out to government and saying, "I can no longer look after that person in my home, who not only brought me into the world but looked after me through all my childhood," it does not take much imagination to understand just how traumatic that decision is, or when you go for help to government and say, "I can no longer look after my 10-year-old Gregory," you go through tremendous guilt --

The Chair: Mrs Marland, I do not mean to be impertinent, but I do feel I should tell you that you have 15 minutes left and Mr Stockwell does have a question. He has asked to be recognized as well. I apologize for interrupting you, but I wanted to let you know that there were additional questions for your time.

Mrs Marland: Mr Stockwell asked me to ask my question, Mr Chairman, and I am simply doing that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mrs Marland: As a parent, you go through tremendous guilt in reaching the decision that you can no longer care for that child. In this example -- and this is only one of hundreds of families, and I know Community Living Mississauga alone has about 48 families that are in this position -- I simply ask you: Can you guarantee the people of Ontario and people like the examples I have given you, both in tremendous need in an educational environment and in tremendous need in special care areas, that you will set their priorities first, that you will make them a priority for whatever funding you have? Surely we cannot afford to spend money on programs for normal kids, for example, reducing class size where those kids will survive anyway, and ignore the needs of special children with special needs in this province in 1991?

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Chairman, nobody puts these cases in a more compelling way than Mrs Marland, and I share her concern about it and also her sense of priority. I have often, in my own head and in talking to my friends or the family, used the expression that we have built a society for "the young and the swift," physically and mentally, and that the young and the swift will survive, almost the way you have described it as well. But those who are not "young or swift," the people who are not so young and swift are the ones that struggle so much, and very often, we help people who will get by without the help. Particularly that is in spades when we are dealing with very scarce resources, which we are now. So I can tell you without hesitation, you are talking to the converted here, and I agree with you.

Now, obviously I do not make all of those decisions that need to be made in allocating those kinds of resources within the Ministry of Community and Social Services either. I am not trying to shift the blame. I am just saying that that I have a responsibility to make sure that the Ministry of Community and Social Services -- I used to have partial responsibility -- I am trying to make sure that other people have ownership of these problems too, not just the Treasurer and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. But I have no hesitation in agreeing with the premise of your remarks.

Mr Stockwell: Just a few quick ones off the top: The Water and Sewer Corp, are you going to abolish that policy? What are you going to do with it?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am not sure. We have got a high-level person looking at that whole thing to see what we should do about it.

Mr Stockwell: John Kruger?

Hon Mr Laughren: No. The former Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr Pitura, is looking at that whole thing, so we are awaiting a response.

Mr Stockwell: This year?

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, yes.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, yes? Okay.

What is the deadline for the report back from the Dome, the date?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am glad you mentioned that. The people in Treasury phoned Mr White, who is not available today. They then tried to get hold of Paul Morton, who is chairman of Stadco. They have not connected yet so -- just to see if they are available. Anyway, what I said to the negotiating team was -- I know this may not satisfy you, but as soon as possible. We would very much like to get that settled.

Mr Stockwell: Months? Weeks?

Hon Mr Laughren: If it does not happen in weeks when I want it to, then I suppose I will be on the record as not having achieved my goals. But I think you have to give them a couple of months to sort it out, because it is a very complex thing.

1150

Mr Stockwell: No, I agree with you. It is complex. I remember voting on it in Metro council. It was even complex when it was $150 million. I can imagine how complex it is when it is $500 million.

The next one was transfer payments, health care specifically. Some have suggested you did not fulfil An Agenda for People and you are no longer socialists with your transfer payments. Obviously you spent just too much to be Conservatives. There is a suggestion we have badly dressed Liberals running the government now. But I did not say that -- well, I guess I did. Do not take it like that.

My question is health care. The Liberals have proved one thing in their five years. They have proved that simply throwing money at problems does not necessarily solve them. I think the health care budget was nearly doubled in the five years, and I do not think anyone in this province will tell you that the health care system today is better -- and it may be worse -- than it was five years ago. Clearly, throwing money at problems has not been an answer. Other than your announcement of 9.5% to health care, I have not seen anything of any major consequence with respect to the health care system. What are we looking forward to? Is it just more of the same?

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, there is not as much more of the same to throw at the system to start with. I would caution you, however, Mr Stockwell, that Ontario has a population that demographically is aging, and that imposes particular strains on the health care system. I know that you do not need to hear this from me. Ask your colleague Mr Eves, who is very concerned about the lack of medical services from time to time. You might want to check with him before you call for any reduction in transfers to the health care system.

But there is no question -- I agree with part of the way you have worded it -- that just throwing money at any problem is unlikely to be the answer. What I have felt for some time, and this is not creative thinking on my part, is that moving to a community-based, preventive health care system will be in the end a cheaper system, but getting there is not, and how do you get to that community-based, preventive system from where we are now? I think it is not cheap getting there, even though I have this belief that once we got there we would all be better served, including the taxpayers of the province. But I do not kid myself that getting there is any way to save money.

I should add that the Premier has a council, which I am sure you are familiar with, the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice. I think those words were carefully chosen. We are hoping it will help us down the road to restructure the health care system in a way that will give us a better health care system and at the same time not bankrupt the province -- I should not use those words -- but not put an undue strain on the tax system, which, you know, is heavy as it is.

Mr Stockwell: With all due respect, Treasurer, I have heard that for a long time. Even the Liberals mouthed that typical response.

Hon Mr Laughren: What do you mean "even" the Liberals?

Mr Stockwell: Because they did throw the money. They were there five years and really not a lot changed.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I thought when the Conservatives were in power we had a better health care system, with all due respect, and I think mostly everyone would have agreed it was a better health care system. I understand that you have praised it and couched your words and so on --

Mr Mammoliti: Even though you are still making people sick?

Mr Stockwell: I did not hear that comment, so I cannot respond. It is too bad too. I would like to.

But the fact is I have not seen the initiative and I would really like to see some initiative come forward, particularly in health care because, again, it was one of the bases for your election.

The next one is taxes. Personally, I do not believe any tax should be looked at. You are looking at, as you phrased it, "selective" tax hikes. I do not know what that specifically means: "selective" is a word like "fair." It is interesting that your interpretation of selective and fair is completely different than mine.

But you are still on record in the past as going on rants about employer health tax and the commercial concentration tax. Your party was opposed to both of those particular implemented taxes. Now that you are in power you have the perfect opportunity to revoke those taxes, particularly -- well, not just particularly; they are both bad -- but one that really frustrates me is the commercial concentration tax.

It is a tax that is simply discriminatory. It is just a tax based on the GTA for no reason other than the fact that, "You people appear to be reasonably well managed and have reasonable success, so we want your share of municipal taxes from a provincial level." You know, as municipal representatives, we were always told that we were creatures of the province or children of the province when it came to taxes.

What it is tantamount to when you approve the commercial concentration tax -- the Liberals approved it and you are allowing it to continue -- is that you sneak into your child's bedroom and break his piggy bank and steal his money. Every year you are stealing money from the municipal tax base that is restrained at best, regressive to the tune of a hundred --

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, this is really unparliamentary. I mean, come on.

Mr Stockwell: What is unparliamentary about it?

Mr Perruzza: Oh, come on. Stealing, lying, cheating?

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, do you have any further telephone calls you have to make?

Mr Stockwell: What stealing, lying, and cheating? Obviously you are a little concerned here. I think --

The Chair: Mr Perruzza, do you have any other phone calls you have to make?

Mr Stockwell: Yes. He has a nerve, about lying and cheating.

The Chair: -- it would be very helpful to the committee.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I --

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr Perruzza: Please --

The Chair: Mr Stockwell has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: I did not say that. I may have thought it.

Anyway, when are you going to revoke the commercial concentration tax? You were very firm in your opposition. I do not like it. Lots of people do not like it. It is not a fair tax -- and the employer health tax, we are on record. If you are going to look at selective tax increases, then that is your option. You are the Treasurer. Although I may think it is a bad move, you can do it. You should at least be consistent and look at the ones you opposed in the past so they do not just go on in perpetuity.

Mr Bradley: I know the answer to this.

Hon Mr Laughren: I will defer to the --

Mr Bradley: That is called a Fair Tax Commission.

Hon Mr Laughren: Actually I was not going to say that, but that is not a bad suggestion.

Mr Stockwell: No, we have established that these are unfair.

Hon Mr Laughren: You have established that?

Mr Stockwell: No, you established it last term.

Hon Mr Laughren: You mentioned two taxes in particular: the employer health tax and the commercial concentration tax. I have no hesitation in expressing my support for the employer health tax. I think it is a good way to help us pay for the health care system in the province and I would invite you to go and review Hansard in that regard.

On the commercial concentration tax, there is an unusual cost of providing services in the GTA. I think you would recognize that.

Mr Stockwell: I certainly do.

Hon Mr Laughren: And I think it is not inappropriate that the GTA help pay for that unusual cost with an unusual tax.

Mr Stockwell: You did not say that before the election, though, Treasurer, with all due respect.

Hon Mr Laughren: Pretty close.

Mr Stockwell: No. Your party was opposed to this --

Hon Mr Laughren: I thought you were quoting me.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, the minister was answering the question.

The Chair: Mr Perruzza --

Mr Perruzza: You are allowing interjections.

The Chair: Mr Perruza, I have warned you on previous occasions. The Treasurer and Mr Stockwell are engaged in a discussion. They are both very comfortable, and the only person who is disrupting that at the moment is you. That is my ruling and I would --

Mr Perruzza: I thought questions had to go through the Chair.

The Chair: The Treasurer and Mr Stockwell were engaged in a conversation and there was no difficulty or strain being expressed by either of them. It is the Chair's prerogative to allow the flow to go in that direction.

Mr Perruzza: Are you allowing exchange between individuals?

The Chair: No, because the Chair does not recognize anybody other than the questioner and the respondent. Thank you.

Hon Mr Laughren: Every now and again I remember why I like the committee system.

Mr Stockwell: I forget the question to you so let's --

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Chairman, before we adjourn -- do you adjourn at 12?

The Chair: Our clock is to go to a few minutes after but I reserved a few moments for you, Treasurer, or your deputy, if there were some matters you wish to share with the committee.

Hon Mr Laughren: I wanted to answer a couple of questions -- I am sorry Mr Daigeler had to leave -- but a couple of questions that were asked earlier this morning to which we have some answers. One had to do with the cost of oil. If the price of a barrel of oil goes up, for example, from $20 to $30, that range, it is estimated that the real growth would be lowered by 1.7%, which is a lot; that there would be 45,000 fewer jobs, and that it would cause a rise in the consumer price index of 1.5%. You can see that has a very, very substantial impact on the province.

The other question was, by not imposing the RST on top of the GST, what that is costing the consolidated revenue fund of the province. It is estimated that it costs between $35 million and $40 million a month, so that this fiscal year 1990-91, the impact would be about $70 million, because it is only two months.

1200

I think that was it. Are there any more questions? Mr Davies, did you have anything you wanted to add to that?

Mr Davies: I would just observe that we are trying to get the regional breakdown Mr Daigeler was asking of the $84 million in the antirecession package that has already been approved, what the regional breakdown of that amount is. We hope to have that this afternoon. The Treasurer has already responded on our attempts to obtain the availability of the chair of the negotiating committee at Stadco. That was really all I had to add.

Mr Stockwell: There was one last question I thought that staff were going to respond to, which was the debt over the election and when they found out that those numbers had in fact changed dramatically. You were going to comment. You said that staff would be allowed to comment.

Hon Mr Laughren: You want that now?

The Chair: You want it more fully. Well, you could have a fuller explanation and exchange, if you wish, this afternoon. I was going to try and leave both you and Mr Bradley each with about two minutes to make any summary comments for the benefit of the Treasurer. I am in your hands.

Mr Stockwell: That is fine by me.

Mr Bradley: I have a number of matters that I would like to pursue with the Treasurer of the province, who is paid to be the Treasurer and answer questions about this.

One I wanted to deal with was municipalities and your relationship to municipalities and the particular circumstance in which municipalities find themselves. I guess I will make it in the form of a statement, because you will not have time to answer it right now.

The concern I would express is that the municipal taxpayers have to continue paying the municipal taxes whether they are working or not, if they are employees of a company or employees of any particular firm. People who are in business have to continue paying their property taxes whether the business is failing or whether it is highly successful. That is why I think it is particularly important for the Treasury to provide in the time of recession a more generous allocation of funds to municipalities in terms of transfer payments, both conditional and unconditional.

I do not object to the fact that you would put more of your emphasis on the conditional to influence the economy, if you wanted to do so, than might be the case in a booming economy. In a booming economy, there is an assumption that we have much more in the way of people employed and municipalities are in a much better position to handle those things which are under their responsibility. I would certainly ask that you review that as you go towards your budget. I know that there is an opportunity at budget time to put some additional funds in any specific area and I urge you to do so.

Mr Stockwell: First, I thank the Treasurer for coming today. It is always interesting to hear new and improved ways of saying, "Wait for the budget and the Fair Tax Commission." But he did do his best with respect to some of the questions that needed to be responded to.

There are some other concerns that I have, but they can, I suppose, wait. Maybe I could put them in comment form. But you know, I think we had better all get ready for one very, very important budget coming down in April or May, whichever the case may be. I think that you know the clock is ticking, as I said in the House. The clock is ticking on promises and commitments, and not just the Treasurer but the backbenchers are going to have to face the music, and it is coming up. I am very curious to see the budget in April and I am going to be looking to see about those selective tax hikes.

The most important thing of all that we really did not get an opportunity to review today is the debt and the deficit. I would like to see the Treasurer go on record some time before April and maybe have some goals. You know, that is how you measure government, by goals. That is how you measure anything, goals. You have objectives and you try to maintain those objectives. If you make them, they applaud you and if do not, then you get dumped on.

The Chair: Except the Leafs.

Mr Stockwell: Except the Leafs.

Hon Mr Laughren: Like An Agenda for People.

Mr Stockwell: Like An Agenda for People. Exactly. You were bold enough to put it in writing and some would suggest that now you wish you had not. But it got you elected.

I would like to see your goals and objectives clearly in the budget for the next four or five years so that we can measure your success. If you are going to come in with a $6-billion or $7-billion deficit, I think we should have a very clear, defined number within the next few weeks about where you see this province heading. I think you should give the private sector and individuals an opportunity to adjust and move towards a different type of budgeting strategy than this province has seen -- well, not that different, but considerably more money being applied to the debt, which I consider to be very, very dangerous.

The other point I would like to make is, I tend to agree with Mr Bradley. No reflection on David Christopherson; I think he is a very capable and knowledgeable person, and in all my dealings with him on the committees he has been fair and very, very equitable -- but he does not sit in cabinet. He does not hear what I think are the important things that we need to hear, and in all truthfulness, if we get a question out and we get to the point of needing an answer, I think it is probably going to be referred to the Treasurer anyway. So I really do not see a lot of point in going on with this process with the parliamentary assistant. Please, there is no reflection on the individual, because I think he is one of the most capable parliamentary assistants I have seen in this government.

That is my opinion from the Conservative ranks, shared by Mrs Marland. Thank you.

The Chair: Treasurer, final comments.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the reception I have received from members of the committee and I beg to echo Mr Stockwell's comments about Mr Christopherson. He has been a big help to me as a parliamentary assistant in some of the specific assignments he has taken on, which have been very meaningful. He has worked very hard at it.

I take quite seriously the comments of both Mr Stockwell and Mr Bradley about my attendance at the committee. I am in the committee's hands of course and I regret the fact I cannot be here this afternoon. It was pre-budget consultation, meetings and so forth that I just really did not feel I could cancel this afternoon because of other cancellations that we have had and so forth. Anyway, it was a bit complicated, but I really felt I could not cancel this afternoon.

I feel that Mr Christopherson is completely capable, along with the staff of Treasury, in answering any of your questions. I think most of the highly political questions have been asked and answered. I do not mean that in a negative way, I think that is most appropriate, but if there are other questions, I really have a lot of confidence in Mr Christopherson. I am not just saying that for rhetorical purposes; I am sure he can handle himself very well, so I hope you will proceed with him. I can remember being in opposition and being a critic and having the same kind of concerns that Mr Stockwell and Mr Bradley have expressed, but I do hope that you will go ahead with Mr Christopherson up here.

In conclusion, thank you for the very courteous reception that you have given me, Mr Chairman, and the way you have conducted the committee.

The Chair: Thank you, Treasurer. Mr Bradley, on a matter of procedure.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate that you, as Chair of the committee, must have a balancing act to get everything before the committee and that there is a schedule set out. I appreciate what you have to go through, and the clerk has to go through, and so on.

I speak on the principle of a minister having to answer to a committee in the time of estimates. We place some considerable importance as a Legislature in the estimates procedure by establishing an estimates committee. I understand the minister has a difficult schedule. I really understand that and I know what a compelling job it is, probably the most difficult job in the government, being Treasurer. I appreciate that, but I must say that in principle, and I apply that principle to this committee, I object to a committee dealing with estimates without a minister there to answer the questions.

Regardless of who happens to be sitting in the committee from the three parties that are represented, I think the one person who must attend is the minister to answer those questions. I would want to participate as a member of this committee only with the Treasurer answering those questions, and trying to, as a member of the committee, accommodate his time in whatever way we can. But I would like have those questions directed to the Treasurer, not a parliamentary assistant. Again, no reflection on the parliamentary assistant. It is just a matter of principle.

1210

The Chair: Mr Bradley, you have now recorded your concerns in three places in Hansard. I am in the hands of the committee. If you wish to call the votes and determine that we do not have to use our full eight hours -- we are given eight full hours; you are aware of that. I might also remind members of the committee that we are operating under extraordinary circumstances, that the government of the day was under no legislative or regulatory requirement for us to proceed with estimates and you would, as a former member of the government whose estimates were conducted in almost whole, but in part -- that we had lapsed that time for those estimates. So from the Chair's point of view, I consider that we are fortunate that we are having an estimates process at all for the 1990-91 estimates of the government of the province of Ontario. If I see no other motion --

Mr Bradley: I will move a motion, Mr Chairman, that this committee proceed with the estimates of the Treasury only with the Treasurer in attendance.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chair --

The Chair: Please, Mr Perruzza. I have a motion on the floor and I am about to rule, and I need a few seconds to give my ruling.

Mr Stockwell: To think.

The Chair: Excuse me. I am going to rule that the motion is in order, but I feel impelled to provide certain clarifications. We are required under --

Clerk of the Committee: The motion has to be voted on.

The Chair: I understand that. Clerk, thank you for your assistance. I am trying to give a point of clarification to my ruling, if the committee will listen to it, thank you.

The fact is that we have eight hours for estimates of this ministry. The fact is that we must have them completed no later than Friday of next week. If it is the wish of this committee that it proceeds in accordance with your motion, we must find time within that narrow time frame in order to complete them. Otherwise, the times that have been set have been approved by the House leaders and approved by the House. Am I making myself very clear? I am very narrowly approving it, but with the understanding that I must entertain a motion which is either a little clearer or gives further direction.

Do you wish to speak now to the motion?

Mr Bradley: Yes. I wish to speak to the motion and I will be as brief as I can in that.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chair, a point of procedure.

The Chair: Yes, Mr Perruzza.

Mr Perruzza: We had a cutoff time in this. We had a very set, firm time when we could engage in questions, engage in discussion, engage in debate and so on.

The Chair: No.

Mr Perruzza: We have exceeded that time. I think what would be in order at this time is for us to come back at 2 o'clock and deal with Mr Bradley.

The Chair: Thank you for your question.

Mr Perruzza: I move that we adjourn.

The Chair: Your movement for adjournment is out of order because we are in the middle of a procedure. We already have a motion on the floor. Second --

Mr Perruzza: You accepted it after the time when you were supposed to cut off.

The Chair: No. Please, Mr Perruzza. I will explain to you simply that matters of procedure must be dealt with and I am dealing with them. If we were in the regular process of conducting votes and prior agreed-upon time frame for discussion, then I would have entertained a motion for adjournment. I recognized a procedural question, as I did with you, but we have a motion on the floor and I would like Mr Bradley to briefly comment so that we may call the vote.

Mr Bradley: There is a principle, it seems to me, in parliamentary democracy that the government must be accountable to the Legislative Assembly and accountable to this committee. We had cabinet members appointed by the Premier for the purpose of dealing with their departments and, ultimately, responsibility for the Treasury is with the provincial Treasurer.

I understand the circumstances in this situation. I find it unfortunate. I understand your circumstance as chairman and appreciate very much the difficulty it places. I also understand the Treasurer and his need to do other things, other than meet this committee.

The Chair: Be as equally understanding about the clock.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chair, he is --

The Chair: Now, look, Mr Perruzza --

Mr Bradley: Mr Chairman, thank you. I believe what is paramount is the accountability of the government to a legislative committee, and that is why I had moved the motion that we not deal with the estimate except with the attendance of the Treasurer.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes Mr Christopherson speaking to the motion.

Mr Christopherson: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, to the motion. I was glad to hear your ruling, that you were asking for a little more clarification, and I do not know that we still got what I think perhaps you were trying to achieve. The motion itself I think proves difficult for us because it is contrary to the process that we agreed on, so we would be voting against our own process.

Having said that, however, and I am speaking now as one individual, if both opposition parties are clearly not comfortable with the concept of a PA sitting there, regardless of who it is -- and by the way, I accept the fact that it is not personal; I know both the members who have spoken and accept for the record that it is a matter of principle -- if they both feel strongly about that principle, then I have a great deal of difficulty, as the PA, to be sitting here this afternoon, lobbying back and forth with my own colleagues. I do not really think we would be achieving anything.

So, Mr Chair, I would like to say that I have some trouble supporting the motion as it is because of the way it is structured. However, the concept that we not continue and that both opposition parties do not wish to participate this afternoon without the minister I think makes it necessary for us to agree with that and perhaps just look at closing the estimates for this ministry right now.

The Chair: You have offered some commentary which includes the potential for an amendment, but I do not hear an amendment, so I will, seeing no other speakers, call the vote. Everyone understands that I am calling the vote?

Mr Christopherson: Could I seek your guidance? What type of amendment would you consider appropriate in light of what I said?

The Chair: No, I cannot lead you.

Mr Stockwell: Ask Anthony.

The Chair: I cannot lead you, nor can I really assist you to construct an amendment to Mr Bradley's motion.

Interjection: Reword it.

Mr Bradley: Mr Chairman, if I can be helpful to you by restructuring the motion rather than offering an amendment, I do not think I can offer an amendment to my own motion.

The Chair: No, you cannot. You can withdraw and put a new one.

Mr Bradley: If you would like me to do it that way, I can do it. Otherwise I can have Mr Curling --

Mrs Marland: We can agree unanimously to withdrawing this motion and rewording it.

The Chair: Very briefly, very quickly, Mr Bradley.

Mr Bradley: Okay. I would have the same motion, with an additional part put on, "and that the remainder of the estimates of the Treasury be rescheduled."

Interjections.

The Chair: I would like to call the clerk. I am asking for the clerk to comment at this point, please. Mr Carrozza.

Clerk of the Committee: Mr Bradley, the motion set by the Legislature sets the order of the estimates. A motion can only be moved by the House to alter the way the estimates have been set. Treasury is the third estimate. Therefore if you were to move this motion, it would be out of order because it contradicts the motion of the Legislature. Only the Legislature can amend the order of the estimates.

The Chair: Well, okay. We would have to reconvene, instead of 2 o'clock this afternoon, at 6, 8, up to and including 10, because the standing orders say we cannot proceed past the hour of 10, or reconvene Friday. Those are your options. But we cannot proceed beyond Monday at 12:30, which is when we begin the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.

Mr Bradley: Can you consult the Treasurer as to his availability this evening? It may be helpful.

The Chair: I beg the committee's indulgence while the Treasurer examines this. It is a legitimate request for information from Mr Bradley, but we still have a motion on the floor. It was not removed.

Hon Mr Laughren: Did you wish me to --

The Chair: I should also tell you we have three hours, approximately, remaining to complete our estimates.

1220

Mrs Marland: Tomorrow morning.

The Chair: Please. I have already indicated that I recognize the Treasurer.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do have some real problems with my schedule. This evening it is a commitment I have made out in Don Mills; I have to be there at 8 o'clock. That will last till about 9. I have some sympathy with what you are trying to do here, so I am not trying to throw any obstacles out. Tomorrow morning I am scheduled to fly to Sudbury. I have a number of commitments there.

The Chair: I have a speaking list. I have a motion on the floor and any discussion will be out of order unless it is to the motion. I have Mr Christopherson, Mr Mammoliti, then Mrs Marland and then I have you, Mr Perruzza.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not know whether you want the full three hours, or is it three hours?

The Chair: We have just used up 20 minutes of the three hours and 10 minutes, so we have less than three hours left.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am here on Monday morning. That is easier for me to shift around. It is very awkward, I really do not want to touch this afternoon, this evening or tomorrow because --

The Chair: Two hours and 45 minutes now, by my rough calculation.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not think I can free up the full three hours. I do not have my full schedule here, but I do know I have some problems on Monday morning which I cannot get out of.

The Chair: Mr Bradley -- if I can beg the indulgence of the speakers' list which I have recognized -- would you be willing to withdraw your motion at this time and present a time-specific motion by unanimous consent?

Mr Bradley: Yes, Mr Chairman, I would.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent? Thank you.

Mr Bradley: The motion I would put forward is similar to the motion I put forward except with the time, to say this committee shall reconvene at 10 am Monday morning.

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not know what this does to people: probably 9 would be better.

Mr Bradley: I am willing to say 9 am Monday.

The Chair: That is the motion. Does everybody understand the motion? Limited discussion, if any, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: Can I get back to you on how long I can stand in?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr Christopherson: I just express some disappointment at the way things have unfolded. Our comments were in light of the fact that there had already been agreement between the Treasurer's office, my office and the Chair of the committee, who, it should be noted, is not a member of the government. I was merely offering up our comments to the extent that if the opposition parties feel they do not want to sit this afternoon with the parliamentary assistant, so be it, but personally I have a great deal of trouble with the fact that we are rescheduling. If the Treasurer wishes and/or can make himself available, that is quite another matter, but in terms of procedures and what we are trying to accomplish we have been more than fair today in trying to give access to the minister, we have forgone our questions, and now what we are trying to do is significantly change what was already agreed to. I think that is going way beyond what we originally were trying to agree on here, and I have a great deal of difficulty with it.

The Chair: Well, Mr Christopherson, you do have the opportunity to vote against the motion. Are there any others who wish to comment briefly?

Mr Mammoliti: If this were the previous government, I could understand the motion. They really did not communicate with their parliamentary assistants. However, this government is doing things a little differently. We do communicate with our parliamentary assistants and they are active. Because of that, I would say the parliamentary assistant in this case would be qualified to answer any questions.

The Chair: Please speak to the motion. The parliamentary assistant is not named in the motion. I would like you to speak to the motion, which is for us to rise and reconvene. That is the issue and the motion, and please keep to that.

Mr Mammoliti: I was not finished; you cut me off. The motion was placed, and because of that I am compelled to vote against the motion, okay?

Mr Perruzza: I would like to urge my colleagues to vote against this eleventh-hour grandstanding the Liberals are trying to pull here. Everybody had agreed, the rules had been clearly set down, the Treasurer had indicated that he could not be here today. They should have brought this forward well in advance of what they are doing now. They are just stalling. I would like to urge my colleagues to vote against this motion, and then I would introduce a motion that we reconvene at 2:30 and end tonight at 5 o'clock.

The Chair: Any further comments? Is everyone aware of the motion?

Mr Perruzza: Just if I might be of assistance in --

The Chair: Please, Mr Perruzza. You had completed. The motion on the floor is that we adjourn and reconvene to complete the estimates with the Treasurer on Monday the 18th at 9 in committee room 2. All those in favour? All those opposed?

Motion negatived.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I move that we reconvene at 2:30 today and end at 5 o'clock tonight, seeing as we have run a half-hour into the allotted time for this afternoon's period.

The Chair: I have a motion that we reconvene at 2:30 --

Mr Perruzza: With the parliamentary assistant standing in for the minister.

Interjection.

The Chair: No, it is not redundant, because we are scheduled to reconvene at 2. Mr Perruzza is suggesting -- I see the pained faces on all the ministry staff who in the midst of the snowstorm are very sensitive to the fact that we might be sitting here until 5:30. But if you wish to proceed, Mr Perruzza, with that kind of recommendation, and Mr Christopherson, feel free to place it.

Mr Perruzza: I have done that, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: The motion is that we reconvene at 2:30 until after 5, 5:30.

Mr Perruzza: Why 5:30, Mr Chairman? We have already cut into that time period. We were supposed to terminate this session at 12.

The Chair: I will tell you when we are going to adjourn, with the amount of time left, but you are now wanting to reconvene at 2:30. Any further discussion on that motion?

Mr Christopherson: Could I get clarification from the Chair? The motion was originally 2:30 to 5. What is the ruling of the Chair on that motion?

The Chair: As soon as I do my mathematics, I will tell you how much time you have. But I am obligated as the Chair to advise the committee that you are either adding to or shortening the total amount of time we are statutorily required to perform. I would not allow the time to proceed until I had the accurate numbers, and I did not have those off the top of my head. Any further discussion on the reconvening? If Mr Perruzza would simply put it as reconvening at 2:30, that would make it a lot simpler.

Mr Christopherson: That is fine. Go ahead, Anthony.

Mr Stockwell: Would you do that, Mr Perruzza?

The Chair: I do not hear Mr Perruzza for a change, so I will proceed.

Mr Perruzza: You have heard my motion: 2:30.

The Chair: Mr Christopherson recommended an amendment to the motion that it be 2:30 only. The Chair recognizes that. All those in favour? Those opposed? I am sorry, I did not see all the hands. All those in favour? Those opposed?

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: This committee stands adjourned until 2:30 this afternoon in this room.

The committee recessed at 1229.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The committee resumed at 1434.

The Chair: I would like to call to order the standing committee on estimates to hear the balance of the two hours and 41 minutes remaining for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

Mr Bradley: I want to ask one question of the Chair. Is the Treasurer going to be here this afternoon to deal with the estimates?

The Chair: Let me ask the parliamentary assistant. Could you answer the question for Mr Bradley?

Mr Christopherson: To the best of my knowledge, it is the agenda as originally agreed.

The Chair: That was not the question. Will the Treasurer be able to be with us this afternoon, I think was Mr Bradley's question.

Mr Christopherson: I believe the original agenda called for the Treasurer's PA to be here, and I am saying nothing has changed from that.

The Chair: This is an auspicious start for you, is it not? There is nothing in the minutes or the record or an agreed-upon motion that speaks to the issue of the Treasurer's attendance. This was simply a legitimate request: To your knowledge, will the Treasurer be here this afternoon? That is the simple question.

Mr Christopherson: The simple answer is no.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Christopherson: You are quite welcome.

Mr Bradley: It is my intention then, Mr Chairman, not to participate, because I believe in the principle of having the Treasurer or any minister defend his or her own estimates.

Mr Hansen: May I make a motion to take the vote on estimates?

The Chair: That would be in order, although -- what is your motion?

Mr Hansen: I made a motion that we take a vote on the estimates, all the votes.

The Chair: We have a motion to call the vote at this time. All those --

Ms Haslam: I would like a recorded vote. No?

The Chair: No.

Ms Haslam: I would like a moment, Mr Chair. May I have a moment?

The Chair: No. You can call for the recorded vote, you can withdraw your recorded vote or proceed with the motion I have on the floor.

Ms Haslam: Would you call for the vote?

The Chair: All those in favour? Carried.

The Chair therefore assumes -- the prior instructions were that we would stack our votes to the end of estimates -- that it is the opinion of the committee that we have now completed the estimates for the 1990-91 budget year for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. I shall now call the votes of each of the estimates in order.

Votes 3901 to 3904, inclusive, agreed to.

The Chair: Shall the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics be reported to the House?

Agreed to.

The Chair: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

No further business? I adjourn the committee on estimates to meet again on Monday 18 February at 12:30 pm in committee room 228, at which point we will begin the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment.

The committee adjourned at 1440.