Journal des débats 1987-déc-31 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Mackenzie: As we end the year, it becomes obvious that we have a few areas where this government has not lived up to its commitments: the issue of free trade and its position on it; the housing promises that were made, the educational promises that were made and labour legislation commitments that were made and have not been kept.

Thirteen hundred Firestone workers have less protection today than they might have had if the Peterson government had not reneged on a commitment to provide better plant closure legislation, which was in writing in the accord and which was not carried out.

Putting in place procedures that would require full information and public justification before a plant closure would allow both the workers and their communities a better chance to assess their future. It would likely allow other potential investors an opportunity to enter discussions on the plant’s future, and it certainly would prevent workers from being dangled on a string and allowed false hopes over the future of their jobs, as happened for so many months to the workers at Firestone.

It is pretty obvious that after-the-fact promises of lots of dollars are no substitute for a clear rule of corporate conduct in Ontario that could be assisted with plant closure legislation. I think workers have to be considered as an important part of the plant’s operation, just as important as any corporate decision at rationalization, and must be treated accordingly, much more fairly than they are now in Ontario.

HYDROGEN

Mr. Runciman: A federal report titled Hydrogen: National Mission for Canada has recently been released and details how hydrogen is a key energy alternative of the future. Of the various provincial governments which reviewed this report, only Ontario did not support it. In fact, this shortsighted Liberal government has dismantled the Hydrogen Institute of Ontario.

Press reports this month indicate that the BMW motor car company of West Germany will be testing a hydrogen-engine vehicle by the late 1990s, and the head of BMW’s technical department says, “Hydrogen is our future.”

Ontario has the opportunity to get in on the ground floor in the development of hydrogen technology but it is ignoring the opportunity. Is it not better to own the technology of a new age than to pay licence fees to someone else?

Hydrogen research in Ontario is now at a standstill. I suggest an immediate commitment of research and development dollars, which will make Ontario the leader in a Canadian hydrogen program which will change the world.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Dietsch: Despite what we have heard in this House from the third party, the auto pact is not free trade. The auto pact is managed trade, a pattern of governmentally managed and approved trading rules directed to manufacturing and the tradeoff of motor vehicles and parts.

Since its creation 22 years ago, the auto pact has been highly successful; not in its early years, I might add, but certainly in its later years. The auto industry provides 112,000 jobs to Ontarians and in particular 25,000 jobs in the Niagara region. Seventeen per cent of the province’s jobs are auto related.

The auto pact was working. We have a trade surplus overall in excess of $400 billion. Brian Mulroney cannot stand that. The auto pact is not broken, but Brian wants to fix it. To a large part, Ontario’s economy and St. Catharines-Brock depend on the auto industry. A downturn in the auto industry will be felt across Ontario’s economy, and in particular it will hit hard the riding I represent, St. Catharines-Brock. It is important that we get behind the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and let Brian Mulroney know that the jobs in the auto trade are not for sale.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN RIVERDALE

Mr. Reville: The Ministry of the Environment has its work cut out for itself in the one riding of Riverdale alone in 1988. Although 70 properties have had their soil replaced and the lead is now safely out of those properties, there are 330 more properties to go, and that is just within the designated zone. I have reason to believe that other properties in Riverdale are also heavily contaminated with lead, and the Ministry of the Environment is going to have to look sharp to deal with that.

We have the largest single emitter of dioxin in Ontario in Riverdale, which is Metro’s Commissioners Street incinerator. It needs to be closed. There are two proposals for garbage-burning incinerators in the south part of my riding. They should not occur. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) should declare a moratorium on energy-from-waste plants, particularly in ecologically fragile zones such as Riverdale.

Ashbridges Bay, which is a sewage treatment plant, continues to pump polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins into our atmosphere. The Leslie Street spit is being landfilled with contaminated soil and contaminated dredgeate from the Keating Channel, which is the mouth of the Don River. Odours and emissions from industrial operations, including two rendering plants, continue to assail the nostrils and the sensibilities of my constituents. Perhaps the entire Ministry of the Environment should go to work in Riverdale in 1988.

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Pollock: Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) if he had budgeted money to feed the deer if it turned out to be a severe winter. He stated that he had not; however, if the situation warranted he would find the money, which would mean that he would take the money away from another branch of his ministry.

He also stated that there were more deer; in fact, more of everything. The reason there are more deer is that the government of the day in the 1970s allowed hunting of those only by special permit and that has allowed the deer population to increase ever since.

The Progressive Conservative government of the early 1980s traded some moose to the state of Michigan for wild turkeys and as a result of that we were able to have a turkey hunt in eastern Ontario.

As far as more fish are concerned, the commercial fishermen claimed that their quota had been cut. In 1980 in Algonquin region, ice fishing was banned on nine lakes and also banned in the lakes in Algonquin Park. That certainly does not indicate to me more of everything, as the minister claims.

1010

DEPOSITS ON MAJOR PURCHASES

Mr. Elliot: I would like to make a statement on behalf of a constituent of mine and a manufacturer of fine-quality furniture located here in Toronto.

I have here a copy of a cheque for $15 .87 made out in the name of my constituent. It is a refund cheque for a $200 deposit she made on a recliner chair valued at $788. The policy of Erin Mills Interiors, a retail furniture outlet which went bankrupt last fall, was that custom-made furniture required a deposit of at least 25 per cent of the retail value or the purchase price.

Unsecured creditors in that bankruptcy obtained an 8.733 per cent return, less the five per cent charged by the executor of the bankruptcy. Consequently, my constituent received $15.87 for her $200 deposit. I understand the chair was custom-made by Vogel of Canada, a manufacturing firm located in Weston.

Both my constituent and the chair manufacturer have been disadvantaged in this situation. It is my suggestion that both could have been better served if deposits for large-ticket items like this one were put in a trust account to be repaid to the purchaser or to the manufacturer should the retailer go bankrupt.

Some car dealerships and all real estate companies now follow this procedure with deposits made by clients. Since the average purchaser cannot readily determine the viability of retail outlets, it seems to me that fewer bankruptcies would occur if this happened.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SHELTER FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. The minister will probably know that this is the last day of the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. To mark the meaning of that year, Emmett Cardinal Carter has leapt into the housing crisis and has indicated that each of the parishes in the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Toronto should find a unit of housing so that part of the housing crisis may be addressed. I wonder if the generous gesture of the cardinal will inspire the minister to get involved in the housing crisis as well.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to wish the member opposite a very happy new year and to remind him that one of the things this government has accomplished is to make a significant impact in the situation of homeless people through the program that we announced just a number of weeks ago.

At the time that announcement was made, one of the things we made very clear was that we were responding to the statements by the activists and community workers who have been working with homeless people for a very long time. Our approach to the problem has been very much in keeping with the kinds of advice that they gave us.

We therefore committed a significant number of funds to the provision of permanent housing for people who are currently homeless. We also will be giving funds to the various community groups who have been working actively to help people who are currently homeless and who are wandering in the shelter system to have permanent housing.

Mr. Reville: I wonder if the minister will tell the House, then, that the supply program that her ministry will be delivering over the next few years will in fact be larger than the oft-repeated 102,000 units that we have heard about over and over.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to assure the member opposite that our commitment to providing permanent shelter for homeless people, the program that was announced, is in addition to the commitment we had made previously for the supply of housing.

Mr. Reville: That is very good news to hear. I wonder if the minister will share with the House, then, what the number is now. Is it 110,000? And will this new number in fact make a dent in the number of homeless, underhoused and doubled-up people who live in the province?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The new program is targeting anywhere from 400 to 600 permanent housing units for people who are currently homeless. The method that we have used in this one is primarily to use buildings that are already existing and to renovate buildings, because that will work much more quickly than building from the ground up. That is a first step in providing more housing for homeless people and is much quicker than building new housing. Of course, the additional housing that we have already promised all along will be there as well.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). Since he is not here, could I ask for your consent to set down our second leadoff question until he arrives?

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

PRA INTERNATIONAL INC.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier and it is with respect to an investment made by the government of Ontario.

Five months after the Premier took office, there was an investment made by IDEA Corp. in a firm known as PRA International in the great riding of London, Ontario. Three months after this particular investment had been made, he scrapped IDEA Corp.

In light of the fact that $1.5 million, virtually the entire investment that was made by the government in this particular firm, has been lost, I wonder why the Premier, in light of the fact that the government was talking about scrapping IDEA Corp. for a period of almost a half a year prior to this investment being made, would proceed with this investment. Now it appears that the investment is a totally lost cause to the taxpayers of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know the details of the specific investment made by IDEA Corp. and I will gladly look into the matter that the honourable member has raised, but I think I should clear up perhaps one misconception.

There were no approvals by government required. Perhaps that was one of the problems inherent therein. IDEA Corp., as set up by the member’s government, was a completely independent group. It had independent capacity to spend and to invest. So there were no approvals coming back through cabinet committees or, indeed, to cabinet. Presumably, this was an investment made by that independent board of directors, struck by and appointed by that member’s government. There is no question that when we came in, we implemented an immediate review which led to the winding up of IDEA Corp.

So I cannot tell the member why the independent board chaired by lan Macdonald made that investment, but I will try to check it out and share the information with my honourable friend.

Mr. Brandt: Surely the Premier would accept responsibility for the fact that a corporation under the control of his government at the time this investment was made invested some $1.5 million in a London firm which ultimately resulted in the loss of that money.

Would it not seem reasonable to expect that his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology at that particular time would monitor this investment and would find some way of protecting the interests of the Ontario taxpayers, recognizing in this high-tech firm, which was involved in laser technology, that because it was very questionable technology and ran with it some risks -- which I admit is what IDEA Corp. was all about in terms of taking some speculative chances; I do not object to that. I think there is a role for government in that particular area. But why would his government not monitor --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: I am giving my question as long as I can so that the minister can give the Premier the answer, so I will continue to talk until the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) is done, and then we can carry on.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: In any event, my question to the Premier very simply is, why would he not monitor this investment, why would the minister’s staff not monitor this investment in order to make sure that what ultimately happened, namely, the assets and the patents --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Again I will check out the details of the question the member raises, but again, this was an independent corporation. It was making investments after there was that change of government. It did not come and ask the advice of the government. It was one of the things that concerned us, very frankly. It was not just this investment, but there were others as well that my honourable friend will be aware of. If there were some salvage, obviously one would try to take advantage of that. I do not know if there was, but again I will share it with my friend.

1020

Mr. Brandt: It appears in this particular instance that whatever assets were left in this firm, PRA International, went to the banks and the patents and whatever other limited assets there were ended up in the United States with the parent company.

Will the Premier give an undertaking in this House that he will disclose all the details relative to PRA International? I also ask the Premier to report back to the House -- I do not expect that he will have the answer to this now -- as to whether or not, as has been the case with Wyda Systems and other investments made on the part of the government, there will in fact be an investigation carried out as to what happened and what went wrong with this particular investment.

A final determination by the Premier I would like him to share with us at some future point is whether or not he intends to undertake an OPP investigation on this matter to see if, in fact, the taxpayers of Ontario were protected to the extent that they should have been.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that I honestly believe he is entitled to all the details of this particular transaction, and I will try to get to the bottom of it.

I frankly do not know what kind of security was taken -- the member tells me it was a $1.5-million loan or grant -- whether it was a share purchase, whether it was a subordinated kind of security, whether it came in behind the banks or what kind of hold they had on the assets.

I will inquire into what kind of deal they made. If in fact they had some kind of floating debenture, a security on the assets, and that disappeared, that would obviously give us some concern. I do not know the nature and quality of that particular investment, but I take my honourable friend’s point very seriously. I will undertake to get all those details and share them with him, and we will make sure there was no impropriety or, we hope, lack of judgement in this case, although I cannot give him an assurance on any of that at the moment.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Harris: I find it passing strange, given the history of IDEA Corp., given the history of what went on in this House over the last couple of years and given the problems we have had with a number of companies -- I mention Graham Software and the Wyda corporation -- that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is not aware, of what is going on and what other potential foulups there are.

I think most astute observers would say that the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, under questioning at the time both in the standing committee on public accounts and in this House, fouled this up; he did not protect Ontario’s interests.

We also know that more than merit went into the awarding of money by the IDEA Corp., whether it was through share purchase, grants or loans, and I find it hard to believe that the Premier is not aware of a loan, right in his own backyard to a company right in London, to do with the IDEA Corp.

The minister said in June that there were 33 of these under investigation. Is the Premier aware, or has the former minister or the current minister ever made him aware. of the potential liability of Ontario for 31 -- we had only two, now three, and there are still another 29 or 30 sitting out there --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I was not aware of this particular loan to PRA in London. My honourable friend thinks I should be aware. I think my honourable friend would be aware, as he was part of the executive council, presumably, that created IDEA Corp., that it was set up to be independent and that in fact there was no political interference.

I say to my honourable friend I find it passing strange that his government created IDEA Corp., which was a boondoggle from the beginning. His government went through management problems, it went through a number of ministers, it went through a number of executives. It was an ill-conceived idea that did not go anywhere.

I say to my honourable friend as frankly as I can, the one regret I have is that we did not kill it the day we came in. We gave it an honourable review. There were certain things that were in the mill when we came in, and the board functioned with those things that were already in the mill. I say to my friend, it was a mistake; it was an embarrassment for the government and particularly an embarrassment for the Conservatives.

Mr. Harris: When we are talking about Wyda, about Graham Software or about this company, the embarrassment came after the Liberals came into power.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: I can understand the Premier saying now, “I wish we had scrapped it as soon as we came in, before all these people found ways to obviously abuse it.” It did not take them long, once they took power, to figure out ways to abuse it.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Harris: I said it was passing strange that we have had Ontario Provincial Police investigations into Wyda that have been buried and covered up now for about two years. The Liberals are through the election; they got it covered up there. We ask time and time again, when are we going to get details on Wyda, when are we going to get details on Graham Software, when are we going to get the OPP investigation on PEC Financial Corp.?

How long is the Premier going to cover these up? Does he not think that information will be helpful in preventing future ones? There are still another 29 out there and they are all being bungled by his government or his ministry or one of the departments in there.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure; was there a question in the middle of that diatribe somewhere or other?

I say to my honourable friend, believe me, this government has nothing to cover up and nothing to hide. We are very anxious to share all of that information. It is quite obvious mistakes were made along the way. As I said to my honourable friend, as I understand the progression of IDEA, some things had been in the mill prior to the election in 1985, and they were dealing with those matters. I do not know if PEC was in that particular circumstance. But I say to my friend, when all the investigations are done -- and there are some OPP investigations -- all the facts that are proper to be shared will be shared with the member and other members of the public.

Believe me, I think this thing should have a thorough and complete airing. We can see how IDEA -- perhaps it was a good idea at the time -- turned out to be such a boondoggle. We had to inherit this mess and clean it up as best we possibly could, just like a lot of other messes, frankly, like Suncor, the Urban Transportation Development Corp. and a lot of other things we inherited. You can look back and flog the past or you can do the best you can with a miserable situation. My theory is, when you are handed a lemon, make lemonade.

Mr. Harris: While the Premier is telling the taxpayers to suck lemons, there appear to be a lot of companies with connections to his party that have done very well off IDEA Corp. They are getting the lemonade, the sweet stuff; the taxpayers are getting the raw lemons.

Interjections.

Mr. Harris: No, I thought it was pretty good; I will still stand by it.

The OPP investigations on Wyda, for some reasons or other, have taken over two years. I do not want to question the OPP, but let me ask the Premier; he says we will get those in due time.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: You are questioning the OPP.

Mr. Harris: No, I am not. I am questioning when we are going to get them. Maybe we should have a report on when we are going to get them. We have not asked this question for a while.

Mr. Jackson: It is in the briefing notes.

Mr. Harris: Is it in the briefing notes? Let me ask the Premier about something he has hidden and covered up and has control over. The Biddell report on the IDEA Corp. has still not been released. Biddell said last June in the committee hearings that he had tabled his report on February 11. We are getting close to a year. We still have not seen the Biddell report. The minister at the time said it was only a draft; Biddell said: “I’m finished. I’m not doing any more. That’s it.”

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Harris: Can the Premier tell us when he is going to release the Biddell report on the IDEA Corp.?

1030

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Since this may be the last opportunity I have today to be on my feet -- at least with any luck that may be the case -- may I take this opportunity to wish all my colleagues in the Legislature a very happy new year. I hope that they have a nice party with their friends tonight and that it will sweeten their disposition a little bit so they will not be quite as sour when we come back next week to continue our discussion.

That being said, there are a number of investigations into various aspects of the IDEA Corp., as my honourable friend knows, which has been subject to considerable discussion in the House. It is my view that all of this should be made public when it is completed and we have a full picture on the situation.

An inventory is being done of all of the investments. Salvage is being implemented where possible. There are certain suggestions of fraud in certain areas. Some arrests have been made. Search warrants have been made. Some of these are international problems, as the member knows. We have executed untold search warrants in Ontario and New Jersey for banking records. It is a very complicated thing. We are trying to wind this up as best we can and salvage what we can for the taxpayers. It is a most regrettable situation.

I again say to my honourable friend, it should all be there for him to pass judgement on. The people of this province will pass judgement on it, and they will probably pass a very harsh judgement on those who created this corporation that has caused so many problems for this province.

May I just say in conclusion, a very happy new year to my honourable colleague, and I look forward to seeing him in the new year with a sweet disposition.

Mr. Speaker: We will now revert to the second question of the opposition.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Considering the fact that there are about 40 minutes left in question period, this could be the last question for 1987, and it certainly will not be coming too soon.

My question relates to drinking water in Ontario. On November 25, 1985, the minister said, referring to my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), and I quote, “The member may or may not be aware that for some time now our ministry has been working on what we call a drinking-water strategy.” Could the minister indicate to us at what stage that drinking-water strategy is and when it is going to be implemented in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It certainly is well along the way, as the member may know, because I know he has followed the environmental issues in his specific area with some degree of interest, as have the others who represent the Windsor area. He has had a focus of attention down there.

The drinking-water strategy consists of many components. I consider the most important, and I think I have reiterated this on many occasions in the House, to be getting at the sources of pollution which gets into the waterways of the province. The main thrust of this, of course, is a somewhat revolutionary and certainly very advanced program referred to as the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, which people in the field would know as MISA.

When I was at the national conference of the ministers of the environment across the country, they were very interested in this program because they recognize that the first stage is the extensive monitoring to determine exactly what is getting into our waterways. The second stage is the actual abatement of it. We will have, in fact, standards in place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I took particular note of the opening comment by the member for Windsor-Riverside. I did not want that to happen, so I will ask for a supplementary.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I assure you it is not the minister’s answer that has inspired me to ask a supplementary; it is our prayers at the beginning of the session that asked for inspiration.

The minister will be aware that the Science Council of Canada recently released a report, and I quote from a newspaper article on that report that says:

“A looming environmental crisis indicates a scale and depth of disaster far exceeding any met by earlier generations. If pollution keeps increasing, people in southern Ontario will have to use boiled water for drinking, cooking and cleaning teeth, warns a draft report and discussion paper.”

Since this is one of many reports that have come out that indicate a disaster is approaching us in terms of our drinking water in Ontario, especially those people living along the Great Lakes, when is the minister going to stop talking and actually introduce a safe-water policy in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I think the member, who follows these matters very carefully in the House, would know that in fact action is under way. I can recall yesterday there was a press release that came out, for instance, that dealt with the Humber area of Toronto and over $4 million, I believe it was, that was devoted to that particular project to improve the effluent.

Right across Ontario he will find this is happening. In his own area of Windsor, for instance, we initiated a new program to deal with septic tanks in that area. There is a particular problem in certain parts of Windsor in the old area that is serviced almost exclusively by septic tanks. We have an accelerated program to get people off septic tanks and on to proper sewage treatment systems. That is a very important program, and his was one of the few communities which was able to benefit from it.

In addition to that, his community had only 15 per cent maximum available before for such projects as sewage treatment plants. They now have available up to 33 per cent from the provincial government -- zero from the federal government -- right in his own constituency.

In addition to that, of course, I announced in June 1987, and the money is already flowing for this, the LifeLines program where the province pays up to 50 per cent of the cost of determining the precise problem and 33 per cent for the municipalities, with the money right on the table, waiting for the feds. Zero was available under the previous government for the LifeLines program. Now there is 33 per cent on the table to take advantage of it. All of this will improve the water quality in this province under our jurisdiction.

We cannot control the other jurisdictions that go into the Great Lakes, but we are doing our job in controlling and working hard to improve the water quality.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Of course, the money that was sent down towards my area was because of my close personal relationship with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the fact that I was a very effective lobbier. That is the only reason we got it.

The minister will be aware that my colleague and our environmental critic for the New Democratic Party reintroduced the safe-drinking-water bill on November 14. Would the minister not agree that her approach, a legislative approach, is also necessary in Ontario? When is he going to endorse that bill and proceed with it?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, I think the House on many occasions has expressed its general agreement with bills of this kind which are brought before the House. It is one thing to put it in legislation, to have a bill you can wave around Ontario, and it is another thing to deliver on a program.

Our approach has been to put into effect specific programs which are designed to make the water cleaner and to determine the problem. We have a drinking-water surveillance program that the member made reference to, for instance. Most of the communities in Ontario are now covered by that. The program shows that our drinking water meets the standards of Ontario, those standards established by medical or toxicological experts. It shows that we have time to address the problems which are being brought to our attention.

Now that we measure in parts per quadrillion, of course, we are able to detect these trace amounts of contaminants in the waterways. This is good. I am often criticized for that. I think it is important to have that information available because it gives us a lead time to deal with those problems.

The Treasurer has provided for the Ministry of the Environment over the last two years a 27 per cent increase in the allocation of money. In addition to that, we have seen water quality improvements in many municipal projects which have been very beneficial to the people of this province. I think when we have the MISA program in full effect -- remember it was a three-year period there --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

INCOME TAX

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Treasurer. Recent Statistics Canada figures indicate that in 1985 some 5,978 Canadians earning more than $50,000 and 165 of them who earn more than $250,000 paid no taxes at all. Can the Treasurer tell us if he has a handle on this for Ontario and what he is prepared to do to correct this unfairness?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The federal government has introduced a minimum tax for personal income tax, which means that everybody will be caught in that net to some extent, and since we have a taxation collection agreement with the government of Canada, we will benefit to that extent.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have placed a three per cent surcharge on all incomes over $50,000, so we have reinforced our income potential, at least, from the upper end of the income spectrum by that surcharge. At the same time, we have more than balanced it with an attempt to remove from the taxation rolls an increasing number of people from the lower end of the income spectrum.

1040

Mr. Mackenzie: Taking taxpayers off the rolls who earn less than the poverty level would probably cost us about $100 million in Ontario. Can the Treasurer tell us if he is prepared to take a look at closing the loopholes on a provincial basis to the extent we can and at a minimum tax that will make these people pay taxes, so we can subsequently be able to take an increased number of people below the poverty level off the tax rolls?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think it should be understood that the people who have high reported gross incomes and are not paying taxes are not evading tax. There is nothing illegal about the process that is being undertaken. There are procedures over years which the member himself may have made use of to reduce personal income tax as long as the money is being spent, for example, on registered retirement savings plans, which would account for at least a small percentage of that amount, and so on.

We believe in a fair and equitable tax system and we know that the result of the changes the Minister of Finance is bringing about in legislation that should be before Parliament in the next few weeks will reduce the take from personal income taxes by just under $500 million in Ontario.

As we come up to our budget preparation procedures, we are going to be looking at that very carefully. The member has indicated that to remove everybody under the poverty level of $21,000 a year for a family of four from the tax system would cost $100 million in forgone revenues. We have increased the number removed from the rolls year by year and I hope we can continue with that program.

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mrs. Marland: My question was for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), who is ill, I understand. In his absence I would like to address it to the Premier.

As I have the opportunity, I would also like, on behalf of our Progressive Conservative caucus, to extend best wishes for 1988 to all our colleagues in the Legislature, for health, happiness and success in our endeavours. I would like to assure the Premier that there really was not anything wrong with our dispositions when he gave us his good wishes. We are a small but very strong caucus with good dispositions.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mrs. Marland: This morning I was speaking to a friend of all of us in this Legislature, who happens to be the greatest mayor and leader of any municipality in Ontario, Mayor Hazel McCallion from the city of Mississauga. She shares with me a concern about transportation corridors from the west.

The Provincial Auditor has identified in his report that the regional allocation of funds needs some reassessment. In particular, he used as an example the slow and inefficient expansion of the Queen Elizabeth Way. He said that is because of the current method of allocating project funds among regions.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mrs. Marland: He said in essence that the serious overcapacity problem on the QEW will not be rectified for the next 15 years. I wonder if the Premier could direct the Minister of Transportation to commit funds to immediately resolve that congestion problem. Also, does he know of any solution that might --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I thank the member for her good wishes. I appreciate her compliments to the great mayor of Mississauga, as well.

I appreciate the member’s suggestion. There are problems, as she rightly points out. I will convey her thoughts on the matter to the Minister of Transportation, just as I will convey the thoughts of her interim leader that all the money should go to the Sheppard line.

I will convey those two different points of view to the Minister of Transportation and l am sure that he, unlike others, will be able to reconcile the two and come up with a solution that is satisfactory to all members of the great Metropolitan area.

Mrs. Marland: The situation is not either/or vis-à-vis Sheppard and Eglinton. The region of Peel has an average growth in excess of 20,000 and, obviously, the solution to the Queen Elizabeth Way is not the only solution we are looking for from the government.

In the light of the expected decision not to proceed with the Sheppard line, would the Premier consider the very realistic need of the Eglinton line in the west end? This is a system which could link with the expanded GO Transit service on the Milton line; it would go a long way to resolve the problems from the western area in transportation. Would he consider that kind of direction?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I may, I will also convey that view of the member to the Minister of Transportation. I can tell her he is looking at all of these questions. As my honourable friend will be aware, there is a finite number of dollars available in the entire area of transportation. We do have problems in the Metropolitan area; there is no question about that. That is why a co-ordinated review is looking at the matter.

We have achieved, I think, a degree of co-operation of all the various modes of transportation that we had not been able to achieve in the past. It is something for which I am very grateful. In the not-too-distant future, some very hard choices are going to have to be made. We are going to have to reconcile, for example, the priorities on subway lines: the Eglinton line that my honourable friend speaks of versus the view of some that the Sheppard line is a higher priority.

There are others who believe it should perhaps be put in roads, the Queen Elizabeth Way, or certain of the train-track routes that exist currently. There are others who believe we should just cut the deficit and not spend anything on roads. I think that is the view of the member’s Treasury critic, who would not want to do anything in that particular regard. There are others who sit there and gloat and say they have all the money for Highway 407 and nothing else matters.

This government, and I say this respectfully, has to take a holistic view. It has to be concerned with the future needs of the people of Ontario. It has to look at all those needs and prioritize them in the most sensitive and effective way it possibly can. It has to think of the future and do that in a financially responsible --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a very complete answer.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Black: I know all members of this assembly share the concerns I feel about the impact of acid rain. We know as a group that the damage being done to the buildings, the lakes and rivers and the forests of this province will likely be the single biggest problem we will face as we enter the 1990s. It is an issue that is of particular importance in my riding.

Mr. Speaker: To which minister are you placing your question?

Mr. Black: I am going to address my question to the Minister of the Environment, who will answer it, I know, in his usual concise fashion. Will he inform this assembly whether there was any discussion of environmental issues in general and, more specifically, on sulphur dioxide emissions during the recent trade discussions which took place between Canada and the United States?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: To my knowledge, and I have discussed this with a number of people who are expert in the field, the discussions that took place directly related to the trade agreement between Canada and the United States did not, in fact, include a discussion of the environmental implications of this.

There was one concern that was expressed, and all members of the House would be concerned about this. That was our fear that while those discussions were going on, we were not pressing our case as strongly as we might have. We were very tolerant of the President of the United States in his suggestions that there should be more studies, that it would take a longer time and that there might be some kind of vague agreement.

When the specific discussions took place between the two countries, between the two negotiators over free trade, I do not think, from the knowledge I have, there was a discussion of the environmental implications. I can certainly indicate that there would be environmental implications.

1050

Mr. Black: I am both puzzled and concerned. For several days, in fact for several weeks now, my friends across the House have been urging my friends in the back benches here to lend their support to the proposed bilateral trade agreement. At the same time, we know that the record of the Progressive Conservative Party on environmental issues has been one that speaks for itself over 42 years of Tory rule. The record is written on the same blank pages that the member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) talked about earlier this week. I find it impossible to believe that we could be asked to support legislation which, in fact, does not deal with environmental issues.

I have a supplementary question to the minister. Is he really telling this House that although the trade issue was the primary concern, an agreement which also addressed social issues, health issues and a number of issues did not address environmental issues?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That in fact is the case. The concern that arises from this that I think my friends on the other side of the House would have is those environmental implications, because they would agree -- particularly the interim leader of the third party, having been the Minister of the Environment -- that we in Ontario, on a general basis, have much stricter laws than most of the states in the United States as they relate to environmental issues.

Mr. Brandt: How about nitrogen oxide?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is federal, of course. In the federal case, the member is quite right, the Progressive Conservative government has not moved quickly enough on nitrogen oxide.

The concern is that our industries are already saying to us: “Now that we have free trade, of course our laws are much stricter. How can you apply these much stricter laws that we have in Ontario when the border is going to be wide open, when we have to compete head to head with our American friends?”

They are also saying: “What about programs such as the federal-provincial acid rain program, which allowed for financial assistance to the smelters in this province and in other provinces dealing with acid rain abatement? Is that program going to be declared illegal under the free trade agreement?”

BEEF FARMERS

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I hope this is the last question he has to deal with in the House this year.

A couple of weeks ago I asked the minister when he is going to release the report of the bull test study committee, which dealt with the economic losses incurred by a number of beef farmers in the province. At that time, he answered that the manufacturer of the product may well be challenged in the courts and therefore he wanted to wait on the report.

I have reviewed the terms of reference of the bull test study committee, and I note in looking at it that possibly two of them might deal with the liability of the company which produces the feed. The other six terms of reference are fairly general: “To investigate the incidence of bloat in bulls at Ontario bull test stations,” etc.

Why does he not at least release those parts of the report which do not necessarily refer to the liability of the manufacturer of the product? Why does he not release the details of the report dealing with the other six terms of reference which probably would not involve the manufacturer at all?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not profess to be a lawyer, but on the advice of our solicitor, due to the fact that there could be a third-party liability in this matter, it is suggested that the report not be released at this time.

Mr. Hampton: Six of the terms of reference are very general. The minister has told me on three separate questions now, again referring to the manufacturer, that he does not want to say anything or he does not want to get involved. If the minister is so concerned about the manufacturer at this point in time, who is looking after their welfare of beef farmers in this province? They want to know some of this information. They have sustained fairly heavy economic losses they are having problems carrying them and they want to know generally what the report says. The minister has had it for two months.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This government and this minister always look after the welfare of the farmers of this province. I am anxiously awaiting a question as to what this province is doing because I am ready with an answer. I do not know whether it is going to come or not.

I think the member should be aware that those farmers who had bulls in the bull test stations are compensated for losses. Once bulls reach the bull test stations, if there is a loss after that time, the farmers are compensated. Furthermore, they are not charged for the feed that the bulls have eaten up to the time when they --

Mr. Jackson: Are you a hands-on minister in this case? Are you one of those hands-on ministers in this case?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There is compensation. I have to tell the member that is no bull.

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and he will not need a solicitor to tell the bull from the not bull.

Does he intend to further subsidize the Toronto stockyards?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We intend to render some financial assistance to the stockyards based on a number of conditions. They have to submit an annual report to us showing us just exactly how their business is doing and showing what they expect their business to do over the next two or three years. Any assistance will be purely on an annual basis until we are able to establish whether indeed they are going to be able to make a profitable business over the next two or three years.

Mr. Villeneuve: I gather then that the minister will be providing ongoing financial support for the Toronto stockyards. As he knows, they operate under federal regulations. All other stockyards and livestock handling facilities in Ontario operate under provincial regulations. Will the minister provide to those other livestock handlers the same type of support on a per animal basis that he will to the Toronto stockyards?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I would not say that I am going to render that kind of support. I think the member will find that the other community sales somewhat rely on the Ontario Stock Yards for setting the price. Yes, I have received the same letters as the member has. I have talked to them on a personal basis. That is what the member ought to do once in a while. When he gets a letter, he should go talk to them. He may get a little more reason by talking to them eyeball to eyeball.

They know. They do not expect that this government is going to compensate them for a business which in most cases is a viable business and one which has relied on the Ontario Stock Yards over the years to set the price. It has been the price-setting mechanism up to this point in time. Whether that will continue remains to be seen. Any assistance that we render to the stockyards will be purely on an annual basis and we will be checking their books very closely.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC RESORT

Mr. Fleet: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I wish to raise the strong concerns of some of my constituents who have plans to travel to the Dominican Republic in the coming weeks. Recent media articles have indicated problems in particular with the Bavaro Beach Gardens Hotel in Punta Cana where certain of my constituents are supposed to stay. Can the minister inform me and this House of the status of this particular situation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Certainly members will be pleased to be in the city and in this Legislature this week as opposed to being at the Bavaro Beach Gardens Hotel, if the press reports are true.

Mr. Ferraro: I don’t know about that.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro) may want to go and see the difference.

Mr. Jackson: Rick wants to know if we can put that to a vote.

1100

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Tell my friend the flight leaves in a day.

There has been an awful problem for several hundred people who bought a Christmastime package through Alba Tours, Touram and Regent. They have gone to a hotel which supposedly had a newly built wing, which is basically not completed.

We have advised those three tour companies to immediately cancel the tours which I believe were scheduled to depart today or tomorrow from Toronto, and the latest report I have is that they will all comply with this very strongly worded request.

We have further indicated through the registrar of travel that the tours of these three companies or any other to the Bavaro Beach Gardens Hotel and to the new wing of that hotel should not take place until we have absolute assurance that the construction, which was supposed to be completed before Christmas, has indeed been completed.

Mr. Fleet: There have been media reports this morning which indicated that all travel to the Dominican Republic has been stopped. Could the minister verify this statement and also tell me what advice he might have for travellers who find themselves with this particular problem?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I heard the same report on one of the Toronto radio stations this morning, indicating that there had been a ban on travel to the Dominican Republic. I should make it very clear that the request has been put to stop all tours to the new wing of the Bavaro Beach Gardens Hotel.

There are indeed some people from Toronto -- and I know my friend from Burlington would want them to know this -- who were to take a tour today or tomorrow to the older wing of that same hotel, and we have been given assurances that tour can depart and that indeed those people will be properly housed.

I would suggest to all travellers who are headed for that particular hotel that they check immediately with their travel agents and insist and receive assurances that they will be properly accommodated when they arrive in the Dominican Republic, so that this unfortunate occurrence does not happen to any more than the 300 who have had this very unfortunate occurrence happen to them during the Christmas season.

DISTRICT COURT

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. He no doubt has read the Zuber commission report, which recommends quite far-reaching restructuring of the courts. One of the recommendations was that the district court be phased out of existence and that many of the existing district court judges would be moved up to the Supreme Court level and also some of the existing district court judges would be allowed to sit until they retire.

The Attorney General has had this report for some time, and people across the province, the legal community and district court judges for sure, wonder what the Attorney General plans to do in following up Mr. Justice Zuber’s recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to thank the honourable member for his question. I know he is very interested in this subject.

I also want to congratulate him on the determined effort he is making on behalf of his party to hold this question period together. While the four extinct volcanoes adjacent to him lie there awaiting the commencement of the holiday season and wondering what they are going to do about this free trade debate, he has been asking question after question of minister after minister in order to give this exercise some punch. If that carries on into the new year, the bad news is that he may end up as leader of his party.

I know the honourable member is interested in the Zuber commission report. I have had occasion to have a brief discussion with him about it. Since the report was delivered to us, we have had an opportunity to have a number of groups come in to the ministry and discuss its ramifications. District court judges are, of course, one of the groups who are not happy with the proposal that Mr. Justice Zuber has made.

I anticipate being able to respond very early in the new year, after government policy has been determined with respect to that particular recommendation.

Mr. Hampton: As is often said, we speak to many of the same people the Attorney General speaks to. We receive information from trial lawyers, we receive information from district court judges who are quite concerned about this.

The Attorney General has, again, had the report since July. There is quite a bit of concern out there among various communities as to what is going to happen. Can the Attorney General give us some indication of when in the new year and exactly how he is going to proceed on this’? Is there going to be more consultation? Is there going to be some sort of follow-up? If so, can he give us some indication what it is?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is no secret that every other province in Canada, with the exception of British Columbia and Ontario, has moved to a two-trial-level system over the last decade or so. The Zuber commission recommends that and it seems to me inevitable, certainly based on the consultations I have had, that the bar and those who are consumers in the justice system support that recommendation.

The issue that the district court judges raise is how that is going to be achieved, whether it is going to be achieved through merger or through a division of their numbers among the two remaining courts, the superior court and the provincial court. It is a difficult practical question, because the change has to be made while the courts carry on their normal business; but I anticipate that next year -- and next year is not that far away -- I will be able to tell the honourable member how he should answer the questions that his groups bring to him.

FACILITY FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Runciman: My question is for the minister of corrections, sometimes referred to as the convert in corrections. I want to ask him about the Young Offenders Act facility that was announced for Brockville. A secure Young Offenders Act facility was announced a little over two years ago and nothing has happened, even though his predecessor, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr. Keyes), indicated during the recent election campaign that Brockville was the proper site that would proceed. Now the Minister of Correctional Services is continuing to delay this, I think for partisan reasons. Can he indicate to the House today when he is going to proceed with that much-needed facility?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would like to say to the honourable member across the way that what I have done is reassess all the facilities we have across Ontario. What I want to do, and we are doing this at this time, is embark upon a program of improving all the facilities we have. Instead of building more jails, what I want to do is improve what we have.

We have in eastern Ontario facilities that are very adequate. We are adding on and renovating YOA facilities in many of the eastern Ontario areas. Right now, eastern Ontario is very well served for young offenders.

Mr. Runciman: While the minister was not even aware of the situation until I brought it to his attention a month or so ago, now he is saying the situation is fine, there is no problem. I want to tell him we have talked to police chiefs throughout eastern Ontario and we are facing a real crisis in terms of accommodation for young offenders aged 16 to 18. We talked to the chiefs in Kingston, Smiths Falls, Brockville and Kemptville. They are facing a real crisis and the minister is not addressing that crisis, for purely political reasons. The Liberals do not hold that riding, so he does not want to go ahead with that facility.

Mr. Speaker: The question is?

Mr. Runciman: When is the minister going to take a look at the situation, admit he is facing a real crisis and get on with the job?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have to beg to differ with the member across the way. I will be at an official opening in February in eastern Ontario in Cobourg, at Brookside Youth Centre, where we have converted cottages that we got from the Ministry of Community and Social Services, an old reform school, into a first-rate facility that is going to be number one in any jurisdiction in North America. We are continuing with upgrading our facilities and I think we have the best facilities in North America for our offender population.

1110

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Mahoney: It is my privilege to ask what would appear at least to be the last question for the Liberal Party for 1987 in this House, if not the entire House. My question is to the Minister of Education. I would like to tell him that the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board are experiencing growth at an unprecedented rate. There are many sites in Mississauga with 25 to 30 portables on site. High schools are bursting at the seams. Elementary kids in many areas are bused long distances to spend their days in portables and eat their lunch on the floor.

This is the legacy that has been left by people like Dr. Bette Stephenson and the Honourable Bill Davis; they are known in my community as the fathers and mothers of underfunding. Can the minister tell this House how he plans to correct this unacceptable situation? Will he provide capital funds for new schools while, at the same time accommodating smaller class sizes, day care, junior kindergarten and other programs that may come along?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I say to my friend the member for Mississauga West that the ministry does recognize the severe difficulties that those communities experiencing rapid growth are enduring in terms of school facilities. I am pleased to indicate to the member that this year $226 million will be made available. Most of that money will be earmarked for growth areas. That is an increase of some 50 per cent over the figure established last year and some 300 per cent over the figure established in 1985 by the previous government.

Mr. Mahoney: Given the pressures of growth in Peel and one or two other regions the minister has referred to, will the minister consider special-funding status for the capital needs in high growth areas to try and correct the mess that has been created in the past?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I want to assure the member that indeed the high growth areas in the province, among which the region of Peel is included, do have additional funds earmarked to accommodate their needs. It is expected that early in the spring the announcements of the allocation of those funds will be made.

USE OF TIME IN QUESTION PERIOD

Mr. McCague: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I respectfully suggest that you might convene a meeting of the House leaders early in 1988 to see if you cannot do something about the length of the questions and answers in this House. I checked this with you. You timed one yesterday where the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) had an exchange which was a second over 10 minutes. It was very closely rivalled by our House leader, the member for Nipissing (Mr Harris), who took about nine minutes today on one question.

It has nothing to do with the government, the opposition or our party. I think we could make it much more productive. I am not sure what the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was saying today as he started off, but I think he was saying about the same thing as I am saying. Respectfully, Mr. Speaker, you might convene a meeting and see if we could not make this a little more crisp.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the suggestion the member has made. I have tried the best l have been able to try to keep the questions and responses as pertinent as possible. I will certainly take it into consideration.

STANDING ORDERS

Hon. Mr. Conway: moved that the provisional standing orders be extended to remain in effect until 12 midnight on Wednesday, June l, 1988.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

Mr. Polsinelli, on behalf of Hon. R. F. Nixon, moved resolution 7:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing January 1, 1988, and ending April 15, 1988, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Mr. Polsinelli: Members will know that interim supply is a routine motion that comes before the House at regular intervals. The last one was presented by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on December 1 and gave the government the authority to spend its money until December 31. At that time the Treasurer indicated that before Christmas he would be coming back to this House for a motion granting the government the authority to make transfer payments and spend this money to the middle of April. Unfortunately, because of certain events that occurred, that could not be done before Christmas and is being done today.

Members will also know that if this motion is not passed today, then there will be severe repercussions. I understand that on January 1 there is a commitment of about $10 million for rent for government occupancy in 1,300 payments, and on January 4, which is Monday, the municipalities expect 125 payments of roughly $35 million. That goes on to, I believe, January 5, when school boards expect payments of about $75 million, etc.

We hope the House will pass this motion today.

Mr. Harris: It is unfortunate that the Treasurer is not here. I do not know if he is coming back or when he plans to come back. The parliamentary assistant is giving all the urgent reasons why this should be passed. We have talked about this for a period of time. It is rather disgraceful to leave a matter of this importance when you are talking the many, many billions of dollars that are involved, when you are talking --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: It interrupted your filibustering, didn’t it?

Mr. Harris: No, we have asked for this to be called for the last three weeks.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I say it interrupted your filibuster.

Mr. Harris: Well, the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has got into trouble before with his silly interjections. It is quite the contrary to what the member for Niagara Falls says. He says it has interrupted our filibuster. It has not caused us any problem at all: (a) it is not a filibuster; and (b) we have been calling for this resolution to be called for the last three weeks so that we would have the appropriate amount of time to comment on it and to comment on the problems that we see occurring with this government.

You know, we are talking about estimates. This is the first time in the history of this Legislature that there will be so few hours of estimates done, because this government refused to deal with them. They talk about the amount of time that the opposition parties have provided the government for legislation. All the committee time through the spring since the budget, any time throughout the summer, then the campaign, and then all of the time right up until the last few weeks has been given to the government to deal with legislation, and very little time has been spent on estimates or on examining not only the budgetary policy of this government but also the way it spends and loses money.

So with respect to the parliamentary assistant’s remarks, which I assume the Treasurer gave to him to read in his absence -- so now I can redirect my criticism to the Treasurer himself -- I would say, yes, there is some urgency for some of the bills to be paid. I question how many staff will be in here writing cheques tomorrow, on January 1, perhaps there will be staff in here doing that, or on January 2, Saturday, or on January 3, Sunday. Presumably, if this were passed on January 4, that would cover any of the cheques that went out, although it is very uncomfortable for the Treasurer not to know and --

1120

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No.

Mr. Harris: Well, it is. The Treasurer will know that it is a problem when he does not have the supply motion through.

We would have preferred this to have been called several weeks ago. We would have preferred a little more time, without the pressure of not only the members who may wish to speak to this wanting to be home for New Year’s Eve with their constituents, let alone their families. I guess the other pressure that is put on the members who want to speak is not on behalf of themselves. I am quite content to get home a little later. My wife can do all the things that I find difficult to do. She does all the difficult tasks and all the difficult chores, gets all the things ready and runs all my little errands for me. She will have the driveway shovelled.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Throw out the Christmas tree.

Mr. Harris: The Christmas tree will be thrown out, as the Treasurer points out, and actually, it is an advantage for me to show up at the last minute on these occasions because I just get pleasure and I do not have to do all the chores.

I do want to say that the additional pressure is that there are other members of this Legislature who, I know, may have more difficult travel arrangements than I do; some, as a matter of fact, who have no scheduled air service into their home town, as in the Ottawa Valley ridings, and who have to drive home. There is that pressure that has been put on a huge number of members I know from the New Democratic Party who wanted to speak on interim supply; and of course, just about every member of our party wanted to speak on interim supply as well.

I have copious notes here. It is difficult for me to know where to start, but with the time restraints that have been placed on me --

Mr. Fleet: Cut to the last paragraph.

Mr. Harris: My colleague and chief adviser on financial matters in our caucus has suggested to me that, when in doubt, do not start.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Margaret Marland. Hear, hear.

Mr. Harris: I understand the message he is giving me and what he is saying, because I have volumes of material that point out the waste not only in the control of expenditures but in the way this government expends money.

Mr. Runciman: No wonder the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston) is in here. He’s reading the Toronto Star.

Mr. Harris: Well, that is right; he is in here instead of controlling them.

I also want to indicate that several members of the executive council have alluded to the fact that the critic for our party, the member for Nipissing -- me -- wants to see a balanced budget, wants to see expenditures cut and would also like to see a reduced level of taxation. That is quite true; I admit to that. When they talk about various projects and various programs, every single program that is brought up, or any of the worthwhile programs -- I mean, I am the first to admit that, of the $35 billion, some of it is well spent; some of it is necessary and some of it should be spent and should be budgeted in those areas.

However, when you get $9 billion -- close to $10 billion now, I guess -- in additional revenue in less than three years since this party has taken over the government, $5 billion or $6 billion well in excess of inflation, there is a lot of room there. When they assumed office coming out of a recession -- or a depression, some called it -- there was about a $2-billion deficit that they were faced with. I am not going to go into all the notes and all the columnists that slammed the Treasurer, but I do want to put a couple of things on the record in the limited time constraints that I am under.

Of that extra $5 billion or $6 billion, in what even the Treasurer has acknowledged have been the best economic times this province has had and will likely ever have, surely the first $2 billion should have reduced or eliminated the deficit. That still leaves them all the existing programs, inflation on all the existing programs, with another $3 billion or $4 billion left to bring in new initiatives, if that is the way they want to spend the money. There are some who would argue that perhaps the debt should be paid down a little bit in good times.

I do not apologize for the statements I have made. I am one who feels it is an absolute disgrace that over the past three years we have not had a balanced budget; that, in fact, the debt should have been reduced.

It is a staggering figure. I want to make quick reference to a couple of little things. On page 28 of the 1987 financial report of Ontario, it shows the accumulated debt going from $41 billion to almost $43 billion, $41,093,000,000 to $42,889,000,000, so that there is roughly a $1.88-billion increase this year in the total debt of this province at a time of staggering growth and at a time of the staggering increased revenues this Treasurer has.

The other difficulty I see is that he has taken taxation levels, particularly in his first budget and then followed up with some in ensuing budgets, to a critically high level in this province. If everything clicks, if everything is booming and everything is going well, that amount of money and that level of taxation can be extracted from the economy without shutting it down; but at the slightest downturn, at the slightest change in economic activity, that level of taxation will be very high and will be unbearable.

At the same time, we will be looking at a need for programs to help people who cannot help themselves. I think it is strange that in good times, when things are going well, welfare payments are still going up, the social services budget is still going up, that all those programs designed to share the wealth during difficult times are going up in excess of inflation during good times. I find that totally contrary to any responsible budgetary policy for any organization or company, let alone for a government.

I know from the Treasurer’s background that he shares that view. He cannot fess up to it, he cannot admit it, because it is his Premier (Mr Peterson) and the direction of his party that has caused him this great problem.

In granting this supply, I call on the Treasurer, who is surely contemplating a new budget as we go home for New Year’s tonight, who will probably be going home worrying about his budget tonight --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He’s going to Earl’s Shell.

Mr. Harris: Doggone it, I will say that if he had listened to the boys there: I know he goes there and I know he hears them, but he does not listen to them and he does not take their advice. I think if he did, he would be far better off than with the advice he gets from the Premier and from all the people who were mentioned by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) yesterday who give the advice to this party. I do not want to repeat them all, but I am sure they are influencing what has happened to the Treasurer as well.

But I would ask him as he is contemplating the next budget to reflect on what has happened in Ontario over the last few years, to reflect on government spending far in excess of inflation. We are looking at government spending, averaged over the three years, of over 10 per cent a year. At the same time, inflation in those years runs in the range of four to five per cent.

1130

I am the first to acknowledge that a lot of our transfer agencies were squeezed during the early 1980s. They were squeezed when times were difficult and when times were good. Perhaps it is appropriate to catch up and flow them some money, but to flow all of it and to flow it into the new programs the Treasurer has taken is really not responsible.

The other thing that is interesting is that they keep using the transfer agencies. They say the municipalities were squeezed, the school boards were squeezed, the hospitals were squeezed, the universities were squeezed. If one looks at the transfer payments that were made to all those institutions, they are far less than the increase in government spending itself. We look at transfer payments in the area of six, seven and eight per cent, yet we look at government revenues coming in the range of 10, 11 and 12 per cent.

And we look at total government expenditures far in excess of the transfer agency expenditures, so that is not a valid excuse for what has occurred.

The taxation levels are at a critically high level. I think this was indicated when the federal government talked about increasing tax on tobacco and liquor. The Treasurer squealed like a stuck pig, “Gee, I was kind of counting on being able to grab a little more money there myself.” He is fast running out of areas where he can get more money, because we are at that very high level in almost all categories of our taxation.

I would ask him to reflect on that. I would ask him to reflect on the massive increase in government expenditures. I would ask him to reflect on the massive increase in new programs. I would ask him to reflect on whether, particularly when we have a government that is going to bring in new program after new program, we ought to get into a more serious look at reviewing existing programs, whether they are effective, whether sunset legislation should be brought in for, perhaps, every program on the books. There are far too many programs that are not given a good look as to whether they may have been relevant in 1978; or they may have been brought in in 1981 to serve a particular problem, but are they still relevant today?

Rather than some of the work that the committees of this Legislature are carrying on -- and the Treasurer knows we are looking at reorganizing the estimates process and the House schedule, we are looking at parliamentary reform m those areas. I wonder whether some of the things our committees spend time on ought not be better spent reviewing some of the many programs that have been on the books for years, reviewing whether they are indeed relevant. Are we getting value for money out of those programs any longer? I think of programs such as Renterprise, the Huang and Danczkay Ltd. building. You can say whatever you want, but surely Renterprise was never designed to flow money that way.

I look at some of the grant programs, and somebody some time will take my comments and say: “Harris doesn’t agree with the Northern Ontario Development Corp. There is an industry in his riding that got a grant.” I will tell members that I encourage every industry in my riding to take every nickel the government offers. I tell them, “Don’t expand until you check with the federal government and the provincial government to see what they will give you whether you need it or not.”

It is my job to make sure, because if they do not get it somebody else gets it, and a company would be foolish not to take that money. But I must tell the members honestly that I really wonder how many of the expansions, even in my riding of Nipissing, the new buildings, the new construction, would have gone on without the grants. We have to take a look at those programs, and take a look in a very serious way, to see whether we are just throwing government money away.

The other thing on those programs, while I am on that, is the desire for governments to get statistics on the number of jobs created. Everybody knows this now; the accountants know it and the consultants know it. When you approach the government for money, even if it is better to have more efficient equipment that will mean you will survive in the long run, you are better to go in with a higher number of jobs created.

If you have somebody who is going to manufacture product A and can do it inefficiently with 20 employees as opposed to efficiently with, say, 10 employees by modernizing and buying the most up-to-date technology, I really question who gets the grant if there are two companies. It is the one who has the 20 jobs, because he is going to create 20 jobs.

Then that civil servant can add into the pool of statistics, pass it on, and the government says: “Isn’t that wonderful? This program” -- whatever it was -- “has created this number of jobs.” We should be looking at those programs to find out if we are getting value for money. In my opinion, we may not be.

I mentioned in the estimates, on which I had one day with the Treasurer, my concern as well with some of the tourism initiatives. There is not a hotel or a motel in northern Ontario that will add a room, renovate, upgrade or expand without applying for a tourism loan, because it is there. Are we getting value for money on those loans? I think we should look at that.

I know there will be some who will throw it back and say, “Harris wants to cancel tourism loans.” I am not saying that. I am saying that we should look at whether we are getting value for money. If we spend $5 million in tourism in my riding on hotels and motels, how many of them would have added on anyway? Could we have taken that $5 million and built a major attraction on Nipissing’s waterfront? Would that not have increased tourism far more substantially? It would have allowed the private sector to put its own money into rooms, into upgrading, into new hotels, into those facilities. I think that is something this government should be looking at as well.

Not only should we be looking at some programs -- and I used examples in my own backyard for a very good reason: to tell members that I am serious about it -- should we not be looking at programs for industry and for tourism? Do they make sense any more? Are we getting value for money? Could the money be spent in other areas more effectively?

I do not know what we are going to offer Firestone. I guess somebody from Hamilton might pick up my remarks some time and say, “Harris is against jobs for Hamilton.” Of course I am not against jobs for Hamilton; I am not against trying to salvage Firestone. But at what point do we stop? We hear now that the Premier has given the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology pretty well carte blanche to go to the United States and offer this firm any amount of money it takes. I wonder how seriously they really look at how much is going to be spent there.

I think these programs have to be looked at to see if they are relevant, to see if the money should be spent in other ways. When a new program comes on stream, it is unfortunate we are not reviewing some of the older ones that are there. I ask the Treasurer to reflect on some form of more serious sunset review of existing programs.

The amendment that I proposed to the Employee Share Ownership program was accepted by the government. That was to have a mandatory review in five years of that program. I will be proposing those kinds of amendments to every new program that is brought in that comes through the Legislature, but I think the Treasurer and the government itself should be looking at some of those that I have no input into or say on.

I ask the Treasurer to consider those things as he looks at what I think is an abysmal record over three years, disguised and hidden under the very buoyant and booming economic activity that we have had in this province in the three years, to look seriously at the suggestions that I offer.

I have several more hours of wonderful suggestions and ideas for the Treasurer, which, because of when he has chosen to call this particular resolution, I will save for another day and another opportunity. In the spirit of generosity and the good mood that I have been in since September 10 and the high esteem and enjoyment that I receive out of this Legislature and the fun that I have here, that is my New Year’s present to the Treasurer and to everybody else in the House.

1140

Mr. Mackenzie: I have just a very brief comment to the Treasurer. It has always had me wondering a bit in this House how it is that year after year -- and this year is probably the worst example -- we end up voting interim supply, as we do several times, at the end of the year or on the last day of the year, to cover the next three and a half months in the Legislature. When we look at any challenging we are supposed to do of the various ministries and take a look at the estimates, we find there is a total of five of the 20 or 30 ministries that have been dealt with in terms of the estimates.

It is not meant as a direct criticism. It is just that l think there is something wrong with our procedures in handling this matter in the House. It may be that it is time we take a look at how we handle the estimates or what the role is and why we really are voting the money long after we should have taken a look at the expenditures of the various ministries.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would like to thank the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli), the parliamentary assistant to the Treasury, for introducing this resolution in my absence and for indicating the requirements for these moneys. I think it is generally estimated that about $10 billion will be spent under the authority of the resolution.

I also appreciate the comments made by the opposition spokesmen. The member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) agreed that we ought to give further consideration, probably more effective consideration, to how we might deal with the consideration of the estimates when the Legislature does return at about the time when we might expect a new budget within a month or six weeks, something like that, and I totally agree.

I think if we can make the consideration of the estimates more significant and meaningful for all the members of the Legislature, we will not only be doing a good job for our own state of mental health but also, and far more important, of course, be using the judgement and experience of the members of the Legislature to do a better job in our taxation policy, in our fiscal controls and in the establishment of programs. The idea of reviewing old programs is, of course, what we must do, and we must do it better than we have. So I concur entirely with that, and I hope that this will be a fruitful year coming up in improving that procedure.

The argument given by the honourable member for Hamilton East that we have only reviewed five ministries is true, but he is aware that with an election and a truncated session, at least to this period of time it was not possible to do more. But I think if we get down to what might be a more routine and generally plannable procedure in the House for 1988, we will all be able to do a better job in that regard.

The member for Nipissing expressed his concern about the deficit levels, and many people in the province, including the Treasurer, consider that a matter of importance as well. The most recent figures available to me indicate that our total provincial debt, excluding Hydro, is now 13.6 per cent of the gross provincial product. This compares with 14.8 per cent three years ago, so this is a statistic that is an indication of an improvement at least.

Mr. Harris: How does it compare to six or seven years ago?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Actually seven years ago, it was 15.4 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: And the Tories were in power at that time.

Mr. Harris: It is six or eight --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I know, whatever. There was probably a time, going back 44 years, when it was better.

I just want to say that all of us would like to be able to pay off all our bills, including capital costs, with the regular revenues provided by the tax base. But I say again to the honourable members that when we undertake such substantial capital programs year by year for schools and hospitals, roads, environmental programs and such matters, it does not make much sense that the tax level ought to be so high that we could pay for those capital costs in the year in which they are installed out of our general revenues. If you were running any kind of a business, you would be very fortunate indeed if you were able to do that.

I do not really think that any of us here should apologize for the fact that the provincial debt is designed to allow those capital projects to be built when the province needs them, sometimes a lot later than needed in the opinion of some members of the Legislature, and that the costs of those are spread out over a number of years.

One response is, “We’re loading the next generation with those costs;” but we are also providing it with the schools and the roads and the hospitals and the facilities to produce electrical energy which is the basis of the strength of the fabric of this province. I hope that we can do better, but I would say to members that we are doing very well indeed and I do not feel that we should be seriously apologetic for that.

As a matter of fact, our cash requirements are as low as they have been at any time in the last number of years and we have projections, which we have already placed before the Legislature, indicating that we expect the rate of expansion of our economy to level out somewhat in the coming fiscal year and that we have to plan our government operations accordingly.

I appreciate the fact that the honourable members, at this late date in 1987, have indicated that they are prepared to grant the government interim supply and I will look forward to discussing these matters on many more occasions in the year coming up. I wish the honourable members the very best of 1988.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

On Monday, January 4; Tuesday, January 5; Wednesday, January 6, and Thursday, January 7, we will be continuing the debate on government motion 8, standing in the name of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter).

On Thursday morning, we will consider private members’ business standing in the names of Mr. Cureatz and Mr. Daigeler.

By agreement of the whips, committees will not sit next week and any additional business will be announced by the agreement of the House leaders.

Before moving the adjournment of the House, Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take this opportunity to wish all members a very happy new year and to thank you and members of the House staff for your particular support and assistance this week. May everyone have a very good New Year’s weekend. With those comments, I am pleased to move the adjournment of the House.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

31 décembre 1987