Journal des débats 1993-juin-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I rise today to pay my respects on this happy occasion to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth on the 40th anniversary of her coronation. I'm sure that I speak for the people of Ontario when I convey our congratulations on the Queen's 40-year reign.

Today, when change engulfs many countries in strife and torment, we must pause for a moment to reflect upon all that we enjoy here in this great province: our proud Canadian heritage and our peaceful history, as symbolized by the crown and the monarchy. People the world over come to Canada in search of a life that is free from war and terror under the protection of a monarch whose rule embodies the spirit of tolerance, the rule of law, democratic government and tradition.

The monarchy of course is not immune from the pressures of the modern world that we all experience, but with grace and good intent Her Majesty has shown her willingness to change and respond to new demands and duties. In her acts and thoughts, she retains our loyalty and respect.

Today is indeed a special occasion, and I take great pride in speaking these words: Long live the Queen.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Today we are marking a most important Canadian anniversary. Forty years ago, on June 2, 1953, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II was crowned Queen of Canada at Westminster Abbey. Five days earlier, on May 28, Her Majesty issued a proclamation by which she became the first monarch to officially bear the title Queen of Canada.

During the coronation, Her Majesty took a solemn oath to govern the peoples of Canada and her other realms according to their respective laws and customs. This ancient oath, taken by the Queen to the people of Canada -- not to the country nor to the Constitution -- is actually older than the oath of loyalty to the monarch taken by subjects and agents of the state, such as police officers.

On this great day of the fundamental rights and freedoms we enjoy as a community living under the crown, let us remember that such oaths have always been taken to emphasize, first and foremost, the supremacy of the person in our society.

As someone who's had the privilege of meeting members of the royal family, such as Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales and His Royal Highness Prince Edward, I join with all members of the Conservative caucus in expressing our sincere love and loyalty to the head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, especially on the 40th anniversary of Her Majesty's coronation. God save the Queen.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): National Access Awareness Week symbolizes and encourages the increasing integration of persons with disabilities into all aspects of Canadian community life. Technological advances and increased public awareness are making a full and independent life possible for more and more people.

In Peterborough, we're concentrating on the housing aspect of accessibility. We are hosting the accessible house, a display built by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, which is touring Canada. It is a 1,600-square-foot model and is designed to accommodate persons with visual, hearing or physical disabilities and those who are sensitive to the environment. All but two of the products used in this home are Canadian made.

The accessible house will be open for public viewing at the Peterborough Armoury this Friday, June 4, from 9 am to 9 pm and from 9 to 5 on Saturday and Sunday. It is hoped that more than 5,000 people will visit. Trained tour guides of all ages, many of whom are disabled, will demonstrate the modifications embodied in this home.

The city of Peterborough, the Peterborough Council for Persons with Disabilities and the local branch of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp have been working since October to bring this project to Peterborough. They deserve our thanks for bringing the accessible house to Peterborough during National Access Awareness Week. We hope that you will be able to visit this display.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I had the pleasure of attending the first planning meeting of Action Paramedics on May 25 at the Ottawa General Hospital. The purpose of this meeting was to mount a campaign that will promote CPR training within our community, to seek support for firefighter defibrillation and a paramedic program for Ottawa-Carleton.

The campaign is only in its infancy, but it continues to acquire momentum daily. At the end of the day, when the campaign meets with success, as it surely will, the people of Ottawa-Carleton will be trained in CPR through classes offered in our high schools.

Our firefighters, who arrive first on the scene of a cardiac arrest, will be able to restore a heartbeat through the use of defibrillators and our ambulance attendants, who arrive shortly thereafter, will be trained to carry out full paramedic duties so necessary to maintain life until the emergency ward is reached.

Ottawa-Carleton has, I regret to say, one of the lowest survival rates for patients who experience a pre-hospital cardiac arrest in North America. Residents have a better chance of surviving cardiac arrest if they live in any one of more than 50 Canadian cities and towns that have paramedic programs.

There has been a groundswell of support from the residents of Ottawa-Carleton wanting access to the same emergency services that are currently enjoyed by many other areas in Ontario and across the country.

As the member from Ottawa South, I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially the Minister of Health, to the lack of paramedic services within Ottawa itself and the many lives that are lost needlessly.

I am delighted to be a part of this campaign, and I wish to commend Dr Justin Maloney of the base hospital program and Sandra Clarke, executive director of the Advanced Coronary Treatment Foundation of Canada, for their vision and diligence in pursuing a comprehensive emergency treatment program for Ottawa-Carleton.

BOATING SAFETY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Later today, I will be introducing a private member's bill that I hope will increase the public awareness of the need for boater safety and education courses and help to acquaint operators with the rules of navigation and safe boating.

You are no doubt aware that this will be the fourth time that I have attempted to educate the public that there is a real problem with careless and uninformed operation of motor boats on this province's waterways.

None of my previous bills made it through the legislative process successfully, but I was gratified by the great deal of public attention they generated and the enormous amount of support they received from law enforcement officials, the medical community, cottage associations, individual members of the public and friends and relatives of boating accident victims.

1340

I recognize that the contents of my bill may not satisfy everyone with an interest in recreational boating. That's why I urge my colleagues here in the Legislature to eventually send it to a standing committee of the Legislature for public hearings and possible amending.

I know there are those who do not support the idea of a motorboat operator's certificate, there are those who believe that the maximum $1,000 should be higher and there are those who do not think long-time boaters should be forced to take a boater safety and education course. To those people I say I included those features in this bill to get discussion and debate under way, and I'm certainly open to amending the legislation to meet concerns that may be raised during public hearings.

There's got to be an education process for people not acquainted with the rules of safe boating and, if my campaign saves one life, then it's worth it.

ITALIAN NATIONAL DAY

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I rise today to take part in the celebration of Italian National Day. I want to reiterate some comments I made on June 2, 1992, in this place.

In a referendum on June 2, 1946, Italians chose to become a republic, ending the monarchy in Italy. In Italy this is a national holiday and the official celebration is held in Rome. The parades and air shows are televised throughout the country.

Here in Canada celebrations are also held, usually the first Sunday in June, and there are many events in which Canadian Italians participate. There are more than 460,000 people of Italian heritage living in Ontario and they have made a significant contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of the province. The love of art, music and education and architecture which Italians brought with them has enriched each community in which they have chosen to live. Many early immigrants helped to build the homes and the infrastructure that we all now enjoy. The new generations are entering into all areas of community life, including the political structures.

I join in celebrating Italian National Day with pride and in recognition of all who have made a contribution to our heritage.

[Remarks in Italian]

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I well recall the various critics for the NDP, when in opposition, lamenting the downloading of costs and responsibilities to the local level of government, and wonder where those critics are today as municipalities are compelled to pick up the tab for the Workers' Compensation Board coverage for hundreds of students and other on-the-job trainees; as engineering departments are forced to assume a greater portion or the entire cost of needed sewer and water projects; as the repair of broken roads is left to the local public works departments to finance; as insurance premiums are raised by the provincial government or the cost of sand and gravel boosted by the Ontario Treasurer; as school boards are required to continue mandated provincial programs with fewer provincial dollars; as hospitals are instructed to maintain quality health care with a smaller allocation from the Ministry of Health; as senior citizens' homes are expected to serve a growing population with less financial support from the NDP government; as transit authorities endeavour to serve a growing population with less money from the MTO; as recreation service needs are met with little or much less financial backing from Queen's Park; as the requirements of vulnerable individuals are addressed with lower funding from the province.

Where are the voices of indignation and concern that rang through this legislative chamber and in the union halls, community auditoriums and council chambers in years gone by? What's wrong, folks? Has the cat got your tongue?

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): May 31 to June 6 is National Access Awareness Week, a time when we reflect on the rights of disabled persons to accessible education, employment, housing, recreation and transportation. National Access Awareness Week is a way to raise society's awareness of barriers that prevent disabled persons from participating in the social and economic life of our nation. This week, we celebrate improved access and identify areas where there are still barriers to be removed.

Over the past year, there have been important advances in access. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission is retrofitting subway stations to make them wheelchair accessible.

There are still areas with serious access problems. For instance, I have tried to help three adults whose learning disabilities make it very hard to communicate using the written word. Computer technology and government programs should be available to them, but barriers within the Ontario NDP government have blocked their every attempt to gain access to these tools and services.

Finally, there have been frustrating setbacks. Provincial funding of many services for disabled persons has been reduced. Even though these services should be considered essential, these cutbacks are robbing disabled persons of basic human rights. I urge this Bob Rae NDP government to protect the rights of disabled persons when they reform programs and reduce spending.

DUNDAS KITE FESTIVAL

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): On June 4, the annual Dundas Kite Festival will be celebrating its 16th anniversary. From June 4 to June 6, downtown Dundas will be the place to be. The annual festival is sponsored by the town of Dundas, the Hamilton Region Conservation Authority and Chapman Books. Ms Joanna Chapman is the festival founder.

Kicking off the weekend celebration, there will be midnight madness shopping on Friday night, a sidewalk sale on Saturday, and on Sunday, June 6, everyone will be out flying their kites at the Dundas Valley Conservation Area on Governor's Road in Dundas. There will be a fine array of entertainers. Music as diverse as country, blues, reggae, Dixieland, jazz, rock, folk and classical will be complemented by clowns, jugglers, magicians, karate demos, line dancing instruction and the ever-popular karaoke machine, just to name a few.

There will be lots of great things for the kids to do, including free face-painting and a kite-making area where a professional kite maker will be showing kids how to make their own kites. This festival is really a celebration of spring and it's an event for the entire family. So come to the 16th annual Dundas Kite Festival this weekend. Bring a picnic and spend the day.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Yesterday, my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade told the Legislature about Jobs Ontario Community Action. Under this initiative, the government will invest some $300 million in community initiatives over three years. Jobs Ontario Community Action is a new way of making things happen locally. It is a recognition that communities themselves are the best equipped and best able to stimulate local economic activity.

Jobs Ontario Community Action will create greater cooperation in communities and it will support new partnerships: partnerships with local government, community groups, labour, business, educational institutions, cultural groups, credit unions, cooperatives, equity groups and other interested citizens.

Some of the people who have already been pioneering the sort of partnership I'm talking about are with us today in the gallery. I'd like to recognize Judy Goldie of the Canadian Co-operative Association; David Walsh of our local economic project; Frankie Liberty of the Economic Developers Council of Ontario; and Peter Nares of Self-Employment Development Initiatives.

As my colleague said, there are three main thrusts to the Jobs Ontario Community Action program: community development to help communities build their capacity to organize and plan for the future; community financing to help communities invest in themselves; and community capital to provide support for capital infrastructure projects identified as priorities through the planning process.

Today, as a component of the Jobs Ontario Community Action program, I will introduce legislation to address the area of community financing. This legislation, entitled the Community Economic Development Act, will provide tools to help communities invest in themselves and it will allow municipalities to participate directly in new ways to support economic development initiatives in their communities.

1350

In our consultation with community organizations, we discovered that there is a financing gap for this kind of entrepreneurial activity. Small entrepreneurs often lack sufficient collateral to qualify for bank loans, and other businesses can't afford the costs of pursuing private share placements or stock market issues to bring equity financing to their operation.

That's why our government feels strongly that this legislation is both timely and necessary. Through it, we are helping to narrow this capital gap.

The Community Economic Development Act will empower communities to raise their own investment capital, forge new economic partnerships and work with both traditional and non-traditional sources of expertise to provide capital for entrepreneurial opportunities.

Let me briefly outline these new tools and mechanisms.

To provide a vehicle for communities to coordinate their economic development activity, the legislation enables municipalities to participate in the establishment of community development corporations and support their operations.

Community development corporations will be non-profit organizations operated by a board of directors that will ideally reflect the wide diversity of people and organizations of their communities. The government intends to provide some financial assistance from Jobs Ontario Community Action to help communities set these organizations up.

Among other things, a community development corporation could sponsor new community financing tools that would also be created through legislation that I am introducing this afternoon: community loan funds and community investment share corporations.

Community loan funds will give local investors a chance to support small businesses in their community. The funds would provide access to loans in the range of $500 to $15,000 for all types of microenterprises. The government would guarantee the principal for local investors who put their money into these funds.

Community investment share corporations will be set up by local groups and they will provide a source of equity financing for enterprises and benefit the community as a whole. Again, the government would guarantee the principal.

The government is allocating $10 million for the community loan fund guarantees and $20 million for community investment share guarantees. We estimate that over the next five years, 40 community investment share corporations and 30 community loan funds will become operational in communities throughout Ontario. This will help communities create about 4,000 jobs.

The legislation will also permit municipalities to use more creative and flexible ways of financing facilities that benefit the entire community, such as community centre complexes, water and sewage facilities, roads and transit facilities. It would allow them to forge partnerships with the private sector to finance these public facilities. Municipalities will also be able to make better use of the pooled investments and borrowing arrangements among certain public sector institutions.

This legislation is an important part of our government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. By encouraging local investment in local ventures, it will support strong, self-reliant local economies which are so vital to Ontario's financial health.

This represents one more step along the road to economic recovery. It places investment power where it belongs -- in communities throughout the province -- because our government believes that it is local communities that will lead the way to jobs, growth and economic prosperity.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I don't know why it takes two different ministers to announce nothing in this House. On two different days we've heard the same thing. Yesterday afternoon, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade made the very same announcement as the Minister of Municipal Affairs today, and yet no new dollars were introduced in this enabling legislation.

To my surprise, yesterday the Minister of Economic Development said: "The funds for this program will come from a consolidation of a number of previously existing programs with support from Jobs Ontario Capital. Commitments made under these previously existing programs will be honoured."

One of my first questions to the minister is, how many dollars are left in this $300-million program in which they're supposed to spend $100 a year? Very few dollars are left, so it's only a commitment.

I find it very strange that this minister says, "Look, we're creating another partnership with communities, with municipalities," and yet only a few days ago they took away $2 billion of possible investment, through taxation, from consumers' pockets. Unconditional grants to municipalities were cut by $110 million and now they're saying, "Let's create a new partnership." Now that you've got all the responsibilities -- downloading, I call it -- they want to create a new partnership.

I don't know what people in Chatham and Kingston and the Windsor area and other areas that were part of the relocation program will say of today's announcement. These people expected to create jobs and have the necessary tools to create a better investing environment, and today the minister's announcement says nothing new. It's a fancy program. I wonder what small businesses, which produce 80% of all our jobs in the province of Ontario, will have to say about this new, fancy program. Not too much, because there is nothing in this program that will encourage them. They would like to get their unconditional grants back so that they can create jobs in their own municipalities.

Mr Speaker, again I want to point out to this House and point out to you that I find it very strange that it takes two ministers to announce a nothing program in this House.

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I'd also like to comment on the announcement by the minister. Unfortunately, it is really a program that is quite grandiose in its concept, but that's all it is. It is just rhetoric and there really isn't very much in the way of substance.

Just to give you an example, in the minister's statement he says that the government is allocating $10 million for community loan fund guarantees and $20 million for community investment share guarantees. These are going to be allocated over a period of five years and they estimate that they will have 40 community investment share corporations and 35 community loan funds. That works out to eight share loan fund guarantees a year and five community loan fund guarantees.

Those community loan funds have got a maximum amount of guarantee of anywhere from $500 to $15,000. That is really a very insignificant amount of money to make any kind of impact anywhere in Ontario. We're talking about $500 to $15,000 for eight projects in Ontario in any given year over the next five years. In the other programs it's proportionately the same thing. So what we have is a program that is great in rhetoric, sounds good, makes good publicity, but if you take a look at it, it means absolutely nothing. I predict it will have very little, if any, impact on what is happening in this province.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to take the opportunity to make a few comments on the statement made by the minister today. This is the greatest episode of downloading on municipalities that I have ever seen. They have taken away a lot of the transfer grants, a lot of the transfer money. Now they're asking the municipalities to provide some financing and investment within their communities to try to help make the projects move ahead that they have.

The government is not looking at the long-term projects for the municipalities. They want the entire municipality to support community centre complexes, water and sewage facilities, roads and facilities. They want the local municipalities to be able to set up an investment whereby people can lend money to the municipality and the municipality in turn would add some money to it. The municipalities would end up in debt more than they ever have been. This is the greatest downloading I have ever seen.

1400

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The statement that's before us today addresses essentially economic development and community investment, and I must say, to be fair, that I think it's well-intentioned. But when I say that, I'm aware of the fact that, for example, in the city of North York there are some 11 million square feet of empty industrial space as we speak. There's a great deal of vacant office space. In the borough of East York, which I represent, one third of one of the prime industrial areas is vacant at this point.

We certainly need job creation, economic development in the province of Ontario. However, if you talk to the business community, such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, as I have; such as the Ontario Chamber of Commerce; such as the Metropolitan Toronto board of trade, and if you ask them, "How do we promote economic development?" this is not the scheme that you come up with. The business community will say, "To create jobs, to create economic development, don't increase the taxes." That's number one. They're being taxed to death and they can't afford any more taxes. The business community will say, "Repeal Bill 40, set a proper economic climate for industrial growth, for business growth in this province and it will happen." It won't happen if it's being generated by government.

Through the budget, which we're having a hard time debating, 50,000 jobs are going to be lost and there's going to be a depressing impact on economic development in the province of Ontario. We're getting confused messages from this government. On the one hand, the government, through its budget, is putting forward a program that is going to kill business in this province. On the other hand, they come forward today with an economic development plan that's doomed to failure because they are not setting the table.

The second part has to do with community investment within the municipalities. This has been described as downloading, and I agree with that. If we're really interested in promoting good community projects such as the Sheppard subway line, such as the extension of the Spadina line to York University, then let's get on and do it.

Are we interested in roads? The very minister who has made the statement today is the former Minister of Transportation who killed the Red Hill Creek Expressway in the city of Hamilton. On the one hand the minister is saying, "Let's support roads, let's support transit," on the other hand he killed the Red Hill Creek Expressway, an expressway that was desired by the citizens of the city of Hamilton, an expressway that was desired by the council in the city of Hamilton.

So let's be consistent. In my own municipality of East York, we would like the minister to support that the Leslie Street extension go to a joint environmental assessment review and Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The minister won't support that. This is a project that would create economic growth in the municipality of East York and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; this is a project that would improve the roads system in Metropolitan Toronto, and yet the minister will not support that project. So where is the consistency? There is none.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): In April 1993, when the social contract discussions were first initiated, this government and the Premier said that these were going to be new methods for openness and accountability to conduct public sector business. The Premier said -- and this question is to the Premier -- that decision-making affecting the public service would be fair and would reflect the input from those affected. He said you couldn't carry on your social contract negotiations without all of the participants at the table, but we've learned that there are now direct dealings going on solely between the government and CUPE. While other unions and the employer groups are excluded from the talks, the direct deals are being made with CUPE.

I want to know from the Premier what has changed and why he has decided to deal exclusively with CUPE while the others stand around twiddling their thumbs waiting to hear the results.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I accept the questions from the deputy leader of the Liberal Party in good grace, or House leader, whatever title he's been given this week. I just would say that his description of what's going on I think is a little bit at odds with my understanding of the facts. There have been any number of bilateral discussions between the government negotiators and any number of trade unions and any number of employer groups.

He may do his best, as I suspect members of the opposition would want to do, to upset the apple cart and describe things in ways that will cause ill feeling. That's certainly not my approach. There is a strong commitment by the government to taking a positive view. There will be a series of discussions which we hope will produce a comprehensive social contract, and there are not going to be any particularly special arrangements with any particular group of individuals. However, the Minister of Health, for example, has had discussions with the Ontario Medical Association, as one would expect.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think there's anything unusual or untoward in the fact that there may have been -- I'm not sure what discussions the member is referring to -- some discussions between a particular group of employees and a particular group of representatives of the government. I would think that would be perfectly normal in the circumstances, and I would think any set of discussions designed to get this thing --

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- done would be helpful and constructive.

Mr Elston: I was just trying to be helpful, because the rumours are rampant at the talks at the Royal York. In fact, there are a number of organizations that have been shut out of the private meetings between Mr Decter and Mr Ryan and Ms Darcy. In fact, there has been a considerable exclamation at the length of time those doors have been closed to the participants.

There is a belief that while some employer groups will have to make the tough decisions that Mr Premier told us about yesterday, they are excluded from what has become a direct dealing between the province and one single union, to the exclusion of other organizations. We have even heard, and there are rumours rampant at the talks this morning, that there has been a special document concerning job security delivered solely to CUPE, to the exclusion of other unions.

I want this Premier to tell me what it was that has changed between April 1993, when he released his initial bargaining strategy, and yesterday and today when he has obviously delivered something special to keep at least one of the unions in the talks, that being CUPE.

Hon Mr Rae: I have a lot of affection and respect for the member opposite. We've known each other in this House for a long time. I know that the better side of the member would not want to be somebody who based -- yesterday we had questions based on headlines in the newspapers, which has its own perils, and I'm speaking from some experience in this regard -- a lot of experience in this regard. I would say to him, it's one thing to set his next set of questions on rumours which I can tell the honourable member are quite false.

I can just answer his second question by saying that since the premise -- and I'm here going back to just the simple logic -- of his question is false, the rest of his question is based on hot air and I don't intend to further dignify it by a further response.

1410

Mr Elston: I am really cut by that one. This fellow is really quick on his feet. The Premier got his headline today in the paper, that he lashed out yesterday. It's very interesting because he unveiled to the newspapers his strategy about legislating these people or not legislating. It tells me something about the way this guy plans to conduct his new and open negotiations.

I just want to ask a single question to the Premier: Will he confirm, as we have been told, that in fact the Premier will be attending the talks tomorrow at the central table so that he can conduct the discussions and so that he can finalize the arrangements with respect to this social contract?

Hon Mr Rae: There are no such plans, I say very directly; not at all.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yet.

Hon Mr Rae: No, there is no such intention. I would say to him directly that it is true that I am going to the Royal York Hotel this afternoon at 4 o'clock, but I want to tell him it's to have a meeting with the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the many good friends, my friends in the business advisory committee. The member from Wilson Heights will remember those conversations between former premiers and the business advisory council.

I will be in the Royal York Hotel between 4 o'clock and 5:30. It is a closed meeting with me and several business executives, which I know will cause deep resentment and concern in the hearts and ranks of the members of the Liberal and Conservative parties, but I can assure you that the members' interests, from what I've experienced in the last couple of months, are well represented around that table. That's the purpose of my going there. I am not planning to visit any other parts of the hotel, possibly a coffee shop if I stop for a Coca-Cola or something, but I have no other plans --

Interjection: Soda.

Hon Mr Rae: Or soda. I can't give any advertisements.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): Why not a Pepsi?

Hon Mr Rae: Or a Pepsi-Cola or a Sprite or any other drink. But I have no plans to visit any other parts of the hotel this afternoon or tomorrow.

WOMEN'S ISSUES

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the minister responsible for women's issues. Recent actions of your government have made a mockery of the NDP's claim to represent and protect the interests of women in this province. As you are well aware, the Minister of Health has proposed draconian restrictions on new doctors in the areas of family medicine, paediatrics and psychiatry. These new doctors will for all intents and purposes be denied the right to practise in most of Ontario.

As the minister responsible for women's issues, you must be aware that 80% of the doctors in these three specialties are women and the vast majority of new women doctors are in these locked-out specialties. You must also be aware that only 23% of doctors in this province are women. This policy is going to further limit a woman's right to choose a woman doctor.

Where were you as the advocate for women when this devastating decision was made at the cabinet table and will you do your job and go to bat for these young women doctors and the right of women to choose a woman doctor?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, this question belongs with the Minister of Health and I refer it to her.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I asked the minister specifically as the advocate for women in this province. My two supplementaries are meant for other ministries.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I listened carefully. The member did in fact invite the minister to respond. In her question she indicated that it did have something to do with health, and the minister under the standing orders has the opportunity to refer the question, which she has done, which is perfectly in order.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to respond to the question because I too share the member's concern that within all of our professions we have to have a better mix of both the diversity and the mix of sexes within this province that the professions have not reflected in the past. As part of the better management of our professional resources, I certainly trust that the Ontario Medical Association, as the representative for the doctors within this province, will be as aware as the member is and as I am of the need, as we better manage the system, to ensure equity, accessibility and affordability, that we take into account the need to make sure that we have the appropriate doctors in the appropriate places where they are needed.

Ms Poole: It's really unfortunate that the minister responsible for women's issues is refusing to advocate for women in this province and refusing to answer questions, because it's going to be interesting to see how the Minister of Health defends the conduct of the minister responsible for women's issues on child care.

With great fanfare this government has announced wage enhancements and down payments on pay equity to boost child care workers' salaries. Right now we're in the midst of debating pay equity legislation to assist the child care sector. Yet in the social contract talks your government is undoing all the progress made in raising critically undervalued child care workers' salaries.

You have proposed that child care wage subsidy payments be rolled back and frozen for three years. You have proposed slashing salaries and benefits for all child care staff earning $25,000 or more a year, and recently in your generosity you raised this to $30,000. You have proposed that wages and benefits be frozen for three years and that new staff will start at 5% below current levels.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Ms Poole: The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care has walked away from the table in disgust and with good cause. This is a mockery. This government has taken with the one hand and given with the other.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Ms Poole: Surely the minister responsible for women's issues would have agreed that child care workers have already paid the price and shared the pain not only now but for the last years and decades.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Ms Poole: I would like the Minister of Health, since this has already been referred to her, to answer why the minister responsible for women's issues, as an advocate for women's --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. I've asked the member several times to please place a question.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I did ask the question. I asked the Minister of Health if she could tell us why the minister responsible for women's issues has not advocated that child care workers be given an exemption from your social contract manipulations.

Hon Mrs Grier: I guess I fail to see how that was supplementary to the first question, but I'm more than happy to answer it, because one of the points that I think the member opposite has failed to grasp is that this government, as a government, is concerned about women's issues and that the actions this government has taken both to advance the progress of women in this province and to protect the interests of women is exemplary and more than any other government in this province has ever done.

If the member wants to be specific with respect to child care workers, I would remind her of the additional number of spaces, 8,200 spaces that this government has approved recently and which are being taken up at a very fast rate in response to part of our Jobs Ontario Training program. We're the only government that's ever done that.

Secondly, the floor on the social contract of a $30,000 limit will in fact exempt many child care workers from the provisions of the social contract. I suspect that's not anything her government would ever have done.

Ms Poole: It's obvious that this minister is not up to date with what her government is not doing for women in this province. First of all, she refers to Jobs Ontario and what a wonderful job it's doing. Let me tell her that of the 20,000 spaces they had allocated for the child care component of Jobs Ontario, only 300 were taken up last year.

Do you know why, Minister? It is because you have advertised this program and the minister responsible for women's issues advertised it as a program that was geared to women and to helping them escape these low-paid jobs. But let me tell you that two thirds of Jobs Ontario placements are men, so I don't know how you can defend your record in this regard.

Secondly, as far as the social contract, much of the social contract still applies to the rest of the child care workers who are going to have their wage enhancements taken away. It will make a mockery of what you claim to be doing with pay equity, and I would like to say to you, you cannot defend what you are not doing for women in this province.

I want this minister to give me an answer. Has the minister responsible for women's issues been advocating on these issues at the cabinet table, and if she has, why have you not listened?

Hon Mrs Grier: If the question is, who is advocating for women at the cabinet table and around this province, I stand here proudly and say every single member of this government.

1420

SOCIAL CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier on the social contract talks. There are some who, perhaps for political reasons or otherwise, want the social contract talks to fail.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Are you amongst them?

Mr Harris: Premier, you know that I am not one of those. You would know that I have supported the social contract talks. I have supported you in initiating them. I have supported and applauded your initial efforts and I've supported the goal, as I understand it, to reduce the size and the cost of government. You would know why, Premier -- and I'm not at the table. You know I'm not at the table, so I don't know what is happening there, what is at the table. Some from your side suggest they're working because I'm not there, and perhaps that's true.

My good friend Sid Ryan has now said that he will continue negotiations as long as they include job security. I really would like to ask you about this, because there is a difference between job security, which I understand employees being concerned about, which means no one is fired as a result of these talks, and position security, which means that the public service remains at the same size that it is today.

I would like you to assure me that what Michael Decter is trying to achieve at these talks is not a short-term fix, not a one- or two-year fix to help you through a couple of budget years, but in fact a permanent downsizing of the costs of the government payroll. Can you give us that assurance?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Without commenting extensively on the entire preamble of the member's question --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): Which was extensive.

Hon Mr Rae: -- which was extensive and very interesting, I would say to him that the short answer to his question is yes, that what we are looking for, and the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, has stated this very clearly in the brilliant budget speech he delivered 10 days ago, is a major restructuring of the public sector and that this involves the permanent reduction of $2 billion in terms of the total compensation and payroll costs in the broader public sector.

Mr Harris: Thank you, Premier, I appreciate that, because when we had things like pay pause, that sounded like a one- or two-year fix, or 12 days off. If that was a temporary proposal while you made the permanent changes, then we could still be with you. But if it's temporary, we cannot.

I want to be very clear that I have consistently said that we have a hardworking and dedicated group of individuals in the public service. The problem is that you and the Liberals over the last eight years increased it to such a size that the taxpayer base couldn't sustain it. I think you realize that and recognize that, and it's something that had to be done and we support that's something that has to be done.

I want to be very clear that I don't believe it is the public servants' fault that you and the Liberals hired all the extra ones that weren't sustainable, that in fact this was a management problem over the past eight years, that high-spending government is not the individual's fault.

Given that natural attrition in the broader public service would mean nearly 56,000 fewer jobs over the next three years if you had a hiring freeze, quite frankly, 56,000 jobs through attrition with a hiring freeze is about 12,000 to 15,000 more than you need to achieve at the end of your three-year period, a permanent 5% reduction in the size and cost of the civil service. Has this been put on the table in the negotiation talks, so that at the end of the three-year period we have a permanent downsizing, not a one-year fix or not a June fix but a permanent downsizing?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: Is that on the table?

Hon Mr Rae: Obviously the issue of attrition is something that we're keenly aware of, as well as the question of whether there are any people hired to replace people who are retiring or who retire early in response to various incentives or the natural attrition rate.

The only thing I would say to him is that we have found -- and I think this is an experience that's shared by all governments throughout the country -- that the attrition rate is somewhat different today than it was four or five years ago, as one would naturally expect, given the overall circumstances we face in the economy. But obviously, the issue of attrition and the natural changes in the size of the public service, teachers and everyone else, is one of the factors that's part of the overall framework for a discussion.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the figures are changing a little bit, and you know I'm concerned about the upsizing of the private sector as well. It's one of the reasons people seem to be hanging on a little more. But without retirement incentives, whether early retirement or any golden handshakes, the current rate, as I understand it, is about 2%. Over three years, that would downsize over 6% of the civil service, and the goal at the end of three years is to downsize by 5% or something a little less than 5%.

I suggest to you that natural attrition will allow you to structurally downsize government at the end of the three-year period and still provide a cushion for cabinet to provide exceptions. There will be some areas obviously -- fire, police; perhaps in teaching we will look at some areas -- where this will not work, but this would be a permanent solution; not a slash-and-burn 12 days off -- that solves it for one year -- but a permanent solution.

I want to be clear to you -- I'm not at the table, maybe the reports are not accurate -- that massive layoffs to meet an artificial target hurt everybody and solve nothing, but a logical plan over the three-year period gives us a permanent downsizing in the size and cost of government. So I would ask you if this is at the table. I note that you have pulled a gun and have said: "Bang. If we don't settle, we'll do it unilaterally." That, I'm sure, is facilitating the talks.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his question, please.

Mr Harris: Would you not agree with me that that kind of permanent proposal is far better for all concerned than the short-term fix of 12 days off without pay, those types of proposals which will only be good as long as the 12 days off without pay are in effect?

Hon Mr Rae: I admire the sense of humour and irony of the leader of the third party.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Come on. You liked me better before.

Hon Mr Rae: I like you too and I haven't lost my affection for you either, even when sorely tested.

I would say to the leader of the third party that I think he's perhaps stretching things a little when he suggests that I'm the one who's originated the term "Bang." I think he's the one who came up with "Bang, bang, bang," and I just said that's what he would do. If he is now realizing that he doesn't want to be Mr Bang Bang Bang any more, that's his problem.

Mr Harris: I do.

Hon Mr Rae: He still does? Okay.

I would just say to the honourable member, attrition is a factor, but if he thinks that attrition alone can effect a structural change, he's mistaken, because part of what we are also discussing is all the issues that are at work in every large organization around the world: the question of delayering, the question of simplifying structures, reducing the number of layers between the people who are delivering services and those who are in the senior levels of government.

The need for us to deal with that issue in a sensitive way does involve, in our view, some earlier retirements, some other voluntary exit options, as they're called, and various ways of dealing with the issue as well as attrition.

In terms of looking at attrition as obviously one of the factors that must be borne in mind, as we look at a three-year approach to the restructuring, which will be in a sense the first three years, because restructuring is something that needs to go on literally all the time in this world of very rapid change in which we're living, then that's the approach that we're taking.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that, for example, in education alone you can save more than 5% without one teacher losing a job. There are some layers there above the teacher in the classroom that have to be dealt with, and I think you're aware of that.

1430

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question to the Premier is this: With the exception of massive tax hikes, perhaps the most destructive thing that your government has done to this province and the private sector and the ability to upsize has been your unbalanced and unfair labour legislation.

This Friday is the first anniversary of the introduction of Bill 40 to workers and employers in this province. We told you when you introduced this bill that if you didn't amend it substantially, it was destructive legislation that only helped union bosses, not union workers. But you have been so fixated on the social contract, perhaps, you have ignored the private sector. They need help. Bill 40 is a barrier to many people in the private sector, to employers and employees. I would ask you, for the sake of upsizing the private sector, will you agree today to revisit Bill 40?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): No, and I think the -- I'll leave it at that: No.

Mr Harris: Premier, let me give you one little example of what Bill 40 means.

JBL Househelp and Janitorial Services in Windsor: This is a small company that is owned by Abiola Afolabi. She runs this business with the help of her family. She won a contract with the Windsor Utilities Commission. However, under Bill 40, she was told that she would be forced to hire the employees of the firm that currently has the contract. Since this was too costly and unacceptable for her and her family business, this forced her out of the business. She withdrew from the job. She lost the contract.

Can you explain to me how legislation like Bill 40 that drives people out of business, that is a barrier for new business people wishing to bid on contracts -- in this case government contracts is this barrier -- can you explain to me how this is fair legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: If I may say so, again, the leader of the third party was in government himself. He will no doubt know from his colleague and good friend and ideological supporter, the former Minister of Labour Bob Elgie, that successor rights and the principle of successor rights and the issue of subcontracting, particularly of services, is an issue on which there have been various kinds of legislation for some time.

This legislation was strengthened by this government, it's true. But here we're looking at situations where the services that were critically provided were provided by the employees, who were providing the services in the contract to which the member is referring. It's those employees, it's those workers, who I would imagine would not be making a whole lot of money, who would not be among the higher paid. We're attempting to create some sense of security for them in their workplace so that by virtue of some government action that's taken or some other action that's taken with respect to subcontracts, we're trying to ensure that the people who are providing those services are in fact provided a degree of security.

I think that's a reasonable approach. I don't want to see, every time a contract changes -- we don't want to see people thrown out on the street by virtue of the fact that people have undercut the bids. It doesn't add to any jobs. It doesn't create any new jobs. You're not talking about any new employment being provided. We're talking about services being provided and we're talking about providing some degree of security for the people who are working there. I think that given the fact that those people tend to be lower paid, those people tend to be women --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- they tend to be newly arrived immigrants in the country, it seems to me those are the workers whom we want to be providing a degree of protection for in Ontario in 1993.

Mr Harris: Mrs Afolabi came to Canada from Nigeria 10 years ago -- perhaps that isn't recent enough for you -- believing that this was a place of opportunity, but your government is putting up roadblocks. She planned to do the work, she and her children.

This morning, as well, I met with a group from the black business community. They told me that "fairness" does not exist in the vocabulary of your government. I thought this was a very strong statement for them to make. But in fact they said that access to government contracts, equal access, was the biggest barrier that they found, both government and private sector contracts, getting a foot in the door, that for new businesses that black business people were developing, this was their biggest concern and biggest problem.

Diamond Tobin-West, of one of the groups I met with this morning, president of Cadd and Microcomputer Specialists, explained this to me: The black community believes it does not have fair access to government contracts and its program.

Bill 40, for example, favours the incumbent. Bill 40 favours the status quo. Bill 40 favours the establishment. I ask you how you can continue to defend legislation that makes --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Listen to a Tory?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Durham East.

Mr Harris: -- it difficult for new companies, new Canadians, to get a break and get access to government jobs.

Mr Mills: How can you say that?

Mr Harris: All she wanted to do was save the taxpayers money and do the job. All she wanted was a fair chance.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member -- and I've listened carefully to his question -- that in terms of what he is proposing today --

Mr Harris: Is to scrap Bill 40.

Hon Mr Rae: I know what your ideological line is. I'm just saying that in your attempt to draw the argument, I think you're adding an element which is, if I may so, most unhelpful, to be polite, about trying to resolve the issue. The suggestion --

Mr Harris: That is the result. Thirty black business leaders told me this morning that is one of the problems.

Hon Mr Rae: I suppose now he's going on the record as saying that Bill 40 is racially discriminatory. Is that what he's saying now?

Mr Harris: I'm telling you what the black business people told me. They said Bill 40 is a barrier to access.

Hon Mr Rae: No, you're not. Don't get away with that. I'm saying to you that you're lowering the tone of the entire debate by adding an element that has nothing at all to do with the issue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Don't change the words. Typical dipper, changing the words.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: You use your own words and I use mine. Check Hansard for mine.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, you've just used them.

Mr Stockwell: Typical dippers. You haven't got advance --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Went too far, Mike.

Mr Stockwell: They came to us, Floyd. That is what they said. Typical dipper.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West remains out of order.

Mr Harris: He can sit wherever he wants.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): He can't interject from wherever he wants.

The Speaker: Yes, not even the right seat.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Over the past couple of months the education system has been given notice that between your expenditure control package, the social contract and the increased taxes and fees announced in the recent budget, our public education system will lose close to $1 billion. Given that school boards have just reached the halfway mark in their fiscal year, can you tell school boards, is this figure your bottom line and will public education lose any more funding this year?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think that what the member has done is take the figures from the expenditure control. He's taken the social contract discussions and taken the same assumptions that some school boards have taken across the province that the money is just going to be pulled out of their budgets and that there's not going to be a social contract arrived at. I don't believe those are the assumptions that he should operate under or that any of us should operate under.

I'm very optimistic that an agreement will be achieved, and if an agreement is achieved, then there will be arrangements made where the school boards will save money as a result of the social contract and the provincial government will not have the negative impact on school boards or the local taxpayers that you're predicting.

1440

Mr Beer: It is very interesting that the minister, for the first time, starts talking about what may be some sort of plan as to how he is approaching this whole issue, because what school boards don't know, what teachers don't know, what parents don't know, what this Legislature doesn't know is, what is your plan? How are you going forward in working with your partners? Because I think you would accept, as do I, that a billion dollars is a lot of money and that we all share that we want to see quality education in the classrooms where our kids are.

My second question is, when, and will you begin today to tell us what your plan is? Because you're responsible for the education system of this province. Tomorrow, according to the standing orders of the House under section 58, you should be presenting the estimates for the Ministry of Education. I would assume that in those estimates you will be setting out very clearly how these expenditures are going to be held.

In addition, we would like to know what other plans you have. Are you going to be lifting mandated programs from school boards? Are you going to be bringing in legislation to affect collective agreements and pupil-teacher ratios? Are you going to be doing the same thing with respect to working conditions? Are you going to be announcing your general legislative grants for 1994 so school boards know what they're going to be working with in 1993 and 1994? The greatest enemy we have right now in the chaos that is out there is the unknown.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Beer: Will you begin to tell us what your plan is? You're responsible. Your government is responsible. What is your plan to bring about these changes?

Hon Mr Cooke: The critic for the official opposition may be in the dark, but the school boards, the teachers and all the people in the system who are involved in the social contract negotiations and have been involved with the Ministry of Education in explanations as to what the expenditure control plan is for the education system know exactly what the plan is and know exactly what the goal is, through the social contract negotiations. They know what's going on. They know what the plan is. I suggest that the critic for the official opposition should get up to date and find out what the plan is.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. This morning in Kitchener, three neo-Nazis entered a store owned by a Jewish proprietor. They uttered death threats and anti-Semitic slogans. They then proceeded to demolish the store. They have been arrested.

You would know, as I think all of us in this House would know, that anti-Semitism has been on the rise around the world and that Ontario, Canada, has not been immune to the escalation of racism, hatred and anti-Semitism. Last winter, it took days for a swastika to be removed from the side of the Legislature. Last week in Ottawa, an anti-racist group clashed with the neo-Nazis. While there is apparently sufficient evidence today against Ernst Zundel, no action has proceeded by the government of Ontario.

I think we in this Legislature all share and have learned in sharing that we are guilty by our silence. I think you have the power to act and I think you have been told that there is enough evidence for you to act. How long is your ministry going to remain idle on this matter?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): Our ministry has not remained idle on this issue and in fact has been working very closely, not only with the police who are involved in the various incidents that the member mentions, but also in working with our federal colleagues around the various issues of law that arise.

I certainly am aware of the accusations that have been there and I can assure the member that when I am advised that there is enough evidence for us to proceed by the ministry, then that would obviously be what my choice would be. To this point, there are issues that I cannot discuss in this Legislature that have not given me that assurance at this point in time.

I want the member to understand that we share very, very much the concern that he's expressing about the various incidents that have happened. We have met recently with members of the Jewish community to talk about the various issues that arise, their concerns, our concerns, what kinds of things we need to do. I think the member should know that in our federal-provincial-territorial meetings of ministers of justice last week, we also discussed, on a national basis, the concerns that we have across the nation and the inadequacy of some of our Criminal Code tools to deal appropriately with it.

I would like the member to be very clear that once I am assured by those within the ministry that there are grounds to lay charges, as I must give permission to do in any of these cases, then that would certainly be the course of action I would take.

Mr Harris: It's certainly well known out there that legal counsel has advised there is sufficient evidence to bring charges against Ernst Zundel and that's not happened.

We are hearing all the time from police that they are not receiving the support from your ministry that they feel they should be getting, based upon the information that they are gathering and that they are bringing forward.

We have had an anti-hate law for 22 years, and only four charges have been laid and there have only been two successful prosecutions in that 22-year period.

Some racist organizations, as we see this rise, obviously feel for some reason or other that they have been given carte blanche to spread their hatred in this province, and when you look at the record you can understand why they feel that way.

I say to you that we as legislators must send a clear signal that racism, that anti-Semitic behaviour, is unacceptable, that this takes priority, that we are going to provide the resources, that no society, no matter how much consumer goods it may give us or money it may give us, is worth its salt if we allow this to happen. Our education system is part of it, and I don't think there's been enough. I think that all of us as legislators are going to have to do more, and I'm asking you, as the minister of justice, as the chief minister of justice in Ontario, to commit today that charges will in fact be laid wherever there is evidence of racial injustice, that we will be proceeding, that if we lose some of those cases, we can then say the law needs to be changed. We have enough examples here of behaviour unacceptable to Ontarians that if we don't lay charges and if we don't take these actions, we're going to be sitting here with a 22-year-old law that is not getting the job done. Will you commit to do that on all of our behalfs?

Hon Mrs Boyd: It would be entirely inappropriate for me to make a commitment around laying charges against any individual or group in the direct way that the member is suggesting, and he knows that absolutely in this case. I have already told him that where the legal advice I get tells me that there is a case that can be successfully prosecuted or even has the hope of success in the court, that would be my course of action.

The member is well aware there are very conflicting legal opinions around the issues in these cases, and that is extremely important.

The member was quite clear that yes, there had been charges laid but there had been very few successful prosecutions. Every time there is an unsuccessful prosecution, we see an increase in this behaviour because the law is so inadequate that we are not able to get successful prosecutions that have adequate penalties.

So we are concentrating on two things. We are indeed looking at the merits of every case, and I can assure the member very strongly that I take my responsibility extremely seriously, and when we believe the merits of any case warrant a charge and a prosecution, that would be the course of action.

The second thing I can assure the member of is that there are many other things we need to do to counter racism and that our government has taken many of those actions and will continue to take those actions, and we are pleased to hear the support of our opposition friends in that regard.

1450

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): My question is to the Premier. Last month I stood in this House to raise the issue on behalf of 3,000 auto workers at the GM van plant, as their plant was about to be closed as a result of free trade, which the federal Tories rammed through this country, and not Bill 40, as the leader of the third party has indicated.

Today we've heard about an announcement in General Motors in Oshawa that the Oshawa truck assembly centre will receive some dollars.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Oakville South, please come to order.

Mr Owens: If he's going to heckle, Mr Speaker, at least he could sit in his right seat. I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Contrary to the prehistoric fearmongering coming from the third party today, I'd like to ask the Premier to explain to this House, and particularly to those members of the third party, the role of the government in this historic announcement in Oshawa today.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): There was a good-news announcement today in Oshawa. I was expecting the question on this to be coming from either the third party or the official opposition, but I appreciate very much the question coming on the first anniversary of Bill 40, because in fact General Motors has announced that in a competition with two US-based plants in Indiana and Michigan the Oshawa plant was successful in its bid for a third shift at the truck plant in Oshawa.

Ontario played a constructive role. I met with the chairman of the Canadian company, Mr Peapples, together with the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. We had some very good discussions, together with the auto workers. Ontario is providing $5 million to assist in retraining workers displaced from other GM facilities, which we think will help to put people back to work.

I can tell the honourable member that we're very proud of our association with this successful announcement today. I think if you add this announcement today to the announcement yesterday which the Minister of Natural Resources made, it shows that all the naysayers and the doom-and-gloom participants on the other side have got it wrong and that in fact Ontario is a good place to do business, that people are choosing to do business here and that they're choosing Oshawa as a site to do business.

We're very proud of our association with the good citizens of Oshawa and with the auto workers in Oshawa. We're proud to be walking both with the citizens of Oshawa and with the good citizens of General Motors as we create new jobs in the province of Ontario.

Mr Owens: By way of supplementary, as I indicated in my initial question, 3,000 workers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Mr Owens: I, along with the members for Scarborough West and Scarborough East, attended the funeral service for the Scarborough van plant. Again, in case the members across in the third party didn't hear, 3,000 jobs were lost in Scarborough as a result of free trade.

Premier, my question is to you. As part of the continuing economic program of this government, how will this announcement benefit the members of my riding as well as other Scarborough ridings?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the other aspect of the news which I think is good even in difficult times is that the workers who've been laid off at the Scarborough van plant will be redeployed initially to fill these new jobs in Oshawa. The skills that have been built up in Scarborough for many, many years will be put to good use in the new truck shift line in Oshawa.

I can say to the member that I think this is an indication, it's a vote of confidence, even in a time of change and of dramatic reduction of its overall workforce by General Motors in North America -- it's shown very clearly that, case by case, Chrysler has chosen Ontario, Ford has chosen Ontario, GM has chosen Ontario. I think it's time that members of the opposition started to choose Ontario as well and recognize that there are a lot of good things going on.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Attorney General.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I'm not sure she heard. The member for Mississauga North has a question for the Attorney General.

Mr Offer: Yesterday I asked a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy. The question focused firstly on your government's regulation that at least 30% of soft drinks be sold in refillable containers; secondly, that the average monthly refillable figure for the last six months was about 7%; and, thirdly, that no charges had been laid since June 1991. I'm now going to ask a page to take over a copy of the Hansard of yesterday's questions.

You will see in the minister's statement it reads: "The question of charges is one that has been considered carefully and the decision was made some time ago and that decision is under review, that we should try to negotiate agreements that would make it possible to resolve this issue without charges if that were an appropriate way to move. However, we are actively considering a number of options."

The investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment is supposed to be independent. As the Attorney General of this province, is it proper and appropriate that the independence of this branch be compromised by any interference as to whether charges will or will not be laid?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm not sure that I understand the implication of the member's question. If he is suggesting that the independence has been compromised, I would be concerned about that. It is the job of the enforcement branch of the ministry to look into each case and determine on the facts of the matter whether or not charges should be laid.

If the decision is that charges would be laid and the legal advice is that indeed it is a prosecutable offence, then obviously our ministry would support that decision.

Mr Offer: By way of supplementary, I hope the Attorney General will read the question and answer of yesterday's Hansard. With respect to your response to my question, will you commit to this Legislature today that you will investigate and report back to this chamber whether there has been interference in the independence of the investigations and enforcement branch of the Ministry of Environment in the laying of charges in this matter?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Certainly I will.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Treasurer and it concerns his budget. Tourism and hospitality operators have reacted with shock, anger and frustration two full weeks after the announcement of your budget. You've destroyed our prospects with foreign travellers by eliminating the provincial sales tax rebate program, you've destroyed our prospects with business people by reducing the meals and entertainment write-off to 50% and you've destroyed the holiday plans of thousands of Ontario families by confiscating their disposable income through your income tax hikes, that double whack that takes effect July 1, the start of the summer tourism season.

How can you possibly justify this devastating kick in the teeth to the thousands of Ontarians employed in tourism and hospitality who are going to lose their jobs because of your budget?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member for Wellington would really have to stretch his argument a long way to make the case that this budget would do any damage whatsoever to the tourist industry. On the contrary --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Could I be allowed to make the counterargument, at least? The member talked about the rebate. I think the day is gone when governments -- and we're no exception here in this case -- can continue to have a program with a supporting bureaucracy when less than 1% of tourists ever applied for the rebate. I don't believe that we should continue to have programs that have that small an uptake. I think it makes no sense whatsoever.

On the question --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

1500

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate your assistance, Mr Speaker. On the question of the meals and the expenses, a meal deduction, companies being allowed to write down meals from 80% of the cost down to 50%, that is hardly punitive. That's already been recommended as a move to take place in the United States, so it would hardly be a surprise to tourists coming to this province that we're reducing it from 80% to 50%. I think that's only fair. There's nothing untoward about that.

Finally, for hotels in the greater Toronto area, the cancellation of the commercial concentration tax I believe will save the industry about $15 million a year. So, if anything, I would say this is a pro-tourism budget, certainly not an anti-tourism budget.

Mr Arnott: Certainly we on this side were pleased that the commercial concentration tax was lifted. It only applies to the greater Toronto area. There is a lot more to the province, and the member for Nickel Belt knows that very well. But by your answer it's clear that you have no understanding whatsoever of the devastation you've caused the tourism and hospitality sector with your budget, with your tax increases on top of five years of Liberal tax-and-spend policies and 33 separate tax increases.

Your policies don't invite people to come to travel and vacation in Ontario. Your policies are telling people to stay away from Ontario. How do you expect the tourism industry in Ontario to recover?

Hon Mr Laughren: The one part of the member's first question I didn't respond to, because I was running out of time and the Speaker was looking askance at me, had to do with the question of income tax. Surely to goodness the member opposite, the member from Wellington, doesn't expect that people in the tourist industry should be exempt from the level of taxation that other people in this province have to bear.

Mr Arnott: No, they can't afford to go on vacations.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, you cannot separate people in the tourist industry and say that they shouldn't be assuming their fair share of the burden.

Finally, I hope the member from Wellington would never ask me to justify the tax-and-spend policies of the Liberal government when it was in office.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY PROGRAM

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is for the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. The internship program that the Management Board administers is a valuable employment equity program that has been quite successful over the past eight years. I understand that this program has been cut. A number of my constituents were quite hopeful this program would provide the work experience and environment they would otherwise not have access to. Could the Chair please clarify the status of this program?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for the question. This is a question that's similar to the one that the Leader of the Opposition raised a couple of weeks ago, and I'd like to take a moment to clarify the situation.

Firstly, let me tell the member that we have not cancelled the employment equity internship program. In fact, during the expenditure reduction process we made a very explicit decision not to cancel it. It is true that there will be no first-year applicants accepted into the program this year. The program has been a very successful program over the last eight years but because, as members will recall, we announced in last year's budget a staff reduction of 2,500, which we've been proceeding to implement over the course of the last year, we haven't been able to take the graduates of this program into the civil service.

We've had a hard time placing people, so all of the second-year participants in the program will continue this year, there will be no new applicants taken in this year, and then next year new applicants will be accepted into the program again.

Mr Malkowski: I'm wondering if this cut will affect people who have recently been placed for training and work experience.

Hon Mr Charlton: All of those currently in the program will continue to the end of the program.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Mr Speaker, I just gave you notice that I would be rising on a question of personal privilege. As the opposition critic for women's issues, this afternoon I directed a question to the minister responsible for women's issues. The minister in turn referred my question to the Minister of Health.

Mr Speaker, if you look at section 33(f) of the standing orders, it states, "A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates." I specifically draw your attention to the words "who is responsible for the subject matter."

My question was very clearly one about the minister's advocacy on behalf of women, and it also very clearly asked the minister where she was as an advocate for women on this issue and if, as minister responsible for women's issues, she would go to bat for women.

My question was not directed to the Minister of Health for a very good reason. This policy has a major impact on women and it is the minister responsible for women's issues' job, in fact her duty, to advocate for women. The major job of this ministry is advocacy. It cannot spend large sums of money. It does not have direct responsibility for a lot of programs. Instead it's an advocacy position within many ministries.

It was very clear that the referral was inappropriate and in fact the Minister of Health was not in a position to answer my three questions, which were all related to the minister responsible for women's issues' advocacy on behalf of women relating to health care, child care and Jobs Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I will tell you, if you allow the minister to refer questions of advocacy, then ipso facto you have denied me the right and in fact the ability to do my job as women's issues critic for the official opposition. I can't even file a notice of dissatisfaction, because the minister responsible for women's issues would not be required to answer, the Minister of Health would, and she can't answer those questions on advocacy.

This issue has ramifications far beyond women's issues. Questions for critics on any advocacy ministry, whether women's issues, seniors or francophone affairs, could be impacted by this precedent.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to look at the Hansard from today's proceedings and to give me a decision whether in fact this question was appropriately referred, because it is my feeling that if this is denied, then I cannot appropriately do my job in this Legislature as opposition critic for women's issues.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I'm going to deal with this point of order and --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: But you didn't ask the question. With respect, I'd be happy to hear the member later on his particular point of order.

To the member for Eglinton, while I stand by the ruling which I made earlier, I am of course pleased to take a look at Hansard. What I observe is that there seemed to be some genuine misunderstanding as to the precise nature of the question being posed, and in the view of the Chair at the time, the question had an implication of health matters. Therefore, when the minister asked, as is her right to do so, to refer the question, I allowed that referral to occur.

The member is quite right that, based on the circumstances, she cannot file her dissatisfaction except with the minister who responded. However, the confusion has been noted and it may be that the minister responsible for women's issues may wish to discuss this matter with you outside of the chamber or the member may wish to come back to the House at oral questions on another occasion to pose the question.

Having said that, as I stated before, I am always pleased to take a look at Hansard and judge accordingly. The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: I was a bit confused too in the response from the Minister of Health. When she was asked, "Who's the minister responsible for women's issues?" she said, "All ministers are." The point where I'm confused is, why is it then that we do have a minister responsible for women's issues in the meantime, and spending all that amount of money in that ministry, then to say, "All ministers are responsible for women's issues"? I feel there has been confusion over on this side.

The Speaker: The member doesn't want to raise a point of confusion, I'm sure.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Mr Speaker, on that point, surely the member would understand that even in my responsibility for natives, all ministers should be ultimately responsible for taking into account aboriginal rights in making decisions.

The Speaker: All members are responsible for a number of things. The member for Eglinton has a new point.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, if I could just make one further comment before you review the Hansard, I just wanted to quote you directly from my questions today, the last two paragraphs of my question. It said, "Minister, where were you as the advocate for women when this devastating decision was made at the cabinet table" --

The Speaker: Would the member please take her seat. I've already indicated to the member that I'm pleased to take a look at Hansard, and what she is quoting from now are remarks which are contained in Hansard.

1510

PETITIONS

GAMBLING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition which has been signed by a number of members of Eden United Church, which is opposing the establishment of gambling casinos in the province of Ontario. The petition reads:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have, since 1976, on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

As I've said, this is signed by members of Eden United Church.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have, since 1976, on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I have signed my name to it. It's from St Paul's United Church in Orillia and it has 97 signatures.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Peterborough, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

There are about 117 signatures to this petition.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"We strongly object to the latest obscenity that this government has foisted on the taxpayers of Ontario and in particular the senior citizens of Ontario. I am referring to Floyd Laughren's $4-billion reduction to health care services.

"The senior citizens of Ontario deserve more and better consideration from the government of the province of Ontario, and while some of us may be a bit feeble, most of us have a very long memory."

I have signed this petition.

GAMBLING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, a petition which reads as follows:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I agree with this 100% and I'm very happy to sign it.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): Another petition from Windsor, which adds to the thousands of signatures from Windsor alone against casino gambling:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown conclusively that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted at any time to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

I'm very pleased to affix my signature to this fine and important petition.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by approximately 40 individuals from my riding and it reads:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

That petition is signed by about 100 constituents and by me.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This petition is endorsed by 5,200 residents from Ontario, the town of Port Elgin and the surrounding area around the Bruce nuclear power development and I affix my signature.

1520

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here:

"Whereas we feel that the Canada-US free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in losses of not only more jobs, but also a reduction of our environmental standards, our labour standards, our social standards, our workers' rights and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and we ask Mr White, the MPP for Durham Centre, to present the petition on our behalf to the Ontario Legislature and to forward it, on our behalf, to Ottawa."

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will severely undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

I have affixed my signature to this petition. As you know, Mr Speaker, this is a petition that includes some 15,600-plus signatures in support of the continued operation of Bruce A.

GAMBLING

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

Signed by 43 people in the Ingleside, Lunenburg, Newington area, and I have affixed my signature to it.

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with 91 signatures which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome.''

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all the units at Bruce A."

As you know from previous petitions read in, there are several reasons for supporting Bruce A. I won't read those out now. I have attached my signature to support the petition. Over 15,600 people have also signed this petition.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here:

"Whereas we feel that the US-Canada free trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel that the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in losses of not only more jobs, but also it will cause a reduction in environmental standards, labour standards, workers' rights and an overall quality of life,

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to fight this deal with whatever means possible, and to petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

It's been signed by folks like Jim Freeman, by the McCloskeys, and Len Burns here, and I affix my name to it as well.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by 25 seniors in my riding who are concerned about the reduction in health care services, causing the Ontario drug benefit program to be jeopardized. I also signed this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of London and Covent Garden Building Incorporated

Bill Pr85, An Act to revive The Optimist Club of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Your committee begs to report the following bills with amendments:

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting the City of London

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Town of Gravenhurst

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on Bill Pr85, An Act to revive The Optimist Club of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's third report.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to make a brief statement on one of the appointments in that report, Ms Rosemary Brown, to the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I wish her success on behalf of all of us. As Mr Curling said in the committee this morning, this is a very important appointment to a very important commission, agency, in this province and we wish her Godspeed in her work on behalf of the people in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE COMMUNAUTAIRE

On motion by Mr Philip, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 40, An Act to stimulate Economic Development through the Creation of Community Economic Development Corporations and through certain amendments to the Education Act, the Municipal Act, the Planning Act and the Parkway Belt Planning and Development Act / Loi visant à stimuler le développement économique grâce à la création de sociétés de développement économique communautaire et à certaines modifications apportées à la Loi sur l'éducation, à la Loi sur les municipalités, à la Loi sur l'aménagement du territoire et à la Loi sur la planification et l'aménagement d'une ceinture de promenade.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This act, which is a fairly large and complicated act, gives communities in Ontario new ways to raise their own investment capital and forge new grass-roots economic partnerships through legislation which we've just introduced. It also contains amendments to the Planning Act that will save both time and money by creating a smoother and more efficient and effective planning and development review process.

MOTOR BOAT OPERATORS CERTIFICATION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ACCRÉDITATION DES UTILISATEURS DE BATEAUX À MOTEUR

On motion by Mr McLean, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 41, An Act to provide for the Certification of Motor Boat Operators / Loi prévoyant l'accréditation des utilisateurs de bateaux à moteur.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The bill, which applies only in respect to motor boats propelled by engines of at least 10 horsepower, prohibits the operation of such a motor boat by any person who does not have a motor boat operator's certificate.

The bill requires every person to carry a motor boat operator's certificate while operating a motor boat to which the bill applies and to produce it when requested to do so by a police officer. If unable or unwilling to produce the certificate, the motor boat operator is required to give the police officer his or her name and address.

The bill creates the offences of careless operation of a motor boat and impaired operation of a motor boat.

Finally, the person who contravenes any of the provisions of the bill or certain regulations made under the bill is liable to pay a fine not exceeding $1,000 and in some cases to have his or her motor boat operator's certificate suspended or revoked.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

Mr Owens, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration / Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have any opening comments?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): In February of this year the Premier announced our government's economic renewal strategy. In this economic renewal strategy we stated quite clearly our commitment to invest in jobs and public infrastructure. These two items are extremely vital in keeping Ontario competitive.

I'm pleased to be here today to take action on the strategy with the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993.

This piece of legislation will establish four crown corporations that are mandated to seek new sources of funding and innovative partnerships with the private and public sectors. It also creates new ways of financing capital projects for the education and health sectors.

From the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp we will be able to speed development of rapid transit and highways within the province. Projects such as the Eglinton West subway, the Sheppard line, the Spadina lines and the Scarborough RT expansion will create jobs and benefit local businesses as well as aid commuters across the city.

The corporation will seek innovative means of financing, such as contributions from businesses that benefit from their proximity to the transit lines. Tolls will help pay for the building of Highway 407.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency will assist municipalities to provide more cost-effective water and sewage services.

With the Ontario Financing Authority we will be creating an agent with expertise and focus to manage the financing activities of the province in these corporations.

As part of the financing authority, the Province of Ontario Savings Offices will become part of the financing authority and their mandate will be not only to receive the deposits of Ontarians, as they have in the past, but also to develop new financing instruments and develop a more business-like and entrepreneurial operation.

Some questions have been raised with respect to these corporations. One of these has been accountability. I'm here today to tell this House that these crown corporations will clearly be accountable to the government for their activities. Each crown corporation will have a board of directors that reports to a minister. They will receive their policy direction from the government and annual reports will be tabled here in the Legislature.

This type of accountability will allow the government to keep its finger on the pulse of the corporations while allowing these corporations to operate in the entrepreneurial and more creative way that this province needs in terms of bringing capital investment to the province.

In terms of the new types of financing that we will be looking at, we will certainly be looking at loan-based financing. This will enable universities, hospitals and school boards to access loan-based financing, which will be a help to them in terms of spreading out the payments for projects over a longer period of time. The loan-based financing for capital projects will provide, as I say, a more stable approach to the funding and will allow projects to get up to speed in a faster manner.

This change, which we are describing as being transparent, will not affect the costs of these partners. We're clearly being open about the changes and how they will affect our transfer partners. I think the important thing to note here is that these partners have been consulted with extensively on these changes.

In closing, I want to reinforce that this is a new way of doing business in the province of Ontario. It is going to allow partnerships to exist between the private sector and the government through these crown corporations to develop the important capital infrastructure projects that would otherwise not be possible. It will enable the government to do more for economic renewal and job creation across the province during a time of serious fiscal constraints. We'll be able to, again, move ahead with the project sooner. It will also enable us to take advantage of lower construction costs that are now available.

Ontario's ways of developing infrastructure must keep pace with the reality of today's competitive world. The entrepreneurial partnerships that this bill allows will encourage efficient and more cost-effective operations. By using new and creative ways to invest in jobs and infrastructure now, we're laying the foundation for a strong and competitive future for all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to begin the debate on what's called Bill 17. I guess I would first indicate to the government that we have some significant concerns regarding the bill.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Surprise, surprise.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education and Training said, "Surprise, surprise." I'd just say to him that I asked the Premier in December if he would consider bringing forward this legislation early so we would have an opportunity to look at it before the budget was presented. I asked the question of the Premier: "Premier, my question is this: If you put the budget together on the basis of these capital corporations, prepare it on a basis on which we have had no discussion, will you undertake to send to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, when its pre-budget hearings are taking place, your proposals?"

The reason we wanted to do that is that fundamental to the budget is this new way of funding capital. There are some major concerns about this. The government may not want to have a full and open discussion on this, but I think the people of Ontario deserve it.

While the Minister of Education may barrack over in his seat about the need for it, I would say to him that these capital corporations will be spending literally billions of dollars, running up literally billions of dollars of debt, and I think it's important that the people of the province have a debate about it.

I would expect that this bill will be sent to our committee, that there will be an opportunity for a thorough and open debate, that the public will be involved in looking at it.

The reason I say the bill is very important -- I will give you a few examples and then we'll get into some details.

In the budget the Treasurer talks about loan-based financing. Just so everyone out there understands, the province spends about $600 million a year -- this may get the interest of the ministers -- on school, college, university and hospital capital. That's been going on for years and years and years, $600 million to $700 million a year. The government says it will spend again this year $600 million on that, and it is anticipated, I gather, that you will continue to spend $600 million a year.

1540

One of the objects of this bill is to allow that to continue to go on, not in the form of grants -- it used to be that the province provided school boards with grants for this capital construction. The school board got approval to build a school; the province then provided a grant for that school. Similarly with hospitals, the hospital got approval for an expansion or a new hospital; the province provided the money.

What's going to happen now, and I'm not sure many people are aware of this, is that the schools are going to have to, believe it or not, borrow that money on the province's behalf. The schools will have to go out and borrow the $600 million that used to come in the form of a grant. They're going to have to borrow that money and lend it to the province. So the province is going to, each year, under this bill and under the budget, go out and ask school boards and hospitals to borrow for them, for the province, $600 million a year.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's not true.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education is shaking his head and saying, "That's not true." That is true. That's exactly what's going to happen. What's going to happen under this bill is, every year the province is going to run up about $600 million of brand-new debt. It won't show up on the province's books, though; it will be on a school board's books or on a hospital's books -- $600 million. What we're going to do is add that kind of debt, hidden debt, to the people of this province. That's one thing we will be wanting to look at very clearly.

The second thing is that the parliamentary assistant said that these are schedule 4 agencies and they will be subject to the normal scrutiny by the Legislature. The jargon that's used around the Legislature is that they are schedule 4 agencies. They're independent, arm's-length agencies. They will have their own board of directors. They will be like workers' compensation; that's an independent agency with its own board at its own arm's length.

That's the second thing we will want to look at, the arm's-length nature of this, and whether this an area where we want to, as a public body, turn over to an independent, arm's-length agency the decision-making and the authority to make those decisions. I'd say to the public: That's a debate we need to have. Daily we hear in the Legislature, when a question might get asked about something like workers' compensation, "I'm sorry, but that's an independent agency that has the authority to make those decisions." That will be the second thing.

The third thing is that one of these agencies, called, I guess, the Ontario Financing Authority, will take over all of the authority for managing our roughly $80 billion worth of debt. This is an enormous part of the day-to-day operations of government. The way we as an elected body monitor how we manage that $80 billion worth of debt is extremely important, but it's going to be turned over to this schedule 4 crown agency, the Ontario Financing Authority. We'll want to understand: What's the public benefit in doing that? What's the public benefit in turning over $80 billion of management to an independent schedule 4 agency?

Mr Owens: Lower borrowing costs.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "Lower borrowing costs." I will want to have the evidence of that, then. The parliamentary assistant says there will be lower borrowing costs. That will be something we'll want to see, because it is my understanding that this authority is going to take on the responsibility for raising more capital than just for the province. It will want to raise capital for school boards; it will want to raise capital for hospitals. If that's going to result in lower interest costs, then we'll want to see the evidence of that.

I think everyone out there should recognize that we're talking about a significant number of people. The number, as I understand it, will be about 3,000 public servants who currently are in the public service doing work in the various ministries and will be transferred over to these organizations -- 3,000 people, I suspect, with an operating budget of, I don't know, a couple of hundred million dollars. This is an enormous transfer of numbers of people from the traditional public service over into these schedule 4 agencies. Again, we'll want to know what the benefits of that are. The parliamentary assistant, I hope, as we move to public hearings, will have an opportunity to tell us the reasons for that.

There are elements in here that we're attracted to and that I support, our party supports. We will not be without positive comment on what we think are some of the positive elements in here that we will hope to retain as we attempt to modify the bill.

I don't think there's any doubt but that we do need to look at new partnerships with the private sector. I think the public expect it. There are some really creative opportunities to be doing that. In my own community of Scarborough, there's an opportunity for some private sector involvement in rapid transit that sounds attractive. I understand that, and we will be supportive of attempting to find the mechanisms and the vehicles for that.

I think there are probably many examples in the transportation area where we can be looking at private sector and other involvement. There may also be some in the realty area and some in the transportation area. So that element has our support.

The second thing that has some attraction for us is that it does provide an opportunity to invest countercyclically. I think one of the challenges in government is that when the economy is moving along very, very well, it's a time when probably the investment by the public sector in infrastructure should slow up a little bit. We should probably find the vehicles that we can invest countercyclically, and this bill provides that opportunity where we can have some flexibility in that.

I don't think there's any doubt that our economic success in Ontario does depend on a solid infrastructure. I think we've been fortunate to have a good sewer and water system, but those things aren't guaranteed. I think the transportation system has been good, but those things aren't guaranteed and there's no doubt that our future economic success depends on ensuring that in the province we do invest in these areas, that we stay ahead of the problem.

I've tried to outline for the public and the government, which is moving forward with this bill, our concerns. They are real and substantial, and I would say that none of us should underestimate how important this matter is.

We are talking about setting up an agency to manage, for example, The biggest issue of bonds in the world last year. I think the biggest issue of bonds in the world was done by the Ontario government. So we're talking about setting up an agency that's going to manage that magnitude, that size of financing.

The reason I'm highlighting the school, the college and university and the hospital capital on this new way of financing, which essentially is to get the school boards to borrow the money so the province can fulfil its obligation, the province says, "We'll pay it back over 20 years."

But I say to the government, we are going to run up, every year, almost $600 million worth of debt there. Six years from now, the debt just in this one area alone, where we'll have the province asking the school boards and the colleges and the hospitals that borrow the money, the debt in that one area alone will be equal to the total debt of the province of New Brunswick.

I just use that as an illustration of the magnitude of spending and debt we're talking about here. The budget calls it loan-based financing. If one just read it, you would think: "Gee, this sounds interesting. The province is going to loan money to the school boards." It is exactly the opposite; the school boards are loaning the money to the province.

1550

What the budget says here is that this will not impose any additional cost on the institutions, on the school boards, as the province will provide the institutions with annual instalments required to repay the loans. So it is a loan, not from the province to the institutions; it's a loan the opposite of that.

We are dealing here with a matter of an enormous amount of money and one that I hope the public will take an interest in when it moves to our committee and we'll have an opportunity to comment on it.

I want to spend some time on a little bit more detailed discussion on each of these areas, because the bill probably has three major components. The one is providing the format for a new way of financing school, college, university, hospital capital. The second component of the bill is this whole new way of managing the financing of the province, and that's the Ontario Financing Authority. The third area of the bill is the setting up of these capital corporations, the transportation capital corporation, the sewer and water capital corporation and the realty corporation. I'd like to spend a few moments dealing with each of them.

The first one is this funding of the school, hospital, college, university capital. I went back many years, and the province spends about $600 million to $700 million a year in this area. Based on everything I've read, I suspect the province plans to continue to spend at that rate. Everything I've seen from the government says we have to, if anything, increase our spending on capital, so I expect we're talking each and every year of spending $600 million to $700 million.

As I said, effective April 1, 1993 -- this is already retroactive in the bill -- rather than it going in the form of a grant, in the form of a loan payable by the province. The province is going to owe $600 million a year.

I did my own calculations. If the government has better calculations, I'd like to see them. In fact I've requested them and I'm sure I'll get them shortly. In fairness, I just requested them yesterday and I'd hope as we move to the committee we can see them. So it's not a question of the staff not giving them.

But the numbers I have say, just on the capital of the schools, colleges, universities and hospitals, that in five years the province will owe almost $3 billion on that. Obviously in 10 years it will be almost $6 billion a year, and in 10 years the province will be spending probably $600 million a year just to service the debt on that. The province will have the full, legal obligation to repay that. There can be no doubt about that. That has to be the guarantee that's been given to the hospitals and the school boards.

The question here is, what's the public benefit? Where is the public benefit in doing it this way? I personally think we may pay more money. I personally think the interest rates may be higher. Certainly they'll be higher if the individual school boards have to go out and raise the money, because the province can borrow its money, presumably, at a far better interest rate than an individual school board could do it. It said in the bill the Ontario Financing Authority may help them with that but doesn't have to.

That is my first issue on the bill. Where is the public interest being served?

I will tell you -- it will come as no surprise, I suspect, to the government caucus -- my own feeling on why this is happening is an attempt to hide $600 million a year of spending and to hide $600 million a year of debt. As a matter of fact, had the budget been prepared on the same basis this year as last year, the government would have had to show $600 million more of spending on the books and show $600 million more worth of debt. But because of this little manoeuvre where they say, "No, no, we are going to borrow the money from these organizations and pay them back over 20 years," they show $600 million less spending, $600 million less debt.

Perhaps some viewers out there may wonder why this is important. I think last year's budget had some things in there that I don't feel were as honest as they should have been. The day the budget came out, Mr Speaker, you may recall that my leader and others said: "Listen, you're not reporting the finances properly. You've put in money there that you're not going to get. You've recorded sales that you're not going to get. You've delayed payments that are just simply putting off to next year."

We said, and you can go back and look at the Hansard, the real deficit's going to be $12 billion. This was a year ago, exactly a year ago. That's exactly what happened. My judgement is, if the government had had to report accurately the finances of the province and if the government had said our deficit's going to be $12 billion, I think that the public would have had a far different reaction. I don't think the government could have passed that budget last year -- passed the public budget; they may have forced it through the House.

So in our judgement, by not being forthcoming with the figures, by trying to mask or hide the real numbers, we do the public an enormous disservice. I would say to the government that I can't find where the public interest is being served on this. I think that the public are being told that on this specific one, the spending is $600 million less than it is, and we are going to pile up an enormous amount of hidden debt, all of which in the end, as we all know, has to be paid off.

That is probably my first and most significant concern about the bill, that it is designed to set up this new financing, and I think it's a mistake to not be properly charging it and not be properly showing it. As I say, I think we'll have a good discussion about that.

The second part of the bill is the establishment of this Ontario Financing Authority. It is designed, as I read the bill, to manage all the capital, all the debt servicing role of the province. As I said earlier in my talk, that's an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think for all of us in the Legislature, it has become one of our highest priorities.

Indeed, my own feeling is that what drove the budget presentation this year was first and foremost trying to ensure that the province didn't have its credit rating dropped. Had it had the credit rating dropped -- and I said I thought the budget would be prepared in a way that the credit agencies would find acceptable -- it would have dramatically increased the cost of the debt interest, of servicing the debt, and I think would have sent a very negative signal. But here we are, about to turn over to an independent, schedule 4, arm's-length agency all the management of our debt.

Again, I ask where is the benefit to the public? I've already talked about where we can be supportive in the bill, but in this particular case I want to know where the benefit to the public is. Is it going to, as the parliamentary assistant said, result in lower interest rates? It will be important to prove that this will actually result in lower interest rates.

1600

Will it improve the accountability to the public, to the Legislature? The bill itself says -- and this is jargon around here -- that it will be excluded from the general revenue account. It will be set aside from the normal books. In terms of accountability, I don't see that. In fact, if you talk to the accounting community across the country, it will say that one of the problems with governments is that they don't provide a full and accurate accounting, and that the books of governments do not properly array the finances of the organizations.

There have been some provinces that have made great strides. I would hope that the province of Ontario -- this is a mild aside, but I raise it because I think there's the risk that we're heading in the opposite direction from better accounting and a better disclosure -- that we would very shortly revise the way the books in this province are kept and the accounting is handled. I would hope that all parties would support that. I know our party supports it; I know that the third party, the Conservative Party, supports a much fuller disclosure of the finances of the province.

If you read reports done very recently in Saskatchewan and British Columbia by the provincial auditors and by groups looking at the finances, they actually, in my judgement, are heading in the opposite direction from what this bill plans to do, which is to move much of the spending "off-book," get it out of the view of the public, I think because it allows reporting of a lower expenditure and a lower debt.

I think that by setting up this schedule 4 agency, it takes it more away from the public scrutiny, and I don't think there's anything quite as important right now as public scrutiny of where the finances of the province are.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: The parliamentary assistant is saying something over there. I think he's saying that it's already there. Workers' compensation is a classic example. The Minister of Labour, day after day, will get up here and say: "You understand that the WCB is an independent, arm's-length agency. I can't be telling them what to do." They signed a contract for a new building and essentially the government has said, "Listen, they have the legal authority to do that, to build their own new building." So it is important to raise that, whether the public will be served better or worse by setting up this independent agency.

I will say that within the financing authority, if it is going to be the intention to use it to allow school boards and hospitals and municipalities to raise more capital, if that's one of the key reasons for doing it, I suggest that we're not looking at reducing the interest costs, because presumably the provincial guarantee will be on this Ontario Financing Authority. It will be backstopped by the provincial guarantee. I don't see that if the provincial guarantee simply takes on more debt -- that's what's happening with Ontario Hydro. The bond-rating agencies look at the fact that the province has a guarantee on Ontario Hydro which, by the way, the province charges, I think, $200 million a year for, but that inevitably raises the interest rates.

The government is saying to the opposition that this is going to result in lower interest rates. I say it will be, at committee, interesting to make sure that is the case, because if they're taking on more debt for more organizations, I think most financial analysts would tell you that's not going to result in lower interest rates; that's going to result in higher interest rates.

Mr Owens: I don't think so, Gerry.

Mr Phillips: Well, there he goes. He says he doesn't think so, and I'm just saying it will be important for the opposition and the committee members to see the evidence of that, because most of the experience I've seen suggests that if an organization takes on more debt, it likely will have trouble in doing it at a lower interest rate.

The three capital corporations, the Ontario Realty Corp, the Ontario Clean Water Agency and the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp -- as I said in my opening comments, I think the ones where there may be the most merit may be transportation and clean water.

The Ontario Realty Corp is of interest to me, major interest, because as I understand what the government's doing here, one way it kept the revenue number up last year is that it transferred, I believe, $350 million worth of land into what will become the Ontario Realty Corp. This is a little technical, but it's called the Ontario Land Corp right now, because it's existing and they could transfer the land there. I believe the bill's intention is to change the name to the Ontario Realty Corp.

Just so everybody understands what the government did last year, it transferred $350 million worth of government land into this crown agency. So it was moving paper around. They said: "All right, you've got the $350 million worth of land. Give us a cheque for $350 million." That showed up as revenue -- $350 million worth of land sold to the Ontario Realty Corp, which is this government-run crown agency.

I gather that there's a plan to transfer another $250 million worth of land into it this year, and the Ontario Realty Corp gives the province $250 million.

I also gather that the intention is to begin to transfer government buildings into the Ontario Realty Corp, so what we'll see is -- I don't think I'm exaggerating here -- that the Macdonald Block could very easily be sold to the Ontario Realty Corp. It's then sold, the government shows that as revenue and then the government takes out a long-term lease on that.

Now, what's the problem with that? I guess the issue that has to be raised again is, where's the public interest here? What really will happen is the government will show as revenue whatever the Ontario Realty Corp decides the building is worth, and it could be worth, theoretically, a substantial amount of money. So that will be shown as revenue, and I suspect it will more likely be shown as revenue in the 1995 budget than the 1994 budget. Then the government says, "We now have a lease." In other words, we will stay in there and we will pay annually probably a fairly substantial amount of money.

What essentially it's like, Mr Speaker, is you or I, in our personal lives, finally get our house paid off. That is an obligation that is gone, but we fall on to some tough times. So we decide, although we're going to keep spending but we're not making enough money, "Let's remortgage the house." A house that essentially was paid off, the Macdonald Block, will be completely remortgaged.

My understanding -- the government, I hope, will be helpful at the committee stage -- is that is what the intention is, to systematically move government buildings into the Ontario Realty Corp. I gather there are up to, I think, 1,800 employees that it is contemplated will move into this organization.

As a subissue, on the land, at one stage there was a Housing First policy in the province. I don't know whether that still exists or not. I don't know whether it is the intention. As the government transfers the land into this Ontario Realty Corp and takes the revenue into its budget, I don't know whether there is still a Housing First policy or not. I just don't know, and I hope the government can clarify it for us. So on this one, again I ask the question, where is the public interest being served?

I don't know how much more land there is to go into this organization. Right now, I believe there's about $600 million worth of government land that has been moved into it, and the realty corporation now has paid the government $600 million for that, I guess theoretically, surplus land. That, of the three capital corporations, is the one that I think raises perhaps even the most questions.

1610

The second one is the Ontario Clean Water Agency. There may be some merit in this, in some form of an agency dealing with water and, I would assume, sewage treatment and what not, in that there may be an opportunity to leverage some private sector money. It may be a vehicle for ensuring that in tough times we don't ignore the very real infrastructure needs and may provide some more flexibility when the economy is booming to not necessarily overheat the economy. I understand there will be about 1,000 public servants who will move over into this very major schedule 4 agency.

The object of the corporation, as stated in the legislation, is to finance, build and operate water and sewage works on a cost-recovery basis. I think we'll want to look at what I call -- where will the revenue come from on this? Where will the revenue come from? My understanding is that the revenue likely comes from an increase in the water fees. I gather that's the intent behind the legislation, that water rates should go up substantially.

Hon Mr Cooke: What did Bob Nixon think?

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education and Training is barracking again about previous governments. I am not here to defend previous governments. I am here to look at the merits of the plan. I will say that the Minister of Education and the government, when they come to committee, had better tell the people where the funds are going to come from. Where will the funds come from? Will it come from higher water rates, and if so, let's just be honest with ourselves. Let's spell that out. Right now we don't see that. We have no indication of where the revenue for this will come from, and until we see that --

Hon Mr Cooke: What was Bob Nixon going to do?

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education is barracking again, and I'll go back to a concern I raised with him. When we find that we are running up enormous hidden debts by the shenanigans on school capital, I think the people of the province will want to have a chance to comment on it. In this particular case, on the clean water agency, we'll want to know how it's funded. We'll want to know how much the water rates will go up to fund it.

On the clean water agency, I think the people of the province will need to know how well the 1,000 people will be paid who are moving on to it. Where will the revenue for that come from? Where will the revenue come from to fund the, I guess, billions of dollars of infrastructure?

Hon Mr Cooke: Typical opposition party, just opposition for the sake of opposition.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Education is saying, "Opposition for opposition's sake." I will say to him that the people of Ontario care about the amount of debt you are running up. They care about the fact that this organization will run up, as I said before, $600 million worth of hidden debt just on school, hospital, and college and university capital.

The third thing that we want to talk about is the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. I said earlier that I see some merit in finding ways to leverage private sector money into helping to refurbish our infrastructure. I see some merit in looking creatively at new alternatives. I will want to know, however -- and I hope everyone realizes that what is being proposed here is shifting, in total, almost $2 billion a year of spending off the government books into these organizations. That money, in all of the province's finances, has already been taken out. If you look at the three-year forecast, the government has assumed it's going to take $1.7 billion out of its spending into these capital corporations.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: "It shows them," the member says. Not in the normal fashion that has been shown in the past and not fully disclosed.

On the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, as I said before, there is some merit in looking at ways to leverage some new funding. Again, the government has provided us with no indication of what we will call a stream of revenue. How will this be funded? What revenue will come into this organization? How will the debt be serviced? How will the new construction be serviced? How will all of the new employees be paid?

To begin to wrap up our comments on this bill, I will say to the public that this is not an inconsequential bill. This bill changes very fundamentally the whole way that capital is financed in the province for schools, hospitals, universities. In five years there will be new debt there, $3 billion. I think one of the concepts is, "Well, these things last 20 years and therefore we should only show one twentieth of the expenses," but the fact is, you spend $600 million a year every year, year after year after year, and the thought of only showing one twentieth of that expense I think is misleading.

On the Ontario Financing Authority, the issue is, where is the public being served? Where is the benefit here of moving this to this schedule 4 agency? The parliamentary assistant said, "Well, it would be lower interest rates." There's one possible benefit. We'll want to see the evidence of that. But we'll want to know very clearly where the public interest is being served.

On the three capital corporations, I've already indicated that my concern is more with the realty corporation than the other two. The realty corporation, I believe, is going to be an organization -- we already saw it last year: $350 million worth of government land was transferred there and the $350 million used as revenue. This year it's $250 million. I dare say what we will do is begin to transfer government buildings in here, take the money out for the sale of the buildings and then we'll take on a lease that will run for ever. What we've done is we have added significant annual costs where there were no annual costs.

I will go back to what I said to the Premier in December. We should have been dealing with this bill far earlier. If he'd brought forward the legislation when we asked for it, perhaps there would have been some opportunity to have it dealt with before the House adjourns. As it is now, I think the opportunity for the public input and for the necessary debate about this will have to take place over the summer. I would hope people understand the importance of the bill and get involved in this particular bill. As I said before, there are some elements of it that have merit. Hopefully, we can find ways to revise the bill so we don't lose the merits of the bill but we protect the public interest.

I look forward to a very thorough airing as we move to the public debate. Hopefully the government can find some ways of satisfying the concerns that we in the opposition have on all three fronts. As I say, the most major concern I guess I've got is around all the financing for school and hospital capital, secondly the Ontario financing corporation and then the third concern is particularly with the realty corporation, that the public interest is not being served.

1620

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Hon Mr Cooke: Do we have two minutes?

The Acting Speaker: Yes.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the comments the member has made and I would actually certainly agree with him in terms of this being a major public policy which requires consideration and debate in the Legislature. No one disagrees with that at all, that this is a different way in some respects of doing business.

But what I don't agree with -- and I just want to point out a couple of areas where I think he is wrong -- is that there is no parallel between a schedule 4 agency and the Workers' Compensation Board. If you want to take a look at what a schedule 4 agency is and the controls that government has over a schedule 4 agency -- human resource policy, policy directives, MOUs, those are just a few; of course appointment of the board -- whereas the WCB is much more independent and the member knows that. But more important than those comments, I just want to point out a couple of the inconsistencies in the contribution this afternoon.

When the Liberals were in power, and appropriately so, the whole Homes Now program was funded through the Ontario Housing Corp. They took the loans out for the building of that housing, none of that capital showed on book and the member knows that. That was all done off book, and appropriately so. The only thing that showed in the expenditures under a Liberal budget was the cost of repayment of those loans over the 35 years for repayment. That's exactly the same way that we fund housing now and that was done through the Ontario Housing Corp and that's how the Homes Now program was funded. The member shakes his head but that is correct. That's how it was funded. In fact, the $2 billion never showed up for the Homes Now program.

The sewer and water corporation was first proposed by Mr Nixon and the Liberal government, and in fact nobody was consulted. The municipal sector wasn't consulted; even the Ministry of Municipal Affairs wasn't consulted. Schools have been funded this way in the past in the 1960s and 1970s. The member knows it. Just be consistent with the position, for once, from the Liberals.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I just wanted to comment on how exceedingly thorough my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was.

In reference to the comments that were just made by the Minister of Education, while he's talking in reference to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's remarks, and I think he's made a couple of comments with regard to his main speech, I think it's appropriate to just sum up because they're ideas that are in conflict.

Obviously, to be able to suggest that it's inappropriate, that somehow it's not proper to show those expenditures on the books, that somehow there's inconsistency in doing that, I think is entirely out of whack.

When we talk about costs, the costs of financing those expenditures will accumulate over time but none the less will always show up as a debt burden to the people of this province. After all, isn't that the bottom line? And what we're saying is -- talk about being consistent -- have the courage to demonstrate this very clearly. We weren't planning all of these capital corporations to the extent that you are.

I know there were plans around the Ontario sewers and clean water. Yes, we had some discussions with regard to doing that and bringing that forward, but I'll tell you something. There may have been problems with the proposals, and I quite frankly don't agree with taking things off-book, because it gets out of control. There's less accountability, not more. I don't see how you can suggest that in the final analysis there will be greater accountability. Impossible. We see the problems with the non-profit housing program that's being undertaken right now. It's less accountability, not greater accountability.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): To comment particularly on the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's comments on the realty corporation, I too am very troubled by the implications of this. The government, as the member has pointed out, took some $350 million worth of assets off book to this agency and will transfer a further $250 million.

The potential is certainly there that they could transfer buildings and do leasebacks. Let me tell you that the experience of companies that are in trouble is they will try to sell industrial buildings or office buildings that they own and do a leaseback. Very much the concern of people buying those leasebacks is the security that they will have, because they recognize that the companies that are using this technique of financing are companies that have expended all of their other potential for borrowing.

I believe that this government is using this to be able to raise money, that it believes the electorate will not understand it is borrowing, but believe me, the bond-rating agencies will be looking at this and they will recognize what it's doing. I believe this is another technique, just like selling the GO trains and leasing them back, where they're fooling the public, but they're not fooling the people who look at the accounts of this government. I think it has serious long-term implications.

The other question that arises is, how will the properties being transferred to this agency from the government be valued? Will they be valued by arm's-length agencies or organizations that can determine whether this is a fair market value?

Mr Owens: I'd like to thank the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for his remarks. I want to state at the outset of this process that these crown corporations bear absolutely no identification with the Workers' Compensation Board. I'm not quite sure why the member from Scarborough-Agincourt wants to raise his government's record, and particularly his as the Minister of Labour with respect to WCB.

The member has asked a question around the advantage of the Ontario Financing Authority and how it will in fact lower the borrowing cost. Through the centralized management that will be done by the Ontario Financing Authority, this will in fact reduce the duplication of effort around the financing activities, which will result in lower borrowing costs.

The other advantage, and there are many, is that we'll look to broadening the capital base that is available to the province and broaden the investor base by offering a variety of instruments structured to meet some specialized investor demand.

In terms of an implied question, are we the only jurisdiction that is involved in this type of agency, I can tell the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, clearly not. There are a number of national and subnational financing authorities, including those in Sweden, Ireland and some Australian states.

I think in terms of the member in his former life in the private sector, he's quite familiar with downstream and upstream corporate organizations and how financing is done through the upstream corporation. We're simply trying to mirror a corporate process that is currently in practice across this country.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes in response.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raised workers' compensation -- I was the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Education and Training said, "These organizations will have a memorandum of understanding." Of course they will. There's a memorandum of understanding between workers' compensation and the minister. Of course there'll be the memorandum of understanding, but what the memorandum of understanding says is that you keep your hands off it as the minister. So there are those memorandums of understanding.

The reason I raise it is because of my specific experience as the Minister of Labour and my concerns that when you set up independent, arm's-length agencies, they want to be independent, arm's-length agencies.

The Minister of Education also raised the Homes Now thing. He makes my point, and that is, yes, that's the way it's set up. Now we all realize, we see, that as they come on stream -- the auditor made a big point in his audit. He says, "Listen, there's going to be $1 billion" -- I think he used the figure -- "a year in costs." Right now it's about $500 million, going to $1 billion.

1630

Hon Mr Cooke: But you knew that.

Mr Phillips: The minister says we knew that. Specifically because of those experiences, I'm now raising those issues. Why do you want to set up a whole series of new areas that are just going to put debt on the books and raise annual cost? That's why I raise it.

There are other jurisdictions, as the member said. Yes, again, that's the reason I raise it. I've been reading the reports from Saskatchewan, British Columbia and other jurisdictions, where they're saying: "Listen, we've got to get the books of the government consolidated. We've got to stop hiving these things off and hiding debt. We've got to get the books of the province consolidated so the public can get a firm fix -- the public, the elected officials, all of us -- on the books."

It's for all of those reasons that I raise the issues, and the members have made my points for me.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm pleased to participate in this debate on Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration.

This is an important bill and certainly requires a great deal of attention, not only by members of this House from all parties but certainly will, before we're finished, require the attention of those in the province who will have a direct need to call upon the services provided by this bill. Before I go too far in it, I'd like it to be known that our caucus will be looking for this bill to be referred to committee. We'd also like to have some public hearings to allow hospitals, schools, universities, municipalities and other agencies that have concerns that may be on their minds to have an opportunity to consider it further.

I see that as most important. Certainly, through the numbers of people in our caucus, we'll be able to make sure that happens.

There are good things in the bill and there are things that aren't so good. I think when you read the press releases of the government you're inclined to think it's just the perfect panacea to answer certain financial needs the province has, and it's a way of solving some of their very serious fiscal problem that they've not only created themselves but in some ways inherited from the previous Liberal government.

But the fact of the matter is, the government's trying to find ways out of the financial hole it helped create for itself when it got into this heavy deficit the Treasurer started to talk about: a $17-billion deficit for 1993-94. It was at that time that the government realized it had to find ways out of this possible hole it was getting into and began to look for everything it could.

Some of those things, as we've said earlier in other debates and discussions -- and our Conservative caucus has said that some of the things the government is trying to do certainly are worthwhile and are supportable by ourselves. Certainly our leader, Mr Harris, today in the Legislature made it clear that the efforts the government is trying to move on, or at least the intention of the social contract -- there are certain benefits there that really have to be addressed and faced up to.

As painful as it is, it's something our caucus supports the intention of. Certainly we don't want to see people losing their jobs, but we've got to find ways of reducing the costs of the 90,000-and-some people who are part of the public service. That is one initiative, as painful as it is. Even in opposition, you have to stand up and be counted on those things that are a little bit more difficult to face up to.

The expenditure control plan is another example where the government tried to bring down the cost of doing business. Some of the things in the expenditure control plan are really very, very bad news to an awful lot of people: the fact that the government did not cut back on any of the fraud that exists in health care nor has touched on the fraud in social assistance.

Nor have they looked at some of the good-faith suggestions that have been brought forth through the social contract talks where there are billions more that can be saved in the expenditures of the province of Ontario. The government has not addressed them at all at this point in time, which means that in the future there are going to be ways in which the government can save more money.

It is our desire that we do everything we can to reduce the size of the deficit. The deficit for the province of Ontario has reached unparalleled proportions under this government and the previous Liberals. We as a society know that a deficit is just another word for deferred taxes, deferred taxes on future generations. As long as we're spending beyond our means in Ontario today, it means that future generations are going to have to pay for the luxury and the happiness and the fine times we had. They're going to pay for our enjoyment of that.

That's not good. We should find ways of living within our means, of moving towards a balanced budget so that the province of Ontario becomes a place where its fiscal and monetary policies are sound and realistic and it is seen by outside investors as a place where you really want to do business. As all part of this large story that the government is now presenting, Bill 17 falls into it as one of the important mechanisms that's going to be used by the government for capital investment.

But if I may start my comments, just referring to the budget, which is really part of this glorious government policy -- not so glorious; "inglorious" would be the proper way of describing it -- you know, it's a way of cooking the books. Right at the very, very beginning, I have to say that when you look at the Ontario budget for 1993, where does it refer to the whole proposal under the capital investment plan and its startup moneys of $800 million?

You find it not in the main context of the budget; you find it on page 19, under a double asterisk, where it's referred to on the page, as it says here, "Capital expenditure and debt adjusted to reflect new capital financing arrangements by $0.8 billion in 1993-94, $1.2 billion in 1994-95 and $1.7 billion in 1995-96." What they're doing as a government is removing $0.8 billion this year, $1.2 billion next fiscal year and $1.7 billion in 1995-96.

It's a magical, sleight-of-hand approach. It's the shell game that this government is so notoriously known for of moving responsibility from one set of books, which is the government set of books, to another set of books, which will be that of this new capital investment plan.

You know, we're not allowed to call people crooked and liars and thieves and the things that they really are here in the Legislature, but at least we're able to point out that there are some major flaws in -- I'm treading the line, aren't I, Mr Speaker? -- the approach they're using, and I find it offensive.

I find it offensive when in fact they come out with a budget and say, "We're going to have the budgetary requirements" -- in other words, a deficit -- "of $9.2 billion," and they don't include the $800 million they've now shoved aside under this new act. That's part of the failure of the government to establish credibility with me and people who are looking at its books.

I think it's all part of where the government has not got any set of standards that the outside world can really trust and rely upon. There are so many examples where the government will run up a debt and doesn't reflect it on its own books. While I appreciate the need for a more rational treatment of capital expenditures, it is just as important that taxpayers have access to a clear, comprehensible and understandable set of books.

There's just a number of questions over the last few years about the appropriateness of some of the government's accounting practices. In 1990, for example, the Provincial Auditor reported that the use of preflows by the then Liberal government of the day can be viewed as an attempt to manage operating results and that the use of advance payments raises doubt concerning the integrity of the accounting process.

The auditor highlighted the mismanagement of the spending of the government of Ontario when Premier David Peterson was in power, when the present Liberal leader was part of the cabinet. They then were in a position where they were finding ways of cooking the books. They were doing it then, and more recently, the NDP government's use of pension plan deferrals and its inconsistent treatment of stabilization payments in the calculation of its revenues have reinforced the perception that the government manages and reports its accounts primarily to fit its political agenda, and only secondarily to provide a complete and accurate picture of the financial position of the province.

1640

As we see what this government's done with its pension plan deferrals and with its inconsistent treatment of stabilization payments, we can now look at these new crown corporations as just another way for the government to hide debt, but also to hide civil servants. These new crown corporations will be staffed by civil servants made redundant when the corporations assume the functions currently being performed in and by government ministries.

Thus, the government will take credit for reducing the size of the civil service but will not have taken one single person off the public payroll. I will be commenting on this further. This is going to be a chance to add to the public payroll, but the set of numbers that you're going to see presented by Mr Rae and his government when they come up to the public for re-election is not going to reflect accurately or honestly what they've done in the creation of these new agencies.

The public has a right to be assured that these new crown corporations are going to be something more than just another accounting fiddle. They want to know that what the government is doing does honestly reflect what it is really doing, and if you end up having a problem -- you're paying out more or the debt is more or there are more civil servants -- let's at least deal honestly with the truth of it all.

I'm a great believer that 50% of the way to a solution is when you've defined the problem, and so often in politics we will define the problem in a very narrow sense. We respond to the interest groups, we respond to particular people who have a vested interest in something, instead of having the whole picture, and the picture is something that is an honest reflection of actually what is going on.

Maybe the problem is that the government doesn't know what's going on. The government hasn't got a feel for so many things that are there. Even a short time ago, the government didn't know how much land it owned or controlled under Government Services. The government really didn't know what computer systems and services it had inside the government and where they were and what they were doing.

There are so many examples. The government has such a large organization, the people of Ontario don't understand, with over 90,000 people who make up the civil service and bureaucracy of the Ontario government, just how huge this operation is, and when you look at the total public service that goes into the schools and the municipalities and the hospitals and the crown agencies and Ontario Hydro, there are well over 900,000 people here in the province of Ontario who make up this public service. It's one large, large organization.

Now what we're doing in the introduction of this bill is complicating it, and we're adding, I think, problems as we try to find solutions to certain other problems.

Part of the solution we're looking for is to find a way of dealing with capital investment so that the entire capital that the government puts out to a school board, hospital or some agency can be amortized over a period of time, and therefore that money, instead of coming off the books in one big removal and one big transfer, will be spread out over a longer period of time, and through the mechanisms that are included in this bill, there will be ways in which the government recovers that money.

I can see why the government wants, under the financial pressures of 1993, to do something about its capital. But then when I start seeing how they are going about it with this bill -- the bureaucracy that's going to be created, the magic that is going into it which is part of the sleight of hand and the shell game that the government is so notorious for -- I have to stop and ask many questions. Those questions will best be answered in committee when we get there.

I was disappointed yesterday. I've been pleased till now that the spirit of cooperation from the Treasurer personally has been such that I see him as someone who wants to be fairminded. We did not receive a briefing from ministerial staff till yesterday morning. The meeting was set, partly at my convenience, at 9:30, before caucus, and I was caught in traffic getting here, but the meeting ended very shortly after 10 o'clock and the questions that we had were far from answered in the briefing. So I'm somewhat embarrassed, having had more questions, that the government was not prepared to give us more time to deal with those questions.

Mr Owens: That's really totally unfair, Don.

Mr Cousens: I'm making the statement here in the Legislature that if we're going to deal with major pieces of legislation -- and the parliamentary assistant says that I'm being unfair. To me, it's unfair that you as a government don't give us a chance to understand the details of things. If you're going to start interrupting and copping out right now, it's not the way to do it. I'm telling you that we have a right to know and you're not letting that right be passed on. So don't come along and interrupt. You weren't there. You don't know. You probably haven't even read the bill.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Order.

Mr Cousens: So you come along -- Mr Speaker, he keeps on carping away. He doesn't accept the responsibility for it. We in the opposition are dealing with the bill and they're coming along and saying, "You're not being fair." I'm saying they're not being fair. We have a bill to deal with that's mighty important, and you come out and say, "Oh, well, you're not being fair." The responsibility of the opposition is to provide honest --

Mr Owens: You were making personal attacks. You were.

Mr Cousens: He never shuts up, Mr Speaker. Is he one of yours or is he going to be part of the audience and just participate when he has his two minutes at the end? If he's going to continue to interrupt, I ask you to cause him to be censored.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Have a drink of water, Don.

Mr Cousens: I'll have a drink of water, but I'm getting sick of the constant interruptions from the parliamentary assistant, who doesn't know what he's talking about.

I'm saying we in the opposition have the right to understand in detail what the bill is all about. I'm saying we did not have that full right. We had an opportunity for a partial introduction to the bill. Our questions were not all answered. I say it's another reason why I'm going to force this bill for public hearings. There are a lot of other reasons for it as well.

Mr Owens: You don't need to force it.

Mr Cousens: I'm telling you, Mr Speaker -- I make this plea to you. If the honourable parliamentary assistant is going to continue to make his comments and interjections, I would ask you, as the Speaker, to exercise the authority that's given to you. Certainly, in the last day or so, the Speaker has been especially mean-minded, in my view, to the member from Etobicoke and other members of our caucus.

If you think I'm going to stand here and allow them to have privileges that were taken away from us yesterday in this Legislature when we couldn't talk on the budget, we couldn't make positions known in this House because the government ruled us out of order, the Speaker ruled us out of order, Mr Speaker, I'm calling upon you to do your job with the carpers, the seals or the fish over there that need to be fed.

There are a number of issues on the bill that really have to be analysed and understood. It has to do with what the government has called its new capital financing plan to transfer payments to what it calls USH: universities, school boards and hospitals. That is going to take some time to understand.

I think we want to understand more fully the cost to the province in assuming hundreds of millions annually in new contingent liabilities, and I'd like to see that addressed in greater detail.

I think, as well, we need to understand the costs and benefits of turning the management of the province's borrowing plan over to a schedule 4 crown agency, and I will talk about that further. Then I would like to know how this government is going to attract more joint venture partners in the private sector.

There is a philosophy of government here which you never have defined except before the government was elected. At that time, Mr Rae and the socialist -- capitalist, socialist, whatever, came into this government --

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Zealots.

1650

Mr Cousens: Yes, they're zealots for sure. As they came into this government they had An Agenda for People. I haven't seen them define a true mission statement that begins to tell the people of Ontario in a few words what the true mission statement of Ontario is going to be, because the government is confusing so many things with its plethora of programs, social and otherwise, that confuse the public from really understanding and knowing what the thrust of the government is going to be.

Well-intentioned good words are not sufficient. What we really want to understand is the programs and what it is those programs are going to accomplish. Instead of our having a sense that those programs are going to be truly as successful and as proactive and as useful as we would hope, the fact is that these programs are laid out, we see terms of reference defined in Bill 17, we see the new guidelines for what the bill is all about, but having seen those, there is a sense in which we are not able to believe all it is that we're reading.

I see the government systematically doing a number of things: moving staff out of the bureaucracy of the civil service into its new crown agencies; I see the government moving its debt from its own books and the fiscal policy of the province of Ontario to another set of books; I see the government pushing off the debenture and the other responsibilities to another agency; I see the government changing its whole concept of what grants are to a new concept of loans; I see the government giving a program for the future without really making it very clear.

What I'd like to do is touch upon the bill specifically as we go through it.

Mr Owens: Come on, Gerry, don't leave.

Mr Cousens: I find it offensive that the honourable parliamentary assistant -- I can guarantee you, Mr Speaker, if you're not going to deal with Mr Owens and his ignorant comments in this House, then I wish that either there were a new Speaker or that someone else is going to do something about it.

Mr Owens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was not addressing the member for Markham, nor was I even thinking about the member for Markham. I was simply addressing the critic for the Liberal Party. I think the member for Markham should keep his comments germane to the legislation that's under discussion and apologize.

Mr Runciman: Baloney. No apology necessary.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: We're dealing with a bill that has four parts to it. We're going to talk about those four parts and the impact they have.

The one part has to do with the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, the Ontario Realty Corp and the Ontario Financing Authority. As I've gone through this bill, I have to say that there are many, many concerns. I accept the fact that the government wants to find a way of removing something from the books so that they look better as they're running the province now, but for them to come along and shove all those costs into another agency, a crown corporation, is reminiscent of creating another Ontario Hydro, if you really want to say.

What we have with Ontario Hydro is an example of what we don't want to see any more of. I mean, Ontario Hydro, when it started out and probably if you look at it, still continues to provide --

Mr Owens: You set it up, Don.

Mr Cousens: I wish the honourable member, who is ignorant and stupid for the way he is continuing to interrupt -- and I ask that if the Speaker's not doing anything about it, I'm saying you should do something to name him.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Order.

Mr Cousens: You're not being fair in this House. You're allowing him to continue his ignorant comments.

Mr Runciman: Identify him.

Mr Cousens: I'm really saying, member for -- Mr Owens, whatever he is, if he's supposed to be a member of the House, he's not being very fair when we've got other things to do.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Please be seated. The honourable member for Yorkview on a point of order.

Mr Cousens: Ontario Hydro has a number of long-term debts.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Speaker, on a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for Markham to please be seated.

Mr Cousens: The Ontario Hydro yearbook --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): There's a point of order, Don.

Mr Cousens: -- which is at $34 billion --

The Acting Speaker: Please be seated. The honourable member for Yorkview on a point of order.

Mr Mammoliti: I heard the word "stupid." He called another member of this Legislature stupid. I'd ask whether or not this is parliamentary and I'd ask him to withdraw that word, Mr Speaker.

Mr Marchese: Even Chris says that.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, the people who are watching have no idea how offensive it is, that when you're elected to represent a riding --

Mr Runciman: Constant harassment.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Please be seated. Obviously what's been happening over the last few minutes is that there have been a lot of interjections on either side of the chamber and some inflammatory comments from both sides of the chamber. I would advise all the members of the House that interjections are totally out of order. The honourable member for Markham has the floor and I wish he would continue to debate the bill.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I can say there has not been one interjection from this side of the House for the last several minutes. I really appreciate the fact that there will be some order here. It makes it extremely difficult when you're elected to serve your people -- as painful as it is to deal with bills like this that are very complex, have far-reaching affects to them -- and then you have a constant interruption coming from other members of the House who do not give the patience or time for members to have their say.

You think it's easy? I'm saying it isn't easy. I want very much to have the opportunity to respond to this bill. It's part of my role as the critic for Finance in the Ontario PC caucus. I can tell you that I listened without interruption to the Liberal speaker when he was speaking. I felt sorry for him, as well, at the number of interruptions that were coming from members opposite. So all I can say is that we're dealing with certain times when it can be all right, in question period, but when you're dealing with this kind of activity, I just think there is a sense of offence that is going on.

I have to say that what we are seeing in the creation of Bill 17, with the new Capital Investment Plan Act, is a series of crown agencies which in the future have the potential of becoming more Ontario Hydros and you have the administration, you have the number of employees, you have the total size of this large corporation that results. Though this is going to be a capital investment act, where you're dealing with capital that's flowing out of the province into this agency -- but, you know, you look at the debt load of Ontario Hydro, with its $34 billion, and add that to some of the other agencies that we've got around the province of Ontario, it makes you stop and wonder why it is that we in the province are divesting responsibility that should be within the government under the ministries to crown corporations, a step removed from the legislative process, a step removed from the scrutiny of the House, so that they can operate somewhat more independently and outside the purview of this place. That touches on the responsibility of the Legislature for what goes on in the province of Ontario, and what we're doing constantly is eroding those powers and taking them away from the legislators and moving them into small subsections or crown corporations, away from that observation.

Even though this crown corporation will be subject to the Provincial Auditor's review, and that is good and I learned that through the presentation that we had earlier this week, it still is another set of books. It's another set of people, it's another set of bureaucracy, it's another set with the senior management and the others coming down to run it. It's removed from this Legislature. In fact, who's going to be running the province of Ontario pretty soon but these crown corporations and these agencies? Ontario Hydro is an example of such a crown corporation that has grown so large that it's even bigger than the Ministry of Environment and Energy, under which it falls. The problems we end up having with that is, does the tail wag the dog?

1700

Now we're looking at the power that exists within the chair of Ontario Hydro and within the power structure of Ontario Hydro versus that of the province of Ontario. One wonders who is in control of what. Now what we're doing in the creation of these four crown corporations is, we are again moving away from the province to other agencies that power, that authority, that control, and that has to cause pause for reflection and understanding as to what impact that really has on the province of Ontario. I believe it could be good if you trusted them and they were going to be perfect all the time, but that just isn't the way human beings are when we're running business, when we're running anything. It needs to have that constant checking out, checking through, making sure that they're on the correct course.

The legislation, and we will go through it shortly, shows the powers that will fall within these different agencies, which are extensive and dangerous and far-reaching. We in opposition are expected to just come along and accept it blindly, in good faith and as if we believe all the promotional things that surround us. I will not and do not and cannot. I say, as we start off the discussion on this, that any efforts that this government has to take the power away from members of the Legislature, whose powers virtually have been largely removed over the last number of years anyway -- certainly, our role in the Legislature.

As you see, with the powers that the government has taken with the Interim Waste Authority, through Bill 143, it is another example of where the government has created another bureaucracy outside itself. The Interim Waste Authority then is responsible for the garbage in York, Durham, Peel and Metropolitan Toronto. This is an agency that reports through to the Minister of Environment.

Every time we asked the Minister of Environment a question about it, the Minister of Environment was able to say, "Oh well, that's not my -- I don't know. It's being looked after by the Interim Waste Authority," whereas, if it were under the minister's own ministry, she would be more accountable, even although the Ministry of Environment is the major and only shareholder of it.

What we see happening is it becomes an excuse for a government to say, "It's not our problem." I've seen that in spades with the Interim Waste Authority, where this government used that as a way to solve -- and they haven't solved it; they've created more problems for themselves and for the people of the greater Toronto area in the way they've tried to handle the whole problem of the disposal of waste within the greater Toronto area.

I do not trust crown corporations that are established by the government which then report through to the ministry. I have seen what happened with the IWA reporting through to the Ministry of Environment and I see that as a total failure on the part of the government. I see it as a copout of the government. I see it as a way for the government to accomplish its devious objectives without having to accept accountability and responsibility for it. We have not been able to make this government accountable for them here in this Legislature.

What we see now being formed is a whole series of other agencies outside of the government. I mean, why even sit, why even be elected, why even come here if it's all going to be handled by civil servants, bureaucrats, who often do a very good job but are none the less outside of the responsible overview and oversight of this House? That is a problem and it's not being faced up to.

The public at large has no understanding of what happens when you have these crown agencies formed, how they get started and then they get bigger and bigger and bigger. You see that as you understand how the boards of directors can be formed, all the opportunity to expand and build upon them. Each of these different corporations can have, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the appointment of up to 12 members of their board. Those members of the board will not be unlike the members we have in Ontario Hydro now, political appointments, a good way for Bob Rae or the government in power to appoint friends to an office and responsibility, to pay them off for what they were doing.

The wheels of government -- here we sit. There's not a thing we can do about the patronage appointments, not a thing, because the government maintains and holds that right. We've seen it done at every level and we've got to clean up that process. But no, when Bob Rae said he'd do something about it, he set up a committee. I was talking to Mrs Marland today about the committee as it was investigating -- investigating? -- reviewing some of the applications for new appointments. There's nothing you can do. She just said it's a frustrating experience. We're going to have more frustration because the government, through the Lieutenant Governor, will be able to appoint whoever the government's friends are to these positions of responsibility.

I'm saying that's why people no longer have a sense of confidence about government, because we build these kingdoms around ourselves. We've got to clean up that process. This bill further perpetuates the kind of worries and concerns the public has as a whole about the way in which government operates without listening, understanding or knowing what people really think.

When I talk about this bill being an expansion of government without accountability, I know what I'm talking about, because I've seen it in spades with the Interim Waste Authority. Then when you see the kind of terrible things that are coming out of the Interim Waste Authority where they rule out certain options because of political decisions, they make political decisions rather than technical decisions. If they were really going to do it right, they would at least open up options for consideration, but not so. They won't look at rail haul, they won't look at incineration, they wouldn't look at other sites. They made the decisions; they live by it. Well, we fall by it, and the result is the province of Ontario is not better served.

I say, I plead with the government, be careful when you're setting up these agencies as just another way of doing your job. The job is something that should be fulfilment of each minister and their ministry, and through that ministry being able to maintain it, to monitor it and to build upon it -- but not so.

I have to say that one of the concerns that comes to me on the bill is a shift in the way in which this government will deal with grants to schools, universities and hospitals. It's going to take just a moment, but I want to tie in, on page 12 of the bill, section 33, and there are three subsections to section 33 of the bill.

It says in subsection 33(1):

"A payment for capital purposes, made by the Minister of Education and Training to a school board, that is charged to an appropriation of the Ministry of Education and Training made for the fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993, shall be deemed to have been a loan from the province to the school board if the payment was made in respect of one of the following:

"1. A project approved under the capital grant plan, 1979.

"2. An obligation incurred under an agreement entered into between the Minister of Education and Training or a predecessor of the minister and a school board....

"3. The Jobs Ontario program established in the 1992 Ontario budget."

What I want to make clear is the parts that I underlined in my bill, "A payment for capital purposes, made by the Minister of Education and Training, that is charged..." is "deemed to have been a loan from the province to the school board." Now, that is the same line that appears under the universities, "...a payment for capital purposes made through the capital support program of the Ministry of Education and Training to a university" -- and it mentions a few in specific -- "shall be deemed to have been a loan from the province."

And the section under health care, where it also makes the same distinction, says that,

"Except for capital projects where the Minister of Health's share is less than or equal to $1,000,000, a payment for capital purposes made by the Minister of Health to a hospital...shall be deemed to have been a loan from the province to the hospital or other facility."

I want to just talk and for us to think about what that means. I'll give you an example on a school board. I was chairman of the York Region Board of Education for a time and trustee for some eight years, and we looked forward each year to the capital allocations that would come from the province that would help us, in a very fast-growing board, to provide the schools and the facilities and the upgrades to our facilities for this increasingly large population, and that became part of the cost.

We would have to debenture part of the cost ourselves, which would be a long-term loan for the ratepayers of York region, and the other part would be a capital infusion from the province of Ontario to help pay for the program. First of all, we received approval from the province, and then it would provide a capital grant to assist us in building those schools -- a capital grant, an unforgivable gift that would come to help us provide for those facilities.

1710

An example in hospitals has to do with the Markham-Stouffville Hospital. In 1985, when I was in cabinet, we were very fortunate that one of the last items to be approved was the Markham-Stouffville Hospital. The Markham-Stouffville Hospital, which is now constructed -- it's one of those things where, with all due credit to the Honourable Elinor Caplan, at the time the Liberal Minister of Health, she continued to fulfil the dream of our community and the commitment of a previous government to see that the Markham-Stouffville Hospital would proceed.

The hospital cost some $60 million. We raised some 20% of that from within the community, one of the largest fund-raising activities of the community, but then a large part of that -- I forget the exact number but it was in the order of 60% to 80%; I think it was 60% of the capital -- came directly from the province as an unforgivable gift. It was a capital grant that allowed us to build that hospital; a grant, not a loan.

Now what we're seeing this bill do is that effective April 1, 1993, which is April Fool's, somewhat retroactive to when the bill was brought in, any future bequests or moneys -- it's best to say it's moneys -- that are handed out to hospitals, universities or school boards are going to be treated as loans. So, therefore, the lump sum will go to that jurisdiction, that board, and then it will have a period of time, like 20 years, to pay it back through to the crown corporation. It is no longer a gift. In other words, the promises that have been passed out before --

Hon Mr Cooke: You are misunderstanding.

Mr Cousens: In that case, they should have given us more time to understand it. If that is the case, then I look forward to clarification and review, because if you're able, as minister, to say that you're not converting, that what are intended as grants are now going to be -- they're not repayable. In the past they have been not repayable.

Hon Mr Cooke: They'll get the money to repay the loan from us, just as the debentures were done in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr Cousens: The money will come back from the government to pay that back?

Hon Mr Cooke: Just as it was done back in the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr Cousens: If that is the case, then the bill itself should reflect the way in which that is going to be done. That is the kind of thing that needs to be clearly defined.

What I'm most concerned about is that the province is again downloading financial responsibility from the province to other jurisdictions and causing them to pay the bill. Indeed, the reserves that some of those municipalities have, the credit rating that those municipalities and jurisdictions have, is greater than the province's. Indeed, the crown corporation that's going to be loaning the money out can get it at a lower interest than others. But I want to be absolutely sure that this is not another example of the government downloading financial obligations from the province, which heretofore were paid for by the province, to local jurisdictions: hospitals, universities and school boards. I see that as an issue.

The minister in his comment, as we were interchanging here, indicates that I have not got that correct, and if that is true, he will take away one of the concerns that I have about this bill, because I certainly will not tolerate, the public will not tolerate, a continuing downloading of financial responsibility from the province to local levels of government. What happens then is that they just have to pay it out longer and longer. I think the public are at a point now where they're saying, "We can't do it any more." They just can't handle it.

What is happening is that the bill, I think, is now giving more power to school boards to borrow money. I'm worried about that, because every effort that we can have to keep every level of government within its budgetary guidelines of not running a deficit during its term and during a fiscal year should be made. We should not be allowing governments at any level to incur future debt, future taxes. We should do everything we can to live within our means, except for, of course, capital expenditures.

I see on page 28 of the bill another very suspicious part of the bill which will now allow school boards to incur debt into the future, which again is a worrisome thing.

I know in our own jurisdiction in York region, the Roman Catholic separate school board received a bonus of some $12 million from the province recently to help pay off its debt that's been accumulating. But we're dealing with a board that even this year alone will have an $8-million deficit. They're providing a program of excellence to the young people in York region, but they're still going beyond what they are able to bring in in taxes to pay for it. The bill here is in the complicated jargon that is part of every bill, but as I understand it, a school board will be able to go out and borrow money far more easily than before. That worries me, because I think that in the past the restriction of being able to do that was a good restriction.

We're seeing legislation come in which will change the way in which -- through the Ontario Financing Authority, the relationships between all those agencies, the three new crown corporations, the one for water, the one for transportation and the realty corporation, they are going to have a relationship now through to the Ontario Financing Authority to get money. I just want to be very certain how those relationships are and that it is not in any way going to cause a downloading of responsibility and taxpayer load to local ratepayers from the province.

We saw so much of that during the Liberal regime. The Liberals did it in a tremendously powerful way where they provided far more services at the local level and never gave a cent to pay for them. You saw that certainly, and I did. When you saw double-digit increases in local taxes during the 1980s, during the time the Liberals were in power, it had an awful lot to do with those functions and services that they forced upon municipalities, which with no money coming in, those municipalities had to provide for. If this bill is a perpetuation of that concept, then it's going to be fought with everything we have.

As we look at the different parts of the bill, the different corporations that have been formed and will make it up, I'd like to comment briefly on the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. Tremendous powers will now reside outside of government. I commented earlier on the way in which we as legislators are giving up powers and responsibilities to other agencies and groups, but if you start looking at the powers of the transportation capital corporation, they go on to say that it can make agreements for planning, design, finance and construction, improvement operations, to build highways, public transportation projects or other transportation projects. In other words, the very people who are doing it now in the Ministry of Transportation will probably be moved over there.

They'll have the right to expropriate and use any land. How confusing it is anyway for people who own land in Canada. We unfortunately don't have anything within the Constitution that protects people from having their land attacked or taken away from them. Again, you have another agency, not unlike what Bill 143 did with the Interim Waste Authority, which gave the Interim Waste Authority the power to expropriate land whenever it wanted to. This act again has that power where the transportation capital corporation is concerned.

The other thing is the powers that will exist under the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. This is probably the only place that people will have a chance to debate whether or not they are in favour of tolls. It gives them the right to establish and collect tolls for the operation of any vehicle or class of vehicle on a toll highway. I don't think we've had the debate on toll highways yet, toll roads, toll bridges, the way in which the government has announced that we'll be paying for future transportation corridors and infrastructure.

I know the public is prepared to buy into that one if we know that's the only way it can be done. Although the jury isn't in on it, I would hope that through the debate of this bill, through the discussion in public hearings, there will be an opportunity for the government to present how it is going to proceed with its toll roads and highways and toll system, so that the public has a chance to deal with something more substantive in the discussion than a few press releases from the Minister of Transportation.

1720

I'm concerned with what tolls are going to be about. It says here, "A highway that has been designated as a toll highway continues to be a highway for all purposes of law even if it is operated under an agreement with the corporation." I guess what it really means now is that Highway 407, when it's built -- if it's ever built in my lifetime -- will come under this corporation.

Then it goes on to describe how the tolls are going to be handled, what kind of vehicles will be going, how you can prepay it, the notice of failure, the setting of rules around it. If you're going to have tolls -- and it seems the government is going to have that; that is necessary. It also explains in the bill, in section 45, how reciprocal arrangements can be entered into with other governments in Canada and the United States to collect from people who have used the toll roads and didn't pay for them.

People, up to now, have been generally in favour of tolls as a way of building new infrastructures and highways and systems. But then, as I was reading through the bill, I've come across a section which I find totally repulsive and unacceptable. It falls into some of the powers that will lie within the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. I will read it into the record. It says, in section 47, "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the corporation may make regulations designating any highway as a toll highway."

There is nothing in this bill that prevents the government from making Highway 401 a toll highway, or from making Highway 400 a toll highway, or 427 or any other 400 road in Ontario a toll road.

Until now, the press clippings and the releases that have been given out on toll roads have all referred to new construction and new highways. People like myself were saying, "If that's the only way we can get 407, I'm prepared to buy into it." But now, when I read the bill and the bill says specifically that the government has the right to make any highway a toll road, that is not the power I want to see given to this transportation authority. You're then giving them a blank cheque.

Already the money that's taken in by the province of Ontario through our taxes, but especially taxes on petroleum products to drive our vehicles, is so high -- it no longer just goes to pay for the roads. The money that's taxed for us on gasoline and petroleum products far exceeds what goes into road construction; far exceeds it. When it came out, it was a tax that was supposed to be used for the construction of roads. Now what we see instead is the government seizing this opportunity to put a toll on any or every road in the province of Ontario.

I don't think I or people in this province have any trust of any government to have that kind of power without some really good debate, especially when it's going to be in the hands of a crown agency that isn't even reportable and accountable to the Legislature. Mind you, that agency is going to have on it the Deputy Minister of Transportation. It'll have a number of political appointments of the government. But they can do what they want with abandon. We in Ontario pay the bill and we're seeing the cost of all those bills now by being one of the most heavily taxed jurisdictions in the world. We are the most heavily taxed in Canada and we're the most heavily taxed in North America.

Now, here it gives power to the government to levy more taxes. You just have to stop and think about giving that power to a crown corporation that isn't even accountable to the Legislature. "Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor, the corporation may make regulations designating any highway as a toll highway."

I could go on on that one and I won't, because there's much more to the bill to be discussed, debated and reviewed. But how heinous, how sick, how grabby, how consistent that this government would come along and slip something like that into the middle of the bill, and certainly not referenced anywhere else.

"No. We're going to collect tolls to pay for our new highways." Sure, I can see having to put a toll on Highway 407. We need 407. We need it badly and we're prepared to pay for it. I think we've paid for it already through our gas and through our taxes, but here again people on the 401 or another highway can face additional levies because of that.

And then the whole business of the way in which the law is now being interpreted -- I'm concerned about who is accountable for driving a car. This House has not yet debated a piece of legislation. That, to me, is again reprehensible, repulsive, repugnant and one that should not be brought forward, and it is. They're looking at a way in which they can have drivers fined for speeding using electronic or photographic means so that if you go through one of their new electronic photographic speed traps, you'll receive in the mail a picture of your car and receive your ticket for speeding or for some other infraction.

I personally have great problems with that kind of technology being used to ticket people. I mean, who is it that used the car? Was it a rental car? Was it someone who was borrowing the car? And yet it's the owner of the car who has the chance of losing points, losing his licence, being suspended when in fact the driver could have been someone else on a joyride. There are so many questions that have not been addressed in this kind of technology being used to levy another ticket on someone.

Now what we see in this bill are special powers being given to this transportation authority to come along and use photographic and electronic evidence in respect of the non-payment of tolls. If I had some trust in the bureaucracy in the government system to know that if someone is going to be worthy of being caught -- and let's make sure we do it to them and that we do it when they're guilty -- that would be fine.

But when I see it as a generic new guideline that says, "Anyone who is on these toll roads is now going to be subjected to photographic and electronic evidence in respect to non-payment of tolls," and then they could lose their licence, they could lose the ability to drive because of the nonsensical way in which the bureaucracy in the Attorney General's department works in this province. Is it any wonder that people worry about having another way of a ticket being levied upon them?

This gives power to this agency to cause people to lose their livelihood, to lose their business, to lose the ability to drive, especially if the wrong person gets the ticket. If the person who owns the vehicle gets all the tickets and they weren't driving their vehicle at the time, they are the ones who have their licence suspended. They'll have their rights removed.

It's the kinds of powers that are moving away from the Ministry of Transportation; they're moving away from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General; they're moving out to a crown corporation, and then what do you do about it? We've given them carte blanche to do what they want.

It touches a nerve. It touches a nerve and it says: "Do we want to see everything in the province of Ontario looked after by a third party? Do I want to have someone from another agency responsible for everything or is there any benefit to having the government accountable for those actions?"

So if you end up having people who are falsely charged, wrongly charged, being ticketed, is there anything that we can do in the Legislature? The answer will be -- and I can just see it now, the Minister of Transportation saying, "Well that's not in my purview any more; that's under the transportation authority," and you just have no way of raising it. It's a provincial road paved with provincial money, used by provincial citizens, and yet the provincial government has a hands-off policy that says it doesn't touch it any more.

That's not the way it was meant to be and it's not the way that government should function. What you've done now is just move it further and further into a bureaucracy so that the decisions that are being made are coming from people who have no accountability to the public at large, to the Legislature, to this, the House, where all decisions should be accountable when it has to do with provincial money and provincial decisions.

1730

So when I look at the transportation authority, I started off by being somewhat open-minded to the use of toll roads if that was a way of getting the important road that we're looking for in our community; and I'm sure there are other communities across the province that have the same interest in having improvements in roads, and transportation networks improved.

It may not just be roads. If we're going to get smart, we're going to have to use our rail lines more effectively so that we've got the services there to move people quickly from city to city and from opportunity that they need for work or employment or social or tourism.

We know the need to continue to invest in the infrastructure that is Ontario, and we know that there is a share of that cost that can be regained through tolls. We know that there should be a time when those toll roads should come off. I mean, we saw it on the Burlington Skyway. How many times did they pay for the Skyway through the tolls that were on there?

Certainly as we have to pay the piper, we're prepared to see those costs recovered. But I just don't want to see it go in perpetuity, and if there is some way in which we can put limits on what the government is going to do -- limits to control it, limits of common sense -- then the place to maintain and keep them is within the Ministry of Transportation, not in another new agency.

In fact, that really comes up with one of the flaws of this bill. Instead of creating four new agencies, if you want as a government to find new ways of borrowing money and if you want to change the way in which you're having a relationship with universities, schools, hospitals and other agencies, there are other ways you can do it. You don't have to bring in such an omnibus, powerful bill that goes and puts the power into new special agencies.

You could do that within the existing structure and accomplish some of the financial objectives that you want to do. The only thing you'd have to do at that time is come clean as a government, open up the books and be accountable and honest about it. What this is is a method to move information from government books to other places.

Well, the transportation authority -- I know we're going to see it come into play in Ontario. The Ontario Transportation Capital Corp will be a reality very soon. I sincerely hope that through the public discussions on this we are able to limit the powers of that transportation authority. I can assure you that I will be bringing forward amendments that would hopefully change the powers that this corporation would have on what is going to be a toll highway and on how the tolls are going to be levied and for how long. I would like to be absolutely sure that the moneys that are gained through the tolls are invested back into the infrastructure. When you've done that job, wouldn't that be a way of just cutting bait on it and saying it's over?

There have been so many times when we in this province have tried to say to the government, "If you're going to go and collect the tax on tires, the $5 tire tax, use it to find environmental ways to recycle those tires." So the government collected over $200 million in the tire tax, and how much of that money ever went into recycling efforts for tires? Around $20 million or $30 million. I'm not sure because we can't find the numbers. Certainly, little more than 10% of it went into the whole effort of finding new technology to use tires.

If we could have a sense that the fishing licence you pay for went into the creation of new supplies of fish to replenish the streams and lakes and waterways of Ontario, then people who fish would have a sense that that fishing licence had a purpose and that it was worth something. But instead it goes into the general treasury, and the government, in its lack of wisdom, has cut back in the fish hatcheries and has cut back in the replenishment of supplies of fish into the waterways of Ontario.

A major tourism industry for Ontario, fresh fish and the whole industry that it provides for in attracting people out to enjoy nature and to enjoy Ontario from other jurisdictions, here in Ontario, what we've done is, we levy a tax, we take the money, we put it in the general treasury, and the money doesn't go back into specific funds that can help replenish and rebuild those supplies.

I'm saying the same thing is true of the toll highway. If the toll highway is going to work, then some way, keep the bookkeeping separate so that the books will say, "All right, now you've got 407 paid for or now you've got the Burlington Skyway paid for, the tolls come off." Don't just use it as another way of collecting more money and more money and more money into these bottomless coffers of the Ontario government.

We could talk further on that one, but I want to touch on the clean water agency. I think, generally speaking, the public at large would say that a clean water agency is needed. In fact, it was promised by the Liberals when they were in power. They had set up the beginnings of an agency and never knew what to do with it, didn't know how to get it off the ground. So it has moved from being a fairly high priority to almost being a no priority. In four years, we have done little or anything to establish an agency in the province of Ontario that can begin to build the sewage plants that we need, a way to make sure those plants are cleaning the water that goes out.

The infrastructure problems that we have in the greater Toronto area -- I think you're going to see it across the province in any of the older communities where the town sewer systems are rapidly deteriorating. There's a major reconstruction required. It's been some time since I had a presentation by the watermain association, when it was talking about the need for improving the whole sewer system in Toronto.

They were saying it's in the order of $6 billion to $7 billion to just rebuild that infrastructure that people don't see and take for granted. You flush or you put something down the sink and you just assume it's going to go to the right place. That whole system is now falling apart underneath our feet as we speak. So to have an agency that will be in a position to help communities rebuild that infrastructure is important.

It's like a community that I used to represent in Richmond Hill. We had a very successful program when Mr Brandt was the Minister of the Environment. We received very valuable grants that protected Wilcox Lake community in Oak Ridges. We had bubbling up in the ground and there was just a terrible destruction of the environment. The lake was becoming contaminated. People really didn't have any way of dealing with the water. Land was around it, all quite soft and soggy, because the flushings and the refuse had no place to go.

We were able to put in a sewer system and it's a miracle what it's done to that community. It has just made that community come alive. You've seen new development, new growth. The lake is now pristine and clear, as much as one can hope for, and it's moving in the right direction. We as a community benefited by it.

Other communities that have worries about their water supply have to have a sense of knowing that this agency will be in a position to help them address the contamination concerns that they would have.

Then I come along and I start to look at the powers that will exist within government in setting up this agency. I sincerely hope that it has no hopes of doing anything with our water, in trading it off to another jurisdiction. Certainly that's a federal matter, but it talks about the agreements that they have to make. I would certainly hope that there is no way in which we are going to start taking very casually the movement of water from one community to the other. I'm beginning to hear the way in which people are trying to move waters that are in the Great Lakes system to other communities. I'm just saying, water is one of our most valuable resources and we as legislators want to do everything we can to protect it.

Mind you, I'm worried that we set up another jurisdiction to run that for us, but we as legislators have to do everything possible to keep our waterways clean, to provide good drinking water. It's something we take for granted, but it only happens when you've got the whole system being looked after.

1740

I'm worried when I start looking at the powers of the government on this. I look again at the powers they have. It's further relinquishment of powers from the Legislature, from the Minister of Environment, under whom this would fall, to another agency, and as that agency is able to make its decisions, we as legislators will be one step further removed from having any impact on it.

I looked at the powers they have. They "may make regulations prescribing methods of calculating charges that are additional to the amounts payable by a municipality under an agreement under this act." It's another way of collecting taxes on your water.

They're going to have the power to levy bills on the people of Ontario outside of the powers of a municipality. Do the people who elect their local governments want the province of Ontario to again intrude into local government decision-making by having extra powers to interfere in what's going on there?

One thing is to make sure that we do the job, but the other is the way in which the government is going to recover the cost for that. The agency may make regulations with regard to the operation of all these things, but also the collecting of money for them.

Let's stop and understand whose authority we're taking away at that point. Are municipal councils aware of the impact that this would have on the running of their own local governments? Do you not think it would be worthwhile for those governments to have an opportunity to come and comment on this and to see whether or not they see this as a good way of handling the problem?

I think this is another good reason to have public hearings on the whole Ontario Clean Water Agency. It's an important agency. The intent makes sense. Why not keep that agency within the Ministry of Environment, rather than establish a totally new and separate agency? I think that would be a very good way of approaching it, but the government, as you will know, Mr Speaker, having been part of the government for a long time until you recently became the member removed from the government, has voted for every bill and every decision that the cabinet has asked for. With the exception of a few New Democrats, there isn't anything that isn't presented in this House that doesn't pass in the Legislature.

I'm worried that there won't even be much listening done to the concerns that we have to raise about the Ontario Clean Water Agency, but we will do our best to make sure that they are understood.

Then we also have formed the Ontario Realty Corp. I have to say that this corporation has tremendous powers. I read from section 59: "Without limiting the powers or capacities of the corporation, for the carrying out of its objects, the corporation may expropriate and use any land." Note, "the corporation may expropriate and use any land."

I have problems with expropriation by any level of government, at any time, unless it goes through a thorough evaluation so that the interests of all are understood and the interests of the property owner are fully and completely defended. The problem we have with giving this power to the Ontario Realty Corp is that the rights of the property owner are being removed.

I have to challenge why the government wants to put more of that power in its own hands and remove it from other people. I say that every time we start giving another crown corporation the right to expropriate, it's just another example of the erosion of the rights of individual Canadians. Inasmuch as the Constitution does not protect property rights for Canadians, this gives the Ontario Realty Corp more rights to subvert those rights of an individual.

I'm satisfied that the realty corporation will have a purpose, but I'm not satisfied that the realty corporation will be accountable to the government. There are so many examples. First of all, how much land is going to be falling into their land that you call surplus and how accurate will the price be? We know the government will get a price for the land when it sells it, but will it be market value? Who establishes the market value of the land?

We're dealing with several thousands of acres that exist in York and Durham that are owned and controlled by the Ontario government that were purchased through the Ontario Land Corp for the possible airport that would be on the east side of Metropolitan Toronto. That land has been rented out and leased and used in part, but now the province is beginning to look at that land as an asset that it's going to develop and it's going to have that land made into communities.

One has to ask, what value would the land be? Is the province going to get fair market value for it? Has the province looked at innovative ways of reducing the cost of housing for people where the government retains the ownership of that land for a long period of time and gives people the right to lease the land, not unlike what has happened in some of the Ontario native reserves and not unlike what happens with some of the large corporations that are using land in downtown Toronto, where the land is available on a long-term lease?

It would tremendously reduce the cost of housing if in fact the province retained ownership of this land, if instead of trying to sell off all its assets it would say, "All right, this is our land; we are going to take a rental for the use of that land for a period of time" -- like a long, long time -- "so that the ownership of the land never is divested from the province of Ontario."

What instead is happening is that I have worries. Are we getting market value for the land when we're selling it? Are we selling off some things in land and property that should not be sold off? That is all part of this new way of the government trying to clean its books and make them look okay. The government is saying, "Well, we'll sell GO Transit and we'll get some money out of it." You're selling an asset that really shouldn't be sold. Is the government going to sell certain buildings and properties that really are part of the heritage and the long-term history of what the province is all about?

What we're doing with the Ontario Realty Corp is giving that right to the realty corporation, when it's given by the government to them, to do what they want with our land, the land that belongs to all the people of the province of Ontario.

This building belongs to everyone, and I make a point when young people come through for tours that this is their building: "Enjoy it. Come and see it because it's yours. Walk the halls. It's yours to enjoy." The government of Ontario is here to serve the people of Ontario. We, as legislators, are only borrowing this space while we're elected, and once we are out of office, all we take from this building are our files and a few pictures, but the building stays, the furniture stays, what is the government's stays.

Let us have a sense of knowing that we do not own anything that is of the province of Ontario. It is all the people's, and all the people want to make sure, in this year, the 100th anniversary of Algonquin Park, that Algonquin Park, as an example, will always be a treasured piece of Ontario's history, and our natural park system will always be that, and that with the lands and so on there is some sense in which we are able to separate those lands that are truly surplus and not important. Yes, I can see them being useful for other reasons. Let them be passed on and let them be recycled; let them be sold.

But let there be also a sense of a mission statement that clearly defines and delineates what the government means by surplus land. Let there be a policy statement that truly outlines what it is that the province is going to sell through the Ontario Realty Corp, and that not all things will fall into its purview. Let there be a clear statement of intent, and not just in the words that come through a press statement or a press release or a ministerial statement in the House. Let it be something that goes in the bill so that it's like a bill of rights, property rights for people in the province of Ontario so that those things that make up our heritage and make up our history are protected from being sold off.

It's an important principle. It's an important principle as to ownership and people's rights. It's an important principle that is not defined elsewhere. It is not inherent to the Ontario bill of rights, and as a result, it means that government can at its whim do things that may not be in the public interest.

1750

I speak, for example, of the Rouge Valley park. We've come a long way; in fact, very shortly we will begin to enjoy for ever this park as a jewel in this community, as other beautiful parks are enjoyed in other communities, that can never, ever be traded or sold off. Yet the tragedy is that the government has defined the park in such a way that it's outlined an area where the Interim Waste Authority may place one of the dumps for the greater Toronto area in York region, M6, and M6 is right there on the valley lands leading into the Rouge Valley park. The government says, "Here's the jewel of the Rouge Valley," south of Steeles, and then just north of it, there in the town of Markham, as it has in Whitevale in Durham, it sets aside a piece of land that's also part of the Rouge system and identifies that as a possible landfill site.

Let there be some integrity, integrity that allows us to know and understand and believe that the government is not going to on one hand say, "We'll do this," and then on the other cloud up the issue and do what it wants to do. Let there be a clear statement of the government's intentions on dealing with our property and the people's property and let it be something that is part of the bill and not just something that is going to be shoved aside later on. Let's do it up front with people. Let's do it at the beginning, before the bill becomes law. Let's hear from the government as to how the land's going to be used and what it's going to do with it. Let's hear how the government's going to separate surplus lands from non-surplus. How do they know? Do they have a long enough view of the future of our province or are they so wrapped up in the debt problems and the debt that they've helped create that they can't see beyond that?

I plead with the government to have a bigger view. Don't have such a short-term vision that you can only see things for 1993-94. We should have a vision of Canada for the year 2093 and 3093 and that the heritage that we have today is something that we will value for ever for our children and our grandchildren and their children's children.

The flaw of government today is that we deal only with the present and in looking at the present we fail to get the vision of the future and understand that the whole of what this country's all about, the whole of what this province is all about is far more important than just giving away pieces here and pieces there. It's part of our heritage and it's part of the legacy of previous generations. When our forefathers and new Canadians were given this province, we were given something to cherish and to look after and to pass on, not something to cut up and break up and give away, not something to go and move from being a capital asset to funds to operate as an operating cost. Let it be something that is valued and appreciated.

I have no trust in an Ontario Realty Corp as having that kind of sensibility to the future of what Ontario is all about and I worry, and I'm worrying openly now, that we, in passing this bill, are just giving them a further opportunity to erode something that is too worthwhile to keep, to precious to keep. Don't give away Ontario. Don't give away Canada. We've done so much of that in what politics have become in the 1980s and 1990s. We've lost something of holding on to those things that mean something and living within our means while we do it. So it concerns me that we're expected to just happily go along with what the government is trying to put forward.

This is a complicated bill. It's a very, very complicated bill. It's moving the debt from the province to another corporation. It's just another way of mortgaging our children's future. It's another way of moving the debt from the books of the government to a crown corporation. It's another way of saying, when they come up for re-election, "Oh, we've reduced the number of civil servants by 3,000 people." Maybe that's the number of jobs that'll be created and moved around and shuffled into these new crown corporations.

Mr Runciman: In the private sector they call it fraud.

Mr Cousens: My good friend from Leeds-Grenville is correct in his assumption.

As we come now and say: "Why are we doing it?" it doesn't at all make sense that the government would come along and force us into this new set of relationships. You see, the kind of powers that will now move out of the Legislature and out of accountability, that will move away from estimates, that will move away from each minister's accountability, that will move into these secret preserves -- it starts off with $800 million this year and $1.2 billion next year and $1.7 billion the next year, and over time this is going to become one major holding agency for the province of Ontario. This agency is going to have unbelievable powers over the rest of our province. As I look at the bill, it worries me.

You go to the fine print again. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing debt and financial obligation limits for public school boards, secondary school boards and boards of education, including -- it defines the debt. It's changing the way we did things in the past. It's changing it from a system where you're accountable in the fiscal year in which you're elected and for that fiscal year to ways of moving the debt and the responsibility out of this court, out of this House, into other agencies, hiding it. It's deceptive. It's another way of just clouding the issue and changing the rules.

There are other aspects to this bill. I look at some of the sections and I look at the way in which the government can now borrow money through this agency, how school boards will be able to borrow money, how they are going to incur more debt, how at least the power is there for them to have more debt than they ever had before, without the checks and balances and controls that were traditionally there. That is a concern, because I don't think there should be a school board or municipal council or a hospital board or public board that has more debt.

Come on. Move back. Cut back. Live within our means. Stop spending more than we're taking in. Find ways to become more efficient. Find ways to be totally accountable to the public for what you're doing and how you're doing it. Don't allow yourself to fall into the trap that says we today can enjoy tomorrow's future when in fact we should be doing everything we can to make sure that as we take our taxes, we spend the money, it is within the limits of propriety, and that propriety is to live with balanced budgets at every level of government.

The point that the member from Leeds-Grenville has made many times, and I think it's one of the fundamental pillars of good government, is to understand that there is only one taxpayer, who's paying federal taxes, provincial taxes, regional taxes and county taxes, municipal taxes, school board taxes. There is only one person who pays all those bills, and what we have to do as legislators is understand that we're now taking that one person and saying: "You're going to be paying a toll to get to work. You're going to be paying more for your water." Maybe we should, but we're going to be paying more for sure because of the powers of this bill. "You're going to be paying more for your hospitals, for your schools and for your universities because of this bill. You're going to be paying more because the province is now setting up a special authority that's going to have that responsibility."

I can understand why the province wants to move some of the capital out of this year's budget and spread it over a period of time. I could see there being certain benefits to that. If we could find ways in which we could do that under the responsibility of Management Board or the Minister of Finance, let's do it. Let's instead look at ways of working with the existing systems instead of creating and building new systems needing new people, new bureaucracies, new investments by the province in order to keep them going.

Let us think of that and let us, as we build for the future of Ontario, do what we can to find those efficiencies now, not continue to try to buy our way out of these problems just with new corporations and new systems. Make the old systems work. Find ways of getting more and more out of the people who are there. Make it so that the people who are part of the system are totally accountable for what it is they're doing. When you do that, you've done what is going on in private enterprise and business and elsewhere where people have had to find those systems and make a go of it. Don't pretend that you've got all kinds of money to do it. Go to it with a sense of urgency to be efficient and competent and accountable. Don't pass off all of those to other agencies and groups. Keep them within your hand, and if you make a mistake, stand or fall by it. Don't just give it off to someone else to be responsible.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr Cousens: Thank you. I'll close off now, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning, Thursday, June 3, at 10 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1802.

2 juin 1993