Journal des débats 1993-nov-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I bring to the attention of this House a motion passed yesterday by Toronto city council endorsing "the Salvation Army's retrofit of 135 Sherbourne Street as a major initiative aimed at alleviating the problem of homelessness in Toronto and, that the city of Toronto strongly urge the government of the province of Ontario to reconsider its decision and provide funding to the Salvation Army for the retrofit of 135 Sherbourne Street in the city of Toronto as soon as possible."

Many economists and social workers in the city of Toronto have reinforced the fact that there is a growing underclass, that the number of those on the outer margins of society is increasing, that there is real suffering in our midst. We know that the Salvation Army has been able to raise 83% of the amount of this retrofit through its own fund-raising efforts.

This province is being requested to provide but 17% of this investment in the people of this city. The Salvation Army has been turned down because it does not fit into the ideologically driven criteria of this government. The indispensable work the Salvation Army has provided to the city of Toronto for over 100 years has been rejected as unsupportable by this government.

I hope the minister will respond to the request for reconsideration which appears in the motion I have read in this House this afternoon.

CHILD CARE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislative Assembly the workplace day care crisis in North York. For over six months, I have been working with representatives from the Little Prints Day Care Centre in an effort to help them attain minimal funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Thus far, we have been ignored.

Little Prints has raised, from the private sector, $200,000 of the $375,000 necessary to properly equip the centre.

There is a demonstrated need for the day care spaces in Willowdale.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You know Little Prints has always done well for themselves. I can remember them when I was on North York council.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Harnick: The city of North York has only half the number of infant, toddler and preschool day care spaces that it requires.

The government has announced that it is giving $1.4 million to a day care centre in Barrie, $800,000 to a centre in King City, but it can't seem to provide the small amount of funds needed for a centre in central North York. The funding would increase the number of spaces available from 27 to 90.

Not only do the government's spending practices discriminate against the people in my riding, but the government once again is not spending its scarce resources wisely. The financial benefits of the project would far outweigh the expenditure. The funds would not only provide much-needed day care spaces but also jobs for child care and construction workers.

North York council recently passed a motion that asks the government to respond to the discrepancies in its funding practices. I call on the government to end its discriminatory spending and to address the drastic shortage of workplace child care services in central North York.

BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to the winner of this year's Grimsby Chamber of Commerce Business Achievement Award, Canweb Printing. Canweb, which specializes in the printing of tabloids and magazines, started business less than two years ago with four employees, 7,000 square feet, six web presses and one folder.

Now 48 full-time and part-time employees run eight presses and two folders in 14,000 square feet. That's 48 jobs created since Canweb started business in 1992; 48 people who have acquired skills that will keep them employed in this new economy; 48 people who will pay taxes and buy goods and services from the local business community.

I am proud to say that the NDP government has helped Canweb create employment at its Grimsby plant. Just over a year ago, Ed Philip, then Ontario's Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, announced a $350,000 loan to Canweb, an excellent investment indeed, an investment that has paid off for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Canweb has also used the government's Jobs Ontario Training and Jobs Ontario Youth programs to help employees learn critical new skills, skills they will be able to use for the rest of their working lives.

I would like to personally congratulate Canweb Printing for its achievements, and I'm looking forward to seeing the company receive its Business Achievement Award this evening at Place Polonaise in Grimsby.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to remind the Minister of Economic Development and Trade of her statement made in this House on September 27. In that statement, the minister said this government could no longer stand idle in the face of the Quebec construction barrier. The minister, in her statement, referred to four measures she was going to introduce to address this problem. In speaking of the timing for implementing these measures, the minister made use of the word "immediately" four times.

It has now been 38 days since the minister promised to take action immediately. No legislation restricting Quebec construction workers and goods has been introduced in this House.

Ottawa-Carleton is very sensitive to this very serious problem. Even though we have unemployment in our local construction industry running between 40% and 60%, depending on the trade, there are still over 4,000 Quebec workers being employed in Ottawa-Carleton construction sites.

This means that there are over 4,000 Ottawa-Carleton construction workers who could be employed today but are not because the minister has not yet moved on this issue. That means that there are over 4,000 recipients of unemployment or social assistance payments in Ottawa-Carleton who are being kept, unnecessarily and against their wishes, on the public payroll. That means there continue to be 4,000 less taxpayers, 4,000 less happy, productive and fulfilled workers in Ottawa-Carleton because the minister has not yet introduced legislation.

On behalf of those 4,000 Ottawa-Carleton construction workers, I demand that the minister table her legislation mirroring the Quebec construction barriers immediately. These workers are not prepared to wait any longer.

1340

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Seniors are one of our most valuable assets in Grey-Owen Sound. Their volunteer spirit has established and assisted most of our charitable organizations and social programs. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Because Grey is a pastoral and beautiful county which offers year-round recreation activities as well as proximity to the city, many seniors have chosen to retire in our area. Therefore, our seniors population well exceeds the provincial average.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Markdale, where according to the 1991 census, 27.7% of its residents are over the age of 65, while the Ontario average is 11.7%. Because of the continued influx of retirees from other parts of the province, that number is even greater today.

As these people age, their vulnerability to accidents and major health problems grows and their need for care increases. Because they have given so much to the community, I believe the community should give back to them. Therefore, in Markdale, I would like to advise the Minister of Housing that I support the application --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Why don't you tell Mike that?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Durham East, come to order.

Mr Murdoch: -- of the Markdale Community Residences. This organization is very concerned with the serious lack of appropriate seniors' housing and wishes to rectify the situation. The councils of the village of Markdale and the county of Grey join me in this support. The community is concerned about the wellbeing and quality of life of these seniors who no longer wish to live in isolation and who crave proper health care and good company.

I urge the minister to take an interest in this proposal and give the application every possible consideration.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I haven't got any prepared speech. I'm going to talk about welfare. Last week, I heard the Leader of the Opposition, I heard the leader of the third party and they unmercifully attacked the Minister of Community and Social Services about welfare, but never once did I hear anybody over there talk about corporate welfare. Corporate welfare: When are you going to talk about that?

We had games in the SkyDome this year, we had playoff games, we had the World Series and I can tell you that there was more corporate welfare fraud that took place in the SkyDome during the World Series than has happened in any welfare office across Ontario. That's where the fraud is: welfare corporate fraud.

I can tell you that this is from the Toronto Star and it says: "We need an overhaul of corporate welfare." These people are ripping off the taxpayers. They should have paid. They have profits of $87 million. They should have paid taxes at 36% and all they paid was 17%. I don't want to hear any more about welfare fraud until you people start talking about corporate fraud. That's where the trouble is. Corporate fraud is absolutely disgusting. They're ripping off everybody in the SkyDome every day of the week and it's shameful.

SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I had the opportunity last evening to attend the Shriners-Knights of Columbus Sports Celebrities Dinner, at which we have groups of different religious persuasions working together for good charitable causes in our part of the province of Ontario. At this dinner, seven people were inducted into the St Catharines Sports Hall of Fame.

They included Pete Cameron. It's said of Pete Cameron that, "It would be difficult to locate a St Catharines athlete with more diverse talents than Pete Cameron.

"As a youngster, Cameron...played baseball, softball, basketball, soccer and lacrosse and won his only three boxing matches."

Bob Thorpe was also inducted into the sports hall of fame. He played with the city's first junior A team, the Falcons. He was involved in semipro hockey throughout his career and named to the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame.

Bill DeMars, under the category of builder -- as a trainer-executive fund-raiser and general handyman.

Rose and Joe Engemann: Who can deny what they have done for young people through the Spartan Athletic Club as over the years they have given thousands of youngsters an opportunity to participate in sport?

George Howard, now 87, may not have invented hockey, but he's the only surviving cofounder of the first hockey league in the Niagara region.

Craig Swayze, in the field of the media, has done more to promote the sport of rowing than most people in the media would in a lifetime.

Congratulations to all the winners and to the Knights of Columbus and Shriners of St Catharines.

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to inform all members of this House of my intention to introduce a private member's bill which I prepared and will be tabling to amend the Labour Relations Act. These amendments are in response to the Treasurer's announcement a few weeks ago that will force private companies to disclose compensation packages of their top five executives.

My amendments to the Labour Relations Act will mirror the government's own regulations as they relate to executive compensation packages. My private member's bill will require that the details of the salary paid to the top five highest-compensated union representatives would be tabled annually with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

This will ensure that both management and labour are being held to the same level of openness and accountability. Union members would have the right to see what their top executives are being compensated to represent their interests, just as in the same way they will be able to examine the top five positions in the company they work for.

The NDP government often talks about fairness for the worker and level playing fields. I'm confident they will support my private member's bill to allow trade unions to operate under the same rules of disclosure that private companies are now being asked to adhere to.

I am pleased to present this private member's bill on behalf of the thousands of union members of Ontario who have not been represented by the current government.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Recently, thousands of people from across Canada and abroad converged on Kingston for alumni weekend at Queen's University.

One special event was the 100th anniversary of the faculty of applied science, which drew crowds of graduates back to the university for celebrations of the university's justly famous engineering program.

Engineering began at Queen's in 1893 when Principal George Grant and Kingston native Premier Oliver Mowat teamed up to establish the provincially funded Ontario School of Mining and Agriculture at the university. Applied science has prospered in Kingston ever since, and Queen's engineering graduates have been responsible for many of the great developments that have built Canada into such a prosperous country in the past 100 years.

I am pleased to say that the tradition of provincial support for Queen's has also flourished since then. Indeed, another alumni weekend event was the dedication of a plinth outside the university's Stauffer Library, now under construction. The province committed more than $28 million to the library under the former government, and we have been pleased to follow through on that commitment. We look forward as well to the imminent construction of the new biosciences complex at Queen's, for which our government announced $25 million in funding earlier this year.

The great return on these investments, of course, is the creation of a learning environment that puts Queen's at the forefront of higher education in Canada. As evidence of this high standing, I'm pleased to note that Ron Watts, Queen's professor and former principal, perhaps Canada's foremost expert on federalism, was honoured this week with a distinguished educators award from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I'd like to offer my congratulations and thanks to Professor Watts for his contributions to higher education in Ontario and Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like the minister to tell me how a 22-year-old student living in Kitchener-Waterloo can receive an assistance cheque for himself and two children he doesn't have, issued out of the Mississauga offices of the family benefits assistance program and sent to him at his home in Port Hope. Can you tell us the procedure by which this fellow would get that cheque?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): No. I think it's clear from the circumstances the member has described that if that is what's happening, something obviously has gone wrong in that particular instance. I'd be happy to pursue that information he's provided and to be able to respond, not on the details of it, but to assure him that obviously we will look at the particular situation and see what has gone wrong if the facts as he describes them are correct.

Mr Elston: The facts I've described are correct, and I add to them the fact that this gentleman was issued with a dental card and a drug card for children he doesn't have. He was issued this cheque for $1,596.99, and thanks to his honesty and his having raised this in returning the cheque, the money was not spent by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I want the minister, when he checks on this, to again look into how this could happen and to tell us exactly what he has done to ensure that the people who are receiving cheques out of various offices are actually living at the addresses that are given, and I want him to tell us exactly what steps he's going to take to absolutely ensure that people who haven't even applied for welfare -- this person didn't apply for it -- won't be sent a cheque. I want him to come back and make a full report as to how he is going to stop the leakage around the social assistance system.

1350

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, let me say on the particular instance that I would appreciate it if the member would forward to me the information he has, because that's the only way in which I can pursue it and ensure and be able to provide an adequate response to exactly what is happening in those circumstances.

As to the broader issue that obviously the member is raising, I want to again say to him, first of all, that we are taking, as I have indicated on a number of occasions in the House, a number of steps, including steps that involve the addition of staff to specifically review files and to specifically determine whether people are entitled to the allowance they are receiving, to the benefits they are receiving. I indicated in the House how already that has resulted in our finding some overpayments.

As part of the steps that we are putting in place now, that are now in place going through the system, we are adding even more staff to be able to deal with that. We are doing that at the provincial level; we are doing that also together with the municipalities because of their responsibility for general welfare assistance.

I would be the first to say that I believe we need to do more, and we are in the process of looking at what more we need to do.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: This is a problem that I believe we need to be tackling in a very serious way. I intend to continue to look at what measures we can add to the ones that are already in place to ensure, as the member would want us to and as everybody else in the province would want us to, that benefits are going to those people who need them.

Mr Elston: The minister already is doing more. This is the new staff training manual, with this funny little rendering on the front required under the expenditure control plan, which your ministry has put out.

One of the things the minister has done to tighten up the system is to advise all clients that there will be no home visits with respect to renewing their applications. In fact, it is indicated here, and I'll read: "The information update report is to let us know if there are any changes in your situation." This is advice to the client saying, "You only need to file with us if you've changed your address or if your rent has been changed," or whatever. For example, you must complete an information update report if your address or rent has changed or one of your children has left school or home. If there haven't been any changes, you don't need to send this card in. In fact, these cards are only sent out every couple of years under your new, tighter controls to prevent the leakage around the system.

Our problem here is that we all want to ensure that the people who need our assistance are able to get it, but the minister has not yet explained to us what steps he is going to take to make sure the type of errant cheque-issuing which occurred in this one particular situation is going to be stopped. I want to hear, if the minister will, if he will provide us with all of the steps, in a chronological order, which he has implemented on his own account over the last two months to try to tighten up the welfare system so that the deserving and needy people in this province can get access to timely services.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would be very happy to provide to the member, and to all members of the House, in writing the things that I have been saying, and in much more detail than the time in question period allows me. I think the member will see that we have taken and are continuing to take a number of steps to ensure that the benefits under the social assistance system are in fact going to people who are entitled to them and that we do deal very seriously with issues of fraud or issues of abuse in the system.

I take that issue quite seriously. I think we can show very clearly in answering the member's query how we are doing that. Again, I would say to the member on the issue of home visits, which I know he's raised now for the second time, that yes, there have been some changes in terms of asking people to take responsibility directly for filling in the information. But the only difference there is whether we ask people to come into the office to get that information or whether they are able to send it to us in the mail.

The bottom line remains that where the income maintenance workers believe a home visit is warranted, they have every right and every encouragement on our part to carry out those visits. That basic issue hasn't changed. Again, it's one of the steps among a number of steps that we are taking and that we certainly need to look at what we can add to around this issue of ensuring that both issues of fraud and issues of general abuse and even overpayment are addressed, and are addressed in a very serious way.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have here a letter from the law firm of Koskie and Minsky, which represents the Essex and Kent Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. In this letter addressed to you and to the Honourable Brian Charlton, Chair of Management Board, they claim that your government has failed to follow its own requirements for tendering government contracts at the temporary casino at the art gallery in Windsor. This is not in reference to the request for proposals, but rather for the construction contracts. I also have a copy of the lease document for the Art Gallery of Windsor, in which the government of Ontario is the tenant and the gallery is the landlord.

Minister, are you aware of this letter that I refer to, and did you in fact obtain competitive contracts for the construction work on the temporary casino in Windsor?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, I'm not aware of that particular letter. I would like to take the question on notice for him today and get back to him when I have more information.

Mr Mahoney: I find it astounding. The letter is clearly addressed. It's sent by fax and personal delivery both to the minister and to the Chairman of Management Board. Perhaps you could have referred it to the Chairman of Management Board. Maybe he's done his homework. Maybe he would understand what the problem is here.

The lease signed by your government for the use of the Windsor art gallery as a temporary casino clearly states, and let me help you with this, that the gallery, ie, the landlord, must obtain at least five competitive bids from general contractors for the work they are doing on your behalf. Yet the general contract for this project was given to one Mr Alphonse Fanelli without putting out a call for bids from other contractors. Mr Fanelli, for your information and the Labour minister's information, is well known as a non-union contractor in the city of Windsor.

Furthermore, the building trades council claims that the closing date for the subcontract bids was October 28, yet by that time construction work was already going on and indeed had been for some time. Obviously, that bidding process was meaningless too.

The building trades believe and I believe that such behaviour has made a mockery of the government's own tendering process. I ask you very pointedly, did you know that the construction work on the temporary casino in Windsor had simply been handed over to a non-union contractor without a competitive bid, and is this an appropriate way for your government to do business?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said to the member, I will get back to him once I get more details on the information he is presenting to me today.

Mr Mahoney: This is really quite remarkable. It was pointed out that the Minister of Education and Training interfered in the request for proposals bidding process and made a political decision to eliminate a number of companies that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in submitting a proposal for this Windsor casino. He's already admitted that publicly. Here we have a minister who is charged with the responsibility for building the government's casino in Windsor and she doesn't even know whether or not there were competitive bids. We know there weren't. She doesn't even know it's a non-union contractor that is doing the work, while we know it's a non-union contractor that is doing the work.

Minister, let me ask you very pointedly. If in fact after you investigate and read your mail, are you prepared to issue a stop-work order on this project in Windsor until you clean up this terrible mess and at least give the workers in Windsor a sense that there is some fairness in this bidding process? Will you issue a stop-work order if in fact this turns out to be the case?

Hon Ms Churley: I will get back to the member. I'll be discussing the issue with the Chair of Management Board. Of course, Management Board has been involved in this process.

1400

I would like to say, however, that there are many parties involved in this process, including the art gallery, the city of Windsor and Management Board of the government of Ontario. I will get back to the member when I have discussed it with the Chair of Management Board and discuss the facts with him.

But I would also like to say to the member that as to the facts around the land for the interim casino, he knows very well that what he said in the House today is not based in fact, that we listened to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, just a moment. I thought the minister had completed her response.

Hon Ms Churley: I was in mid-sentence. The reality is that we had involved the city of Windsor from the beginning in the decision around where the interim casino should go, and it overwhelmingly made the decision that it should go downtown.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That has nothing to do with it.

The Speaker: The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: And we listened, as we always said we would, on the location for the interim casino.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour. For the past few weeks, Minister, we've been raising and asking questions about the huge WCB rate increases that Ontario workplaces will face next year. Time after time after time after time when we've raised these rate increases and we've talked about the necessity for them, you've had the typical response that governments have had around here for the last eight and a half years; that is, that you must hike taxes, you must hike rates. Never looking at the expenditures, never looking at the reason why this unfunded liability is going through the roof, you tell us that the only solution is to hike rates.

Minister, we have in Ontario a severe shortage of funding for group homes. We have thousands of vulnerable Ontarians in need of care. Given this, can you explain to me how raising the WCB rates of group homes by 205% in one year is fair?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I've tried to deal with this with the member before, but he doesn't seem to listen. The average rate increase at the board this year is 3%. We are in the second year of a process of reclassifications where some industries, some businesses, are seeing their rates decrease and others are seeing them increase. The increases or decreases are based on their accident and health and safety record, and that's as it should be.

Mr Harris: Yesterday the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation met with Mr Di Santo to discuss its outrage that these rate increases were being brought in without any consultation. In a letter to Mr Di Santo, of which I have received a copy today, Jim Yarrow, chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, has this to say about your 3% nonsense.

He says, "The board has advanced a shocking public relations campaign to whitewash over the true effects" of your decision. In your own press release you say, "The WCB announced that the board has approved 1994 assessment rates and declared that the average assessment rate will increase approximately 3%." Quote from Mr Yarrow: "At the very least, this is an attempt to mislead."

Can you explain to me why you are spouting the old line that Mr Di Santo is spouting when the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation is telling you this is going to mean devastating job loss, that it is misleading at the very least, and that these changes were brought about without one whit of consultation with the employers of this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again I don't know where the research is of the leader of the third party, but I want to tell you that the business classifications have been increased from some 100 to 200-and-some classifications, and it was done to more accurately reflect the accident records and the health and safety records in those classifications.

While he's talking about the increases, he might talk about primary smelting and refining, where they're down 22%; industrial electronic industries, where they're down 9%; school bus operators, where they're down 7%. What I told him was the average increase across the board was 3%. There are ups and downs as the businesses fit into the new categorization.

Mr Harris: You keep repeating the information that Mr Yarrow today is responding to, "I was personally shocked with your frail effort to justify your move by saying you 'must administer the act, imperfections and all.'"

Here are the facts that Mr Yarrow advances: Since 1988, the number of accidents has decreased by 37%, the rate of injury has declined by 30%, yet the benefit expenditures have increased by over 50%. He says: "Either the board does not know the reason for this or is refusing to disclose the reasons. You and your administration are of the view that the answer to the crisis is to raise employer taxes. It is not. You must reduce expenditures now."

Can you explain to me two things: (1) why your response to this mismanagement is always to hike rates, and (2) why the board was able to make this decision without one whit of consultation? I quote again from Mr Yarrow's letter of today: "For the board to make a move of this nature without even discussing it first with the business community uncovers the board's true commitment to consultation." Can you explain why it was made without consultation and why your board thinks, as apparently your government does, that the solution to this crisis is to constantly hike taxes or rates?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The answer is fairly straightforward. I might say that last year the rates went up or down by 3%; this year it's an average 3% increase, and they are related to the health and safety record in the various businesses. I think that's exactly as it should be.

I might tell the member also that the board has been doing I think an excellent job of trying to cut some of its costs. They flat-lined their budget last year in terms of the board's own expenses; they've decreased it this year. To me, that is some good management going on at the board.

Mr Harris: A second question to the same minister: I wonder if you could explain to me good management in view of Mr Yarrow's statement that, "Your decision and the manner in which you made it was irresponsible and reckless and has served to dispel any level of confidence the business community had in you and your administration." He goes on to say, "Your refusal to reconsider the rate hike from the meeting yesterday and accept the business proposal from your own employer advisory group which was before your board will reap tragic consequences which you personally must shoulder." That is now you personally, Minister, since you're defending this decision.

Can you explain the contradiction in you coming in here and telling us that the unfunded liability is going up $2 million a day, heading towards $50 billion by 2014, contrasted with Mr Yarrow's conclusion as chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation that says that it is irresponsible and it is reckless? Can you explain that tremendous contradiction between your view and what Mr Yarrow is saying?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let's go back and do a little primary education, which I think the leader of the third party needs. I want to tell him first, very, very clearly, that the WCB has been a contentious agency in this House for a lot of years. I know that well from my days on the other side of the House.

I want to tell him there has not been an awful lot done across the way to try to resolve some of the problems. I want to tell him also that there is a problem with governance, with unfunded liability, with a number of other issues at the board, and I want to tell him that this government is trying to deal with those issues. I want to tell him that the effort to bring to the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, both management and labour, the specific problems at the board was an effort to get the parties themselves involved in giving us what answers there might be, and that's a process that's still going on.

I find it rather deplorable that the leader of the third party would get up and attack that, and say, "You've got to come in with recommendations on one set of issues only, from one side of the issue, and immediately put them all in place," which would throw injured workers in the province of Ontario on the scrap heap, rather than letting the process finish, which is only weeks away from finishing. I think your approach to this is absolutely despicable.

1410

Mr Harris: The only way injured workers will be thrown on the scrap heap is if WCB goes belly up, and many, many people are telling you you're on the path and the track to going belly up, just like your government's going belly up, just like your Premier's going belly up.

By way of supplementary, soft drink manufacturing is up 16.6%, furniture manufacturing 28%, publishing up 17.2%, paper products up 27.4%, metal products up 18.7%, aircraft manufacturing up 34.1%, lamp manufacturing up 79.6%. Can you explain to me how all these rate increases add up? Can you explain to me why that causes the chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, Mr Yarrow, to say this: Your saying they went up 3% "at the very least...is an attempt to mislead." Can you answer that allegation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If I wanted to be reduced to the same tactics as the leader of the third party, which I don't intend to be reduced to, I could go over the list of industries and companies and businesses in Ontario which are going to drop, and they're all within an overall 3% average in the province of Ontario.

I want to tell him that this government, this ministry and this Premier decided we were going to try to deal with the issue of resolving some of the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

Mr Harris: The minister keeps saying he doesn't get suggestions. Yesterday I gave you a proposal; you just dismissed it. Yesterday the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation gave an alternative to continually hiking taxes. Mr Yarrow points out and gives a whole host of those areas where they're going up far in excess of 3%; it is not an exhaustive list. He says, "Our members who will suffer as a result of your decision are insulted by your attempt to explain this move as an average 3% increase. Those members will be forced to lay off workers," the very workers that you purport to protect.

Minister, are you prepared to look at the alternative that has been proposed by the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation to save jobs, to keep people working in this province and to save the integrity of the Workers' Compensation Board so we don't have a disaster where injured workers will find themselves abandoned and on the heap pile, as you call it? Will you listen to alternatives other than the disastrous policy your mismanaged board is heading in today?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's exactly what we're trying to do while the leader of the third party tries to euchre the process. We've had one part of the issues we put before the PLMAC in the report the member is referring to.

We haven't yet gone back to the Premier with that. We haven't yet gone to the Premier with labour's recommendations on it, and yes, we will look at all of the recommendations that are there. But if we followed your lead and dealt with the first batch of recommendations only, what we would do would be simply to throw injured workers in the province of Ontario on the scrap heap, and that this party does not intend to do.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is for the Attorney General. The United States government, through undercover customs agents, has been engaging in unauthorized law enforcement activities in Ontario. There has been a series of incidents, and your ministry is familiar with one in particular, the case of Ken Walker, a Toronto commodity broker.

Mr Walker, having done absolutely nothing illegal in Canada, was lured on to a plane destined for the Bahamas by US undercover customs agents who arrested him when the plane touched down in New York. He was a victim of a sting operation originating in the United States, based on US customs regulations never intended for Canadians.

Your officials are refusing to prosecute the US agents who entrapped Mr Walker, stating the alleged facts do not constitute a crime in Ontario. You now have on your desk a pre-trial civil ruling of September 16 by Mr Justice Day in the Ontario Court which clearly states the alleged facts constitute a kidnapping in Ontario of Ken Walker.

Madam Minister, my question is this: Why won't you stand behind Ontario resident Ken Walker and prosecute those who entrapped him and lured him to the United States on a trumped-up charge?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): This case has been reviewed a number of times by officials in the Attorney General's ministry. We have read the judgement of Mr Justice Day and our determination still is that there are no facts on which we can establish the offence of kidnapping under section 279(1)(b) of the Criminal Code. This person was not unlawfully confined within Canada, and when he was arrested in the United States it was pursuant to a court-ordered process.

We have encouraged and we know that Mr Walker has approached the federal government as to whether or not the action of these US custom officers constituted a circumvention of the US-Canada extradition treaty. That is a federal matter in which we have no part to play.

Mr Chiarelli: This is a very serious issue. There have been repeated cases of US enforcement officials trying to make incursions into Canadian territory. With respect to the decision of the court of September 16, it states quite clearly that "Canadian kidnapping jurisdiction has recognized that a victim's will can be overcome equally by either force or deceit."

In this particular case, referring to Mr Walker, Mr Justice Day said quite clearly: "Once Mr Walker boarded the aircraft at Toronto, he could no more leave it than change its destination. The United States government defendants were awaiting his arrival at La Guardia, having planned to lure him there for his arrest." It is very clear in the judgement, Minister.

In addition to that, there is such a pattern of these incursions by US agents that Canada prepared a brief before the United States Supreme Court in 1990, where it said, "Canada's stated policy is to prosecute any individuals, even if they're official agents of the American government, on these types of cases," where there's an abduction or by deceit, bringing people into the American jurisdiction.

You now have a clear interpretation from an Ontario court. You have a clear policy of the government of Canada that these abductions are illegal and will be prosecuted.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Chiarelli: Your inaction is sending a clear message to these US enforcement agencies that it is open season in Canada for entrapment stings.

My question, Minister: Will you issue specific instructions to your crown law office officials to revisit this case in order to protect the integrity of our justice system from these Rambo-like tactics of US enforcement agencies? Will you do it? Will you protect the integrity of our system --

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Mr Chiarelli: -- and the rights of our individual citizens?

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The case has been revisited a number of times. I will discuss it again with the crown law officers in the ministry, but I would remind the member that it may well be that there is a general kind of sense that this is happening. There need to be facts on which to prosecute, and in this particular case this person entered the aircraft willingly, according to his own fact evidence, and was not confined on Canadian soil in any way.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I hope the Minister of Labour is a little more forthcoming with the northwestern chamber of commerce when it meets with him today. WCB was certainly one of their big concerns that we heard today. Another one, though, was education, and so my question is to the Minister of Education and Training.

Earlier this week, the Scarborough Board of Education passed a zero tolerance policy on school violence. Minister, do you endorse this policy and do you intend to recommend it to other boards in the province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly endorse a policy of zero tolerance for violence in our school system. I don't think that's an issue that any of us would disagree with.

We are working, as I told the leader of the third party before, in consultation with boards, teachers, police and other professionals across the province on a more comprehensive policy in the Ministry of Education which I hope we'll be able to talk about publicly before Christmas.

1420

Mr Harris: Police at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in St Louis last month were told that school violence is a major problem for the 1990s and that administrators are not equipped to handle the problem. What we've found -- many boards in a vacuum now are looking at security guards in their schools as a way of combating violence. Other boards may be looking at the Scarborough example.

The problem is that without some leadership from the province, there is this vacuum there, that different teachers and different boards and different parents will try to fill and interpret zero tolerance in many different ways. I say to you, as Minister of Education, that you and your government must provide the provincial leadership. Can you tell me specifically what you plan to do to ensure that schools don't become a dangerous place for our children and that we don't have this plethora of different policies in different schools that are very difficult to interpret? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I agree with the leader of the third party that there has to be a policy direction provided and leadership provided by the Ministry of Education. I think I have stated before that I'm not satisfied that leadership has been adequately provided by the Ministry of Education.

That's why we're working on a more comprehensive province-wide policy and we're going to have to address the issues of prevention, the issues of more comprehensive reporting, as well as how we deal with instances where there are weapons and violence that occur directly in our schools. I think it has to be a comprehensive policy. I'm not satisfied that we've done enough and I'm determined we will do that. That's why we're working on it now.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Health with a response to a question asked earlier by the leader of the third party.

HEALTH CARDS

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have a response to a question the leader of the third party raised yesterday with respect to an OHIP card which had been sent to the wrong address and which related to a newborn infant. I'm happy to tell him and tell the House a bit of the process by which newborns are assigned health cards.

When a child is born, the hospital has a pre-printed health number which is assigned to the infant and then later a card is sent. In the case that the leader of the third party raised yesterday, the card was incorrectly sent to the wrong address. In the case of a newborn, charges while that infant is in hospital are then made to the number that has been assigned on birth.

In the case of the card that was raised by the leader of the third party yesterday, I'm happy to be able to tell him that no inappropriate charges were made to that particular number.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): No.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and I'd like to follow up on your explanation on the lost revenue and the underground economy. I think the Premier's aware that an all-party legislative committee is looking at this issue. The wealth of evidence we've seen to date suggests that the problem is probably a $2-billion to $4-billion revenue problem; that's what most witnesses suggest is the size of the problem.

I read with interest your belief of the primary reason for it and I think you said the problem is with the GST. I think you said there is no other explanation over the last two to three years as to why, when the economy is in a state of growth, our revenues would be stagnant. My question is this, Premier: Of that $2-billion to $4-billion revenue shortfall, how much do you attribute to the GST?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the member's question and I would say to him that, if he wants to look at the full context of the response I gave in a scrum, what I said was that I was referring to what I felt was the GST as having not only a major factual intrusion into an area that until its introduction had been exclusively occupied by the provinces -- and the reason we took the federal government to court was because we objected so strongly to this intrusion. I think it's very hard for us to calculate with complete mathematical certainty what the impact is.

I'd also say to him that I don't think the GST is the only problem. In all my discussions with the federal government, I've emphasized that we not only have the duplication of the GST now on sales, we have duplication on tobacco, we have duplication on gasoline, we have duplication on income tax, we have duplication on virtually every commodity tax that's there. This is quite contrary to what the Fathers of Confederation foresaw as the fair share between the provinces and the federal government when it comes to taxation.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think we should neglect the fact that we now have an opportunity, with a new Liberal government elected in Ottawa -- I know the member will be sharing our view and will be following with us as we try to sit down with the new Liberal Party government in Ottawa -- to say to that Liberal Party government in Ottawa: "You campaigned on fair taxes. You have a mandate to get rid of the GST, to abolish the GST, which was the campaign promise you solemnly made to the people of Canada." We will be working with the people of this province to ensure that the Liberal government in Ottawa lives up to its promises --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat. Supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that the Premier's heart is still in Ottawa. In many respects, I'm sure he's sorry he ever left it, but I ran for the provincial Legislature and my role is to hold you accountable. I didn't choose to run federally, I chose to run here in the province.

Next week, Premier, you know that your first six months' financial results will be out. We've been told by you that the revenue shortfall is between $800 million and $1 billion. We've been told that two thirds of that will be personal income tax revenue. We understand and you understand, Premier, that the personal income tax revenue in this province over the last three years, the amount of money we've gotten in, has dropped by $2 billion. At the same time, Premier, you know you have raised personal income tax rates by $2 billion. So you expected personal income tax to go up by $2 billion and it has dropped by $2 billion.

That's the reason I raised the question of the underground economy. You believe it's the GST. In fact, you said there is no other explanation. My question to you is this, Premier, and we will be looking with interest at the financial results next week, what has led you to believe that there is no other explanation than the GST when we see personal income tax revenue actually dropping dramatically over the last three years? We understand from you, Premier, that when you bring the results out next week, we will see another $600-million shortfall over what you would have expected. What is causing that to happen, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I think we've just seen the problem, if I may say so to the honourable member, with a scripted question that doesn't hear the answer I just gave. I thought I gave a very clear answer to the first question in which I talked about the problem of duplication as it applies across the board.

I would say to the honourable member that, first of all, he's got to recognize that the figures that relate to a lower revenue flow this year on personal income tax and the adjustments we've had to make have to do with an adjustment that the federal government made with respect to 1992 numbers. It does not have to do with any budgetary increases which were put forward by the government in the last budget. So you're comparing apples and oranges and trying to come up with a crate of pomegranates, and as usual it doesn't work.

I would say to the honourable member, if it makes him feel any better, that the discussion we have to have with the federal government applies to taxes across the board in which we have to come up with a system that is fairer as well as a system that is more efficient and that gives all of us the revenues we need to pay for health care, to pay for education and to pay for the kinds of services that the people of this province and the people of Canada need.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I look forward to the member's support in our campaign as a province to see that the federal government gets out of the way on the GST, because it has had a very negative effect on the tax system overall. I'm sure that he will make sure and he'll be writing personally to Mr Chrétien to see that Mr Chrétien lives up to the one fundamental promise which he has made on behalf of the Liberal Party. I know as a good Liberal opposite, he'll be firmly in support of the abolition of the GST, which was a central campaign feature of the Liberal Party in Ottawa.

1430

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Since October 6, I have been telling you that many groups and individuals are strongly opposed to Mr McMurdo's reappointment as management co-chair at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. They do not believe that he represents their interests.

For the record, do you still deny that the business community is dissatisfied with Mr McMurdo's record and is strongly opposed to his reappointment? If you do recognize that this is in fact the case, will you explain why you personally insist on his reappointment?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I don't agree that there is such a unanimous position in the business community and we haven't finalized the decisions there yet, although there has been a good job done at the health and safety agency.

Mrs Witmer: You are not listening. You do not have the right to blatantly interfere in this bipartite process in the manner in which you and your deputy minister have. Your deputy minister recently indicated to the management representatives that the government is going to reappoint Mr McMurdo because you are satisfied with his work. That is irrelevant. He is not your government's co-chair and he is not the labour unions' co-chair; he is the management co-chair. This blatant disregard for the wishes of management makes a complete mockery of democratic principles and the idea that the WHSA is a cooperative agency in which both business and labour have an equal role.

I ask you one more time: Will you follow democratic principles and allow the management community to nominate and appoint their own co-chair without any interference from you or your deputy minister?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's obvious that the critic for the third party is discounting totally the management members who are on the board at the agency now, and I find that very difficult to understand.

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Again, I'm having to stand up and ask in the Legislature a question that my constituents are certainly concerned about. It's an issue that I brought up in the House yesterday, and that is the Seneca College proposal that we all believe should go to the Jane and Finch community.

Continually, I have written letters and, continually, I've had to have meetings with your staff and the previous minister's staff. I have met with you in particular on a number of occasions. Quite frankly, I am not happy with the responses. I am truly concerned that Yorkview and the Jane and Finch community are going to lose out on what we call the most important thing that this government could ever give to the Jane and Finch community.

I don't have to tell you that 65% of our public housing --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place a question, please.

Mr Mammoliti: -- tenants are on social assistance. A Seneca College campus will help get those people off social assistance, and that's proven.

Are we or are we not getting a Seneca College campus at Jane and Finch?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I must say I'm not quite sure why the member is not satisfied since the member knows that a $200,000 planning grant was given to take a look at the possible locations. That report's only been in to the government for a few weeks now, and while we move quickly in our ministry, we can't be expected to move that quickly. Yes, the member has talked to me and I've explained all this to the member. I'm more than willing to explain it on the record, but I don't think it's particularly fair to say that a member is unhappy with something that is moving as quickly as possible.

Mr Mammoliti: We appreciate the previous minister giving $200,000 to our community to conduct a study and giving it to Seneca College to conduct a study. That study has now led to this report that Seneca College has given to our community.

The community agrees, everybody agrees, that the site should go to Jane and Finch and nowhere else. It shouldn't go to Vaughan, it shouldn't go to York University, it shouldn't go anywhere else in this city except Jane and Finch. It can do more good at Jane and Finch than anywhere else.

Mr Minister, I need a commitment. I need a commitment today from you. I need a commitment for my constituents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: I need to know how you stand on the Jane and Finch proposal, Mr Minister, and I'm hoping it's positive for us.

Hon Mr Cooke: I wish things were that black and white. Not everybody agrees with the honourable member. Not everybody agrees with any one of the particular areas that are being looked at. There are certainly pluses for the Jane-Finch area. There are also pluses, quite frankly, for the York University location. We're working through the process and we're going to be looking at the pros and the downsides for each of the locations. But I think the member's wrong to say that everybody unanimously agrees with the member's position. That's not the case.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, last week the press reported that Ontario plans to push the incoming federal government to start spending money quickly on a variety of road, sewer and transit projects under the Liberal's promised job creation program, and this is what Premier Bob Rae said: "I've asked everyone within the public service to go through the federal Liberal red book and see what we can do together. We'll start calling them up as soon as they're sworn in and say: 'We're ready to do these things. Where are you?'"

Minister, in eastern Ontario, as you know, we have a project that is ready to go, and that project is called Highway 416. Last year you put phase 2 on hold indefinitely and you said you didn't have sufficient money available. In view of the fact that the new Prime Minister, who's going to be sworn in tomorrow, has said he's going to support just these kinds of projects, will you now put the second phase of 416 back on track and will you make the 416 one of the top priorities that you and the federal government will work on and fund together?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Long before the writs were issued, long before the little red manifesto became night and bedroom reading for the fans, long before that, Premier Bob Rae went on television and said that he would match dollar for dollar in terms of infrastructure any new money that was to come from the feds.

We've had a change of heart. The people have spoken. Blue led to red. We are looking forward to working with our new-found friends, because this is exactly what we're talking about. The federal government doesn't spend one red penny on provincial highways, and now I see my friend saying, "Come on with us." Well, you do the same. We'll be reciprocal. We'll tell everyone, for every dollar you put in, we will match you. We will put people to work.

We're already spending in excess of $38 million this year on Highway 416 north. You want to have it completed in its entirety -- and 416 south. Let's do it together. We will be there like soldiers at our post.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

1440

Mr Daigeler: I am prepared to say thank you if the rhetoric that was coming forward is in fact a confirmation that the minister will be on the phone tomorrow or the next day with the new federal Minister of Transport and he will say, "Yes, we are ready to pull the 416 back off the shelf and we are ready to go with you and complete the 416 in the time that was originally scheduled."

My question to you then again is -- because there was a lot of rhetoric about your commitment that you seemed to say -- have you already instructed your officials to reopen the files on the second phase of the 416 to make sure that this project, where the engineering is all done and construction could start in the spring on the second phase will -- have you instructed your officials to put this dossier back on track and will you contact the federal minister as soon as possible, at the earliest possible opportunity, to get the two governments together and to sign the full commitment towards the completion of 416?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Under the previous administration, when the phone in my office did not ring I knew it was Ottawa calling. I take the proposal from the member across with a great deal of seriousness and sincerity. We will do it together. In the meantime, we have asked our officials -- and you're right on -- to look at every opportunity, even involving at the infrastructural level, under a new concept, the free enterprise system, departing from the form that it's always the job of the government.

Let's do it together in this case. It's a new partner in the equation. We look forward to it. The thought, the idea is well taken. If not done after the swearing-in tomorrow, within 24 hours, I will endeavour -- and I promise -- to call my federal counterpart, offer him congratulations and invite him to partake in this project.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have to say I would love to have a question to the minister following that particular one because they are the ministry --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?

Mr Turnbull: -- that dragged their heels about a joint venture with the federal government on infrastructure.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills please resume his seat. What is more appropriate is if he would identify the minister to whom he wishes to direct a question.

Mr Turnbull: My question is still to the Minister of Transportation. In response to a question by my colleague the member for Wellington yesterday with respect to longer bus lengths, he said, "You're getting the legislation." Minister, the legislative mechanism is already there.

On July 14 of this year, you brought in Bill 74, an act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, dealing specifically with longer truck lengths. My question to you is: When will you bring in Bill 74 for second reading and will it contain an amendment to reflect the longer truck lengths?

Interjection: Bus lengths.

Mr Turnbull: I'm sorry, I should have said "to reflect the longer bus lengths," an addition to that bill.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is welcome. I appreciate the member's candour that there's so much going forth in terms of transportation safety programs, expediency, competitiveness in the marketplace. So the trucks have gone from 48 feet to 53 feet. It's a safety issue as well. It's an economic competitiveness issue. It's also an environmental issue.

More pertinent to your question, which is very well taken, as an answer to your colleagues, our friends, yesterday, I could've been out of step in terms of going out on the limb and saying maybe it can be done by legislation. Well, I did think that it could be done by legislation. Now it's a matter of process to say, do we need regulation or not? I've asked our legal people, the people who draft legislation, whether it can be done by regulation. That way it gets done quicker. If not, we'll have to go through the process and we will have, like all competing priorities, to get seated. To notify the parties across, that takes a little more time.

I'm sympathetic to the idea. I say this at great risk. I don't wish to prejudice our caucus. Our democratic process demands that all of us together make a decision on important matters such as this. In the meantime, one possibility would be --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- to enact a de facto situation whereby we could issue permits. But first we must probe the waters. We must ask the people who are making it possible around here, if yes or no, they wish to acquiesce to what I call the reality of longer buses by a few feet to accommodate the marketplace and to be able to compete with other jurisdictions.

Mr Turnbull: On repeated occasions, I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked questions to the Minister of Transport, and once in a while it's acceptable to be the court jester, but I've got to the stage where I am absolutely fed up with a minister who is obviously not briefed on the issues. I presume when he made his answer to my first question now, he was admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about yesterday.

My question was very specific, and it ran along the lines as to whether you would be amending Bill 74. I'm not talking about bringing it under the guise of some other bill. You brought in a bill last summer --

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

Mr Turnbull: Are you going to bring back Bill 74 to address the issue of long trucks and to address the issue of long buses, as opposed to tacking it on to graduated licences? I'm going to say this in advance: We've already discussed graduated licences in committee; we've agreed it's a good idea. We don't want that tacked on to Bill 74.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Turnbull: Are you going to bring back Bill 74 for second reading --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Would the member resume his seat, please. Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is a bit of a twist. Obviously, if it can be done by consent of everyone, if you wish, because once you open the door to amendments, in political jargon, the vultures start gathering --

Mr Turnbull: What a lot of drivel.

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no -- only in that context, and you will come up with several amendments.

What we're trying to do, and we're searching long and hard, is to find possible ways to make it happen as quickly as possible. We couldn't care less, as long as the people win, who gets the credit.

My critic opposite -- I've been putting up with him for over two years now -- always makes it a point to go to the bottom of each and every matter. He has a resilience that is uncanny, that is rare, and I appreciate this. By the same token, to refer to the honourable minister as a court jester makes him a --

Mr Turnbull: Point of order, Mr Speaker --

Hon Mr Pouliot: There he goes again.

The Speaker: What is out of order?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat first.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have an obligation as Speaker to cut off drivel that is being talked in this House.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

1450

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As most people reach the milestones in their lives, I think it's important for this House to recognize our colleague George Dadamo, the member from Windsor, who is celebrating his 40th birthday today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order, and indeed the honourable member is suitably embarrassed.

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed 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 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."

I will affix my signature to this petition, as I agree with its contents.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 28 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I have signed this petition, and I support this petition.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many people in my riding with concern to the free trade deal:

"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 that the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in a loss not only of more jobs but also a reduction in our environmental standards, our labour 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 petition the House of Commons in Ottawa and the newly elected government there to live up to their commitment to stop this deal now."

It is signed, as I mentioned, by Sharon Fiance, Marie Genesse, Larry Houghton and Maureen Thorne in my riding: good, hardworking people concerned about their jobs.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party purports to have a commitment to family life and a quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I sign this in agreement.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition from the Sarnia Citizens Highway Noise Reduction Committee. It is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, am requesting that the appropriate levels of government take immediate action to resolve the excessive noise levels on the Sarnia corridor of Highway 402 (which cuts a path through 100% residential). I support the reduction of the speed limit to 70 km/hr and the installation of an effective noise barrier."

This petition has been signed by 478 constituents in my riding of Sarnia. I am in strong support of this petition and affix my name to it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario, and families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures," as we all know;

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded, and the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for the public to be consulted and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this questionable initiative."

Mr Speaker, I sign my name to this petition, and I want you to know that.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here that I'm bringing forward on behalf of the constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned because they read an article that appeared on the front page of the Sunderland Sun on September 28, and there's a fear that they might lose their OPP station.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing, integral part of the Beaverton area community;

"Whereas many of the officers and staff have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become strong voices in the community in volunteer and non-profit groups" -- in fact, many of them were involved in the car rally this past weekend to help the Sandgate Women's Shelter;

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit for the Beaverton community;

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

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

"We demand that the Ontario government maintain the OPP station in Beaverton," as the closure would be detrimental to the security and safety and the wellbeing of all Brock residents.

Mr Speaker, I have one of the people who work in that detachment here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Witmer, on behalf of Mrs Marland, from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 10th report and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): No, I have no comment.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Huget from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report on graduated licensing and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Yes, Mr Speaker, if I could.

The committee held public hearings from September 7 to September 16 in Toronto, Ottawa and St Catharines. During the course of these hearings, the committee heard from numerous groups and individuals, including representatives from driving schools, driver educators, transportation research and safety organizations, automobile and motorcycle associations, the insurance industry, police associations, medical professionals and private citizens.

The committee would like to thank the staff and officials of the Ministry of Transportation for their expert assistance and their cooperation throughout the committee's deliberation on graduated licensing.

In addition, the committee would like to acknowledge the assistance of its support staff: Tannis Manikel, clerk of the committee, and Andrew McNaught, research officer.

Finally, the committee would like to express its support for the process adopted to consider this issue. In particular, the committee believes that referring draft legislation to a committee, rather than legislation which has received second reading in the House, promotes a non-partisan and cooperative atmosphere in which a committee can function effectively.

In addition, such a process enhances the integrity of the committee's work as well as the integrity of the legislative process as a whole. The committee suggests that more issues be handled in this way.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Huget moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1500

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 bill without amendment:

Bill Pr56, An Act to revive Ottawa Jewish Home for the Aged.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr50, An Act to amend the Institute of Municipal Assessors, the title of which is amended to read "An Act respecting the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario";

Bill Pr52, An Act respecting the County of Hastings;

Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Your committee recommends that the actual cost of reprinting be remitted on Bill Pr50, An Act respecting the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGION 2, IWA BUILDING SOCIETY ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr65, An Act to revive Region 2, IWA Building Society.

YORK-DURHAM HERITAGE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr O'Connor, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

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

Bill 116, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 116, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I read a statement in the House earlier on this proposed bill. The purpose of the bill is to make information available to the public about compensation paid to the presidents and other executive officers of trade unions. The Treasurer of this government has indicated the importance of making senior executive officers in the private industry available.

I would ask unanimous consent that second reading of this debate be made today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The question's in order. The honourable member has asked for unanimous consent to proceed to second reading. Agreed? I heard at least one negative voice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of 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 / Projet de loi 17, Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I got about halfway through my presentation some time ago with respect to this bill. Of course, this is a bill which is to set up a number of crown agencies, three new crown corporations in particular, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Realty Corp and the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

We've heard considerable debate in this House and in committee on this topic, and I think the question still remains, why are we creating this new set of bureaucracy? Why are we setting up these new crown agencies? The public in the past has had a great deal of difficulty understanding the working of crown agencies, the accountability of those crown agencies. Really, the public at large has no basic understanding of what happens when you have these crown agencies formed: the number of employees who are going to be there, who's going to be running them, specifically what they're going to do, the possibility of these crown agencies getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

It's an ironic time for a government that has talked about how it wants to downsize the government and has introduced social contract legislation as a result of which people in this province are losing their jobs as well as affecting their way of life. I will tell you, that's what this legislation will do.

This legislation is going to create three new crown corporations, and it will require a substantial number of people to run these corporations and will require a substantial amount of money to run these operations. The question has been asked, and I ask it again, about exactly why we are doing it. Will the system be any better now with these new crown corporations than the system we've had, which basically has had a substantial amount of accountability through this government? There's no question that there will be less accountability to the government through these crown corporations. The Provincial Auditor, unsolicited, has made some statements at the public accounts committee, to which I'll be referring very shortly, and his concern on the whole issue of accountability.

When you take operations of a government out of the consolidated revenue fund and put it into crown corporations, it creates many problems certainly for me as a person in this place, because I will have no say, I will have no right to question. For example, the Minister of Labour is continually standing in his place and saying he has no idea what is going on at the Workers' Compensation Board, that it's its business. The Minister of Environment and Energy is standing in his place when questions are asked with respect to the whole process involving the Interim Waste Authority and saying, "I don't have anything to do with that; that's their job." It's very important when we have major operations being conducted in this province that there be a system of accountability. That is the second concern I have with respect to Bill 17.

There's the issue of cost. There seems to be an idea coming from the government side that we're going to have much more money to do things, that we're going to have much more money to build roads, to improve our water systems and a whole slew of other things. The average person in this province knows that there's only so much money and it's fictitious to say you're going to have more money to perform the work this government is now doing. We all know we've got less money, and to say we're going to create three crown corporations that will be allowed to create a debt -- and perhaps the government will say in the next budget, "The deficit is down and the number of employees is down," and where has it all gone? It's gone to these three crown corporations.

That's the third issue, the issue of hiding the deficit. This has been spoken of by many members in this place, the issue of: What is the real deficit of this province? What is the real debt of this province? I can tell you, the debt of this province will not include the debt of these three crown corporations, and everything is being moved over with respect to these matters to these three crown corporations. We really will have less say as to what is going on in this place, we as legislators. I have a great fear about that.

The closing remarks of my speech to this House when we were last here had to do with a section in the bill which I read specifically to the House on the matter of the hospital debts. That had to do with section 33(3). I'll read the section again because it gives me great concern with respect to a situation that's occurring in my own riding of Dufferin-Peel.

1510

The section says, "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, as defined in the Public Hospitals Act or any other facility receiving funding for capital purposes from the Minister, that is charged to an appropriation of the Ministry of Health 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 hospital or other facility."

In short, what that means is that there was originally a grant that was promised by the former Minister of Health of the Liberal government. That promise came over to two different ministers of Health in the NDP government and still continues. That would be a grant to the Dufferin-Caledon Health Care Corp of $24 million. Now, with Bill 17, and I think the section is quite clear, that will not be a grant; that will be a debt which the corporation will have to pay back to this new corporation being created by this government.

So it's rather deceptive to start off with a Liberal government, to go through two different Health ministers saying, "Yes, we want health services in Dufferin-Peel, in Dufferin-Caledon, and we're going to give you a grant of $24 million." When Bill 17 passes, the $24-million grant will suddenly become a $24-million debt that the community must be obliged to pay back.

The ministry, of course, has reassured me and the health providers in my riding that they will pay this, the interest and the principal of the loan. And they've said that.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes.

Mr Tilson: Yes, they have said that. But what happens? Am I supposed to trust them? Are we supposed to trust them?

Mr Sutherland: It's a legally binding contract.

Mr Tilson: There's no legally binding contract. They say they're going to pay the debt, but they're not going to pay the debt if the financial position of this province continues to worsen. The Treasurer stands up almost on a daily basis telling us of the financial position.

It gives us great concern with respect to the residents of Dufferin-Peel, and I suspect there are similar issues with respect to education and health care around this province, where matters that have been considered to be a grant are now a debt.

The member says it's a contract. That's fine, but we've all seen what happens to contracts in this province. We don't trust you. You set forward a social contract, unions bargain in good faith to reach a contract and you rub them out at the stroke of a pen. That's the fear I have as to what you could do with the constituents in my riding. Do I trust you? No, I don't trust you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member direct his comments to the Chair.

Mr Tilson: Madam Speaker, I will direct my comments to the Chair, and I would like to refer very briefly to some comments that were made by the Provincial Auditor in the public accounts committee. He expressed grave concerns with respect to Bill 17, and he did this unsolicited. I'm sorry, it wasn't the public accounts, it was the standing committee on general government.

I have a few minutes left and I'm going to read some of the comments that the Provincial Auditor made. These are independent, unsolicited comments that were made by the Provincial Auditor in his concern, basically, with accountability because he is charged to make this place accountable. He has genuine fears as to the proposed accountability of these three crown corporations, that matters normally operated by various ministries are now going to be put in the hands of independent crown corporations.

These are some of the things he said back on August 17. "We saw accountability clauses appearing and disappearing in the draft legislation without being able to provide input or without finding out why these clauses were disappearing." He's had a concern with respect to accountability from the outset, even during the draft negotiations, the draft consultation process. He says: "I view Bill 17 as a first opportunity to enhance legislation for better accountability with the view that value for money be obtained. It is the result that I'm interested in, to ensure that we are obtaining value for money for the taxpayers' dollars."

He says these memoranda of understanding that have been put forward, "They're not tools that assist you, as members of the Legislative Assembly, in ensuring that you have the right tools to monitor, to control and take corrective action where necessary as these corporations are starting down the road and undertaking their activities."

He then expresses other concerns. "The corporations" -- the three corporations that are being created -- "are taking on operational and financial activities carved out of the operations and financial activities of the consolidated revenue fund."

That's exactly what they're doing. They're taking work that this government and all the governments in the history of Ontario have normally performed and it's being handed over, for some unknown reason, to three crown corporations. The Provincial Auditor of this province is concerned with the issue of accountability, and so are we on this side of the House.

"The Legislative Assembly should have controls over the corporation's revenue and spending and over the total provincial debt through legislation since memoranda of understanding are outside the scope of the Legislative Assembly."

He is saying, as I read his words, that his hands are tied, that he is not going to have the right to advise as to the accountability process of these three crown corporations, this myriad of individuals who are going to be operating these crown corporations and doing things about which I, as a member in this place, could normally stand during question period or at other times, designated times, and place questions to the minister who's currently responsible for those issues. I no longer will have that right. That right is gone when Bill 17 is passed.

I don't know why they're doing that. The member for Etobicoke West says it's an effort to fudge the books. It's an effort for the Treasurer to stand up in his place and say that the deficit isn't going to be as high as it was because the debt's going to be over in these three crown corporations. He says it's a big fix, it's a scheme, and that's why it's being rammed through this House at a rather fast pace. Well, he may have a point and he's made his point, as have others in this place, but the issue of accountability continues to concern me and certainly concerns the Provincial Auditor. He says:

"The accountability rules should be strengthened to provide a financial position statement which combines the consolidated revenue funds and these corporations, and indeed all other government-owned corporations, so that the public has a picture of the overall financial position of the province."

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with Bill 17. We all know that. When you pass Bill 17, the general public and we in this place will have less of an overall picture of the financial operations of this province. There's no question. There's no getting away from that. The Provincial Auditor has warned you of that, yet you continue to proceed with passing this bill without these accountability processes.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to say these few words. The Provincial Auditor went on for a number of pages and the time precludes me from speaking on that, but I can tell you, this place all of a sudden is now going to have less accountability.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for Dufferin-Peel. Now we have time for questions and/or comments.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's really interesting to sit here and to listen to a Conservative talk about not taking on decisions that make good business sense. He will know from every lesson and from every business person that surely to goodness he has ever spoken to, and he has listened to this advice over and over and over and over again, that the way to get some of these things and some of these projects and some of these initiatives moving, getting sewers on track, building roads, is precisely to get them away from government, to get them away from the stranglehold of bureaucracy, to put them in an arena where decisions could be made irrespective of political influence and can be made on an independent level based on good economic business sense.

Surely to goodness he will know all of that. What he's really angry at today is that somehow he senses and sees that his own political clout is somehow diminished, and I can't see how passing this act and proceeding with this bill does any of that. I would say to him, listen to good business sense and good business advice and support this initiative.

1520

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. I would like to caution the member that we must not impute any motive to any member of this House. We have time for further questions and/or comments.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I'm really not clear, if I'm to understand that you somehow reprimanded me or advised that I should watch what I say by imputing motives, I'm not clear on what motive or where that happened in what I said. Please be clearer because if there's something I said that is inappropriate or that imputes motive in one way, shape or form, I'll be more than glad to withdraw or to take that back. Please show me where I did that so I can correct the record. If not, please clear that.

The Acting Speaker: Certainly, to the member, I think what you would first do is you would look at Hansard and I will speak with you. If that's not clear, we will clear it up. I would like to go on now to the member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to be able to participate in this debate. The member for Downsview is still on his feet, and I'm not sure that he understood your comments, Madam Speaker, when you said he did impute motive, and I think you were absolutely right to say let him look at Hansard and then he will find how we impute motives in this House.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask you to make your comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel's speech, please.

Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate your comments, but let me address the issue the member for Downsview raised. We're not talking here about business sense. He's simply saying that if Bill 17 is passed, then what we would be able to do is to have a good business analysis and we could carry on with certain business that would then be automatically looked at by all the members, and all of us would have a right to ask questions in the House. It would certainly be questionable whether the auditor could make that kind of a statement if indeed he thought the circumstances under which Bill 17 is being passed were quite legitimate.

In fact the Provincial Auditor, as the member for Dufferin-Peel correctly indicated, and I guess the comment goes to him as well, is really saying that this is a questionable practice, and he's looking at it with an eye to making some changes.

Certainly as members of the opposition, obviously, we would have a right to question it when the Provincial Auditor, who is authorized to look at the books, that the books this government has are not going to be cooked. That's his job, and if he starts to say this is a questionable practice, it ought to be looked at, it ought to be examined by this government. Certainly the member for Dufferin-Peel is quite right when he says if the Provincial Auditor says it's questionable, let's look at it and probably let's defeat it.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I listened carefully to my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. As always, he brought a cogent debate forward on this matter.

It is somewhat distressing when I hear members of the government suggesting that if we were to speak to business people, in some way we would find that the practices were good and applauded by business people. The fact is, the government constantly likes to portray us, the Tories, as the party of business. The fact is, we do talk to a lot of business people and a lot of business people comprise our members of the caucus.

We're very aware of the accounting practices the government adheres to and we're very critical of them. Indeed, there was nothing to suggest in my colleague's debate that this was not a good idea to move forward with creative financing. What his concerns revolve around are the clear efforts by this government to hide debt. I will enlarge on this when I join debate later.

We have consulted very widely with the business sector and we have been told very clearly that there's nothing to suggest the government needs to create capital corporations in order to enter into joint ventures, for example, on the roads. In fact some of the people who are involved in bidding on building Highway 407 would sooner be directly in a relationship with the government, as opposed to a crown corporation as a filter in between. They have some concerns about that, but it isn't going to stop them going forward. There's absolutely nothing in creating a corporation that is going to make them want to do business more than with the government.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Dufferin-Peel indicated he didn't know what the basis for these crown corporations are. We have stated repeatedly, and I have stated repeatedly, that the basis for these crown corporations is to allow us to speed up projects by entering into longer-term agreements.

Ministries now can only account for budgets on a yearly basis. That's all the House and the Legislature gives approval for. If we want to speed up some of these projects and enter into joint ventures, then we have to ensure that we can make some long-term commitments. These crown corporations will allow that to occur. In terms of a project like the 407, because there's consideration being given to tolls, you have a regular revenue stream, you can go out and borrow money against the projected revenue stream and have the construction go ahead far quicker.

The member for Dufferin-Peel brought up the issue about grants versus loans to hospitals and school boards adding to their debt load. It does not add to their debt load. Yes, they will take the loan out. There is a guarantee, not just a guarantee but a written contract that the government of Ontario will provide the principal and the interest. That written contract, if it's not followed through, can be taken through to the courts to be upheld, as most written business contracts can be done. I would think a member who claims to be in a party of business would understand a simple thing like that about contract law.

With respect to accountability, the other issue the member raised, he seems to forget the Provincial Auditor will be the auditor for these crown corporations. That's pretty clear accountability. There are all kinds of new accountability mechanisms in these schedule 4 agencies that don't exist in agencies like the Workers' Compensation Board whose accountability mechanism, we remind members, was set up by the Conservative Party, not by our party.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.

Mr Tilson: I want to thank the various members for York Mills, Oxford, Parkdale and Downsview for making comments on my address to this House.

I will say I'm still not convinced, particularly by the members of the government, as to why this bill is going forward. We can say these three crown corporations will do things more efficiently. Are you trying to tell me that's because this government is doing things inefficiently?

If that's the reason you're doing it, why don't you improve the ways in which this government does business? Why create more bureaucracy that's going to be unaccountable to the people of this province? If that's why you're doing it, to make the system more efficient, then the whole thing's a sham. It's a shuffling of cards and that's exactly what it is.

1530

A debt is a debt is a debt, to use a favourite quote of someone over on that side, and there's no question that these crown corporations will be able to incur debts, debts that the province of Ontario has in the past incurred, and that's the concern I suppose I have on this.

Of course, people in the water industry and the road industry are going to say, "There's going to be lots more money out there." But guess what? There's no more money out there. There's a debt, and that's the problem with this province, that you've piled up a debt since you came into office that this province has never seen before and now you're going to pass it on to three crown corporations. There's another bill in this place that's going to pass it on to municipalities and school boards and hospitals. It's unbelievable how you people think over there.

I will tell you I have a grave concern, as does the Provincial Auditor in this province. He commented on the remarks made with respect to accountability and the auditor's role in this. I obviously don't have time to read it, but I'd recommend that before we vote on this bill all of you read, on the subject of accountability, the comments made by the Provincial Auditor to the standing committee on general government on August 17, 1993.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Are there any other honourable members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I am pleased to get an opportunity to participate in this debate. Every time it had been scheduled previously, I was unable to be here, either because I had to be in the constituency or was in committee. So I am pleased to be here, because this is an important bill before us.

There is a lot of money at stake and some very significant decisions that are being made by the government. Perhaps this bill is one of the key measures that the government may have taken in its probably one-time mandate. I think I'm pretty safe to say that after last week's federal election results.

But be that as it may, I also took part in the committee hearings when we looked at Bill 17. We had representations from various groups including, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, the Provincial Auditor. There were some serious concerns that were brought to the attention of the government and to the attention of the committee, and at the same time there was also strong support for some of the measures.

In terms of the concerns, I think they have been spelled out very clearly in this House, in fact before the hearings were held, by my colleague Mr Gerry Phillips from Scarborough-Agincourt and by other members of this House. The concern, as was just mentioned, is that the government seems to be trying to hide debt in the books of other groups. In particular, where I think this is most obvious is when it comes to school capital.

The debt that will be incurred for school capital will show up on the books of the school boards and no longer on the books of the province, which frankly is something that we fundamentally disagree with because the province is, at least so far, assuming full responsibility for that debt. I say "so far" because I'm worried that once that debt is moved off the books of the province, there may come a time when the province says, "We will no longer fully guarantee that debt," and there will be a part of it that the local taxpayer, the property taxpayer has to assume.

I think all of the members in the House will know the heavy tax burden already on the property owner. I'm sure you, Madam Speaker, and other members in the House have received complaints, especially from seniors who own their home and who sometimes feel they have to give up their home because the taxation load on the property owner is ever rising.

Obviously, if school boards have to cover as well part of the debt load that normally the province would cover, where do they get the money from? Mostly, they get it from the property taxpayer. I have a concern there. This is not in the legislation. At the present time the government is saying, "We will cover whatever debt the school boards will incur relating to the capital expenditures." I'm concerned that the door is open and that at some time in the future the government may simply say, "The debt is on your books, so therefore you shall also assume a certain cost of paying for the debt." That's a serious concern to me which frankly hasn't been mentioned clearly enough and often enough yet.

I am very leery about this measure, because I used to serve on a school board and I know how easy it is for the government. I don't blame just this government. It happened in our government as well when we were there and it happened with the Tories. There is a shifting of financial burdens between the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, and there's no guarantee that the various levels of government will stick to their promises. So I think especially the school boards and the municipal level are rightfully concerned and will want to make sure the provincial government will keep its commitment towards assuming the full payment of the debt, even if the capital debt is on the books of the school boards.

I should say also in this context that I do hope the government will continue very strong funding and approval of capital expenditures for our schools. Obviously, that was one of the reasons the government put forward, that with this new capital corporation perhaps it may be possible to have even more capital available for new schools. I come from an area, fortunately still a very fast-growing area, where there is a need for new schools. I do hope that growth will resume very soon again in other parts of the province too.

What's one of the first priorities? It's new schools. We, under the Liberal government, made quite a bit of money, several hundreds of millions of dollars, available every year for new school construction. I remember those days in caucus when we pressured the Treasurer, who was always reluctant to spend the money; he was good that way. But we got a lot of demands from our ratepayers and from the people who were moving into new homes, who were saying, "We don't have a school; we need a school."

There's a lot of money involved and a lot of money required, and I certainly hope this government will continue to make money available for the schools we need, especially now when we're talking about infrastructure improvements and getting the economy going again. These are investments that stay with us. So I encourage the government, even though it may be shifting this whole capital financing off to a corporation, that the responsibility for the approval of the amount of capital that may be handed out in a particular year will still continue to rest, as far as schools are concerned, with the Minister of Education. He or she will still have to say, "You can spend that much money on new schools, but you can't build this additional school."

Certainly, in my area of Nepean, for example, and the Carleton boards, both the public and the separate boards have a very urgent need for a high school in Barr Haven, the area where I live. This has been on the books for a long time. Just recently, both the separate and the public boards put that as a top priority, and I certainly hope the government, whether it be the government per se or the capital corporation, will be providing that funding very soon and to the extent that has been requested.

1540

There is obviously a great interest in having capital moneys available to do the infrastructure improvements that we need. Last night my caucus colleagues and myself were meeting with representatives of the sewer and water contractors, and yes, they are in favour of the provisions in this bill that make it possible to have this sewer and water corporation, the clean water corporation, I think it's called.

They are not as concerned, obviously, as we are about the possibility of the government trying to hide its debt. They are mostly concerned about jobs. They said almost 50% of the people associated with these contractors are presently out of work, so they're obviously extremely keen to resume infrastructure improvements.

There's no question; I don't think anybody debates the need, for example, for improving some of the sewer works that we have. The area where I come from, Ottawa-Carleton, with the support of the provincial government, has built some very excellent facilities for sewage treatment. Especially in the suburban cities, we've got new sewers and they are maintained to make sure we are treating sewage the proper way.

Obviously there are other cities, and the city of Ottawa is one of them, that because they're older, don't have the kind of infrastructure under the ground that first of all can meet the demand, because the demand is ever-growing. With more people coming in, there's demand on the sewer and water systems as well. Simply, their length of life has come to an end, because many of these pipes were built around the turn of the century; they're almost 100 years old.

I remember that when Jim Durrell was still the mayor of Ottawa, he took us on a tour to visit some of the sewers that were in Ottawa, and some of them were still made out of wood. As the contractors told us last night, this is not the only instance where this happens; it's in other parts of the province as well. These people are very concerned from a jobs point of view, but then also from the point of view of making sure that we have the infrastructure that can support our normal living.

I mean, we're used to clean water, we're used to it that the garbage is taken away, that the toilets flush and everything else, but somebody has to look into that. It's all too easy to say, "Well, somebody will take care of it." It isn't just somebody; somebody has to plan for it. There are engineering departments in the cities that are preparing this, and they are generally doing a very good job, but it costs money.

I guess the government is arguing -- and I must say we were arguing as well. I remember that when Bob Nixon was the Treasurer he planned as well to introduce a sewer and water corporation that would look into some of these things. I think one can make arguments on both sides of the coin. Liberals, and I think Mr Chrétien at the federal level, certainly very clearly knew what the people out there were waiting for and hoping for, and that is job creation, to make sure that people get back to work and can contribute to society and also can contribute again to the tax base because they work.

From that perspective, we're supportive of the initiative that has been put forward, as long as it is very clear who is responsible for the debt and as long as we can be assured, through the auditor and through the way we in this Legislature can scrutinize the expenditures, that we know very, very clearly that ultimately it is the province which is still responsible for all of these expenditures.

While I was talking a little bit generally about some of the global measures of Bill 17, I am, as Transportation critic for the Liberal Party, particularly interested in the section that establishes the --

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is a terribly important issue, and I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the clerk if she would determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean has the floor.

Mr Daigeler: As I was saying, I have a general interest as a member of this House, obviously, in all of the provisions of this bill, but as Liberal critic for Transportation I'm specifically looking at the section of Bill 17 that deals with the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. That's the corporation that will be looking after the construction of new roads.

Frankly, the sections in the bill that deal with this corporation are not very long and mostly, frankly, they have to do with how this corporation is going to collect the tolls and also how it's going to collect the fines if the tolls aren't paid. So if somebody is looking for real details as to how this transportation capital corporation will work, don't look for the bill. I'm sure there will be regulations that will be established that will be coming with this bill and all the details will be in the regulations.

When we were at the committee, not too many people came and spoke about the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, but a few did. One of the groups that came was the Better Roads Coalition, and I think the members will be familiar with this organization, which obviously brings together road builders and other people interested in good road construction in this province.

Frankly, they echoed my own feelings and the feelings of my party. They did say that at first they had been hesitant to support other means of financing of our roads when revenues from the direct road user taxes provide over $1 billion per annum more than is being spent on our roads. I'm quoting here from the brief from the Better Roads Coalition. "However, faced with an economy that continues to sag and a road system that badly needs expansion, we strongly support the principle of Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario."

Again, like with the water and sewer contractors, I think these people are interested in getting people working again. They realize there are a lot of roads that need to be built still and a lot of roads that need maintenance, and in view of the needs that are out there, they are prepared to look for new ideas and new ways of finding perhaps the finances that will make the roads available.

Of course, the main purpose of this particular corporation is, according to the government, the construction especially of 407 north of Toronto and where tolls will be collected.

Now, so far we haven't heard from the government that it will be considering tolls on any other roads, although there has been some speculation with regard to the 416. Frankly, it seems to me that the only road that probably could be financed through tolls and at the same time give a reasonable return to the private sector would be the 407, in terms of just the strict usage, because obviously building highways is a very expensive undertaking. We all know that.

1550

To have enough traffic in this country, where our population is so spread across distances, probably the only area where there might be a reasonable return would be in the greater Toronto area. I understand that right now there are two consortia that are bidding for the possible contract for this 407 and are awaiting the establishment of this capital corporation, which I guess will then be in touch with whoever is the winning bidder and will make sure everything is in place for an early construction and completion of 407.

The Better Roads Coalition, while they did say they were generally supportive of the concept of the tolls, put forward a number of cautions and put those on the record. For example, they said: "Tolls must not be collected on existing roads. The program is intended to accelerate road construction and therefore must only be applied to new construction." Frankly, the way the bill is written at the present time, this would not satisfy the Better Roads Coalition because, according to the bill, it could be any kind of road where tolls could be collected. However, I understand that the Better Roads Coalition was able to get an agreement from the ministry that there will be an amendment forthcoming to make sure that only with the construction of new roads will it will be possible to finance the construction through tolls.

Another the point the Better Roads coalition made was that construction priorities of toll roads must be based on appropriate needs studies. I think that's a very, very good point and I sure hope the government will listen to this, because we know, when it comes to needs studies, that when we look at the ferry fees in eastern Ontario, where the government is backtracking very, very quickly, they didn't do any kind of study.

It's turning into a major embarrassment to the NDP members who are from eastern Ontario, because if the Minister of Transportation and I guess his officials had done a study first, at least the Premier wouldn't have had to go down there and say, "Well, we don't really know what the economic impact is of these new fees on the people of Wolfe Island and Amherst Island and so on." They wouldn't have to set up now, somewhat after the fact, Brooke McNabb, who has been asked to do a study on what the needs are and what the ferry fees will mean for the people of Kingston and of Wolfe Island and of that whole area.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It's backwards.

Mr Daigeler: As my colleague says, this is a way of operating backwards. Well, here's the warning from the Better Roads Coalition: Do your study before you make the decisions. "Construction priorities of toll roads must be based on appropriate needs studies."

Further, they said, "Toll roads must only be constructed where existing roads would provide road users with an option to bypass tolls if they so choose."

Then they say: "All moneys collected as tolls must be dedicated funds to be used exclusively to retire the capital and administrative costs of the facility on which it is collected. Once this debt is retired, such tolls must be removed."

I think this is a very good point, and I must say I was glad to see that in the current bill there are in fact provisions that precisely look after that. In other words, the revenue from the tolls will be used only for the construction of that particular road and not for the general revenue.

Further, the Better Roads Coalition said: "An agency should be set up by regulation or legislation to borrow capital funds to build the facility and collect funds to pay for the investment. These funds would then be protected by legislation for the construction of the facility."

Finally, they say: "Tolls must not be viewed as an excuse to relieve the government from its obligation to provide funds for the maintenance and expansion of the road system. Otherwise, the principle of tolls to accelerate construction would be subverted."

With these provisos and with these warnings that the Ontario Roads Coalition put forward -- and some of them, I was happy to see, the government listened to, and I understand it is planning to introduce amendments that will recognize these concerns -- the coalition said, "Therefore, with these amendments, the Better Roads Coalition withdraws its objections to Bill 17 and we strongly urge the early passage of the bill."

I listened very carefully to what the road builders had to say. I share, on the one hand, their concern. I share also, on the other hand, their interest in improving the infrastructure in the province and making sure that, for example, Highway 407 in the Toronto area and, as I said earlier in question period today and last Thursday morning during private members' hour, also the 416 in my area, but other roads as well, especially in the north -- northern Ontario is looking obviously for a twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway. That too should be a priority for this government in particular, since it has several members from the north, and I've heard very little about what I think was an NDP promise.

I understand many of these NDP policies have gone by the wayside, but I'm sure the people from northern Ontario -- in fact, this morning we had the Northwestern Chamber of Commerce representatives here -- will be reminding the NDP members from northern Ontario: "What about the road construction in the north?" If this new capital corporation will allow speedier construction of some of the roads in the north, I say good: I support that and I'm all in favour.

I should say, though, that collecting tolls and in that way building new highways may not be quite the panacea that perhaps people envisage. There are a number of concerns out there about these tolls, and I think that as the submission of the bids for the construction of 407 proceeds, some of these things will become clearer. In fact, I brought with me this request for proposals which the ministry prepared. It's very detailed, I must say. I read through the whole thing, a very detailed description of the requirements the government has of the private sector with regard to the construction of the 407.

But one of the things that's very clear in here and that I don't think the public has fully understood yet is that there are some adjustments that will have to be made to the design of the 407. Several interchanges are going to be deleted and other interchanges are going to be deferred. All of these are spelled out in great detail in this book, and I'm not sure whether the people in the greater Toronto area are fully aware that some of the interchanges that perhaps they had hoped for will no longer be there, basically because you can't have a tollgate at every interchange.

I understand that. If you're going with tolls, obviously you can't have everybody coming in from the sides, as it were, and perhaps getting away with not paying the toll. Obviously, you have to limit access and exit to such a highway in order to collect the tolls. But this means a significant change in the design of the 407 in the way it was announced so far, so I hope people will take a look at that and recognize that there is a tradeoff.

Of course the other factor we don't know yet at all is how high the total is going to be. This government seems to recognize, and in fact it is in the bill and in this request for proposals, that there would be a fair return to the private sector for advancing the money and also for constructing the road. However, what is that fair return, and will it be possible to come to an agreement between the government and the private sector that says, "Okay, this is a fair return," and will the public also accept that return as fair for them?

1600

These are all questions that are unanswered at this point. We simply don't know yet, and I sure hope that very soon we will know. I understand that the proposals for the construction of the 407 have to be submitted to the ministry very soon, and I hope to hear shortly thereafter from the Minister of Transportation and perhaps from the Treasurer about what decision they will have arrived at, whether in fact it is feasible to proceed with the 407 and with the tolls in the way they had planned.

While we do have some very serious concerns about the possible hiding of provincial debt in other institutions and other bodies of the province, at the same time we recognize that there is an element of getting the economy going again, of facilitating new construction and therefore employment for people. That, for us Liberals, is the top priority, both at the federal level and at the provincial level. In that regard, I support those aspects of the bill and look forward, especially with regard to the tolls and the road capital corporation, to seeing how these proposals that have been submitted come together and what the reaction is of the ministry, what the facts and figures are. We want to make sure it's a very open process and that we know what is being put forward. We can make a judgement on that basis and debate it and discuss it in the House.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. We now have time for questions and/or comments.

Mr Tilson: I'd like to respond to a couple of comments the member was making with respect to toll roads. It brought to mind a concern of a constituent, not from my riding, actually, but from Brampton, who wrote a letter expressing a fear about getting involved in the road-building process that's going to be created by this province with respect to the private corporation. He's concerned specifically with the system that's going to be developed, which in the past has had abuse but was worked out. His letter says, "One can only assume that the system developed to prevent abuse is now being ignored." He lists a number of questions, and if I have time, I'd like to read several of them, because this bill will leave unanswered these very good questions that need to be answered.

"Why is the Ministry of Transportation abandoning the process of tendering their work to any qualified bidder? Why is a system developed over some 40 years of cooperation between DHO, MTO and ORBA to ensure that all contractors had a fair chance to bid work being ignored? How will the proposed system guarantee the taxpayers the best possible quality at the best available price? How do the government and the Ministry of Transportation select the two groups which are now apparently invited to tender proposals to the exclusion of all others?

"Under the normal system, bidders are asked to tender on specific finite contracts. Each bidder is tendering exactly the same work. The low bidder is awarded the work, provided that he is reasonably close to the Ministry of Transportation cost estimate. How and by whom are the proposals to be evaluated? How is the Ministry of Transportation to know if they are obtaining the best price?

"What an irony it is that this socialistic government cannot stomach day care centres run by private enterprise and is taking steps to eliminate them in favour of government-operated centres, while at the same time they propose to arrange for selected private groups to operate a private business on a public road for profit."

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

Mr Sutherland: I welcome the comment from the member for Nepean that he is supportive of the initiative. I even heard him say he supports this because it's a job creation initiative. I'm sure he'll pass that message along to his leader and we'll hear her talking about all the good job creation initiatives this government is carrying out.

The member for Nepean has acknowledged the need for these corporations, how they are an innovative approach, how it will allow us to work with the private sector, which I know even the third party has been talking about for many years. I'm glad he acknowledged that.

He made reference to a comment about hiding the debt. There is no attempt to hide the debt. The establishment of these crown corporations was made in a very public announcement. The amount put forward was mentioned in the budget. With those two public statements, the announcements made by the Premier and also reference in the budget, I don't know how you can say, "You're hiding the debt," or, "You're hiding the cost of doing these projects," when it's been so public all along to everybody, not only to the people but also to the financial community and those people who lend us money.

I think it's great and a nice, refreshing change. Several other Liberal members who have spoken said they support this very important job creation project. I'm just looking forward to hearing the official Leader of the Opposition continue to tell all the people of Ontario about this very important job creation initiative this government is carrying out.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm sure the member for Nepean, when he was addressing the assembly, knew that the job creation could happen with or without the crown corporations and that the only purpose, the only purpose, of establishing these corporations is to get the debt off the books. This government is completely obsessed with being seen as a government that's piling up the debt.

It's very clear they're politically manipulative. They want to ensure that they can show everybody in the next year or the year after, "Look how the deficit has decreased." That's what the member obviously is saying, that this is the problem. I agree entirely with him when he says that in fact the purpose of the crown corporations is simply to get that debt off the books.

Everybody knows that the NDP has a hard time dealing with these matters of finance. No one in the province expected that they could handle the finances in a way other than the way they have, and I accept that. But when I hear people in this House defend it who previously would have opposed this, I find it very disconcerting, because I know the member well remembers, and he may have mentioned this in his speech, the debate that took place when members of the then New Democratic Party in opposition were adamantly opposed to the establishment of a water corporation because they saw it as being just a development tool in those days. These were the days when one would mention major developers and say, "The government must be tied to these major developers."

Now we have as proponents of this legislation, as the member for Nepean has aptly pointed out, the same people who thought that the water corporation was just a tool for development, a tool to get around the Ministry of the Environment. Make no mistake, that will be a consequence, but the main purpose is simply to get the debt off the books.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The member for Nepean has mentioned the Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association, and I want to add my comment that this is an excellent organization, an organization of contractors and engineers employing about 15% of the Ontario workforce, believe it or not, a huge percentage. I understand the problems they're going through at present in terms of unemployment and their concern with regard to investment in our infrastructure in the province. They've indicated to us that the value of the sewer and water underground piping is some $35 billion, and they're recommending that we invest 1% a year --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Just worry about what your own government is doing; that's all you have to worry about.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for St Catharines, come to order.

Mr David Johnson: -- which would amount to about $350 million a year. At present, we're investing about $100 million a year. Their message is a good one. They're concerned about the leakage in the system, the water that's being lost. They're concerned about the long-term maintenance.

The reality of this particular bill that's before us is that it provides no new funding for any of these activities that need to be done. The Ontario Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association says we should charge the true value for the water. I understand where they're coming from. It's an excellent message.

The reality we have to face is that to do that here in Metropolitan Toronto would increase the cost of water by about four times. This will be money out of people's pockets. People will consider this as an increase in tax and it will be difficult. If their property taxes, for example, were to go down an equivalent amount as the water tax was to go up, then people would accept it. That is the problem we're going to have to face, plus the reality that there's no new money --

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for Nepean has two minutes to respond.

1610

Mr Daigeler: I thank the members for their remarks. The parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, said there's no intent to hide the debt, and as evidence for that he points to the fact that this is all being publicly discussed and it was announced by the Treasurer and so on. But I'm sure the member knows that in the budget book next year most likely we will not see a section that will list all these corporations and the liabilities they have. If that's going to be included in the Treasurer's next budget book, I say fine. If the Treasurer will say in the speech he's going to make in this House, "In addition to these direct expenditures for capital, this province is also responsible and I, as Treasurer of Ontario, am also responsible for all these debts on the books of these other corporations, the school boards included," then I'd say fine, then I'd say he's upfront. But I'm very, very suspicious; I don't think that's what's going to happen. I think the Treasurer is going to have a nice book again, he's going to have a nice speech and he will say, "Our expenditures have been significantly lowered," when in reality we know it was just a shifting of expenditures on to someone else.

However, I am still a younger member; I'm perhaps not as sceptical as the member for St Catharines. Sometimes I say: "Perhaps there are some honourable intentions left on the part of the government, on the part of the NDP. They have job creation at heart." I am prepared to accept this at face value in that regard.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Are there further members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Turnbull: I would think that anybody watching this debate on television would be under the impression that the opposition parties and the government are talking about two different bills.

We've heard assertions by the government that it's not trying to hide debt. Well, turning to page 19 of this year's budget, we see the suggestion that this year's deficit would be $9.2 billion. Then there's a little, tiny asterisk and in very small print -- and you know how governments have always been concerned about outside companies that contract, particularly with the citizens of this province, having very fine print on the bottom of their contracts, but in the fine print it says, "Capital expenditures 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."

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You guys should sell aluminum siding.

Mr Turnbull: First of all, this is very fine print, and as my colleague the member for Etobicoke West says, perhaps the government should be selling aluminum siding, merely because even the footnotes to the budget are incorrect because, when you read more carefully, it's actually $805 million, not $0.8 billion. I guess to people who spend as wildly as this government, $5 million probably doesn't make that much difference.

These are people who gave $50,000 to create a new union song when they came into office. This is the government in fact that spent $20,000, 20,000 of the taxpayers' dollars, on sending union members away for a week's course on humour. Can you imagine that, Madam Speaker? I mean, it's hard to believe that this is indeed --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members will have a chance to comment. The member for York Mills has the floor.

Mr Turnbull: -- the government that is saying, "Oh, we're not trying to hide anything." Just quite accidentally we get $5 million falling off, even from the small print. Even the small print isn't accurate.

When you consider the worsening shape of our financial affairs in Ontario, it's very apparent that the government's intention is to try and cook the books. As I've said on more than one occasion in this House, if anybody were to try this on an orange box on a corner of the street, they'd have to have a lookout making sure that the police weren't coming down the street.

Let's examine some of the implications of this bill.

The Acting Speaker: To the member for York Mills, I would caution the member in the language that he uses. Just proceed.

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that I have said absolutely nothing which is unparliamentary. I would ask the Speaker what in fact she is suggesting I have said which is in any way unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I have not said that anything is unparliamentary. I am asking you to use caution in the language that you are using. To the member, would you please take your seat.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The language is "cooked books." That's unparliamentary. I believe that there has been a ruling in the past in the Legislature that said that "cooked books" is unparliamentary.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Would the member proceed.

Mr Turnbull: I want to explain why I believe the books are being cooked. I will turn to the fact that the Provincial Auditor this year, for the first time in history, refused to sign the books of the province. This has never happened before. This auditor was appointed under this government's term. He wasn't appointed by any previous government.

Let's just talk about what the auditor has said with respect to this very bill. I am quoting from the standing committee on general government, which met on August 17 and was considering this bill. The Provincial Auditor said at that time:

"My office was not invited to advise on this legislation and we followed the process of drafting Bill 17 through snippets of information which ministry staff were willing to share with us. We are grateful for that. Through that occasional glimpse, we saw accountability clauses appearing and disappearing in the draft legislation without being able to provide input or without finding out why these clauses were disappearing. This kind of spectatorship became somewhat uncomfortable when memoranda of understanding were offered as the main accountability mechanism to govern these corporations without finding the necessary support in the legislation for those memoranda of understanding."

1620

I further quote:

"I'm mindful that the ministry staff have expressed similar concerns about the need for embedding accountability in legislation rather than using only memoranda of understanding."

Further on, the same auditor goes on to say, quoting:

"'A legislative mechanism is needed, establishing the requirements to submit annual corporate operating and capital budgets, an annual corporate plan and payment of surpluses, if any, to the government.'"

Further, "The accountability rules should be strengthened to provide a financial position statement which combines the consolidated revenue funds and these corporations."

I just want to refer back to my opening statements, in which I pointed out that the $0.8 billion they account for in the fine print is way at the bottom of the page rather than being consolidated.

"A second and most important feature is that there should be a provision that loans are only set up as assets if they are repaid from revenues and not from future grants, because if it is in the grant route, it is just sticking money from one pocket into the other, and that does not represent an asset of government."

That goes to the heart of the concern that my party has with this bill.

Turning to the realty corporation, the government has taken the most unusual step of selling the assets. Last year, in the 1992-93 year, they sold $440 million of crown land to this corporation, the Ontario Realty Corp. What they did was they borrowed money from the Minister of Finance and the treasury and then paid that money back to the treasury as payment for the lands.

So in that same year the Treasurer was able to report $440 million of revenue and was also able to report a debt which was incurred by that corporation. In fact, the land had never gone anywhere. It still belonged to the province, which reminded us, of course, of the famous transaction with the domed stadium, where the government keeps on wanting to report the sale of that asset and it has never been sold.

Let me suggest that if a corporation were to sell an asset to one of its subsidiaries in a similar type of transaction, the normal route would be not to borrow the money from the parent company but to take back a note. They would transfer those assets to the subsidiary and take back a note until such time as the subsidiary presumably had disposed of them.

But this very unusual route that the government decided to go is very suspicious. It's very suspicious to the financial community, and the auditor has commented on his displeasure with what the government has done.

Casting my mind back a few years ago to Grandma Lee's, Grandma Lee's, during the 1980s, was reporting revenue that it was getting from selling franchises as regular revenue. I can tell you that there were some concerns that the Ontario Securities Commission had with that practice. Also, when Cineplex was selling theatres and reporting the revenues that it got from selling theatres as regular revenue, the securities commission had great troubles with that and suggested that that practice was very aggressive.

There is the point that I'm making. The government will have you believe that the creation of these corporations is purely to facilitate the creation of jobs. If that were all it was doing, you would probably find that there would be support from this side of the House, but we don't believe that. There is no reason why these corporations need to be set up.

There can be a very clear argument made that many private companies that might decide to do business with the government as a joint venture partner, as for example with the road corporations, would in fact find more comfort in being a joint venture partner with the government directly rather than a crown corporation.

But the government didn't go that route. They've set up these crown corporations and they have tried, very clearly, in the books to take this number off-book. In every statement that we heard in this House by the Minister of Finance, both in the House at the time that he read the budget and then in his press releases afterwards and all of his press interviews, he suggested that the deficit was $9.2 billion.

We said at the time it was not that; it was at least $805 million over, and in addition to that, the government went a further step this year by getting school boards and universities to borrow money for their capital needs.

In previous years, governments have given grants to those same school boards. But the government has recognized that the school boards probably have more borrowing capacity than does the government, and so it has taken the unusual step of saying, "Okay, you go out and borrow the money, and we will give you the money for principal and interest to pay that loan." That amounts to some $600 million this year, and that $600 million must most surely be added to the $805 million that was otherwise taken off-book and added to the $9.2 billion.

In other words, we've got to add at least $1.4 billion to the stated deficit this year, which takes it to well over $10 billion, and then in addition to that, we know this government is likely to have somewhat in the region of $1 billion of overrun this year in its expenditures.

We have said over and over again that this government doesn't have a revenue problem because last year it had the second-highest revenues in provincial history.

Mr Sutherland: Revenue has gone down three years in a row.

Mr Turnbull: My colleague the member for Oxford obviously hasn't read the numbers, but if you go back and you check, last year was the second-highest year of provincial revenues in history. The only year it was exceeded by was the year 1989-90.

The concern we've expressed has been expressed very widely in the public sector. The presentations we have had to committee on this very issue have addressed this specific concern.

Let me move on to the transportation capital corporation. I said before that the stated goal is to be able to expedite the construction of Highway 407, because indeed the 407 is the first project this transportation capital corporation intends to undertake. There can be no doubt that it is a matter of great urgency that we build the 407. We're not suggesting this is the wrong route. Yes indeed, a partnership with the private sector is appropriate, and I have no problem with that proposition. I'm just saying we don't need to create a schedule 4 crown corporation in order to do that.

I've checked very extensively, and those people who are considering going into consortiums with the government on 407 have unequivocally told me that it doesn't need a crown corporation to do that.

In creating schedule 4 crown corporations, we are creating a new animal, an animal which the government would suggest will be more accountable than the schedule 3 crown corporations. We've seen no indication of this. If indeed the government was convinced this would be a more accountable organization, why, in light of the very serious problems that exist at the Workers' Compensation Board and Ontario Hydro, have they not moved to reclassify those corporations as schedule 4 crown corporations?

We believe what the government is doing is moving staff off the government official payroll into these crown corporations, and that they will in the next election claim that they have reduced the civil service by -- at the moment the projections are 3,000 people that will staff these crown corporations. These people will be all moved out of the civil service. They will retain all of the benefits that they have in the civil service and they will have all of the seniority.

1630

Why can we not get an assurance from the government that these people who are being moved off will be reported as employees of the government in the next election? I've asked this question more than once. To date, we have had no answer from the government whatsoever to assure us that these employees will still be shown as civil servants. You have the opportunity when you respond to say, "It ain't so," but we still haven't heard the government refute that.

What we are suggesting is that these 3,000 employees are in fact being moved off for very crass political reasons, because certainly they'll enjoy all of the benefits they have had so far.

Let's just talk a little bit about when the government tried to sell GO rolling stock. The GO rolling stock was to be sold for some $350 million and it was to be leased back by GO. I can tell you that as a commercial real estate broker, I'm aware that usually a sale and leaseback is one of the last-gasp efforts of companies to try to survive.

When they tried to sell the GO rolling stock, they went to the federal government -- and this is very interesting -- and they said, "We would like to sell this rolling stock offshore." Under the normal scheme of things, a 15% withholding tax on the lease payments would have had to be remitted to the federal government. This government said it didn't want to have that 15% withholding. They wanted the payment to be remitted in full to the offshore owner, which would enhance the offshore owner's position.

If that is the case, what they are trying to do is use the tax loopholes -- they call them loopholes -- they are always talking about in other countries. I guess they would then become government welfare bums, because they want to use other tax regimes in order to bail them out. The federal government was supposed to come through with this waiving of the withholding tax, 15% of the net payment, which would be remitted to the federal government.

There can be no doubt about it: The federal government can't afford to be giving out those funds. Why would the provincial government be asking them to do this if it wasn't just to try to goose its own investment so that it looks a little bit better? However, I have to say that after almost a year of trying, they still haven't managed to sell the GO assets, because people are very concerned about the credibility of this government.

The assets that have been built up over many years, predominantly by the successive Conservative governments and to some extent by the Liberal government, are now to be sold off and the revenues from those sales are to be shown in general revenue as revenue from that same year. The successive governments will inherit the debt.

Let's just talk about some of the other problems this government is creating. They have moved to change drivers' licences from three years to five years, and in some cases it works out to be six years. The next government will have a two-year window when it will receive virtually no income whatsoever. We believe the government is now looking at a scheme to change auto licence plates to be two years instead of one year. Conveniently, they will bring that in in the last year of their administration. So once again they will realize income that the next government will not have. The next government will have significant shortfalls just with car licences. I can tell you that it amounts to some $80 million per year that the next government will not have for the first two years.

Let's look at the water and sewage corporation. The water and sewage corporation is very favoured by those organizations from the trade who would like to start rebuilding our very poor water and sewage infrastructure. We urgently need this problem to be addressed, and there could be no better time than the present, when there are a lot of construction workers out of work, to get the best prices in renewing them.

In order to make the water and sewage corporation work, we will have to move to what is known as full cost recovery. At the moment, many of the water and sewage companies show theoretically a profit on typically $250 or $300 per year for a single house, but that's based upon the fact that they're using very old infrastructure which has long been completely amortized. If we go to full cost recovery, inevitably we will face payments of a typical household of between $500 and $750 per year.

Those significant increases could be borne if the government would reduce taxes in other areas. Traditionally, they have given grants to the new infrastructure, but in this case they're going to full cost recovery. So the property taxpayer is once again negatively impacted by this government.

Let's not put the blame on just this government. All governments in Canada at virtually every level are spending too much money and finding innovative ways -- that's the latest catch term -- of financing infrastructure. The fact is, they have been wasting money, dribbling it away in all kinds of ways instead of reinvesting. If we can get the government to reinvest, our party applauds it, but we don't want this to be some insidious plan to hide the debt. There can be no doubt that the bond-rating agencies see through this ruse because they've already commented in some detail on their concerns, but the poor, innocent taxpayer doesn't know what this government is doing. Certainly, they were told at the beginning of this year that the deficit was $9.2 billion. It was never $9.2 billion.

We have some opportunities in this bill to begin to move towards having more rational accounting methods applied to these corporations. These corporations undoubtedly will come to pass simply because the government has the votes in the House. They have a majority. They will pass this bill. But I would ask them to contemplate this: Does it not seem like an appropriate time to move to new standards of accounting practices, as the accountants have suggested? We should update the way that all governments account for all of their activities, preferably with accrual accounting.

The auditor has said he's concerned that he was only getting small amounts of information dripped out to him through leaks to his staff. Why is it that this government cannot be consulting with the auditor from the very beginning, if in fact this is not a scheme to hide money? Why is it that this government is creating a crown corporation to go into partnership on building roads when the roadbuilders have indicated there is no need to have that crown corporation? It will not speed up a partnership; it will just simply be another cog in this huge wheel.

I see once again my friend from Oxford is nodding his head. Go out and talk to these people. I urge you to. Have you? I would suspect you haven't gone out and spoken to these people. I would suspect that you haven't talked to the banks. I would suggest that you haven't talked to the business people who are negatively impacted by the massive buildup in debt that your government is engaging in. We now have a debt in this province, on the government's official books, of over $72 billion. The government has doubled the debt in just three years. This has got to be an Olympic record. We are now supposed to be the third-largest borrower on international money markets in the world.

1640

Let me just read this in. This is from a Globe and Mail article by Peter Cook:

"From the latest issue of Euromoney, we learn a lot about where Canadian governance stands relative to that of other lands. The magazine has a list of what it calls 'the world's best credits' of the past year, which is financespeak for the guys that are mortgaging the future fastest.

"Among the great borrowers of the world, the province of Ontario is in fourth place overall. Ahead of it are the European Investment Bank, the Kingdom of Sweden and the World Bank. Behind it, the governments of Finland, Britain and Italy. In fiscal 1992-93, Ontario went to global bond markets for $8.6 billion."

As we stand here debating this very issue, the debt clock is running overtime. It's a debt that none of the members in this House are going to pay for. Your children, my children and maybe their children are going to have to pay for it. Have no doubts about it, the implications for Ontario in terms of being an attractive place to invest or to grow your business are diminished by this kind of activity.

I know the automatic reaction by the government is to say "You're wrong," but listen to what the auditor says, listen to what the international monetary markets are saying, listen to what the newspapers are saying. We know you don't agree with us. We are the opposition. Listen to what the authorities in --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What is that, the Sun?

Mr Turnbull: No, it isn't the Sun. This is the Globe and Mail.

If you don't like it, go out and speak, as I have, to international bankers. They are most alarmed by what this government is doing. They see through what you're doing, but they're concerned that you're going to leave this marvellous province in tatters, and that is my concern.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any questions or comments?

Mr Sutherland: Let me just say the member for York Mills's party has talked a lot over the years about making government more effective, making it more innovative, doing some things on a cost-recovery basis; then when we start doing some innovative things, they don't like it and they criticize it and say it's the wrong approach. They can't have it both ways.

The member for York Mills raised concerns about accountability in general and about accountability for schedule 4 agencies. First of all, let me say that the Minister of Finance has already indicated that we're willing to go to an accrual basis, as the Institute of Chartered Accountants and as the auditor have suggested, for keeping the books.

With respect to schedule 4 agencies, there is a far larger degree of accountability there. First of all, there are minister's directives, and right in the legislation, chief executive officers of the corporations must follow those directives and must implement those directives.

The other forms of accountability: He talked about concerns the auditor raised about memorandums of understanding. There is currently a process in place between the auditor and a deputy minister's committee, I believe the Secretary of Management Board. They are working on a process of setting up a legislative accountability framework as was recommended by the public accounts committee; they are working on that framework. When that framework is in place, that will apply to these crown corporations as well, as will all the other Management Board directives and provincial government directives on accountability. There is extensive accountability for the actions of these corporations.

Let me talk about the number of civil servants. All civil servants transferred to schedule 4 agencies will still be considered civil servants under the Public Service Act.

Finally, as I've said earlier, the joint --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate hearing the member draw to the attention of the House some of the deficiencies that exist in this bill and particularly the purpose of it. I want to commend, as I did the last speaker, the initiative the member has taken in pointing that out.

I'm sure if I were to go back and look at the Hansards, I could quote from questions which were directed to the previous government on the issue of the water corporation, for instance. I could probably find, if I were to go through the clippings, many of the environmental groups which at that time had a very great concern about the establishment of a water corporation, and others who could see a developer behind everything that existed.

Yet here we have a government which has turned itself over to the developers, apparently, because they are very much in favour of this particular bill. I'm surprised to see that, although I know that the NDP does accept donations now from the corporate sector, which they didn't before. I'm quite surprised by that, but nothing should surprise me any more.

I think the speaker has appropriately pointed out in his remarks to the House the dangers that are inherent in this. Certainly I hope to have the opportunity in a few minutes to outline very briefly my concerns about this bill, because I believe we are moving in a direction which points to less accountability. I think the member expressed his concerns about that lack of accountability we have in this House. More and more, we are moving outside of the House with various agencies. We have the training agency that's out there that has a lot of good ideas and in principle sounds very good, but it takes the jurisdiction outside of this House and it diminishes the role of each member who is elected. We're the only people who are directly accountable to the people, because at election time we must answer to those people. I'm glad the member raised many of those issues and I'm sure he will in his response.

Mr Stockwell: I respond firstly to the member for York Mills, and of course Oxford, who responded to him. I think he's confusing a couple of things. He's confusing two words, "accountability" and "credibility." I think the member for Oxford does a rather good job of it, but he mouths the accountability angle. Much like your predecessor, much like your government, you mouth the accountability angle.

The difficulty you're faced with is that there's a credibility gap. You said a lot of things when you were in opposition that were important to you and needed to be done, and of course they haven't been done. You had a lot of concerns you wanted to address when you came to government, issues that were fundamental to your beliefs that haven't been dealt with; in fact, dealt with exactly opposite from what your fundamental belief was when coming into power. I don't know how you can shake your head. I think of Sunday shopping, public auto insurance, casino gambling; the list is literally endless.

When you stand before this Legislature and the people of Ontario and say, "There's accountability; we will build it into the legislation," as the member for York Mills was saying, the fact is that the people out there simply don't believe you any more, because the auditor says what he does, because you've understated every deficit since you came to power, because you've understated your revenue since you came to power. Don't go to the racetrack, for heaven's sakes; you'll be broke when you leave. You can't guess anything, let alone come in with a reasonable estimate.

Don't confuse the two. There is accountability, but there's also credibility. With credibility goes a track record, and your track record is rather spotty when it comes to principled issues, when it comes to financial issues and now when it comes to giving your word and living by it.

I only make one more point: If you want to know who really thinks you have a credibility problem, talk to your transfer partners, because you've told them a whole bunch of things since you came to power and not many have come true.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr Mammoliti: The previous member talks about credibility. This particular bill has everything to do with credibility, and perhaps I've got to remind the member for Don Mills what happened in committee.

Mr Stockwell: York Mills.

Mr Mammoliti: York Mills, my apologies. In committee, to my recollection, and I could be wrong, there wasn't one person who was opposed to this, and the questions that arose in committee time and time again were of course about credibility.

What do people want? People want to work. The people in Ontario want to work, and I would think the member would have learned his lesson from the federal election. The reason your party has collapsed is because you couldn't provide them with that credibility your colleague is talking about. The federal party collapsed because it could not offer people jobs. They could not do it. This bills does, and consistently in committee people were telling us that this will provide those short-term jobs people need, and long-term.

1650

Let me talk to you about one of the questions I posed -- and you talk about cooking books. One of the questions I posed was -- and it couldn't be further from the truth, by the way -- "If we are cooking the books, if the government is doing it, but yet you've already said that we're providing jobs, would you mind?" Most of the people said, "No, as long as my people work, I'm happy."

Listen to what the people are saying. They want to work. They're happy with the bill. They know it's going to provide them with short-term and long-term jobs. You Conservatives are predictable. We know exactly what you're going to say in this place.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. The member for York Mills, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Turnbull: There was such a wealth of comments that I would like to respond to them all, but I won't be able to. I will start out by talking to the member for Oxford. He talks about accountability. If you really believe in accountability, why isn't it in the legislation? Why do we get these comments by the auditor that he is concerned? He had this peekaboo process, where all of the methods which he was offered were appearing and disappearing, and he talks about the memorandum of understanding not being a satisfactory method. There's an opportunity for you to start true accountability. If you believe in it, do something.

I noticed, and I was particularly paying attention to the fact that you, who were here for the whole of my debate and heckled through a good deal of the debate, did not refute on one occasion the fact that you are going to claim in the next election that you reduced the debt and that you took those people off the books.

Mr Sutherland: I answered your question.

Mr Turnbull: You did not, sir.

Mr Sutherland: I did.

Mr Turnbull: It's hilarious when the member for Yorkview talks about the federal election. I would have thought you should have learned one lesson in the federal election, and that is, arrogant governments get kicked out.

Mr Mammoliti: Don't sit and preach to me, my friend.

Mr Turnbull: Quite frankly, just tell me, sir, one riding in this province of Ontario where the federal Tories came behind the federal NDP. That is why our demand for the resignation of Mr Rae, because an awful lot of your own federal brethren are saying that he was responsible for the collapse of your party.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: I suppose in your debate you would suggest that the ends justify the means. I don't believe that. I believe we should have full accountability, and that is what the taxpayers expect, no more, no less. We don't believe you're offering this. You're trying to cook the books.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Any further debate.

Mr Bradley: I'm looking forward to the opportunity to comment on this legislation. The member for Oxford is exercised by the fact that I would participate in this debate, because he's hopeful that the legislation will speed through this House.

But I do want to recall for members' memory in this House that in fact there was opposition to this particular agency from two very important people, and I'll be able to quote them in just a moment.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview, the member for Etobicoke West, I would ask you to refrain from heckling. The member for Grey also. The member for St Catharines, you have the floor.

Mr Bradley: One of the points that I have tried to make to all members of the House, I think particularly to members of the government back bench and perhaps to some of the newer members of the Legislature, is this trend towards the diminishing of the power of elected representatives.

What this legislation means, as so many pieces of legislation mean, is that those who are directly accountable to the people, those who must go to the people in an election campaign to put their job on the line, those who get to talk to people at the local level in terms of their constituents, are people who are having their role diminished. Most of the power is being concentrated into the Premier's office. We know that most of the legislation that comes forward, most of the regulations, most of the policies originate with the non-elected people in the Premier's office and the Premier's advisers.

The member for Welland-Thorold has documented this on many occasions. I recall seeing him on a cable television show with the member for St Catharines-Brock where he certainly was quite vociferous in indicating to the viewers of that program that he felt a concern about too much power being concentrated in non-elected people in the Premier's office. He suggested that perhaps there was too much thinking from downtown Toronto and not enough thinking from the hinterlands of Ontario. Whether that's true or not I don't know, because I'm not part of the government, but I know that the member for Welland-Thorold is widely respected in his own constituency and there were a lot of people there who happened to believe that.

But I look at various things that are happening with this government and see a trend towards the diminishing of the power of elected representatives. I don't think that's good for the democratic system. I could rail on against this for other reasons, but I think it's important that we as elected legislators insist that we are going to have some input into legislation, into the ongoing operation of government.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The member for Guelph is interjecting on the other side and thinks I'm trying to be partisan about this when in fact I think this is something that affects all of us. When I was on the government side I opposed this particular legislation. There were some proponents of that legislation on the government side, including the Treasurer of the day who thought that a water agency would be fine. But I had a couple of responses that came from the opposition. When the opposition was thinking about this, there were some statements that were made.

Mr Stockwell: Who made them?

Mr Bradley: Perhaps the member for Etobicoke West will be able to determine that when he hears what is said.

Mr Stockwell: Let me guess. Don't say who it is. I'll guess.

Mr Bradley: The member is guessing. First of all, I'll read this. A member rose in the House on May 1, 1990, May Day, which used to be important to the NDP but now is a day of shame because it is busy breaking strikes and bringing in legislation which will abrogate contracts, much to the chagrin of my good friend Bob White, who is also a good friend of the member for Guelph.

Anyway, this person said this, and I think this is relevant. You were a member of the House, Mr Speaker, at this time. You may recall this person saying this.

"I would like to respond to the statement today by the Minister of Municipal Affairs about our new public utility to create a clean water and sewer system.

"I thought that it was the mandate of this government to provide a secure supply of clean water. I did not think we needed a new crown corporation to do that. I thought we had the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement, supposed to be in place in 1989, that was going to clean up the discharges from our sewer systems. Do not forget, Mr Speaker, that in the 1987 election campaign we had the Liberals' election plank of the LifeLines program, which was going to rehabilitate the infrastructure, the sewage systems and the drinking water plants. Why is that not good enough today? Why do we need a new crown corporation?

"What we need is more capital to replace our infrastructure. With that, I would agree. But I still do not see why a utility is required to put that in place. The statement talks about the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is responsible for local government finance and community planning. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs is not responsible for protecting the environment, and that is our primary concern about this shift in responsibility.

"There is silence in the statement with respect to the legislation to implement this policy. We assume we are going to see legislation. What is it going to contain? We are certainly going to want to have extensive public hearings, so that we can get public comment on this shift in responsibility that the government is taking.

"I think the critical phrase in this announcement occurs in the middle of the second page where it says that the utility will build and operate facilities in cooperation with municipalities and the private sector. That is what this is all about. That is what this represents.

"It represents that the development industry is now going to be setting the priorities, driving the agenda and determining where the money is to be spent. That is not good enough. It does not reflect the commitment to the environment that we thought this government had. It does not reflect the announcements we keep hearing from the Minister of the Environment, who is not even here to be part of this announcement.

"Where is he? Has he gone underground now that Project X has surfaced again? The Minister of the Environment has gone underground. That is a true statement of where this government is at."

1700

Now, members may wonder who said that in the House, because the government is now proposing such legislation. Well, I will tell you. It is the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the former Minister of the Environment, Mrs Grier, whom I've had a great deal of respect for over the years. I always thought she would be opposed to this kind of legislation, opposed to the establishment of the crown corporation. But I see that obviously her mind has changed or she was unable to persuade members of the cabinet that in fact we should not have such a corporation.

There is mention made of Project X in here, yet I heard the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Cooke from Riverside in Windsor, rise in the House and announce the implementation of Project X, something his Minister of the Environment, with the assistance of some people outside of government, was able to block the previous government from moving on. But the Minister of Municipal Affairs of the day, Mr Cooke, simply steamrolled over the Minister of the Environment, with the assistance of cabinet colleagues, and Project X was implemented. There were rounds of applause from the development industry as this government capitulated to that.

Mr Stockwell: That may have been a different member from Etobicoke.

Mr Bradley: No, it was the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mrs Grier.

I just want to say again, because I think this is an important line, "It represents that the development industry is now going to be setting the priorities, driving the agenda and determining where the money is to be spent. That's what happens," she said, "when you have a crown corporation."

But there was another person who had a statement on this. On June 20, 1990, a person who has had to change his mind on so many occasions, in fact a person whose pronouncements sound like they would come from a Progressive Conservative government on occasion, states as follows --

Mr Stockwell: John Tory.

Mr Bradley: No, I don't think John Tory would be the person, because John Tory has egg all over his face for those particular commercials that he authorized, making fun of the now Prime Minister, so it can't be John Tory. But it says here the following:

"Since Mr MacLaren is here I simply want to wish him well in his new responsibilities." This was the person who was to be head of this water corporation that the NDP opposed. "There may be one or two in the House who are disappointed by the announcement, but I would think that number would be very small. I think the number of those who are supportive of the announcement will be much, much greater.

"I say to Mr MacLaren that we on this side of the House have been critical of the establishment of the agency, rather than keeping it under the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment."

He goes on to say that "he will simply say that this is now the responsibility of the agency and there is nothing he can do about it."

How did that arise? It arose as follows:

"The minister concluded his statement by saying that he wanted to continue to assure the people of the province that they would have clean water. I would say to the minister that he knows perfectly well the political consequences of what the government has done. That is, if there is any problem with respect to the provision of clean water to the citizens of the province, every time we ask a question of the minister, he will say that it is now the responsibility of the agency and there is nothing he can do about it."

You may wonder who had to say that. It was none other than the person who now occupies the Premier's chair in this House, Mr Bob Rae, the member for York South. That is the person who had that to say about this agency.

Yet we see this government today, a government that is desperate to get the debt off the books and to have any further debt accumulated in corporations the way W.A.C. Bennett -- Wacky Bennett, as they used to call him -- in Social Credit used to do. Wacky Bennett, father of Bill Bennett, a fairly recent Social Credit Premier of British Columbia, used to say to the people of British Columbia: "We don't have a debt. We don't have a deficit in this province." But what had happened was that he had assigned it to various crown agencies, and so of course there was no debt.

If I thought there was some merit in this, if I thought the intention of the government was genuinely to improve things in this province by the implementation of this legislation, I would say, whether I agreed with it or not, that at least the proper intention was there. But I know what the intention is. I know because I look at what the position of this government was in the past. I'm sure there are members of the present government who would like to see Hansard destroyed after one or two years, and that's because we wouldn't be able to quote from it now.

There are many other quotes, and I must say there were some allies in this. The CBC, I remember, called about it. Radio Noon was interested. Metro Morning -- or, as we used to call it, NDP Noon and NDP Morning -- called about it. They asked questions and said: What are you doing? Are you turning this over to the development industry? What are you doing establishing a clean water agency?

But I do not recall any calls coming into the opposition now or to the government about the establishment of this agency from either Radio Noon or Metro Morning or As It Happens, any of the CBC programs. I know they're probably interested. Maybe they didn't know the bill was before the House, because if they did, I'm sure they would be asking the same tough questions of an NDP government that they did of previous governments that have sat in this Legislature. I know they're very neutral. I know that none other than Rodney Palmer, who is the producer of Radio Noon, will be calling tomorrow to the Premier and to Mrs Grier to ask why they have changed their position on this particular piece of legislation.

There were those in the environmental groups who I'm sure were environmentalists first and socialists second. I'm sure that is the case. They probably had a press conference called to denounce this and were out in the scrum outside, the gathering where the reporters are outside, to pronounce against the establishment of a clean water agency.

Now we find out that those people seem to be silent, and I wonder what has happened with those people, because I know they're environmentalists first. I know they're not just New Democrats out there explaining and apologizing for NDP legislation which is similar to legislation introduced by the previous government.

I know that there are other agencies out there; there's a training agency, for instance.

To go back to my initial concern, my concern is that all of you, by acquiescing to this legislation, by not fighting it in caucus, by not calling the Premier to account as Mel Swart wants to call him to account today -- I would guess, although I can't say for sure, Mel would be alarmed by this legislation, because Mel was very concerned about the potential for such an agency being used for development purposes as opposed to environmental purposes.

I was very pleased to see my former colleague from Welland-Thorold calling a press conference to discuss matters of mutual interest to many in the caucus who are very quiet today about this. But I understand that; I'm not being critical of that. I know he would be concerned about such legislation.

There wasn't a major announcement outside this House, as we had in the Niagara region yesterday, where we had a gathering of none other than three ministers to reannounce a program that the Liberals had already introduced in 1989 and put forward to continue. I notice the St Catharines Standard even today said it must be really tough times when you've got three ministers and a guest list of 60 -- which, by the way, did not include the member for St Catharines -- at Queen's Landing, that posh hotel the NDP had their caucus at. But I notice there was no announcement similar to that.

I must say, if I may divert a bit, that what you will find out on the government side is that it's extremely unwise to exclude members of the opposition from something like this. First of all, it's bad manners, and second of all, it doesn't pay off politically in the long run. I remember the Tories used to do that, and my friends in the New Democratic Party whom I sat with and I used to be critical of this.

In fact, I well recall, speaking of government operations, which this bill implies: When they were constructing the courthouse in St Catharines and they had the final opening, guess who was not invited on to the platform? The member for St Catharines. At the instigation of a local Tory lawyer, I had to scale the wall; I had to elbow aside the security agents and announce at the platform that as the local member, of course I had something to say about this.

I thought that would never happen again, but it did happen as this major announcement was made in the Niagara Peninsula. I don't know if the present member for Welland-Thorold was invited or not, but certainly I'm told that in the remarks that were made, he was given no credit for this program. So the member for Welland-Thorold and I have been excluded from this as members from the Niagara region.

I'm sure that was simply an oversight, but I want to tell you what a mistake you make when you do that as a government, and the present Treasurer, who is a very close friend of mine, will tell you what a mistake you make when you do those things. It doesn't pay off politically to do it, first of all, if you can't understand that there's courtesy. However, I just brought this into the discussion with this bill because I was wondering why there wasn't such an announcement made in this particular case.

My friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, in previous discussions of bills before this House, has in fact stated his concern about an agency which was set up for training. It has some enviable goals; it sounds very good. But as I spoke on that bill, I said what it does is it takes it out of the control of this Legislature. So whether you're in government or opposition shouldn't really matter; what you want to ensure is that you, as individual members, are making certain you are carefully scrutinizing these agencies, boards and commissions. As soon as you make them arm's length, you have much less control over them either as individual members of a caucus or as members of a committee because you simply can't get at them the way you can with a government department. There's simply not the same degree of accountability.

1710

I want to see infrastructure renewal take place in this province. I think most members of this House believe that could be useful. I don't think we need these agencies to do it. That's a personal point of view that I've indicated on many occasions. If we want to build roads, if we want to build bridges, if we want to replace railway tracks, and I'm particularly concerned about sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants, if we want to spend the money on those things, we don't need such an agency to do it.

But they're good investments. I think the previous federal government -- and I don't say this in a partisan sense; I say it as a political observer -- missed the boat in not wanting to fund those particular projects, in the middle of a recession particularly, because the companies that are doing this work, the workers themselves who have to do the work, need the jobs at this time. When the economy is booming, when you're out of a recession, the private sector will have lots of work for those people to do. Also, when we want to attract new business to this province, it seems to me that it's nice to have, as we come out of the recession -- and I hope we do -- an infrastructure in place that's attractive to those who want to make investments in this province instead of somewhere else.

I express worry about this. Some of my colleagues may have less worry than I have about these agencies, but having served in this House for going on 17 years and having sat on many committees where we tried to get at agencies that are at arm's length, I found it's much more difficult to do that than it is when you have it under a government department.

As well, I think many of these decisions are political decisions. I don't mean partisan decisions in that you're going to do something for one person's constituency as opposed to another; I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the fact that if a government in power believes, for instance, that water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants are exceedingly important and deserve to have the most funding, and if it knows this should be done based on environmental concerns rather than development concerns, if it's directly under the purview of a ministry, particularly the Ministry of Environment, it's much superior to keeping it at arm's length to achieve that.

There is a worry, a genuine concern that was expressed by Mrs Grier and by Mr Rae, who are now on the government side, that there would be more concern about providing these infrastructure pieces for development purposes as opposed to environmental purposes.

I want to say to members, many of whom understand this, particularly from some of the rural areas but also the urban areas, that it's exceedingly important that the priorities go to those areas which need the upgrade in the water treatment plant or the sewage treatment plant based on environmental concerns. There are a lot of communities out there that would like to expand the plant or to build a plant so they can accommodate development, and that may well be one of the concerns of government and that is something that has to be done, but I think priority must go to providing improvements even in existing plants.

The member for Sault Ste Marie is here. I well recall that there was a problem with the Sault Ste Marie sewage treatment plant. The Sault has gone through extremely difficult times because of layoffs, because of restructuring, because of the general economy. Sault Ste Marie would have a difficult time, of its own volition and with the help of the government, to upgrade its sewage treatment plant to what I think sewage treatment plants in this province should be.

I don't think an agency such as this is the vehicle to do it. I think the member for Sault Ste Marie has much more influence on his cabinet colleagues the Minister of Environment and Energy and the Minister of Municipal Affairs than he has on an arm's-length agency.

I would be very supportive of the member for Sault Ste Marie making a bid to his colleagues in the House, getting up and asking a question in the House of his colleagues about the potential for funding flowing from the provincial government, and hopefully from the federal government, to upgrading a sewage treatment plant.

This agency, in my view, is not the vehicle to achieve that, but rather keeping it where it is now, under the purview of the government. I know other members who've had very great difficulties with water which is not as nice as they would like it to be when it is delivered to the home, but particularly the treatment of sewage. There aren't as many people lining up to fix up those plants as there are to expand plants or to create new plants to accommodate development.

I appeal to the members of the government. I don't know how much good it does these days because the cabinet certainly has the power and the Premier's office has all the power, but I think there's an important exercise for members of a government, and that exercise takes place on Tuesday mornings -- I don't know when the NDP has its caucus meetings -- from 9:30 or 10 o'clock through till the noonhour. That's where elected representatives, people who have to face people on a daily basis, get their chance to speak out, get their chance to bring to the attention of those who have the most powerful positions, those in the cabinet and some of the Premier's assistants who sit around and are supposed to be listening to what the members are saying.

Rather than polls and the government spending a lot of money on polls again, even though the Premier said he was opposed to spending on polls, a better listening post for the Premier and the cabinet ministers in fact exists in members of the caucus. That's true of the three parties that are represented here, but I think it's particularly important for the government simply because the ministers and the Premier tend to get ministeritis, tend to spin a cocoon around themselves and say, "We will listen to what the experts say, we will listen to the civil service, we will listen to the political gurus who tell us what we should be doing, and those people in the caucus are just here to keep us in power." I hope that's not the case.

I think sometimes the caucus can have an influence when there's a caucus revolt taking place. Not the kind I see right now; I'm not advocating that they throw the Premier out; that's up to the NDP caucus to decide. I'm talking about on issues as opposed to whether you won the last election or did poorly in the federal election; that's not what I'm concerned about here. I think you have a chance to influence the various ministers, speaking to them directly and speaking in caucus. You don't have that if you start peeling these various parts of ministries off and giving them to crown corporations, where you'll set up a corporation, they'll have an expensive president, an expensive vice-president and a bureaucracy of their own and, I tell you, they will isolate themselves from members of this Legislature.

If there's any chance to reconsider, I hope you will implore the Premier and others who are in power to change their minds on this legislation. I have spoken particularly about the water corporation because I particularly opposed the water corporation when I was the Minister of the Environment.

As I said, I had colleagues in my cabinet and my government who disagreed with me on that occasion and there were many, many discussions that took place. I'm sure the same thing must have happened behind closed doors with this government, because there would be people over there who recalled that debate, who recalled what environmentalists had to say, who recalled the dangers that were pointed out when you establish corporations of this kind.

I would think that shouldn't be a legacy of -- I'm surprised at an NDP government doing that. I could understand more so, philosophically, I guess, a Liberal or a Conservative government doing that. It's less understandable for an NDP government because I would have thought it would want to keep that control in the hands of those who are closest to the people.

1720

I see a tendency all over, not just here, to start diminishing the role of legislators. One only needs to go out to the reporters and others who are outside covering this Legislature to see what happens. They now cover what the minister has to say, because that person's views do count, that's important, and then other members simply don't count. Unless they're prepared to disturb the others within their own caucus, unless they're prepared to be independent, unless they're prepared to do something radical, the opposition and the government backbenchers become more and more irrelevant. In fact, the interest groups now tend to be interviewed.

Mr Sutherland: Oh, come on.

Mr Bradley: The member for Oxford should look at this carefully. Watch what happens when you go outside. The minister goes outside, the minister is interviewed and then the people who have an interest outside, such as the doctor who may be quarrelling with the Minister of Health or the environmentalist quarrelling with the Minister of the Environment and Energy, now stand in the periphery of the scrum, of the group of reporters out there.

After the minister has finished, they then interview that person. They don't interview other members of the Legislature that often. They don't interview members of the opposition that often. More and more, that's because we have less input. There is more control now in the hands of outside people than there is in the hands of those who sit in the Legislature.

The members who are not members of the cabinet, every time you allow the cabinet to parcel off more and more of what should be the direct responsibility of government you diminish your own role as an elected legislator. I think it's time we stopped this. I think part of the appeal in fact of the Reform Party, which received a lot of votes, whether people like it or not, in this province as well as some other provinces, one of the things that appealed -- and some people didn't like everything about the Reform Party -- was the access, the apparent access that one would have to the system, to their members, the accountability of members.

I'm not saying that I agree with what they were proposing in terms of accountability.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: What I am saying is that the message is out there. If the member for Middlesex doesn't understand that, then she's not a very keen observer of the political system in this country. If you do not understand that, member for Middlesex, then you do not understand what that message was.

I think it's a message that has to be listened to. I don't think the proposals for solving that problem were ones that I would necessarily agree with, but I think it is a message out there nevertheless. If we simply spin that cocoon around ourselves here in this legislative body, in what we call Queen's Park, then we will all pay the price again: another group coming in that may have views which are alien for the most part to the province and policies which are contrary to what most people believe in. We may have that kind of group move into power simply based on the fact that it says it is going to be more accountable.

They will use as examples the parcelling off of government departments and the turning over of the power of the legislator, of the parliamentarian to outside agencies which are not directly accountable to the people.

I hadn't necessarily planned to speak on the entire bill, and the Premier has ensured, through his rule changes that were implemented by the member for Windsor-Riverside -- I'm sure not of his own volition but at the orders of the Premier, because I know that having been a legislator in this House as long as he has and one who knew the importance of the individual member, he could not have been part of that particular operation.

That has limited my ability to speak on this legislation to only 30 minutes, but I hope I have been able to share with members of the House some points that were worthy of their consideration and that may have some effect on the final outcome of this legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I am surprised that a former Minister of the Environment doesn't understand the purpose of the Ontario Clean Water Agency and how it differs significantly from what was proposed by the former Liberal government of which he was a member.

Firstly, the reality is that Ontario needs significant infrastructure to deliver clean water and protect the environment with sewage treatment plants. Traditionally, we would fund that at a cost basis as projects came along and as the province was able to pay for it. Interestingly enough, at this point in time there are over 600 applications to the Ontario Clean Water Agency. Surely that demonstrates a need that we couldn't possibly finance if we were to do it in the traditional way.

Secondly, the Ontario Clean Water Agency will allocate funding according to some very specific criteria, and I would like to read from this booklet available to everyone, including the former Minister of the Environment, so that people will understand the priorities:

"Any project must address one or more of the following provincial policy priorities: (1) It must reduce and eliminate health or environmental risks; (2) promote new economic opportunities and sustain existing economic development; (3)" -- and this is very important -- "support development consistent with the provincial growth and settlement policy guidelines and municipal official plans."

That means that it is not going to be a tool of developers as it was under the Liberal plan. It will be supervised by the Minister of Energy and Environment and, as the member for Oxford indicated, OCWA will be an agency that must follow the directives of the minister. The purpose is to make this an environmental instrument, not an instrument of developers.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr Eddy: I wanted to speak very briefly on this matter and I appreciate the member for St Catharines bringing out the most important effect, the scariest and most worrisome part of Bill 17, and that's the diminishing role and rights of the Legislature, the elected members in this House, because that is scary and it is worrisome and it is what will happen.

The member for Middlesex has just stated that the required water infrastructure in this province could not be financed in the normal way. That may be true, but of course the government can use innovative ways at any time and in any way it wishes and if legislation is necessary can bring it in.

For over 40 years, the municipalities in this province have fought for the dissolution of special-purpose bodies, and they have gained it somewhat. Planning boards, for instance, have been dissolved. I don't know why we're now taking an opposite route in crown agencies, and I think it's improper. It's wrong and it's improper and we're opposed to it.

A transportation agency is one thing. In the case of special-purpose bodies, can we go back to the London-Middlesex fiasco when the member for Riverside decided that the London PUC, an elected body, should be dissolved. It was an elected body. Why? Because the city council did not want a special-purpose body, and I don't disagree with that and maybe others should be. Here we are, we're doing exactly opposite.

I'm opposed to it because I think it's diminishing, as stated by the member for St Catharines, the rights of the Legislature, the legislators, the elected members of this council, and who can agree with it? I cannot.

Mr Stockwell: There are not too many water lines and sewer lines that have been built, to my knowledge, that didn't necessarily include development. That's one of the reasons why they're built. You build these lines and they get developed. They develop around them. Much like roads, much like subways, much like all kinds of infrastructure that's built, when you build them people develop around them.

Anyone arguing that by building this we're not encouraging development is arguing contrarily to what the idea was in the first place. You're creating jobs, part of you say, and the other part of you is saying, "We're not creating jobs, we're dealing with environmental concerns, so we're going to build a bunch of sewers to no place and then not allow anyone to develop around them." It's absurd.

We've handled development applications for sewer projects, transportation projects, all projects over the last so many years, and we've handled them in-house within the bureaucracy setup and they've been handled rather well. Any of this legislation being brought forward today could easily be accommodated within the present bureaucracy.

So the member for Middlesex, standing in her place and making some inane argument that this isn't meant for development, runs counter to everything that this government is suggesting. This is a job creation plan. If you're not going to develop around these infrastructures, why would you build them in the first place, for heaven's sake?

1730

Mr Perruzza: It's indeed a pleasure to be able to respond in this very short time. What's really interesting is that in the middle of all of the political drivel that takes place in this place, there are at stake a whole lot of jobs for a whole lot of people who find themselves out of work, and have found themselves out of work for a long, long time.

Instead of moving on, and I see this as an initiative which says, "Let's get beyond the drivel and let's move on and do something that's meaningful," it's really quite interesting to hear Liberals and Conservatives, people who traditionally are seen to have very good business sense and very good business links, talk about a bill or a decision which makes sound business sense in such a negative, negative way.

If we're able to in some creative way move on with construction of sewers, move on with the construction of roads and create jobs -- create construction jobs, create spinoff jobs and, yes, I dare say to the member for Etobicoke West, create some other jobs which this kind of infrastructure spawns, like development -- these are good things.

If we're able to move that and if we're able to do that in a creative and substantive way, that's a good thing. There's nothing that's being hidden here. It's just providing a vehicle for some creative solutions to some very real problems and for creating some very, very needed jobs.

Mr Bradley: Thank you for the opportunity to respond very briefly to the responses to the remarks. I don't think the members who have seen this as simply a job creation vehicle are correct in assuming that. I think those jobs can be created without this vehicle. I happen to think this vehicle to create jobs is quite dangerous, and that's why I oppose this legislation.

As I say, if we were to have a free vote in the House on this, I suppose there may be some members of the government side who would have one view and some members of the opposition side who would have one view. I'm sure that I would say my members of the caucus don't all agree 100% with what I had to say on this.

I simply have a very great concern about this, because I'm trying to put forward the case that Mrs Grier, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the former Minister of the Environment and now Minister of Health, was putting forward in the last Parliament. And I'm trying to put forward the position of the member for York South, the Premier of the province, Bob Rae, on this particular bill. I know they had genuine concerns. I assumed they weren't playing politics at that time. My assumption was that they had genuine philosophical concerns and practical concerns about this kind of legislation.

What I am sorry to see is that somebody has persuaded them, whether it's the unelected people who are advising them or whether it's somebody from outside the Legislature altogether, but somebody, that in fact they should embark upon legislation which I think in the long run will not be beneficial to this province.

That argument is rather inane. Contrarily, on the flip side, I thought what was rather enlightening was the member for St Catharines' comments with respect to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ruth Grier, and the member for York South, Bob Rae, their debate with respect to a similar piece of legislation brought forward from the previous Liberal government. They opposed that legislation because they said it would fundamentally cut into the very agreements that they were cutting with respect to developers on infrastructures. So it is rather enlightening.

Unfortunately, once legislation of this kind is implemented, once these crown corporations are set up, it's then very difficult to end those crown corporations, and once again, we have a diminishing of the role of all members of this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed to the debate, I'd just like to bring to your attention two points.

The first one is that when questions and comments are asked, questions and comments should be made to the remarks, to the arguments, to the points brought by the speaker. In this instance, it was the member for St Catharines who debated for 30 minutes, but I notice as you brought questions and comments that they were not related at all to what was being said.

My second point: There was a ruling made by the Speaker. Let me read what was said at that time:

"I want to inform all members of the focus and scope of third reading debate, as set out in Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice as follows: 'Debate on third reading...is more restricted than at the earlier stage, being limited to the contents of the bill.'

"In the recent past in this Legislature, Speakers have, while exercising some latitude, intervened when members have deviated beyond the traditional scope of third reading debate.

"My reminder" -- I'm speaking on behalf of the Speaker -- "to all members is that the principle of the bill has been agreed upon in this House and that third reading debate should be restricted to the contents of the bill. The cooperation of all members with respect to this reminder is appreciated, and I would expect members to follow this ruling."

Further debate?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker -- I'm sorry; I'm actually not at my seat here. Now I am. With respect to the third reading debate, though, I think it's clearly understood that people can extrapolate from what is seen as the content of the bill and lay out suggested results of that. It's not just going section by section through the bill. A person does have some leeway to contemplate what the impact will be and what the outfall will be, and I think in some ways that perhaps does lead some of us slightly astray, but I don't want to be so tightly restricted that we cannot proffer certain circumstances or events that we believe will be the outfall of the passage of the legislation. I just want to make sure that's acceptable as well.

The Deputy Speaker: I hope the member understands that I don't want to participate in a debate. What I'm saying is, I'm using latitude. I will be using latitude. But sometimes people do go astray, and you have to be brought back to the debate.

A point of order?

Mr Stockwell: Yes. I would just ask the Speaker, when he examines the ruling that was made at that time, if he could also find out if, when that ruling was made or that statement was made to the Legislature or wherever it was, second reading debate at that time was limited to 30 minutes. If it was limited to 30 minutes, I think it's a fair comment. If there was no limit to speaking on second reading, I think it must allow greater latitude in third reading debate to the members who (a) weren't allowed to get on or (b) weren't allowed to get all their comments on during the second reading debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Very interesting argument, but I won't accept it. Further debate?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was just about to maybe get up and ask you if we could extend the time, because I've been waiting to get on here and we may have to go beyond 6 o'clock tonight yet.

Mr Bradley: We'd all have to stand up.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, we may have to have unanimous consent.

Anyway, I am pleased to speak 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, because I think the people of this province should realize how badly this government is attempting to deceive them. Now, I know a lot of the things I'll say have been said before, but it has to be said again, because the people out there have to know what this government is doing to them.

This bill will create four new agencies, four new sets of bureaucracy: the Ontario Realty Corp, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the sewer and water corporation and the Ontario Financing Authority. These are lovely names, but what do they mean?

The new crown agency called the Ontario Realty Corp is going to manage all of the government buildings. This is a wonderful idea except that we already have a bloated bureaucracy which is supposed to be doing this now. It's called the Ministry of Government Services. I wonder what they will do now.

The Ontario Transportation Capital Corp is badly needed, the government tells us, because it is going to build highways. It seems to me that we have a number of highways now in the province, all of which were built before the new agency was born. Somehow we managed to construct a decent system of transportation in this province, because the Minister of Transportation actually used to build roads. What will we do with that ministry now?

The sewage and water infrastructure project started many years ago in Ontario, but back then they were funded by the Ministry of the Environment.

The fourth agency, the Ontario Financing Authority, may be the most dangerous, because we know less about it than the others and because it involves big money. The idea of this government and big money is enough to scare anybody.

We do know that this agency is going to be a heavy borrower, lessening the Minister of Finance's load. It is somehow going to manage the province's finances and its debt, a debt which has doubled in the last three years and which is obviously going to get much bigger, except that we won't be able to see it clearly because it will be on the financing authority's books instead of the government's. This is the problem: We won't be able to get to the books, these books that they claim they cooked to create jobs. That's a good one, that one.

1740

Even though there is only one source of funding in Ontario and the taxpayer has already reached his limit -- there's no doubt that the taxpayers have had enough taxes put on them and they can't afford more, with more bureaucracy and more cooked books, as they call them over there. This is going to be another agency like the WCB, racking up debt with no thought for tomorrow and who is going to deal with it eventually. That would be one of us over here or the Liberals.

The Ontario Financing Authority is supposed to be taking on the responsibility of borrowing for school boards, for hospitals and for colleges, taking away the authority from this Legislature. This is one of my most serious concerns: that the agencies will be removed from the control of the House and the public, who are footing the bill and who elected us to represent them, will have no say in the decisions which are made and will be able to get no answers.

From now on, ministries in these areas will absolve themselves of any blame for unpopular decisions. They will claim no knowledge or responsibility for reckless spending and high debt. They will generally be able to stonewall with impunity. I guess the Treasurer must have no faith in these ministries any more or in their thousands of employees, because now he is setting up these new agencies to do exactly what the taxpayers of this province elected this government to do.

But as everyone knows, this government is in deep financial trouble because it had the ridiculous idea of spending its way out of the recession. When it came to power it proudly went ahead and spent billions and billions more than it had.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Is this third reading?

Mr Murdoch: Now, when it has finally awakened and realized it made a very serious mistake, the cabinet members began tripping over each other trying to think up ways to fool the auditor and make themselves look better in the eyes of the public.

Hon Mr Cooke: What's the use of saying there is a ruling if we're not going to implement it?

Mr Murdoch: That's what we're talking about, Mr Speaker, these four crown corporations. This is what this government is trying to set up. I hear the Minister of Education is worried about whether this is third reading. We'll inform you that it is third reading, in case you were lost in the debate. We'll let you know about that.

They decided to set up these brand-new corporations at a cost of $8 million which can borrow money to their heart's content, because these will be arm's-length agencies and their debts and their spending will not appear on the government books. This is the worst thing of all. People have criticized this government for its debt, and now it will be able to go on a merry spending spree and say, "Well, it's somebody else doing it," just like they're having trouble with WCB. There'll be four more of these.

Now the lucky taxpayers will be able to fund not only the ministries of Environment and Energy, Transportation and government services but they will also be able to fund these four new agencies, which are doing exactly what the ministries themselves should be doing, and ultimately be responsible for their debts as well.

The auditor has already made it clear that he does not approve of this government's method of creative accounting or cooking the books, and I can certainly see why. I am sure the Treasurer's new magic act of making the deficit decrease is not going to impress him very much either, especially as he and everyone else in the province will be able to find the rest of it pretty quickly on the books of these new corporations.

But the government is still hoping it can deceive the public. The NDP has built up a terrible reputation as money managers. They needed to do something quickly as they watched the deficit go through the ceiling, so they came up with the cute idea to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. That's what we're talking about, these four agencies; this is what they've come up with. They feel they can fool the public that their deficit isn't as big as they think it is, that they'll be able to hide it in these other agencies. Meanwhile, they won't be around to do their job; they'll be long gone.

The government members are trying to pretend that their only concern and the only reason for this legislation, and we're talking about the legislation, is the jobs it will create, but that's a lot of hogwash. As I pointed out before, we have highways, we have water and sewer projects and the provincial government has been in the realty business for years. None of this is new.

I might feel differently about Bill 17 if we could have an undertaking from the Minister of Finance that he will continue his magic act and that when these new corporations are established, the ministries of Environment and Energy and Transportation and government services will disappear. If this is what they intend to do, then maybe they should tell us this. If this is their whole scheme of operations, maybe we don't need ministries any more and we can get rid of them, but we know that's not what they want to do. They want to be able to run in the next election and say: "Hey, we got rid of a lot of bureaucrats. They're not here any more." This is why they're creating these new agencies, and this is what the bill is all about, creating these new agencies.

As long as the taxpayer in Ontario has to support two organizations with identical mandates, and while the government members parrot the party line without applying any logic whatsoever to their endorsement of this deceitful plan, I cannot and will not support this legislation.

The taxpayers of Ontario elected you to govern, you people over there. They expected the ministries and their ministers to do the work traditionally required of them, and the member gets excited over there about whether we're talking about the bill.

You were elected to govern, not create a bunch of bureaucratic nightmares. They didn't elect you to fob off your responsibilities or the tough decisions and put them at arm's length. That's not why you were elected. You were elected to run this government. They did not expect you to find scapegoats to bring in unpopular measures such as toll booths on highways. They did not expect you to fund them so you could hide your flagrant spending. That's what you're doing. You're going to hide them, trying to deceive them, but the bond agencies are fully aware of your responsibility.

The people of Ontario expect more. They don't expect the government over there to come along and create all these new agencies just so it can get out and say, "Hey, it wasn't us who did it."

Let's look at Ontario Hydro. You say that's at arm's length, that you can't help it, but their debt's our debt also. You like to say, "No, it isn't." You like to say: "That debt is somebody else's. It'll go away."

We talked about the WCB, and this is what they're creating, four more WCBs out of control. The next thing you know, we will see in the bill that they'll want to build new buildings for these corporations. Obviously, the WCB could have located downtown, there's lots of space to rent, but it had to build a big new building. By creating these new crown corporations the bill talks about, they will come up with the next idea, that we're going to need new buildings.

It's been said before and I think the member in front of me has said that in the next election we're going to hear Bob Rae, in his Agenda for People, saying, "We got rid of bureaucrats." But you know where they're going to be? They're going to be in these crown corporations that we're talking about in the bill. That's right, right in the bill, these four new crown corporations. That's what we're talking about here in third reading, four new crown corporations that are going to be created, and we're going to lose money.

The people of Ontario expect more. They deserve more. They're not getting good government. This will not help them out. All this will do is cause more debt, and the people don't need that.

1750

Mr Stockwell: How did they build roads before?

Mr Murdoch: The member in front of me mentioned something: How did they build roads before? How did they do that? Maybe the Minister of Transportation, if he were here, could explain that. How did they fund these roads before?

Now they need a whole new agency to build roads. This shows you maybe the incompetence of this government. They can't figure out how to run the ministries, so maybe this government has come up with an idea that they have to have a crown corporation to do these jobs. How do they build sewers?

Mr Eddy: They better get them back in shape.

Mr Murdoch: As my good friend from Brant-Haldimand mentioned, municipalities have been trying to get rid of things like this. But the thing about municipalities is that they can borrow money. "Hah," the government says, "There's an idea. Let's create a crown corporation. We can't borrow any money because we've put the Ontario government under. We've put the people of Ontario in debt so far that we can't borrow any money any more."

In the legislation, they talk about four new crown corporations and they can borrow money. They're going to say to the municipalities: "You can borrow with us. Let's put them in debt." But there is only one taxpayer and it's the same one who funds this place who funds the municipalities.

They elected people here to run the government, but these people don't want to run the government. They want to give it to some bureaucrat, some general manager in the four corporations that are in the bill, the four they mentioned. They want to slough off their responsibility because they don't know what they're doing. They have no idea what to do, so what they're going to do is say: "We'll pass a bill. We'll legislate our responsibility to people who aren't elected."

Now we're coming out of democracy. Democracy is electing people to make decisions. Now this government decides, "Hey, we don't need to have anybody elected." That will be the next thing, we won't need to have elections because we can all leave bureaucrats out there running these crown corporations who are going to look after everybody and they can borrow a whole bunch of more money. Then they'll go to the municipality and say, "You borrow some money too, because we have mismanaged this government so bad that we don't have any more borrowing power left and we can't borrow any money." So in the bill they create four new crown corporations.

The people of Ontario deserve more and they're going to get more. This cannot pass and I will not be supporting it. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I listened intently to the member opposite and his explanation about accountability to the voters. I'd just like to ask him what his position was then on stable funding.

He allowed a tax to be implemented on farmers which created a larger bureaucracy which taxed farmers, which took away the member's accountability to this Legislature to make sure that he represented the interest of farmers. But he stood very proudly in this Legislature and supported enlarging bureaucracy, supporting trade unions and at the same time he was taxing farmers and took away his accountability in this Legislature to those farmers.

So to the member opposite, when he speaks on one side of the issue about accountability --

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I listened very carefully -- just the last speaker you spoke to about questions and comments. I think you were very clear they must deal with the issue at hand and what the member spoke about with respect to questions and comments.

Not at any point in the debate offered up by the member for Grey-Owen Sound did he mention stable funding at all. I would ask you to direct the member for Chatham-Kent that stable funding is not on the platter today, it's third reading on the crown corporations act. You've got to bring him in line, Mr Speaker.

Mr Hope: As my time has been taken away by the point of order, I would ask that the clock be restored to its proper time.

I'm wondering if the member opposite would ever stand up and speak on behalf of his constituents, because some of the money that has flowed through this crown corporation does land in his riding and I know the people there are waiting patiently for the member's position that he takes.

Is he supporting the council or is he supporting the taxpayers in that community about an infrastructure that's very important? I know the citizens in his community -- and I'm waiting patiently for his answer on where he stands on the issue of the water and why he stood in support of a larger bureaucracy in the stable funding issue.

Mr Elston: Just a couple of comments. This bill is of interest to all of us but it is not of very much debate whether or not any of the members, on behalf of their ridings, are interested in getting assistance to put infrastructure in the ground one way or another.

There is, and I think the member for Grey-Owen Sound pointed out, some concern about how the moneys to be placed through these corporations are going to be accounted for. But for any member in this House to stand up and accuse another member either of not being interested in creating jobs or of turning away infrastructure assistance money for their riding seems to me to be somewhat jeopardizing the straight truth of the way things really are.

I want to say that the sections I dealt with when I was speaking on this bill are the ones which, quite frankly, concern a whole series of individuals. We know that roads have been built in this province for 126 years and longer. We know that watermains and sewers have been put in the ground for a whole series of decades under the auspices of the government of the day. We know that bridges have been built and we know that whatever the structure that is put in place, those bridges will be built, those jobs will be in place building the bridges and putting in the watermains and the sewers. All of those jobs are there to be dealt with if we have a government which is willing enough to put the money into the programs.

All this bill does is ensure that through a section in this very particular bill they can hide the amount of borrowings that are required to do that, and as a result it takes that out of the consolidated revenue fund. For my part, it is of interest to my constituents that they should know that this government isn't proud enough of those infrastructure programs to show it and display it proudly in their consolidated revenues. I think that is a point that has to be underscored time and time again.

Mr David Johnson: I would like to congratulate the member for Grey-Owen Sound. I think he's brought a number of excellent ideas into this debate in the House. He's asked, for example, do we need these agencies, have we in the past needed these agencies to provide the infrastructure in the province of Ontario?

He's pointed out that we have built roads, we have built bridges. He might have pointed out that in Metropolitan Toronto we built a very extensive subway system as a partnership between the province of Ontario and the people of Metropolitan Toronto, a subway system that's cost millions and millions of dollars, and yet we've done that without the benefit of an agency. We've also done that, I might add, when there was a Progressive Conservative government in office.

The member has asked, do we need an agency to create jobs? Will the agency promote jobs? The answer he's given is no, we do not need an agency; we need a commitment. There are jobs and projects today that can be pursued right here in Metropolitan Toronto. I've mentioned the subway lines. There are a number of subway lines: the Sheppard subway line. This province has made a commitment to extend the subway lines, the Sheppard subway line and the Eglinton subway line; complete the loop on the Yonge line and the Spadina line; and the LRT.

Those are projects that have been committed, but where is the money? What we need is money, and the member for Grey-Owen Sound is pointing out that this bill does not create any more money. So there will be no subways built, no jobs created, unless we come to grips with that.

Finally, he's talked about accountability and the fact that the people expect the elected representatives to make the decision, not some agency that's removed from the people.

Mr Perruzza: This bill moves jobs. It finds creative ways to generate the capital to create jobs and it makes good business sense. So if you support a decision that makes good business sense, then support this.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey-Owen Sound, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Murdoch: The first thing I would have to mention is the member for Chatham-Kent. It's unfortunate he missed the stable funding debate by about three weeks; maybe he'll find out next time when the debate is and he can come to the right debate. It is unfortunate. I just wonder where he's coming from when his party did support it also. But maybe, as I say, he missed the debate.

The thing about this bill we're talking about is credibility and what it's all about. Again, the people of this province elected you people over there to govern. You want to shove it off on the crown corporations. You don't want to take the responsibility of doing the job they gave you. There won't be any new jobs created. There just won't be.

You may change bureaucrats from one agency to another, but unless you're going to get rid of the ministries, then you're not gaining anything. The only thing you're doing is losing control of what you got elected to do. That's one of the big things -- the people elected you people to run this and you're going to give it away to some bureaucrat. Next you'll be telling us you don't need elections. That's the next bright idea you're liable to come up with.

I'm telling you that these crown corporations are not needed. In this day and age we don't need to be wasting money on setting up crown corporations and wasting our time with foolish bills like this just to take away your responsibility. I can't believe you people over there can't come up with something better than this in this House. You're wasting our time and your time on foolish bills that take away your responsibility.

I think it's about time you sat down in caucus and started thinking of some good bills that might help this economy to get going. With stuff like this, you're just going to keep us stagnant, and the ratepayers and the people in this province are going to boot you right out on your ass. There's no doubt about it. That's what's going to happen to you unless you smarten up and start doing something right over there.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there any further debate?

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that is the final speaker as far as I have been advised, except if the member for Oxford is going to wind up. But there has been an agreement among the three parties to have this vote taken by way of division before orders of the day tomorrow afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member for Oxford wish to make any remarks to wind up the debate?

Mr Sutherland: The debate has been very full and complete and everything has been dealt with, so I have no further remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: I will place the question.

Mr Sutherland moves third reading of 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.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

It has been agreed to defer the vote to tomorrow before the orders of the day.

It being past six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1803.

3 novembre 1993