ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO
Report continued from volume A.
House in committee of the whole.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT (NIAGARA ESCARPMENT), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT (ESCARPEMENT DU NIAGARA)
Consideration of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment / Projet de loi 62, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement à l'égard de l'escarpement du Niagara.
The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Duignan, any comments, any questions?
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have no comments or questions. I have no amendments at this time.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments or amendments?
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I have an amendment, if that's what you'd like right now.
The Chair: Yes, please.
Mr Murdoch: I have an amendment, moved by myself, under subsection 1(2).
I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the word "plan" in the fourth line and substituting "natural."
What this bill essentially does is remove any talk or anything of waste disposal systems as such on the whole Niagara Escarpment plan, which, as the bill is presented, says. What I propose in my amendment would be that it would remove any waste disposal systems and such in the natural area only.
I could explain that. In the Niagara Escarpment plan, what we have is a natural area which is the core of the plan. Then surrounding the natural area, we have what we call a protected area, and then out beyond that, we have a rural area. In the natural area is where generally the rockface or the wetlands or the swamps or anything like that are located. I believe this area should be protected, and in our area, in Grey, we've always protected that area, as you probably know.
But what has happened when the plan was drawn up was that people got a little lazy. What they did with the natural area was that they marauded through the countryside all the way from Niagara Falls to Tobermory, which is fine, and they picked out most of the natural area. There are some cases where they even missed some. They missed the whole town of Eugenia and in that area there's some beautiful rockface area that they missed. But going beyond that, the natural area, as I said, is most of the area that I think most of the people or maybe all of the people of Ontario would like to protect. What happened after that is that whoever was drawing the plan got a little lazy and went beyond that.
They picked out what we call the protected area and some of that area, actually, should have been put into the natural area, but it wasn't. What happened then is that they got lazy and they started to go by lot lines and concessions. They got, as I said, lazy, and they went far beyond any area that should be protected in the Niagara Escarpment.
1910
After they did that, they got even more zealous with their plan and put on a rural area, which in most cases shouldn't even be in the plan. Maybe down south and down around Halton and places like that, where it's a smaller area, they could include it, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of protected and rural area there, but when you get into Grey county, which has over 15% of its land mass in the Niagara Escarpment Commission and over 35% of the whole plan, from Tobermory to Niagara Falls, is in Grey county, we have a large amount of area that involves the Niagara Escarpment plan.
Unfortunately, what this bill does is that it excludes waste systems in this area in the whole area: the natural, the protected and the rural. Again, I want to make it quite clear that no one wants to put a waste system on the natural area, or they shouldn't anyway, and no one in Grey county wants to do that. But when we go into the rural area, there may be places that would be suitable for a dump. It's nice to say that on the Niagara Escarpment plan there shouldn't be any, and that's a nice, motherhood statement, but unfortunately over 35% of the plan area is in Grey county and over 14% of Grey county's mass is taken up by this plan.
Where we run into problems is that maybe in some of this rural area there may have to be a garbage dump, a station where we would put garbage to be picked up, a wayside station, or there may be transfer stations. Right now, Grey county is working on a plan for its garbage and it hasn't come up with any locations yet, but what happens if one of these areas in the rural area may want to do that? Because a lot of the rural area that comes out from the Niagara Escarpment is rock, stoney, and can't be developed as farm land.
We have now the Niagara Escarpment coming up with its new plans that we understand are going to be unveiled after the House closes, which is really a difficulty for me, to understand why the new plan couldn't have been implemented when we were in the House so that we could have at least spoken on it. They're going to make things even tighter. So we're really concerned in our area that we have so much of the Niagara Escarpment plan in our area that we shouldn't be eliminating some of the areas that may have to look at this.
I, myself, don't really want to see a garbage dump anywhere near the Niagara Escarpment, and I don't think many people in my riding would want to do that, but unfortunately, you start making rules like this that cover all of Ontario or all of the plan and that's what gets us upset, and that's what this bill is doing.
Another thing is that the Niagara Escarpment Commission now has too much control; we certainly hate to give them any more. They already abuse their power, and there's no doubt about that; the Niagara Escarpment Commission abuses its power every day. I just want to tell you about one instance. A group of kids in my riding in Owen Sound wanted to play soccer. There's an abandoned farm near the Niagara Escarpment and they wanted to put in soccer fields. The commission turned them down and said that kids playing soccer in fields wasn't compatible with the Niagara Escarpment. Can you tell me that isn't abuse of their power? Now we're going to give them more power with this bill, and that's what really bothers me.
I understand it's a private member's bill and I understand the concerns the member has. I wouldn't be involved in this if he hadn't put it on to my area also, because that's what he should be doing, looking after his area, and if he has problems there I wouldn't have interfered. Unfortunately, he stepped over bounds and now he's in the area I represent, and we already have too much control there by the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
No doubt the commission has more control than it ever should. They can't be trusted. The commission is way out of control. As you know, I have a private member's bill which would get rid of them, which we in Grey county would love to see, but I'm afraid on Monday they're going to be given even more powers beyond this bill. It really bothers me to see this happen, and this is why I've introduced this amendment to the bill. It would in essence take away waste disposal systems on the natural area.
Another problem we have, and in committee we talked about this, is that we're concerned about septic systems. We're told they're not going to be called waste systems, and I understand that, but I don't trust the Niagara Escarpment Commission for one minute. When they get hold of this bill they will take their powers, which they've done to this date, and destroy a lot of people's lives in my riding, totally destroy their lives with the way they interpret the plan, and unfortunately, nobody seems to challenge them.
The hearing officers are in bed with them; there's no doubt. They're called Niagara Escarpment hearing officers, they're appointed by the government, so they side with the commission nine times out of 10.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Chair: I'm not sure, but do we need a quorum for committee of the whole?
The Chair: Would you please check.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Chairman.
The Chair ordered the bells rung.
Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Chair.
Mr Murdoch: I have a few more words to say about this before I sit down.
As I was mentioning, one of the things we are concerned about is that septic systems will be called waste disposal systems and then the commission, in its wisdom, will start ruling that we're not allowed to have septic tanks anywhere on the Niagara Escarpment plan.
I believe that could happen, the way the Niagara Escarpment Commission rules things. They're the most undemocratic body I've ever had to deal with. They don't care about people, they really don't. They don't care about property rights. In this country of ours we should have more property rights, and they're being taken away from us every day, and the Niagara Escarpment Commission is one of the bodies doing that, especially in our riding. I'm really concerned that they'll turn around and start saying that now the septic systems will have to be removed, that there'll be no more granted.
I know that on Monday the Minister of Environment and Energy is going to announce the new plans for the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which I am really upset about, because it doesn't give us a chance in the House to even debate them, which I think is most undemocratic. We should have had a chance in this House to stand up here and say whether we agree with the new rules he's going to put on the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I'd like to challenge that too. The minister's going to announce changes to the plan on Monday, but I think those changes have to come through the House before they're legal, so I'm sure there will be some legal challenges when they're announced.
The problem with that is that they're going to give the commission more power, as this bill does, and that's a body that doesn't need more power. They need to have power taken away from them. I will say that some of the members on the commission from Grey have done a good job, even some of the ones from Bruce, but overall they're the most undemocratic body that has ever been put in place in this province, and the sooner they're gone, the better.
1920
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): They're waiting for you outside, Billy.
Mr Murdoch: The member tells me they're waiting for me outside.
The Chair: The member for Downsview, you don't have the floor.
Mr Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
That's why I feel I could live with this bill if the member would approve my amendment. I'm hoping he will. I'm sure he will tell me why he wanted to include my county and my region and my area in this same bill. I'm sure he will explain that, if he can't approve this amendment.
I don't think it's right that if they have a problem in Halton, they need to put more problems on us in Grey. That's the whole problem with what's gone on in the Niagara Escarpment Commission. We have people coming from Niagara Falls, Halton and other areas, telling the people what they can do in Grey and Bruce counties. That's part of the problem we have.
I hope the member will take into consideration what I have amended and that he will look favourably upon this. Maybe I'll have a chance to speak further on, Mr Chair. Right now, I will sit down.
Mr Duignan: There are a couple of points the member for Bruce-Grey raised. I've carefully studied his amendment, and I think we talked about this particular amendment in the public hearings as well. Unfortunately, I can't accept the member's amendment, because he also excludes the aggregate region, the aggregate places where people dig the gravel and get the limestone out of the Niagara Escarpment. In my particular region alone, we've got some 14 to 20 of those pits, and if you include the whole area of the Niagara Escarpment, you've got possibly hundreds.
I would point out to the honourable member the problem the landfill site in St Catharines has experienced, the leachate that comes from the limestone. It seeps. It's a porous rock. That's the problem with siting a landfill site on the Niagara Escarpment.
I'd remind the honourable member that amendment 52, which was approved by the cabinet in 1992, prohibits any new landfill sites at the present time, except my bill closes off a gap. Under amendment 52, you can go for a specific site amendment to amendment 52 to site a landfill site. My bill simply outright prohibits any landfill site being sited in the Niagara plan area.
I would also like to point out to the honourable member, where he has his land mass, 14.2% of it is made up of the Niagara Escarpment. In my area, nearly 23% of the land mass is made up of the Niagara Escarpment. As you know, Halton region spent 10 to 15 years looking for a new landfill site and managed to site it off the Niagara Escarpment area. It's not on the Niagara Escarpment or it's in the Niagara Escarpment plan area. In fact, if you look up and down the whole regions and municipalities along the Niagara Escarpment, you will see that there's no municipal council or regional government siting any landfill sites within the Niagara Escarpment plan area, except I'm not too sure about your particular area in Grey-Bruce.
I would like to also point out that my bill does allow for transfer stations or recycling facilities, including a composting site which receives waste only from the local municipality in which it's located, so my bill does allow that to happen within the Niagara Escarpment plan area.
Mr Murdoch: I appreciate the words from the member, but the first thing I must point out is that I'm from Grey-Owen Sound, not Grey-Bruce. Murray Elston might have some problems with that. He's Bruce county and I have Grey-Owen Sound, but I do speak about Bruce county because we have a lot in common with Bruce county and that's where a lot of the Niagara Escarpment area is. I forget the percentage which is part of Halton, but we have 35% of the total escarpment plan in our area, so if you're comparing Halton to Grey, you can't do that. That's comparing apples to oranges, because you're not near the size that Grey county is. We have around 35% of the whole plan in our area, and that's quite a large amount, and quite a bit more of it will be in Bruce, so in our area we have a lot of the plan area.
I understand what you're saying, that your plan does allow for some of these things, but you probably -- I don't know -- haven't had a lot of experience with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. What you're doing is giving them more controls, and that's a commission that should have no controls. They're way out of control, is the problem, and they make up their own rules as they go along. That's the unfortunate thing. No one has ever clamped down on these people, and they need that. That's why I'm afraid to give them another bill and more control. They'll be worse than they ever were. I've brought up one instance. They won't let kids play soccer, because it isn't compatible with somebody walking along the escarpment. On that same property, they won't let a group called GRACE, for handicapped children to ride horses, go there now, because they'd have to put a washroom in and they said a washroom isn't compatible to the Niagara Escarpment.
With people like that on the commission, it's very dangerous to give them any more control, because they're out of control and unfortunately no one's putting a cap on them. This is why you can understand why I'm so upset about this bill, because it does give them more power.
I again say if you have a problem in your area -- you talked about the aggregate area. Well, maybe you should have put in here "the natural and the aggregate area." We don't have a lot of aggregate area -- we do have some and some more may be approved -- but I was concerned about the natural area. If your concern was the aggregate area, maybe that's the way the bill should have read and I could have looked more favourably on it, but the way it is now, I can't.
As I say, giving this commission any more control is ludicrous, because they're out of control and should be done away with. There's just no doubt about it. The people locally could handle it much better, and if you didn't have the Niagara Escarpment Commission in place, your people back home could have handled this much more comfortably and probably got away with doing something about it and you wouldn't have to go through all this. But unfortunately, we do have this commission forced upon some of the people who didn't want it, and it's there and we'll have to live with it for the time being, but hopefully not too much longer.
Mr Duignan: I know the honourable member represents his constituents extremely well, and I try to do that too, but again I point out to the honourable member that Grey county makes up 14.2% of the land mass of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, Bruce makes up 7.1%, and Halton makes up some 23% of the land mass of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
I know well the objections of the honourable member to the Niagara Escarpment Commission; he's well known for that. I take the opposite point of view in relation to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. As in any democracy, the honourable member is entitled to his views, the same as I'm entitled to my views. I'm afraid I do not share the member's views of the Niagara Escarpment Commission at all. I think it's doing a good job. I think it's doing an excellent job. It's protecting an important biosphere that's unique to this province and to Canada, and that's something that needs to be done. That's something his party recognized and something the Liberal Party recognized and it's something our party recognized, and I believe all parties in the Legislature will continue to recognize that in the coming years.
1930
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): First, to correct the record for the member, I think he confused the land mass statistics. I believe those numbers you're quoting are the land mass of the amount of space the Niagara Escarpment takes up within the boundaries of that specific region. What the member spoke of is the amount of the Niagara Escarpment contained within his region as opposed to the amount of mass of land it takes up within the region.
I have a question. In subsection (2) it reads: "Despite subsection (1), no person shall use, operate, establish, alter, enlarge or extend...a waste disposal site in the Niagara Escarpment plan area as set out in the Niagara Escarpment plan, unless the director has issued a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval before this subsection comes into force." What subsection are you speaking about coming into force?
Mr Duignan: I would understand that this particular bill and this particular subsection comes into force on receiving royal assent.
Mr Stockwell: But what you're saying here is "...unless the director has issued a certificate of approval or a provisional certificate of approval before this subsection comes into force." So you're saying "this subsection" being the entire bill?
Mr Duignan: I remind the honourable member that this particular bill amends the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment, and what we're doing is amending section 27 of that particular act; it's a new subsection to that particular section of the act.
Mr Stockwell: The next question is with respect to the no-proceeding clause. "No proceeding directly or indirectly based upon the prohibition in subsection (2) may be brought against the crown in right of Ontario, the government of Ontario, any member of the executive council or any employee of the crown or government." Can you give me a specific example of why you brought that section into the bill?
Mr Duignan: If the honourable member reflects on the public hearings that took place on this bill earlier in the year, there --
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, please. The amendment is subsection 1(2), not 1(4). That's what we're debating. That's the motion Mr Murdoch has introduced. We're dealing with subsection 1(2). Any questions or comments on that section.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Does the bill, as printed, in subsection 1(2), does it --
The Chair: Shall I read the motion again?
Mrs Marland: No, I'm familiar with the motion and I'm reading the bill as printed. I would like to ask the proponent of the bill whether that wording is protecting existing operations that have already had prior approvals for expansion. Is that what you meant in your answer to the member for Etobicoke about when it comes into force? If there's already a director's certificate, which is a certificate of approval, if that already exists for an expansion at a location prior to the date of the bill being proclaimed, then that certificate of approval has precedence over the proclamation of this bill?
Mr Duignan: No. The sites approved before this bill comes into force may be enlarged or extended only if this will not result in a greater area at a site being covered with waste than permitted under the existing approval. If you've already got approval for a particular site, this bill would not apply.
Mrs Marland: It's important to remind ourselves that although this bill has been on the order paper since June 10, 1992, which is more than two years now, we are still debating private members' business. It is a private member's bill. I am interested to know, through you, Mr Chair, to the proponent of the bill, whether the bill is totally supported by his government and --
The Chair: Mrs Marland, you're out of order. The motion is very clear, and I'll read it to you: "I move that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out 'plan' in the fourth line and substituting 'natural'." That is the motion. That is what I will hear.
Mrs Marland: All right. Speaking to the motion, I will place the same question: Does the member have the support of his government, in particular the Minister of Environment, for the amendment or the section as printed without the amendment?
Mr Duignan: The honourable member for Mississauga South well knows that if I hadn't got the support of my colleagues here this evening, we would not be debating this bill in committee of the whole.
The Chair: On the amendment, on the amendment.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, you're quite pedantic, but I will speak to the amendment.
The Chair: Please reserve your comments.
Mrs Marland: Speaking to the amendment, I say to the member for Halton North, is that an affirmative answer, that you do have support for this amendment?
Mr Duignan: Again I point out, if I did not have the support of my colleagues, we would not be debating this bill in committee of the whole.
Mrs Marland: It's interesting, Mr Chair, that you're not making the member for Halton North answer the question on the amendment. He is not answering my question, but you're making me stick to the amendment. My question to the member for Halton North is, what is the position of your government, particularly the Minister of Environment, on the amendment? You've answered the question about the bill in a roundabout way. There are private members' bills that proceed to committee of the whole that do not have the support of the government. I'm simply trying to find out what the position of the government is on this bill.
I personally support the bill, and I actually have some difficulty with some of the comments that are made about the Niagara Escarpment Commission, but the point I'm making is that this is private members' business. In private members' business, I do not stand here and speak for the Progressive Conservative caucus, nor does anybody else stand here and speak on behalf of their caucus, neither the Liberals or the government, so it's interesting to ask you whether your government supports this amendment. If you don't have the answer, that's fair game. Just say you don't have the answer.
Mr Duignan: I stress again that the government's position is not at issue here. This is a private member's bill. Just as the honourable member has stated, when you do private members' business, you speak as a private member; you don't speak for the Tory caucus. When I'm speaking, it's a private member's bill. I do have support of my colleagues, and that's why this bill is being debated in committee of the whole tonight.
Mrs Marland: Now we're saying something different. Now we're saying, "I have support of my colleagues," and it's not a government bill, it's a private member's bill. So you're not saying the government supports it. It's certainly important for the public to know what the support is for this private member's bill. It's a very significant bill.
The Chair: Order, please. The member for Mississauga South, I will bring you back to order again, and I ask you to debate the motion. That is the question on the floor, that is the motion introduced on the floor, and I will read it again for you: "That subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out 'plan' in the fourth line and substituting 'natural'." That is the motion, and that's what I ask you to debate.
Mrs Marland: All right. Thank you, Mr Chair. I ask the proponent of the bill whether he supports the amendment the amendment on the floor, or does your government support it?
Mr Duignan: To the honourable member, I do not support the amendment that's on the floor.
1940
Mrs Marland: Is there anyone in the House who can speak on behalf of this government? I would like to know if the government supports the amendment, because I think it's very important. We're talking about a plan area or a natural area. There isn't any definition of "natural area" in the amendment, so I realize that makes it difficult. The member for Halton North says simply, "This bill wouldn't be here if the government didn't support it." If that's the case, I'm asking you, does your government support changing the word "plan" to "natural"? That's all, a simple question.
Mr Duignan: To the honourable member, I point out that that's not quite what I said. I said my colleagues support this bill, otherwise it would not be here to be debated in committee of the whole. I would point out that maybe the member has an excellent question to ask the Minister of Environment in tomorrow's question period.
The Chair: The member for Etobicoke West on the amendment introduced by Mr Murdoch.
Mr Stockwell: How many C of As or provisional C of As are within the plan area right now?
Mr Duignan: I don't have that information at this point.
Mr Stockwell: Would you know how many C of As or provisional C of As would be contained in the natural area, though, the escarpment?
Mr Duignan: No.
Mr Stockwell: Would the St Catharines site be contained within the plan part of the escarpment?
Mr Duignan: The St Catharines landfill site, I understand, is contained within the Niagara Escarpment plan area. If they have any C of As already granted, this bill would not include those C of As.
Mr Stockwell: I can read the bill, but what I'm trying to get nailed down is, how many certificates of approval or provisional certificates of approval are we speaking about here? Is it one? Is it 15? Is it 20? It's rather important.
Mr Duignan: I simply don't know.
Mr Stockwell: Well, how about this: Would there be any certificates of approval or provisional certificates of approval within the natural area, any at all that you can think of off the top of your head?
Mr Duignan: There are basically two I know of, and that's the one in St Catharines and that in Niagara. I'm not sure which others, if any. It doesn't matter, because they're not affected by this bill.
Mr Stockwell: Are there any certificates of approval or provisional certificates of approval in your riding contained within the plan?
Mr Duignan: As far as I know, no.
Mr Stockwell: None? Are there any applications within the plan area or the natural area within your riding?
Mr Duignan: There is an application for a private landfill site at the Acton quarry. I believe there's another application in front of the joint hearings board.
Mr Stockwell: The Acton quarry I know about. The other one, could you explain?
Mr Duignan: That's what I'm making reference to, the Acton quarry.
Mr Stockwell: So let's drive this home. This bill here is to deal with the Acton quarry site specifically within your riding and to ensure that site goes no further than it is now. Would that be a fair comment? Further, would that site fall within the natural boundaries of the Niagara Escarpment?
Mr Duignan: The Acton quarry is an old aggregate site, and this bill addresses the problem right along the Niagara Escarpment, not just in the Halton region but the problems that exist in the Niagara region, the St Catharines region, the Hamilton region and as you go up along the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Stockwell: Maybe I'm cynical -- I hate to think that -- but I think the motivation for this bill brought by this member was specifically for the site in his riding. Some would suggest that's going out on a limb, but I think I'll be comfortable there because I get the feeling that this piece of work was done by you for that site within the boundaries of your riding and you threw the rest in as an effort to more or less try and camouflage what the real goal is here. The real goal, in my opinion, is to stop the Acton quarry site, and I understand that you, as the elected member, are trying to do that.
So the question still stands with the amendment: Would the Acton quarry site fall within the boundaries of the natural area of the Niagara Escarpment?
Mr Duignan: The Acton quarry is an aggregate site, and I wouldn't want the member to be cynical at all. My bill addresses the problem that exists along the Niagara Escarpment, not just in the Halton region but indeed, as I said before, the problem we had with St Catharines and Niagara and Hamilton. The Steetley site's another example.
Mr Stockwell: That kind of statement would ring very true had this member not voted in favour of Bill 143. Since you voted in favour of Bill 143, I'm a little hard pressed to believe that you're a real environmentalist of any great purport because you are in fact expanding and developing landfill sites on farm land.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): That's not true.
Mr Stockwell: Good farm land, as a matter of fact.
Mr Wiseman: That's not true, either.
Mr Stockwell: I see you've got a friend up there, the member for Durham West: Dump Site West.
I understand what you're saying, that it wouldn't matter whether this Acton quarry was being developed in your riding. You're just an environmentalist at heart who happens to vote to expand landfill sites in Peel and in Durham and in York without so much as a second of public hearing -- but a true environmentalist, no doubt.
The question still stands, though, and I would appreciate if you could send this out to your crackerjack staff and ask them if, under the definition of "natural area," the Acton quarry would fall within the natural area of the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Duignan: It's an aggregate site. No, it's not in the natural area.
I want to talk about the support this bill has received from across the Niagara Escarpment. I'd like to point out to the honourable member some of the local municipalities that indeed support this bill: the town of Ancaster, the town of Caledon, Derby municipal council, the town of Halton Hills, the township of Mono, the town of Wiarton, the town of Oakville, the city of Burlington, the township of Collingwood, the corporation of the town of Dundas, the town of Milton, the township of Nottawasaga, the Halton region -- I could go on and on. There's tremendous support.
The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member must speak to the amendment. We are speaking to the amendment, please.
Mr Duignan: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I digressed a little, the same as the members across the way.
The Second Deputy Chair: Further debate?
Mr Murdoch: The member from Mississauga pointed out that it's too bad there wasn't a definition of "natural area" and what we meant there. Being involved with the Niagara Escarpment as much as I am, maybe I should have done that. It's an oversight; it should have been there. But we've got to know what the natural area of the plan is.
The plan's made up of three different areas, basically. There is a recreational area in there, but the core of the plan is the natural area, and that's basically where the rockface of the Niagara Escarpment is, swamps, some of the wetlands, some of the ANSIs, all are in that natural area. That's the core of the plan.
Then beyond that, we have what we call the protected area. That was somebody's dream to stop any development that may come near the natural area, and in some cases the protected area should probably be natural area. The plan certainly was ill conceived and ill-drawn-up, no doubt about that, but it's there and we have to live with what's there right now until that's changed.
1950
Then beyond the protected, you have the rural area, which is another area where, when it was drawn up -- I think people from the large urban places didn't want to go on the Bruce Trail, which meanders across a lot of the Niagara Escarpment area, and see somebody with maybe a new home or a new building, so they went beyond the "natural" and the "protected" and then out to the "rural." Actually, going way back, they went further than that, but they changed it back.
Basically, those are the three areas of the Niagara Escarpment plan. They do have another area in there, a recreational area which mainly is in the Collingwood area around the Blue Mountains, and then there is an aggregate area also. I assume the member from Halton is talking about that area.
My amendment went to the natural area, because I feel that area should be protected and we don't need garbage dumps or waste systems there, and there aren't any that I know of right now. Maybe the member from Halton could explain to us whereabouts this Acton quarry is. I said I wouldn't be involved in this if he was dealing with his own area, but now he's intruded into other areas, which upsets me and a lot of people from my riding. This is what this bill does.
It gives control to a commission that's out of control, that needs controls put on it, not giving it more power. This is exactly what this does. They will interpret it any way they want and they don't seem to have any boss that tells them what to do. They have a chairman who's way out of control, a chairman who should never have been put in there. She wants to control more than anything -- everything. She doesn't want anything on the escarpment and in the area. She'll love this bill.
That's why I say we're really concerned about what they'll do about septic systems. They'll come up with some idea that maybe it's a waste disposal system and that they can't have any. I mean, we all know what the famous Sewell man did. It's hard to say what the Niagara Escarpment Commission is liable to come up with.
Just to show you something to tell you I know what I'm talking about, there is no definition in the plan or in any of its writeups of what a farmer is. Mr Chair, you would have a tough time telling me exactly what a farmer is. They've come up with the idea it has to be somebody on the farm for 20 years, no ifs, ands or buts. They might have been there 10, they might have been there 30, but they have to be there at least 20 years to be called a farmer. I don't know where the commission got that idea. It wasn't in the plan. They just came up with that on their own, and that's how they make their decisions. Unfortunately, the hearing officers go along with them, but there's never been any amendment to the plan to do that.
When they get into this plan, they're liable to make all kinds of decisions and I'm really afraid we're going to be in trouble all over Ontario where the Niagara Escarpment plan runs through.
But getting back to what the member from Etobicoke was talking about, is the dump site on the natural area? I'm not sure whether it is in Halton or not, but maybe the member could explain exactly what portion of the Niagara Escarpment plan the Acton site is on.
Mr Duignan: The Acton quarry is actually on the brow of the escarpment around the town of Acton. It's an old quarry site, and they're actually still taking some aggregate out of the site before they move across the road.
Mrs Marland: In what area?
Mr Duignan: It's in the aggregate area.
The member raised the point regarding the sewerage. I point out to the member that section 26 of the EPA provides that part V does not apply to any sewerage works to which the Ontario Resources Act applies. That statute law has traditionally treated the regulation of sewerage as a separate matter from the regulation of waste. When the predecessor of part V was passed in 1969, sewerage was regulated under the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Public Health Act. This continued until the predecessor of part VIII came into force in 1974, transferring the regulation of sewerage systems from the Public Health Act to the Environmental Protection Act. It is clear that under 26, part V cannot apply to ordinary residential sewerage.
Mr Murdoch: That's nice rhetoric, but that's all it is. Obviously, you have never dealt with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. They don't listen to what laws you make down here whatsoever. Does what you just mentioned apply to Bill 143 also? I don't know.
I'm telling you, when you've got a commission that thinks it's a little body unto itself -- you guys have made socialism a word in everybody's house in Ontario now. We didn't know what it was until you got in, but if you think you're bad, which most people do, you should try to deal with the commission. They're far worse than any socialist government we'll ever have here. They're worse than any communist government we've ever had in the world probably. They are. You may laugh about it, but you haven't had to deal with them.
The Second Deputy Chair: Could the honourable member please be careful.
Mr Murdoch: I'll be careful, but I'll also say what I'd like to say about this group, because they are out of control, Mr Chairman. They certainly are. I'm not offending anyone here, and I think I can offend people out of here if I like. If they're offended by what I've said -- it's true, and I'll stand by it any time anybody asks me.
I know we're talking about the first amendment. I don't know where we go from here, Mr Chair. I'll ask you. Do you want to vote on that amendment or do you want to go on to another amendment? We do have another amendment. Maybe we've talked this amendment out long enough. I've said what I feel about it. I hope they've changed their minds. I don't know whether they have or not, but I hope they've listened to it. It's unfortunate that none of those on the other side have dealt with the commission. I don't want to give them any more control. We could live with the "natural area."
I'm sure they're not driven by the loony tunes writer in the Globe and Mail named Valpy. He has no idea what's going on, and he thinks he has. He drives up into our area every weekend and thinks he knows all about it. Then he rambles on in the Globe and has no idea of what he's talking about and takes things out of context. And I'm sure he'll take a lot of this out of context, but that's fine, because that's what he seems to be able to do. Some people read him, I guess. I don't know who, but the odd person does read his articles.
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): We'll send him a copy of Hansard and see if he gets it in context.
Mr Murdoch: I'm sure he will. I'm sure somebody on the other side will send him Hansard. That's fine. He has no idea what he's writing about most of the time anyway, so we'll let it go at that.
Would you like us to vote on the first amendment or do you want to stack it? Oh, Margaret would like to say something.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chairman, again I emphasize this is private members' business, so I am speaking as an individual. Whether or not we agree with some of the decisions, whether or not some individuals agree with some of the decisions of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I think we should all remember, first of all, that they are volunteers. I don't think anybody can really stand and say that the chairman is way out of control or that they don't care about people or property rights or that the hearing officers are in bed with the commission. Those are all personal, individual comments that an individual in this House may say.
But I feel it's important to say that maybe some of the parameters that were established originally when the Niagara Escarpment Commission was established need to be reviewed. As a matter of fact, even the member for Grey-Owen Sound made a reference to the fact that -- in fact I wrote it down. He said, "In some cases the protected area should be in the natural area." What I hear the member for Grey-Owen Sound saying is that maybe there should be a review of the plan area.
Maybe there's a time for the control area of the Niagara Escarpment Commission to be reviewed. If that review were to take place, we may find changes in alignments, we may find some major changes in what is defined as natural, protected or rural. If the member for Halton North is saying that the Acton quarry site is in the aggregate area, that's another area again.
I feel that if a commission is making a decision that prohibits washrooms for disabled children who could otherwise go horseback riding in a natural resource like the escarpment area, I too would have concerns about that, but that's only one item; it's probably one decision of maybe a few people. But the point is that for the most part, the Niagara Escarpment Commission works. For the most part, they've tried to do a job as volunteers.
2000
As we talk about the bill, I think we would all be better served if we got away from attacking the individual personalities. I don't even know the chairman, so I'm not defending someone I know, but I regret some of the words that have been used here. If the public generally thinks there's a problem with hearing officers fulfilling the mandate of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, there is a way to deal with that.
But to get back to dealing with the bill, it's important that we all understand, when this bill is passed, what it says. My questions have been based on two points. One is that it is a private member's bill. I'm not particularly interested in spending a lot of time on a private member's bill if it isn't going to be passed by the government, because the government has the majority in this House. I may think it's a great bill, the member for Halton North may think it's a great bill and there may be people in the Liberal caucus who think it's a great bill, but it won't pass unless the government supports the intent of the bill. Then of course we come down to the question about why it is not a government bill. We always have this problem with private members' bills.
But since the amendment is amending the words Niagara Escarpment "plan" area to "natural" area, I have to know, if this amendment fails, what the proponent of the bill can describe for me as the existing escarpment plan area, not in geographic terms but in technical terms.
Mr Duignan: I myself was indeed concerned about a couple of remarks made about the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The office of the Niagara Escarpment Commission is sited in Georgetown in my riding, and yes, I do have dealings with the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I have found them a very reasonable bunch of people. They've always dealt fairly with me and I'm sure they always deal fairly with most members who have inquiries to the NEC. In large part they are volunteers, and they do a reasonable and a good job given some very difficult circumstances.
To the honourable member for Mississauga South, the bill will protect the entire Niagara Escarpment plan area. That's everything that's included in the plan area of the Niagara Escarpment as defined in that act.
Mr Murdoch: It shows the diversity of the Conservative Party, because we do have a member who stands and supports the Niagara Escarpment Commission. There is no Niagara Escarpment area in her riding, and unfortunately she doesn't understand, but that's fine, it's her opinion. We allow her to have that opinion and I'm allowed to have mine. But I want to tell you quite clearly that they are out of control. They are in my area and I do know about it. They are paid. They're not volunteers, that's for sure. We spend over $5 million a year on this commission, which we don't need to do, which could be put into other things.
I'm sorry the member has been led astray, but that's fine, she has a right to say what she feels about it. But sometimes I think members should live in the area where the escarpment is and maybe they would understand it a little better.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm of course rising to speak to the amendment, but also to defend the member for Mississauga South and the comments she has made about the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I have always respected her point of view on environmental issues. She was the Environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party and, I was under the impression, speaking for the whole party at the time she was making this representation --
Mr Murdoch: If it wasn't for you, Bradley, we wouldn't be in this mess. You had a chance to clean it up and you didn't clean it up.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please.
Mr Murdoch: You screwed up the whole thing, Bradley, and you know that. You had three years to straighten it up and you didn't do it.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Grey-Owen Sound will have his opportunity.
Mr Bradley: I am quite delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the Niagara Escarpment Commission's role in this and the very significant role it has made in protecting a very unique and beneficial base of land in our province.
When the Progressive Conservative government of William Davis established the Niagara Escarpment Commission in the 1970s, it did so, I believe, because it was under the impression -- Mr Sterling, the member for Carleton, was the resources development minister at that time, and I remember his strong commitment to the establishment of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and what it would mean for the protection of this unique piece of land. So I think it's important that we, as legislators from three parties, indicate our support for that kind of preservation.
The United Nations has designated this particular area as significant globally because of its uniqueness, because it is something we can point to with a good deal of pride. I have been to other jurisdictions, specifically in the United States, where such protection has not taken place and there is commercialism throughout. That is good for the fast dollar to be made, and I suppose those who like all kinds of development on this kind of land are quite delighted with it. It certainly does not meet my image of what Premier Davis was looking for when he established the Niagara Escarpment Commission and what subsequent governments have endeavoured to do with it.
There have been a number of representatives appointed by the three different governments over the years who have I think endeavoured to speak in a rather independent and objective way about matters that come before the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Just as the member for Mississauga South has expressed her appreciation to those who have served, I would like to join in doing that as well.
I take it as a compliment when I hear that I had three years to, as a member of a government, fix the problem, so-called; to, I guess, open the Niagara Escarpment to development. I am very pleased that despite a good deal of pressure that was out there from the development industry, we were able to restrain ourselves from allowing that to happen despite the many pitches that were made in those days. I appreciate the viewpoint of everyone who has parts of the Niagara Escarpment Commission in their ridings.
I know the member from Grey has very strong feelings about it. I do not necessarily agree with those feelings, but I know he resides there and he has certainly conversed with many of the people in the area. I was rather amused to hear him earlier this evening attacking Michael Valpy of the Globe and Mail about some of the columns he had written about the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Mr Valpy was particularly concerned about the number of severances which were granted by municipal governments in that particular area. The Ontario government, under the NDP, took action to ensure that kind of activity would at least be halted and that there would be a pause to look at what would be most beneficial.
I do not share the same fear as some members of the House about the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I hope it will continue to exist. It must always be examined, it must always be subject to public review, and I think everyone recognizes that. But it's important that we recognize, and I'm one who's happy to compliment, other governments for activities they undertake. I certainly compliment Premier Davis and Mr Norm Sterling, who was the resources development minister in the Progressive Conservative government at that time, as well as subsequent ministers and present ministers who have responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
This is something unique to Ontario. This is something of which people of all political parties can be justifiably proud, and I hope we retain it as a source of pride in this province.
2010
Mr Murdoch: I'm sure I should take a little time to explain what's happened here. I mentioned that the former minister had a chance to solve some problems. The former minister from the Liberal Party failed to point out that he had a chance to solve some of the problems and he didn't do it in the three years of his mandate. The problems were still there, left for the present government; it hasn't done anything either. When you take away people's property rights without any compensation, there's something wrong with that. What that shows you is that the Liberals were no better than the NDP. They had a chance to do something and they didn't.
I'll be the first to admit that the Conservatives made a mistake when they did this, but no one's perfect. But what happened was that it was never law until the Liberals took over for the three years they had, and they didn't change anything.
I must point out too that there has been a five-year review. The member for Mississauga South said there maybe should be reviews from time to time. They've just completed a five-year review. The unfortunate part is that the Minister of Environment has decided to release the review next week, and we assume the House will adjourn on time. So he's not even going to give us a chance in this House to say, "Yes, we like what you're going to do," or, "No, we don't."
I'm not too excited about what he's going to do. We did see that there was a commission that went around and looked into it, and then they allowed the commission itself to write its own report. When we look at what the minister has come up with so far it looks like he just agreed with the Niagara Escarpment Commission, not the task force he sent out. Typical of this government, they don't listen anyway. The task force went out and said the commission did not listen to the people's concerns and that it was arrogant and should be reined in. Nothing is being said about that by this Minister of Environment.
To the former minister, he had a chance to do something and unfortunately he didn't, and hopefully the next government will do something.
Mr Chair, do you want us to vote on my amendment?
The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have further debate on Mr Murdoch's amendment? We are now dealing with Mr Murdoch's amendment, which reads as follows:
Mr Murdoch moves that subsection 1(2) of the bill be amended by striking out "plan" in the fourth line and substituting "natural".
All those in favour of the amendment, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the amendment lost.
Further amendments to section 1?
Mr Stockwell: You have my amendment to subsection 1(4). I move that subsection 1(4) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Compensation
"(4) The Ministry of Environment and Energy shall provide compensation to any individuals or corporations who experience economic loss as a result of the application of this act."
The Second Deputy Chair: I have to rule on this amendment. It pertains to section 56 of the standing orders, which reads as follows:
"Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."
We are dealing with a money amendment, which has to be ruled out of order.
Mr Stockwell: Hold it, Mr Chair. You're ruling this out of order because of section 4 of the bill. The dilemma I have --
The Second Deputy Chair: It's a money amendment. It involves money.
Mr Stockwell: It's only a money amendment because it's the money portion of the bill. It's only before us today because the bill itself deals with a money issue. You're ruling it out of order, but the bill itself has monetary concerns attached to it. I'm asking you as Chair, how can you rule it out of order when the bill itself is dealing with a monetary issue?
The Second Deputy Chair: Even if it were a tax bill, it is involving a non-cabinet minister involving a monetary expenditure and therefore must be ruled out of order.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I will accept most rulings --
The Second Deputy Chair: I will listen for a short time.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I want you to listen for a short time.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): Are you challenging the Chair or what?
Mr Stockwell: Wayne, I may get to that stage. Just keep your shorts on. It may get exciting.
The question I'm putting to you, Mr Chair, is that you're ruling this out of order because you're ruling it's a money issue. If the subsection in this bill didn't exist, weren't here, I wouldn't need this amendment so therefore natural law would progress. Would you then rule the entire bill out of order because it was a money issue?
The Second Deputy Chair: The bill itself does not involve an expenditure. I will repeat section 56, under "Financial Procedures":
"Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds, shall not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and shall be proposed only by a minister of the crown."
It involves the spending of public funds. I cannot entertain any further debate.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, I would like you to explain your ruling. You've read what it is that my amendment does. Explain your ruling.
The Second Deputy Chair: It's involving the expenditure.
Mr Stockwell: Explain the specific expenditure. What is the specific expenditure?
The Second Deputy Chair: Compensation to individuals.
Mr Stockwell: It's not compensation to individuals, Mr Chair. There's no compensation here.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. It is involving public expenditure, and there is a ruling.
Mr Stockwell: There's no public expenditure. There's not a dollar sign attached to this amendment. There's no compensation with this amendment, none whatsoever. Explain to me the specific expenditure on this.
The Second Deputy Chair: A ruling has been made. We cannot proceed any further with this discussion.
Mr Stockwell: Mr Chair, on a point of personal privilege: This is really offensive, that this government has the nerve to do what it is doing. What this bill does is say, "Regardless of how badly we treat a company, regardless of how badly we've treated a company and ripped it off for the money it's invested, whether this bill usurps any possibility of recouping that, we will not under any circumstances allow you to sue us through the courts to prove your case." That's what this bill says. All I'm asking, Mr Chair, is that they withdraw that and allow any company that can go ahead and sue --
The Second Deputy Chair: Order.
Mr Murdoch: Mr Chair, on a point of privilege: In this House, we make many deals. What happens in this House? We agreed we would not go on with this bill all night and we agreed we would let it come back. Now you're telling us our amendments are out of order, and we've never been informed of that at all. I don't understand what's going on down there.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. A ruling has been given. We cannot deal with public expenditure in private members'. We are now moving on.
On a point?
Mr Stockwell: No. I'm just going to amend. I move that subsection 1(4) of the bill be struck out. That's what I'll move.
The Second Deputy Chair: That is in order.
Mr Stockwell: Now I get to say my piece. This is a government, and a member specifically, that has gone ahead on a piece of legislation. If a member or a government wants to pass a piece of legislation and they have a majority in this House, so be it. If you think this is in the best interests of the people of the province of Ontario, so be it. If you think as a government that this kind of legislation is the kind of legislation that we should be adopting today to protect residents of Ontario, so be it.
But, Mr Chair, through you specifically to the member who brought this forward and to the government members, I look to you and ask you where the fairness is in a piece of legislation that has allowed a company, the Acton quarry company, to spend millions and millions and millions of its dollars, through a process that you have allowed it to do, that you have said is fair and reasonable, that is within the guidelines and rules set down by your government, I say to the member across the floor, and then at the 11th hour, you come up with a bill that says: "What you've been doing, that is totally legal and that you've spent millions of dollars on, we will not allow, and further to that, you can't sue us for losses, even though we've acted totally arbitrarily, without prior notice and with no fairness at all. We can still see you go down the drain for millions and millions of dollars, although you have lived within the rules that we set down and said you should live within."
2020
I ask the member opposite, where's the fairness? Where's the equity? Where's the truth in dealing with private sector companies when you put that kind of amendment in a bill that said, "Regardless of how badly we treat you, how badly we mislead you, and how much money we cost you, you can't sue us"? Where's the fairness?
Interjection: No answer.
Mr Stockwell: What does that mean, "No answer," that you're not going to answer it? That's fundamental. That's democracy. That's what we're here protecting, for heaven's sake, people's right to carry on business within the law and knowing full well that a government won't clamp down seven or eight or 10 years later and rip them off for millions and millions of dollars. What do you mean, you don't have an answer for that? What about the investment, the cost? For your political career, you cost these people millions and millions of dollars, and you can't even dignify them with an answer, to defend that kind of subsection? What's your response?
Mr Duignan: To the honourable member, where's the fairness, where's the process for the people of Halton? Where's the fairness of the process for people up and down the Niagara Escarpment who have fought landfill sites on the Niagara Escarpment for years and years and years against big money? Where's their compensation? I don't see you standing up in your place fighting for the ordinary people of the province. All you're interested in is the big multinational companies. They took the risk --
Mr Stockwell: What risk?
Mr Duignan: -- their decision, their risk. They made that decision, and there's absolutely no guarantee when they take that risk that they'll get what they want in the end. It's an ordinary business risk.
Applause.
Mr Stockwell: If they're going to get applause for that kind of response, that they took the risk -- they fought through normal, legal channels. If you didn't like how the fight was going, you should have changed the laws. If you didn't like what they were doing, you change the laws and not allow them to do it. If you're not prepared to do that, you fight them at every turn.
All they were doing was fighting within the laws that you, as government, set down. So they went ahead and had this fight with the people of Halton, I agree, and maybe they had to fight on a couple of occasions, but they still did it within the law and they still were going for an environmental assessment review, which is what the law states. If you didn't like it, change the law.
You've come forward to change the law, which I am saying you're full value for, to protect your constituents. Go ahead, change the law. That's what you've done. There can be give and take and disagreement all along the way, but as government, you can decide: "We don't like the law as it sits. We insist on changing the law." I'm not going to argue that point. You can do it.
But to make the argument at the end of the day that it's a loss of doing business is absolutely insane. It's not a loss of doing business. They were operating within the law of the land, and when you're operating within the law of the land, no one would expect the government to close down your operation, cost you millions and millions and millions of dollars and put at the bottom of their four-paragraph piece of legislation a clause that says, "Nobody can sue the province no matter how badly we treat you."
Mr Murdoch: Does the member from Halton have nothing to say about this? How can he sit there and hide behind this? Can you not explain that? If you're going to make a mistake and you want to make a law, which you can do, can you not stand on your own two feet, rather than putting a clause like this in here, saying, "Well, we may be wrong, so if we're wrong we can't be sued?" What kind of democracy is that? There is no democracy left when you start doing something like that. I can't believe you could stand up and condone that.
If you want to look after your people and you want to bring in a law that says that, that's fine, but if you're wrong and a company has spent money up to this date, you have to compensate them. That's the same kind of mentality as what you do on the Niagara Escarpment all over. You take land without compensation. Now you're putting a company under without any compensation, and if you're wrong, "Well, we don't have to stand up for it, because it's the law that you can't do anything about it."
What kind of government have we come to? Where have we come to in this country when the government of the day can make laws, even though they're right or wrong, and if they're wrong: "So what? You can't sue us." You have to have something to say about that. You can't just stand up and say, "We're looking after everybody along the escarpment, all the poor people." It doesn't matter. These people could have been poor too. Who knows?
Mr Stockwell: Maybe they are now.
Mr Murdoch: And they may be now. They have a right to take you to court, they should have that right, but by you putting in that clause, they don't have. Are you going to do that with every other bill? Bill 91 isn't finished yet. Are you going to put in there that the farmers can't take you to court because you unionize all the family farms? Is that your next point? You might as well because you're starting with it here. It's a great thing to start with, people. I think you should get up and explain yourself somewhere along the line.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I hadn't intended to participate in any of this discussion, but I am desperately disappointed when the member who brings forward a private member's bill refuses to utter one word of defence on a very, very legitimate question, something which is of a very serious nature and has the potential for putting people into bankruptcy. The government brings forward a bill in the guise of a private member's bill and the member who's brought it forward hasn't even got the guts to stand up and defend what they're saying.
Mr Duignan: I rise to the challenge. If he had been here earlier, he would have heard me defend my position. At the public hearings this particular company was at, they said "their decision, their risk," which they said they take, and they said that at the public hearings. I haven't heard one of you people state, what about the risk and the dollars and the time spent by the citizens, by the region, by the municipalities on this issue? What about their risk? What about their rights? I haven't heard you defend them. When are you going to defend their rights?
Mr Stockwell: These people's rights are being defended as we sit here today. This bill and legislation that you say has the support of your colleagues will for ever defend the rights of the people of this area, for ever. Their rights are permanently defended.
The rights of these people were defended through the courts and systems that you set in place and the people like us in the province of Ontario set in place over the years. Their rights as citizens are no different from the rights my citizens have or the citizens of Durham, for a landfill site, or York, for a landfill site that you're expanding, or Peel, for a landfill site you're expanding there as well. These citizens are no different from any of those citizens and their rights have been defended and paid for by tax dollars that have been spent, paid for by the taxes of people in that constituency. Ultimately, I say to the member, your bill that is supposed to pass will for ever defend their rights.
I say to the member across the floor, I will stand in my place and understand the democratic process. I don't believe it's an acceptable way to do planning in this province, to bring in pieces of legislation that exclude sections of this province from landfill sites. I don't think that's the way to do business in this province. Why? Because I think you'll end up with 130 private members' bills saying, "There's a good reason why you should exclude my neighbourhood, my community and my constituency from a landfill site." I fundamentally believe in a process that's put in place that measures all sites equally and they go through what I always thought was the environmental assessment review. I believe in that.
2030
This particular piece of legislation doesn't buy into that. It says everybody's treated equally except Noel's riding and a little bit of area around Noel's riding. Why? Because he's got a landfill site that's potentially going to go in there if it gets through the environmental assessment review.
If you all believe that's the planning process that we should adopt in this province for landfill sites, then go ahead and support this legislation. You're going to have 130 of these private members' bills coming in, because I know every constituency in this province thinks there's some distinctive part about their neighbourhood that makes it unacceptable and unusable as a landfill site.
Mr Member, you've got the government, you have the colleagues, and you'll win the day. But the insulting part is that there is a company that has been going along under the controls of all the legislation that has been brought forward for opening landfill sites. They have lived within the requirements set down by three separate governments. They have brought their applications forward, not breaking any laws in bringing them forward.
I understand that they won't open their site. I accept the fact that the government and his colleagues can change that. What I don't accept is that in part of the body of this bill, it's okay to change that and say, "Even though you've suffered economic loss, even though we've changed the rules partway down the road, even though the goalposts have been moved, you have no right for compensation from this government, regardless of our decisions." That's patently unfair, undemocratic and, in my opinion, unworthy of any government in this province. I can't stand that clause. I can't stand it.
If you're right, fight them in court, prove them wrong. And if you're wrong, hang your head in shame, because potentially -- I don't know -- but very potentially, with the millions and millions of dollars that you have to invest to open up a landfill site, you could be bankrupting individuals personally, collectively and in business, bankrupting them for millions of dollars because you included this clause -- not just them, but their children and their families are broke, bankrupted. If you think you're right, fight it in court. If you're wrong, compensate them. But don't change the rules halfway through the game, because people can't survive.
Mr Turnbull: Not only do I agree with the comments of my colleague, the member for Etobicoke West, but I would also remind the government of the fact that this is a government that has on many occasions suggested that it wants the message to go out that Ontario is open for business and that it wants partnership and participation with the private sector.
This is not a message you send out to encourage private sector participation. Companies around the world look at the risk that's involved in doing business in a given administration, and when they see that a government can say, "Notwithstanding all the laws we have in place over the years, and you've participated in a process within the framework of that law, we're going to go back and simply say you've got no right to sue us," that is patently wrong. It sends out the worst message. You know something? If you're sitting in Düsseldorf -- you're not a Canadian, you're not a Ontarian, you're a foreign investor -- and you consider investing in some place in the world, I don't think you're going to invest in Ontario if that's the way the Ontario government treats you. If you simply move the goalposts, and at any time, any of the money one has spent may be absolutely trashed, it is a very serious message you send out. Don't underestimate what you're doing.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I was looking at the original Bill 62, which didn't contain that provision. I've been listening to the debate, and it seems to me that it strikes at the very heart of fairness in that it says to the people of Ontario --
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Members of your caucus supported the amendment.
Mr Callahan: What the House leader says may be the case, but it seems to me that this sends out a message that any time this government gets itself into trouble because of mismanagement or not knowing how to run the government, it'll simply bring in this magical phrase, "You can't sue us."
That gives a very bad message to the people of this province, particularly people who are investing their money in terms of entrepreneurial activities. It certainly makes it very difficult in terms of being able to come to this province and feel that you're going to be safe and able to take risks and not have a government that's just going to stamp its heel on you.
Historically, the Magna Carta was the direct result of the authority of the day, the king, trying to run the operation on the basis of how he got up in the morning. That's what this government seems to be doing.
I go back to the basement apartments, Bill 120, where this government retroactively legalized basement apartments within single-family areas. That again is scary. That means no one can make plans in this province and count on them being objectively and fairly dealt with while this government continues to be in power.
The Minister of Housing over there sighs and makes that look like that's silly. I'll tell you, a lot of people in my riding are terribly upset about what you did with Bill 120. You took a single-family area where they lived, where they had paid taxes for years on the single-family rate, had bought in at the price of a single-family rate, and the swoop of a pen by this government, which seems to think it can put the heel of pressure on anybody because it has the power to do it, could simply take that away. Madam Minister of Housing, I wouldn't be terribly proud about that particular bill.
In any event, I think the point that's being made is the amendment. I think it's very unfair, I think it's a dangerous precedent, and this government may very well try to correct other bills it's brought forward which are imperfect or arose out of mismanagement and try to use that type of power. It's unfair.
Mrs Marland: Mr Chair, could I ask, through you to the proponent of the bill, if this subsection 1(4) was in his original bill?
Mr Duignan: It wasn't in the original bill. It was in the amended bill that was approved by a nine-to-two vote of the committee.
Mrs Marland: Did you draft the original bill, or did you give direction to have the original bill drafted and what it would contain?
Mr Duignan: As the member knows, I gave direction to legislative counsel to draft the original bill.
Mrs Marland: And the original bill did not contain this subsection (4), so I'm wondering if the proponent of the bill could explain why this amendment was added.
Mr Duignan: With some assistance from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, they helped draft the amended bill based on an legal opinion submitted to the standing committee on administration of justice, I believe on February 17 of this year.
Mrs Marland: Is the member saying this amendment was drafted by the legal services branch of the Ministry of Environment? Who exactly drafted it? After you answer that question, could you explain what is the justification or what was the argument? When you placed the amendment in committee, what was your argument for this amendment?
Mr Duignan: That particular amendment was drafted by the MOEE, and it was based on legal opinion from the Ministry of Environment and Energy, dated February 16,and was submitted to all members of the committee.
Mr Callahan: Why didn't they have that opinion before they drew the bill?
Mr Duignan: If the member for Brampton South was on the committee, he would have joined his colleagues in voting for the amended bill with this clause in it.
2040
Mrs Marland: I would appreciate it if the member for Halton North would address his comments to my questions, because I was not a member of the justice committee and did not have any input into this bill at any stage. So it was a legal opinion from the MOEE that necessitated the drafting of this amendment and therefore you're placing it?
Mr Duignan: That's correct. The legal opinion from MOEE, and the counsel and the committee basically drafted it from that point on.
Mrs Marland: Was there any discussion about a wording of this amendment that would make this amendment apply or come into force the day the bill receives royal assent to projects -- in other words, to make it a little more fair that it would come into full force the day the bill was proclaimed for any applications in the future, because what you're saying here in 1(2) is that existing operations that have the director's certificate of approval before the bill comes into force are exempt.
So I'm simply asking you why you changed the rules when you brought this amendment in, because unless we're not understanding this amendment fully -- and, Mr Chair, the other frustration is that, dealing with a private member's bill, we can't ask the ministry questions, we can't ask legal services questions, we can't have somebody sitting down here who can give us the technical answers. We have to rely on the member for Halton North's answers, and of course, once this bill becomes law, the people who will answer to the bill are not the member for Halton North. It is the Ministry of Environment, because it's the Environmental Protection Act. It's their legal services branch. That's who will be in the courts defending the wording of this bill.
I recognize that legal counsel drafted it, but I'm simply asking why in 1(2) you would have said that it would apply to everything except those that currently have an order or a certificate of approval, and yet in 1(4), it's reading for any proceeding. If I'm not interpreting it correctly, perhaps you can explain it.
Mr Duignan: Again, to the member for Mississauga South, my bill is very specific and to the fact that if you've already got a certificate of approval, then this bill does not apply. If you do not have a certificate of approval, then this bill would apply and all amendments and all parts of the bill would apply.
Mrs Marland: Subsection 1(4) says, "No proceeding directly or indirectly based upon the prohibition in subsection (2) may be brought against the crown in right of Ontario, the government of Ontario, any member of the executive council or any employee of the crown or government."
Are you telling us that will not apply to any existing operation that has been issued a certificate of approval or provisional certificate of approval?
Mr Duignan: That's indeed correct. If you've got a certificate of approval, this doesn't apply.
Mrs Marland: Or a provisional certificate of approval?
Mr Duignan: Yes.
Mrs Marland: All right. Could you give us an example of any other precedents for this kind of blanket waiver of a government's liability in terms of any other legislation? I support the bill and I've said that, but I have difficulty with this amendment.
I guess I'll wait till you get back to your chair. If the member for Lambton thinks this is amusing, I hope she doesn't have to pay the thousands of dollars of lawyers' bills that may still involve a challenge to this amendment in the courts.
I simply ask you what the precedent is, in law, with other statutes in this province that completely waive the government of any liability or any action against it.
Mr Duignan: To the member for Mississauga South, this is not precedent-setting, I understand. This type of amendment is in other statutes as well.
Mr Callahan: Does this mean that if the people of Bolton, who are in my area, had the ear of the government they could, through the use of the Legislature, eliminate Bolton as a site and eliminate the possibility of whoever is putting that site in place, in terms of them being able to sue for damages?
I understand the Niagara Escarpment is a special place, but it seems to me that it flies in the face of total equity, fairness, as I always thought this province operated on, to allow a government that has a majority to effectively say: "We don't care what you've done to this point; you're out of the ball game. You can't sue us for it, so just take your ball and bat and go home."
I understand what you're trying to do and I understand you're trying to protect a very natural environment, a very important environment area of our province, but I suggest that this government by doing it is creating a scenario that will reverberate across this province.
It may very well tell businessmen that this is the way this New Democratic government looks in terms of fairness, in terms of attracting your business to this province, that if it doesn't like the way you operate or it doesn't like the deal it made with you, that it'll bring in what I think will become a precedent-setting rule. It will probably be called either one of two things: It will either be called the subsection 27(4) rule or it will be called the Noel Duignan -- I can never get your last name right -- or it will be called the member for Halton's rule.
I have to say to you that I think people out there who are watching this whole process should understand that what we're seeing here tonight enacted, if this amendment is passed, is saying to people that it doesn't matter how you plan, it doesn't matter how you invest, it doesn't matter how you determine your affairs; you cannot be sure until you've actually got the whole thing signed, sealed and delivered, and even then it doesn't necessarily mean that you're home free, because this government has used a process throughout and will continue to use a process throughout that will stop you from using any methods that are available to all Ontarians to at least get compensation.
It's always been a process, as far as I know, that if a person is wronged and suffers damages, he or she has a right to recover those damages. I'm suggesting that that should be no different simply because a government of whatever political stripe has sufficient majority to be able to say, "Tough; you haven't got it." That to me will make politics even more cynical than it is now, because people will be saying to themselves that there is just no justice. If the Legislature of Ontario or for that matter if the Parliament of Canada were trying to do this, that they in fact are ultimate, supreme in terms of their --
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please.
Mr Callahan: It means that the Legislature of the province of Ontario or the Parliament of Canada has the power, and they do have the power -- don't let anybody be fooled about this -- to do this. There's no question about that. The question is whether or not it is equitable. Is it fair? Does it send out a message to the businessmen coming to this province that if they offend or don't quite set the same political agenda as the government of the day, this type of legislation will be put in place to try to stop them from recovering damages?
That to me is a dangerous precedent, one that, even though we have the power to do it, should be used on a very rare occasion. It's almost akin to trying to kill a fly with an elephant's hoof. It's got a very bad aroma, a bad feeling. As much as I'm sure I and my caucus support the legislation itself, I certainly, and I can't say the others, have some concerns about the fairness, and I think the message this sends out is a very bad one.
2050
Mrs Marland: I would like to ask the member for Halton North if he will give a specific example of other statutes in this province that have a similar waiver. It's not good enough for you to stand up and say, "Yes, there are other laws." I think with all the staff you have under the press gallery, sitting waiting at your beck and call to give you the information, you should be able to get an answer to that question. I think in fairness, if you can't answer the question, then we'd better adjourn the debate until you can get the information.
I ask you again, this subsection 1(4) of the bill: I would like to know where else there are other provincial statutes that have that kind of absolute waiver that doesn't even permit a proceeding to go to court.
Mr Duignan: As I said, this is not precedent-setting. Indeed, it appears in other statutes. I don't have a particular statute here at this particular time, but I do have a letter from Mike Harris, and the members of the Tory caucus may be interested to hear what a paragraph of that particular letter says:
"Unfortunately, the Rae government has turned down our request on your behalf to act expeditiously on Bill 62. Instead, they would rather mislead the public and put the escarpment at risk in order to score cheap political points. Sadly, it seems, there's no level to which these accidents of history won't stoop.
"Please be assured I will continue to press for speedy action on Bill 62, and thank you again for sharing your thoughts with us."
I wonder now who's misleading whom; in fact, who is scoring cheap political points here.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order.
Mrs Marland: I hope the member is not leaving. I would say in response to the member for Halton North that I don't have any difficulty with my leader's letter. I've already said that I support this bill, but I do have concern with this bill, as amended. What I would like to ask the member for Halton North -- and I guess maybe I'll have to wait until he gets back to his seat in order to ask the question.
This amendment is very interesting, because this bill is dealing with the Niagara Escarpment plan area and therefore the execution of this bill falls -- well, maybe I'd better ask the proponent this question so that I don't presume anything. Would you agree that the execution of this bill will fall in the legal jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Commission?
Mr Duignan: Again, this bill amends the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment, and I suspect that the member is correct.
Mrs Marland: Thank you very much for your answer. So the execution and the application of this bill on all lands within the Niagara Escarpment plan will fall to the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which for the most part -- I think maybe the board chairman has an honorarium but the rest of the board members are volunteers.
Mr Murdoch: No, they're not, Margaret. Don't get into that. Why do you want to get into that?
Mrs Marland: In any case, what I would like to ask this member -- Bill, I can't concentrate with you nattering behind me. Just let me have my turn.
Mr Murdoch: Well then, Margaret, don't be telling things that aren't right.
The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Mississauga South has the floor.
Mrs Marland: I find it really interesting that in subsection 1(4) of this bill --
Mr Callahan: There goes your candidacy, Bill.
Mr Murdoch: I don't think Margaret will bother my candidacy.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please.
Mrs Marland: I'm simply saying, could you wait till I finish talking? Mr Chairman, it's very difficult to hear when people around me are talking, and all I'm asking is for the members --
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): That's right. We are used to that, Margaret, every time we have to talk.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order. The member for Cochrane South is way out of order.
Mrs Marland: My question to the member for Halton North is, how is it that in subsection 1(4) of the bill he protects everybody against proceedings? No proceeding shall be brought against the crown, the government, the executive council or any employee of the crown or government. Could you explain why you didn't include members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission? They are going to be very vulnerable in the execution of this bill, and I'd like to know why you're not protecting them.
Mr Duignan: I want to point out that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is an agency of the crown.
Mrs Marland: I'm well aware that the Niagara Escarpment Commission is an agency of the crown. I'm simply asking you why you have not named them in subsection 1(4). In your very carefully worded amendment it says "against the crown." It doesn't say "agencies of the crown." I'm not sure; I wouldn't be presumptuous enough to say that government agencies, boards and commissions are automatically protected, because unless you have a very strong opinion that that is so, I really challenge you on your answer. If there's somebody who can assure me that members of agencies, boards and commissions of the crown are automatically protected against a proceeding in this wording, then I will accept it, but I would be very careful with your answer, I would say to the member for Halton North.
Mr Duignan: Again, as I pointed out earlier, the bill does not affect the Niagara Escarpment plan act; it affects the EPA. There's a distinct difference.
Mrs Marland: Oh, so now you're backing down on your answer. This gives me a little concern for the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. Yes, I know it amends the Environmental Protection Act. It also says it's An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect to the Niagara Escarpment. I asked you two questions ago who would be responsible for the execution of this bill, and your answer was the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I'm simply asking you, why are you protecting everybody, including every employee of the crown or the government, but you're not saying in your bill that you're going to protect the Niagara Escarpment Commission? I'm simply asking you to give them that protection.
We're in committee of the whole House. If you wish to give those board members the protection that you want to give your own staff and your own executive council -- namely, cabinet -- then I ask you why you won't amend this and add the Niagara Escarpment Commission, because they are the people who are going to be responsible for the application of this bill. And don't tell me it's an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act, because I know it is; I can read.
2100
Mr Duignan: Again, obviously we have an area of disagreement: I believe that in fact they are covered; the honourable member for Mississauga South believes they're not.
Mr Murdoch: I'm quite glad you don't have it in there, I want to tell you. I think somebody should sue the Niagara Escarpment Commission. It would be the best thing they ever did. So I want to congratulate you, if that's the case, and I think they should. But I want to point out for the record that the commission and the chairman are all paid, just so that all members know that.
The Second Deputy Chair: I would remind all members that we are dealing with Mr Stockwell's amendment, which simply says that he moves that subsection 1(4) of the bill be struck out. Further debate.
Mrs Marland: Are there any staff available to us when we're in committee of the whole discussing private members' legislation?
The Second Deputy Chair: It's my understanding that we do not have ministry staff available to us.
Mrs Marland: This is deplorable.
Mr Bisson: My God, Margaret, look in the mirror.
Mrs Marland: I don't know if the --
The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Cochrane South, please. You're not in your seat. Interjections are out of order, and you are very much out of order.
Mrs Marland: It's too bad the member for Cochrane South doesn't have something to do.
Mr Chair, I do not think that we can proceed with a bill which can only be clarified by one person in this House. Perhaps I could ask, with respect, because I don't know the answer, is the member for Halton North a lawyer?
The Second Deputy Chair: It's the member for Halton North's bill. Whether he's a solicitor or not really doesn't matter.
Mrs Marland: Well, it does matter a great deal, because he has made a statement. The statement that the member for Halton North has made is that subsection 1(4), where it says that no proceeding can be made against the crown, the government, the executive council, being the cabinet, and any employee of the crown or government, he says that includes the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
If we find out that it doesn't and the Niagara Escarpment Commission is not protected by this subsection 1(4), if we find that out before third reading, you can be well assured that I will bring that to the notice of this House, because it is absurd for us not to be able to get that answer to my question. Obviously, this has been worded very carefully, at the direction of the proponent of the bill, and I do think that if the member for Halton North is so interested in protecting the cabinet, he might well be as interested in protecting the members of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.
It wouldn't matter if you hadn't added this amendment. It would not matter if you hadn't said that no proceeding may be brought against these parties. But your answer that "those parties" includes the Niagara Escarpment Commission: If it does not, then I will personally speak to it at third reading because then there would be a situation where information had been brought to this House that was inaccurate.
The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you to the member for Mississauga South. Are there any further questions or comments to the motion by Mr Stockwell?
All those in favour of the motion by Mr Stockwell regarding subsection 1(4)?
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
I declare this amendment lost.
Are there any further questions or comments on any section of this bill?
Shall sections 1 through 3 carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry?
All those in favour, please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the title carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House? Agreed.
Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the committee rise and report.
The First Deputy Chair: The government House leader has moved that the committee rise and report. Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Carried.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill, without amendments, and asks for leave to sit again.
Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.
CHRONIC CARE PATIENTS' TELEVISION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'INSTALLATION DE TÉLÉVISEURS APPARTENANT À DES MALADES CHRONIQUES
Mr Ramsay moved third reading of the following bill:
Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder / Projet de loi 18, Loi permettant aux malades chroniques d'installer leur propre téléviseur ou leur propre combiné téléviseur-magnétoscope à vidéo-cassette.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Ramsay, would you care to make some opening remarks?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I appreciate, near the end of the session, all three parties, especially the government, allowing this bill to come through to third reading. As you know, it was a year ago that we had second reading in this House on a Thursday morning, and just a few weeks ago this was discussed and there was an amendment to the bill that was accepted in committee.
Very briefly, this bill I brought forward is a result of a constituent of mine in Timiskaming who wanted to bring a combination television-VCR to his wife, who today is a patient in the chronic care ward in the Kirkland Lake hospital. Mr Sampson wanted to do that in order to provide a bigger-screen television for his wife, but also with the VCR to allow her to start to view some of the family activities that she was no longer able to see, such as birthday parties of grandchildren and other such events. We tried working through the hospital and through the hospital association, and I really felt that I needed to bring this bill forward.
I think this type of bill would allow that sort of freedom of choice for people who find themselves in a chronic care ward. In many cases this is a home for these people, and in many cases this is maybe their last home. I think having the right to be able to have their own television set at a much lower cost than maybe the $82 a hospital would charge for a monthly rental, which I think is exorbitant for somebody who now finds himself a patient in these chronic care wards, is the way to go. I would ask all members, if they can, to support this bill.
2110
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I just would like to use the opportunity to congratulate the member for bringing forward this bill. It's obviously one that is needed. It's unfortunate in a way that it is needed, but I feel that the member for Timiskaming is speaking on behalf of all of us, even those members who are interjecting who can't tolerate any further discussion in the House on this matter.
Obviously he is speaking to this real need for people who are in chronic care beds or nursing home facilities, where they do not have that choice of having their own VCR or television set and they are bound by a commercial lease which not only is very expensive, it isn't always the service that the individual client or the individual patient needs. I think the point is very well made about being able to view programs of their choice, especially family films of family events and occasions that, because they are hospitalized on a permanent or a semi-permanent nature, they're not able to access any other way.
I do congratulate the member. As I've said, I think it's a wonderful solution to an existing problem, and I'm very happy that we're able to support it.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): To the member for Timiskaming, I think it was unfortunate that we had to bring in such a piece of legislation. After listening to some of the conversations, I remember getting quite angry, and by getting angry, I made sure that I would support the member in bringing forward this bill.
It's one that I believe should never have had to come here. It should have been resolved at the hospitals, because what it is talking about specifically is dealing with long-term care patients who are in hospitals, providing a basic right to a part of society: to watch TV and to feel some comfort in the last moments of their lives.
The family that was involved was of particular interest, because all he was trying to do, as a caring husband, was to provide for his wife in return for all the years of dedication and service she gave to him and his family.
I would like to congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward. Hopefully this resolves any future problems that we have. It's unfortunate that the situation could not have been resolved in the hospital versus a piece of legislation, which would have taken much less time. Then the person involved would have received a television-VCR at the appropriate time and probably would have been enjoying it, maybe even enjoying it today, watching the debate tonight on television.
To the member opposite, I was glad I was on the committee and I'm glad I was able to support the member in his private member initiative to provide for the citizens of his riding, which I also know will benefit the citizens of my riding.
Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I wanted to say as well that the member for Timiskaming made our day when his two witnesses came to the social development committee. Sometimes it's difficult for us here in this Legislature to solve practical problems, but on that day we had a father and son come to us and talk about what they felt they could do for their mother and wife. That touched most of us, because we could put ourselves in their place. At that time in a person's life, those who stand by want to do the very most, and it seemed almost impossible to believe that they couldn't do what they wanted to do: offer their mother and wife the choices she needed.
The reasons that were put before them seemed very surmountable, and I'm very, very glad the member for Timiskaming made his mind up that he was going to pursue this and thus give many, many others in ridings right across this province the opportunity to enjoy family events, to have choices, to watch when they felt up to it, and that's also a consideration. I feel very strongly that this bill should be supported by all of us, because it will make those lives a little bit more pleasant as they grow closer to the time when they have to say goodbye.
The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just want to shortly put on the record some of my thoughts in regard to the private member's bill. I know the family he talks about, because I dealt with the family, I guess going back a couple of years ago, who had the particular problem at the Kirkland Lake hospital.
I would like to commend the member for bringing forward this private member's bill. I speak from a bit of a different perspective, because I used to be in the television rental business at one time and used to be on quite the opposite side, with the contracts with the hospitals, but I do agree that --
Interjections.
Mr Bisson: Some members are saying, "You're the guy who brings in all the TVs."
There is a case to be made, especially in chronic care facilities where people are able to bring in a part of their lives that they feel attached to.
Fortunately or unfortunately at times, television is a big part of people's lives. To give individuals the opportunity to bring in a colour TV and a VCR to make their lives a little more bearable in a chronic care facility or in a home for the aged I think is something that, quite frankly, should have been done on the part of the institutions. The member for Chatham-Kent said he would hope that those kinds of issues would have been dealt with at the local board level and that they would have allowed that kind of practice to happen, but for some reason it hadn't been done.
I would echo the comments of the member from Ottawa -- whom I served time with on the Constitution committee, I say in a nice way -- that it's unfortunate that it has to be done this way. But it's nice to see you had a chance where citizens are able to bring to their local member an issue and they are to see that the process does really work at times. I would like to commend the member for his work.
I would like to say, just in passing, that I have an opportunity to drive through the member's riding on Mondays and Fridays every week and I really appreciate all the wonderful passing lanes that have been put on Highway 11 by the Ontario government. It really allows me to go through the riding of Timiskaming in a very different way than in the past. I know that the Minister of Transportation salutes the riding of Timiskaming in putting all those wonderful passing lanes through Highway 11. They're much appreciated.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Timiskaming may respond.
Mr Ramsay: I'd just like to thank all the members who have stood in their places and offered their support for this bill. I appreciate that they recognize the need of the chronic care patients in this very modest endeavour. Sometimes in this business it's many of the little things that we get done that are the most satisfying, and I'd like to thank you very much for that support. I know Mr Sampson is watching tonight and maybe in a few weeks his wife will be able to watch the parliamentary channel when she gets her TV.
The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate? Seeing none, Mr Ramsay has moved third reading of Bill 18, An Act to permit Patients receiving Chronic Care to install their own Television or combined Television and Video-Cassette Recorder.
Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
Orders of the day.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just before I call the next order, the House leaders have had some discussions and I need to seek the consent of the House to proceed with second reading of Bill 104, which is the 98th order.
The Acting Speaker: Is there consent in the House to proceed with this? Agreed.
MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT (VITAL SERVICES), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS (SERVICES ESSENTIELS)
Mr Turnbull moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services by-laws / Projet de loi 104, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités en ce qui concerne les règlements municipaux relatifs aux services essentiels.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Turnbull, would you care to make some opening remarks?
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): This act is designed to protect tenants in the case where landlords fail to provide vital services such as heat, hydro, water or sewage, and emanated from a situation in my riding where a landlord went into default on many bills and the heat was turned off in the building. In order to protect tenants all across the province, I brought this legislation forward.
It received consideration within the context of Bill 95, which was a similar bill but was limited to only North York, whereas my bill is for the whole of the province. It was agreed by all members of the committee, from all sides, that it would be appropriate to amend Bill 95 to allow for this being province-wide legislation, but it was technically not possible to do this.
2120
The Toronto Area Property Standards Officers, TAPSO, suggested this was an essential thing that should be brought forward. The bill is very similar to legislation which has already been enacted in this House for the cities of London, Toronto and Ottawa. The bill will simply allow municipalities to pass bylaws so they can act, where necessary, to protect tenants.
It avoids the costly preparation of private bills for municipalities. In the case of London, when we passed the London bill, it cost many, many thousands of dollars and approximately two years to bring it forward. It's appropriate that we allow all municipalities this without any further costly delays.
The Acting Speaker: Are there questions or comments to the member for York Mills?
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I'm pleased to support this bill. It's a bill that in many ways is similar to a bill I introduced many years ago as an opposition member and that was not passed at that time. It will be welcomed by tenants. It will be welcomed by a number of municipalities. I congratulate the member for being sensitive to his constituents. I'm pleased, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to support this bill and I look forward to municipalities using this for the protection of tenants. Once again, my compliments to the member.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a question to the member about the bill. I was listening to your preamble. If I understand correctly, and you can clarify for my benefit, what you're talking about is having a bill so that in the event a landlord defaults on payment of hydro, those services can't be withheld from the tenant. If that were to happen, who in the end would end up paying the utility costs? Can you explain the mechanism, just for the record?
The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions or comments to the member for York Mills? Seeing none, the member for York Mills has two minutes to respond.
Mr Turnbull: First of all, I thank the Minister of Municipal Affairs for his kind words with respect to this bill.
In response to the member for Cochrane South, the bill is permissive legislation which allows municipalities, where they think appropriate, to step in, then they will add the cost of any bills that they have to pay. In the example I cited before of a building in my own constituency where the landlord had not paid the utility bill, it would allow the municipality to pay it and add it as a charge against the municipal taxes. It should not end up as a cost to the public. It will be a cost against the landlord, albeit that in the meantime the municipality has to bear it. But it will be added as a charge against the property taxes of the building.
Mr Bisson: The municipality decides?
Mr Turnbull: The municipality will have the right to decide whether to enact this legislation and whether to use it where it sees appropriate. There are many municipalities across this province where this is not a particular problem. It appears to be more a problem of large urban areas where you sometimes have faceless landlords.
I have to tell you that in discussing this bill I've spoken to tenants groups and I've spoken to landlords. The vast majority support this, because good landlords certainly have no intention of withholding these services from tenants; it's the bad landlords, who give landlords a bad name, who withhold services or may not be in a position financially to be able to pay their bills. This addresses that problem. It shouldn't be the tenants' problem to worry about whether the landlord has paid the utility bills that month with the rent they have paid.
The Acting Speaker: Is there any further debate? Seeing none, Mr Turnbull has moved second reading of Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of vital services bylaws.
Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed. To committee of the whole?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): No, no. Third reading.
The Acting Speaker: Third reading.
ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 159, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Projet de loi 159, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Sutherland, would you care to make some remarks?
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I want to make a few very technical remarks about the bill and then a few other comments.
The 1994 loan act will provide the government with the authority to borrow up to $15.5 billion over the 18-month period ending December 31, 1995. I want to reiterate that the figure of $15.5 billion is over an 18-month period ending December 31, 1995.
The amount of the loan act is calculated as the sum of the financing requirement for this fiscal year plus the financing requirement for the first nine months of the next fiscal year. It is traditional to request authority to meet the borrowing needs for part of the following year to allow adequate time for the passage of subsequent loan acts, thus ensuring an orderly borrowing program. This year's borrowing program will include bonds, treasury bills, US commercial paper, medium-term notes and private placements.
As you know, we require to borrow. But people need to keep in context what it means by us being able to do this, and some of the decisions the government made last year in terms of the social contract, expenditure control plan and tax increases, and relate that to this year's budget, where there are no tax increases, where we've been able to provide a few tax breaks to support job creation, where we've been able to maintain a significant capital program which has also meant very good things in my riding through funds through Jobs Ontario Community Action for the Woodstock District Community Complex, capital announcements for education, the new St Mary's High School and tremendous other things going on in the communities of my colleagues all across the province.
It also meant and this bill also means -- it has some impact -- that we did not have to reduce transfer payments to our MUSH sector partners, municipalities, universities and colleges, schools, hospitals. It gave them some more breathing room to deal with some of the changes, and let's be clear about that, that have to go on in all those sectors to operate more efficiently in an environment of less government revenue.
I think that's important when we're talking about this, because I'm sure some of the comments will just emphasize how much we have to borrow and view that as a negative thing, without taking into context the entire picture. The entire picture is what we've been able to do on the capital side for creating jobs, supporting jobs, supporting new types of economic activity, whether that be through capital, through training, through Jobs Ontario Community Action, and also what we've been able to do in terms of maintaining stable funding this year to all our transfer partners: the MUSH sector, as I said, but also a lot of our social service agencies and other agencies we transfer funds to.
I hope that all members who participate in the debate and those watching at home will keep this in the context that this government, through a very difficult economic time, has done a good job of managing our finances and that the economy is improving, more people are at work, and we're seeing more bright spots all the time picking up.
I will leave my opening remarks at that.
2130
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments to the member for Oxford?
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I would like to take this opportunity to commend the member for Oxford for his contribution to this debate and to echo some of the things he talked about in terms of the direction the Ontario government has taken in trying to find a way to strike a balance between the fiscal reality in which we find ourselves in the province but at the same time the social realities we have. As a government, we have a responsibility to the people of Ontario to try, in the best way we can during a time of recession, to maintain services so people can still live in dignity and access and rely on some of the services that are necessary for the province, but at the same time try to find ways to make those services much more affordable by finding ways of restructuring government in a proactive way.
If we look at some of the examples in health care, it started under the former Minister of Health, Frances Lankin, and now the present Minister of Health, Ruth Grier, in terms of saying, "We've had in past years double-digit increases in health care at a time we can't really afford it," and trying to find a way, and being successful in finding that way, of managing those costs down to a sustainable level.
Yes, it's been difficult for some of those agencies to change their attitudes and change the way they approach the problems they face. In the Timmins District Hospital they've had to go through a fairly difficult process of change and really challenge themselves to find ways to operate within existing budgets, and it's meant they've had to pull some of the parties together that they've never had to rely on before.
I would like to commend the member for participating in the debate, but really for acknowledging the work this government has done to try and find a way to restructure government to make it more affordable, remembering in the end that yes, we have a financial responsibility, but also as important is the social responsibility we face.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I note in the explanatory note that some of this money will be sold on the international loan market. I have a serious concern that the people of Ontario, the people of Canada, concern themselves about the deficit of the province and the federal government. I have concerns about when governments are going to decide to try and bring the Canadian people and the Ontario people, through tax breaks or whatever, to the point where they will be able to sell all of this within Canada, within Ontario.
We saw today where the bank rate has just gone up again. Every time it goes up it means mortgage rates go up, it means the borrowing cost goes up, it means business has difficulty in terms of expanding, and every time we get a crack in the economy to move ourselves up, we move back down again.
So I have a real concern, and I really don't understand why this province or this country is not able to see that this is a crisis similar to what we had during the war. We should be able, through some innovative way, through tax breaks or whatever, to convince people to invest within the Ontario or the Canadian market to avoid the blip that every time the US burps, our interest rates go up, even though we've got deinflation as opposed to inflation. I urge the provincial government, and I guess through you the federal government, to look at it in terms of trying to stimulate within Canada that degree of wish to save their country from deficits and from high interest rates that are affected every time one of the countries in the world blips.
Finally, in the United States municipal bonds are at 3%. Why are they at 3%? Because they're tax-free. We should be looking at innovative measures like that to try to keep our funding within our province, within our country, to avoid these blips and these burps that cause us no end of trouble and do nothing for our business or our home owners in terms of their mortgages.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): This particular bill, which permits the government to borrow $15.5 billion between now and the end of next year, the end of 1995, largely stems from the budget of 1994-95. I was very interested to see the pride of the parliamentary assistant in the budget. He kind of rushed his remarks, I might say; we must be under time allocation. But nevertheless I can see the pride beaming through for the budget of 1994-95.
The parliamentary assistant, though, being astute as he is, I'm sure will have heard that the Bank of Canada has increased the rate today to 7.09%, over 7%, and the Royal Bank of Canada has increased its rate to 8%.
My recollection, Mr Parliamentary Assistant, is that the budget of Mr Laughren and yourself for 1994 was based on a 6% rate from the Bank of Canada. I'm hoping you'll respond to this question, because my guess is that this increase in the rate from the Bank of Canada will have a dire effect not only on your budget, on your ability to borrow, but it will be a dampener on the economy as a whole. I think of the housing industry. I think of the auto sector in the province of Ontario. I know the economic forecasts have been rosy this year up to this point for 1994, but my guess is that this increase and the concern about future increases will put a dampener on that, will perhaps lower job creation and will wreak havoc with the budget in 1994. I would ask the parliamentary assistant's response to that.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I would ask the parliamentary assistant if this is not the largest borrowing bill, as far as he knows, for the period of time you're borrowing it for. I know we've gone out and borrowed greater sums or floated greater sums, but it seems to me, with your deficit figures and the revenue projections, that the $15 billion doesn't jibe with the numbers within the budget.
Having said that, he may well want to go on and explain how come you need so much money when your deficit projections would appear to be somewhat less than this particular figure? The only other alternative would be that your revenue proposals or perspectives would come in on a slower basis or on a seasonal basis and you need the money as a stopgap measure.
It's also interesting to note where we're borrowing the money. The lion's share, or a goodly sum of this money, comes from overseas, out of country. It goes to prove once again that when we go out to borrow money, we just become further indebted to other nations, something I know this government has some real concerns about with respect to multinationals buying out Canadian companies. But every time they go out and borrow $15.5 billion, where do they go? They go overseas, they go to other countries and they ask them to buy our bonds, which is kind of a curious dichotomy and something the parliamentary assistant might want to discuss.
But the bigger fear I have is not the multinationals coming in and buying up Canadian companies, although in some instances it might be concerning; the greater fear I have is how much public debt is held outside this country. By holding it outside this country, public debt can be called at any time, according to the terms and conditions of that debt, and if they happen to call it, I don't think we have the money to pay them back.
The Acting Speaker: Our time for questions or comments has expired. The member for Oxford has two minutes to respond.
Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the members who contributed to the debate. Let me just say, first of all, that this isn't the largest amount. Last year's loan act was for $16 billion. I want to remind the member for Etobicoke West, though -- and I've repeated it twice -- that it's for an 18-month period, going to December 31, 1995. The fiscal year requirements as expressed in the budget of course only go to March 31, 1995. It's traditional that we have that extra period of time. That's why the figure is higher than what's in the budget.
The member for Brampton South talked about wishing we could have more Ontarians and more Canadians participate in this. I think we all wish we could do that. My understanding of the situation, though, is that with the federal debt, less of that is foreign, more of that is domestic, but they have taken up a greater share of the accessible capital, which then forces the province -- all the provinces, not just Ontario -- in terms of having to go offshore.
2140
The other challenge that both the federal government and the provincial government have -- I think the member was referring to Canada savings bonds or something of that nature that have been used -- is that it is a more expensive way. It gets Ontarians and Canadians involved, but it is a more expensive way. If you look at the federal government and its policies, it's been trying to reduce the amount through savings bonds because it is a more expensive way of raising capital. I'm sure that the member too would like us to raise it in the most cost-effective way possible.
To my colleague the member for Cochrane South, he's quite right about the tremendous changes that have occurred, when I think of health care, with long-term care reform, mental health reform, all kinds of areas there; when I look at education and what is going on there through the work of the royal commission and standard testing; when I look at social services and the changes that are going on there, the tremendous changes that are going to make those services better for the consumer in the long run and more efficient overall.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Callahan: I'm very pleased to join in the debate. Oftentimes, when this type of matter comes before the House, it's an opportunity to really lay it on the government. I'm going to try not to do that, at the outset anyway.
I raised in my questions and comments something that has concerned me gravely, and it should concern the people of Ontario as well as the people of Canada. I don't think people understand what a deficit is. They don't understand what an accumulated deficit is. They don't know that the accumulated deficit is about $280 billion federally; it's about $90 billion here in Ontario.
That's not a criticism of any government. What that says is that the government of the day, of whatever political stripe, is not able to live within its means. The net effect is just like any ordinary consumer watching tonight who has a family. They have to go out and borrow money to buy a house, put a mortgage on it at the going interest rate. You have to go out a buy a car at the going interest rate. If they're a businessperson, they have to pay the prime rate, perhaps a pimple below the prime rate or the prime rate plus one.
The net effect is that they're buying something, but they're buying it over time and they're paying a significant amount of interest. If the public who are watching tonight understand what the government is really doing, the government is borrowing money, and the prevailing interest rate at which it can float it will have an effect on how we can pay it back.
We've seen, as I said in my questions to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance, that today the Bank of Canada rate went up again; I think it's the second time in two weeks. I remember when we had rates for mortgages going down to about 5%, and that's only about three months ago. People out there with mortgages who were hedging their bets were going for six months and not locking in because they felt we had reached that stage of normalcy. You had bankers in fact telling you, "Don't lock in because this can't last, this is just a short-term blip." When I think about what my banker told me, and I hope he's not watching, or she's not watching, I think it was fine for them to say that because, even it is isn't a blip, which it wasn't, they're going to make money, because when I lock in, I'm going to lock in at the rate they want me to lock in at.
I think there's a very real concern, and there should be, provincially and federally, about how we deal with deficits. If the people of the Ontario and the people of Canada, the people I talk to and I'm sure the people all of us talk to, are so concerned about deficits, then we as Canadians should be prepared, first of all, to understand what a deficit is, what an annual deficit is and what an accumulated deficit is. The accumulated deficit involves mortgaging the future of our children, both provincially and federally, and this is whatever the political stripe.
If we don't deal with it, all we do is keep heaping it on, year after year. This is not an indictment of the present government because it was all three governments. Through accumulation back in the years of Mr Davis, and I hate to say that -- he's a friend and a constituent of mine -- they started an accumulated deficit. I'm sure we added something to it. We had some good years, so we didn't add that much to it. The New Democratic Party government has had bad years and has added an awful lot more to it.
The net effect is that if you put the accumulated deficit aside and let it keep building, just ignore it and have current or yearly deficits every year, you keep adding on to it. What we're doing is sacrificing the future of our children. I think that's sad. We as legislators should have a more imaginative way, both federally and provincially, of dealing with this whole issue to ensure that our young people in the future will not have to bear that debt. Right now, we're bearing about $8,500 per person for every citizen of Ontario in terms of Ontario's debt.
What I'm suggesting is that during the war -- I happened to come from the United States as a young man and I guess I was about six years old when the war was on -- they sold war bonds. I'm sure they sold them in Canada too. They were able to involve the people of Canada in a cause that was so important and so significant because we were fighting in Europe against a regime we all abhorred.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: Well, I hate to tell you, but we're fighting a regime that we all abhor now too: the giving away of the future of the children of this province, the reduction --
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Oh, get a life.
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: We're giving away the future of our children's lives. It's necessitating governments of all political stripes to have to reduce things like health care, to have to tell seniors or anybody when they travel outside this province that they're only going to get compensated for $100 or whatever on their hospital bills.
We wouldn't have to do that, because if we were smart and we were doing our jobs as legislators and as parliamentarians in the parliaments of Canada, what we would say is, "This is an important issue," and we would sell it to the people of this province, sell it to the people of this country and say, "This is an urgent issue." You now have to think not so much in terms of how much you would make -- if the bonds can't be sold within Canada, they'd be sold outside of Canada. If they're sold outside of Canada, obviously we'd have to give them an impressive rate.
Every time the United States burps, as we've seen today, every time the European Community and the world burps, Canada suffers, and yet Canada has not inflation, but deflation, and we can't do anything about it.
Young couples that are about to buy a home, or were going to, found that unless they locked in with a mortgage there was no way they could buy the home. So who are they selling the houses to? In my community, in the registry office, there was all sorts of activity last month. What was that? That was the blip of the people who plugged in and got the 90-day commitment on the mortgage loan when the rate was low. Suddenly this place is empty again, and it's empty again because the interest rates are going up.
I'm glad the parliamentary assistant is here and I hope he'll discuss it with the Treasurer, or the Minister of Finance, because we have an opportunity in time to come up with innovative ways to convince Canadians and Ontarians to pick up those bonds. Maybe we need some assistance from the federal Parliament in terms of taxation to try and convince them that they should be prepared to buy those bonds.
The province of Ontario has an excellent banking system called provincial banks. Bob Nixon, who was the Treasurer of this province, put a great deal of effort behind moving them around the province and making them competitive. Through the provincial banking system we should be able to give incentives, even if it means indirectly that the provincial savings bank takes a deficit. It's an agency of this Legislature.
Rather than having the Minister of Finance of whatever political stripe stand up and say, "This year we're going to have a $9-billion, $10-billion, $11-billion or $12-billion deficit," or trying to formulate ways to make it look like it's better than it is -- we all know that goes on whatever the political stripe. We've seen with what they call Rae days.
2150
Interjection: Social contract.
Mr Callahan: Social contract. I have great respect for the Office of the Premier. I like him as well. But we haven't saved anything there. I would think that if an accounting was done of what we have saved through the social contract, we would find we've saved nothing.
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: The parliamentary assistant laughs, but let me tell you, I'm the corrections critic and when I hear corrections officers calling me and telling me that they have to work 18-hour days so they're getting overtime, or if they can't work the 18-hour days, they have to bring in staff at overtime; or nurses, where the RNAs can't work so they bring in RNs; that's got to cost more. I'd love to see an accounting of what went on during the social contract.
I'm not trying to be political in this regard. What I'm trying to do is urge and suggest a way that we could look at this and deal with it. I've talked to every Minister of Finance -- "Treasurer" was the former word -- of whatever political stripe. I've even written to my good friend Paul Martin, who was a classmate of mine, suggesting that we have to structure our tax system in such a way similar to the United States.
In the United States a municipal bond issue goes at 3% interest. When I was on council, we were paying 19% interest on debentures and flogging it off on the taxpayers, the real property owners in my municipality. In the United States they make it 3%, and the way they get away with that is that the 3% is not taxable. It's sheltered. So foundations which have all sorts of money to put out will put it out at the 3% because in effect the net result is that they save money. They're not taxed as heavily. They make as much as they would if they were getting 19%. I think those are areas which all legislators, of whatever political stripe, whatever level of government, could look at.
I've heard people I've talked to about this issue and about how we could do it say, "Well, we can't do it." I heard the parliamentary assistant say, "Well, we can't do it." Well, I say to you, and I challenge every legislator in this Legislature and I challenge the legislators in the Parliament of Canada to say that the people of Ontario, the people of Canada, all talk about the deficit -- and they're right, the deficit is an albatross around our necks. It is having an impact in terms of jobs that are being created in this community. It has an impact in terms of businesses that are succeeding. It has an impact in terms of the recession, of our getting out of the recession. The United States is out of the recession. We're not out of it.
With today's announcement of the Bank of Canada rate, which they had to do, we've got a 72-cent dollar. It's great for exporters, but it doesn't create any jobs in this country. Unless we wake up and realize that if we really want to get rid of the deficit and we really want to make this country and this province competitive, then we have to sit together -- maybe it requires it being done in a non-partisan way, because we have a crisis. We have a crisis that is equivalent to the Second World War.
We have people who are starving on our streets. We have food banks. Who would have ever thought food banks would have become such an established institution in the good old province of Ontario? Who would have thought people would have been lying on the streets on Toronto and the streets in my community and many communities throughout this province? Who would have thought that young people would have been losing their homes that they paid overpriced rates for, and the mortgage rates went up through the roof and they couldn't afford them any more? Who would have thought that jobs would have been lost the way they're being lost? Who would have thought companies would have moved out of this province? Who would have thought businesses wouldn't get started?
It's a direct result of what we allow to happen in terms of how we invest or how we sell our debt. This is exactly what this bill is talking about. I've been in here, this will be my 10th year, and I have seen this bill go through. It always goes through at the end of the session. It always goes through at a time when people want to get out of here. It always goes through in a situation where people just want to talk about their pet peeve. Well, what I'm talking to you about today is not your pet peeve. I'm not criticizing the government. What I'm doing is that I'm challenging the government to develop a technique to deal with this, a rallying call.
I watched last night while the Minister of Transportation talked about developing TV commercials to stop carnage on the highways. Great stuff. Why isn't the Minister of Finance out there, or the Minister of Finance for Canada, saying: "Look, Canadians, do you want your country to be financially stable? Do you want us to be able to compete? If you want us to be able to compete, then you better wake up and realize that unless they're prepared -- the people who invest in this loan apparatus -- to put their money where there mouth is, then we are not going to survive economically; we're not going to survive socially. Our health care system will be shot to blazes. We will have to cut back on social services. We will have to cut back on everything"? I don't think that's fair.
The time has come for us to realize that if we truly believe or we're prophetic enough perhaps to see what the next five years holds for us, regardless of what party's in power, we have to make some very significant decisions, taxwise, to create a tax system that is going to allow for this, encourage people who perhaps are not prepared to do it, because they're strong Ontarians and strong Canadians, to invest in our country and to give us the money so we're not going to be borrowing it or sending it out to international markets.
Think about it: For every dollar we send out and is bought by somebody outside this country, we do a number of things. We give them a great investment because we've got a 72-cent dollar so it means they already start with 28 cents to the good. Then if we give them a rate of interest that's higher than the US, that's a greater attraction.
Why do we have to do that? If Canadians really believe that the deficit is the important feature, if Canadians believe that the accumulated deficit and the annual deficit are important, if they really understand that this has an impact in terms of our whole environment, does it require us to be dragged to our knees in terms of employees having no jobs? Does it require us to be dragged to our knees in terms of having no business? Does it require us being dragged to our knees and people losing their homes? Does it require us being dragged to our knees in terms of not having a health care system of which I was proud at one time and which is being limited by necessity -- and I'm not criticizing the government -- and does it require that we simply give up, that we as politicians are required to sort of hide how our deficits are arrived at, create innovative ways through crown corporations? Again I'm not criticizing the present Minister of Finance, but why do we have to play smoke and mirrors with people?
Why can't we say to the people of Ontario and the people of Canada, "If you really are concerned about your country and your province, you have to then invest in your country and your province"? You can't just say that to them without structuring a tax system that will at least give them a break so they're not giving total charity to their fellow human beings, but at least you're giving them a level playing field that might be something similar to what they might be getting on the international market.
Unless we do that, I have very severe concerns. In the period of 10 years that I've been here, I've seen this province dragged to its knees in a whole host of areas. I don't know how much longer I'll be around this Legislature, but certainly when I leave here, and I would hope all members when they leave here, I would like to be able to say: "Well, we were innovative. We were innovative to the extent that we were able to take the debt off the backs particularly of the young people of this province and give them back something." I don't think we've done that.
I don't know whether that message has been delivered well or if people understand what I'm talking about or whether anybody's listening to that message at all, but I think we had better listen to it, because if we don't, we're in deep trouble.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments to the member?
Mr David Johnson: I wish to assure the member for Brampton South that I'm listening and that my colleagues from Mississauga South and Etobicoke West are listening to the message that you're conveying, and you're conveying a message that needs to be heard.
I've always appreciated the member for Brampton South. His route is by my office in the morning, and he always looks in and says, "Are you having fun?" and gives me a wave and cheers me up every morning, but the message tonight, I think, is one of sober reality that he's conveyed to this particular House in terms of attempting to appreciate the enormity of the debt and the deficit, the deficit being the difference between the revenues coming in and the expenditures each year of the province of Ontario.
2200
My personal little comparison is, if you bring it down to a personal level, and I know the member for Brampton South was attempting to do that, if you were an individual earning $45,000 a year and spending $55,000 a year, and you did that not just one year but you did that for four years in a row, then you would have some appreciation of what's happening at the province, because at the province the revenues coming in are about $45 billion and the expenditures going out are about $55 billion. This has happened not just for this particular year -- and the parliamentary assistant is so delighted with the budget this particular year -- but for four years in a row.
As a matter of fact, it's worse than that, because the debt of the province has increased since this government has taken office, from about $45 billion -- at the end of this fiscal year, it will be about $90 billion. It's hard to put your mind around that. I think the member for Brampton South is trying to bring that to the attention of the people of Ontario, and I thank him for that.
Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Brampton South. Let me just say to him that in terms of where Ontario's debt is and the composition of it, a little over 46% of it is in Canadian hands or Canadian dollars; another 44% is in US; and then 9% is in other types of currencies, European, Asian etc. I hope that gives him a little better understanding of where the debt is.
Again, though, his point about, can we do more on the savings bond type of area: I wasn't trying to say that nothing can be done about it, but I was trying to imply some of the obstacles. The number one obstacle of course is that it has now become more expensive to try to raise your funds to cover your debts that way in terms of what type of interest rates you've got to provide to make it an attractive investment as compared to doing some of the other types of borrowing. It's also a question of how much capital exists in this country in terms of meeting all requirements, both federal requirements and of all the provinces, and, again, the costs associated with that.
Whenever we're having this discussion, I think all of us would agree: We'd like more individuals to hold it through a savings bond or through other types of initiatives, but we also must remember the costs associated with that, and also, is there that much capital in existence here in Canada to cover all the debts that are around?
This government I think has been making tremendous efforts in terms of reducing the deficit and getting a handle on that, and then in moving towards dealing with the issue of the debt. We would have liked to have done more, and we could get into that debate. I could suggest, well, if the previous government had saved some when the times were very good, we wouldn't have had much of a problem, but the issue is, we've all got to deal with it.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought I heard the member mention the booklet Horizons that has been published by the Ministry of Education. I think you would be familiar with it yourself, Madam Speaker. This booklet has been extremely valuable to secondary school students. If the government, when it is borrowing money, were doing so for the purpose of purchasing and providing these books throughout the province, you and I would agree that it would be extremely beneficial. I know we have all probably received letters from guidance teachers across the province of Ontario who have said, "Would you please retain the booklet called Horizons so that we can help to guide young people in our society in such a way that they will be able to go on to the kind of educational institutions at the post-secondary level which will assist them immensely in eventually getting a good job and being good citizens or, alternately, will assist them in being able to get a job?"
I know they were quite shocked when they learned the provincial government was going to cut the funding for this program, because they thought, when this bill was coming before the House to borrow money, it would be borrowing money so it could continue to provide Horizons for students in the province.
I would join my colleague the member for Brampton South in urging the government of Ontario to maintain the book Horizons. I know that guidance teachers and others would benefit immensely from this, because it's a great assist for them, it's a great tool for them, and I know that the students themselves would benefit. I certainly would be one of the first to take advantage of the opportunity to stand in this Legislature to congratulate the government of Ontario if it were to abandon its plan to cut out the funding for the Horizons booklet for guidance in our secondary schools.
The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.
Mr Stockwell: I would certainly reinforce that thought by the member for St Catharines, although not having read Horizons, I am certain that the member for St Catharines would not have steered anyone wrong.
Let me say, first off, that you know you're in financial difficulty when the debate turns to who should hold our debt. Really, that's what this bill has come down to: We'll discuss who is the best person to hold government debt. The minister's parliamentary assistant of Finance stands before us today and says: "You know, we're not doing too bad, because 46% of the debt that we owe is owned by Canadians, and then some 40% is owned by Americans and 9% by everybody else. So, as a government, we're doing the responsible thing in trying to get more people of this country to buy our debt."
It is kind of scary, and I know the member for Brampton South would agree, that the debate upon borrowing $15.5 billion is, who should we allow to buy our debt? Really, it's becoming academic at this point. We are reaching a credit-rating crisis. With every downgrade we're losing people who will buy our debt. Ultimately, you're left with fewer and fewer buyers of the government bonds.
Having said that, the other frightening statistic is that we are the largest non-sovereign borrower in the world. That says to me a couple of things. That says that a lot of other people are either managing themselves much better than us or we're simply mismanaged. I've come to the conclusion that everybody can't be managing themselves better than us; we must be mismanaging the economy in this province in our borrowing needs: $15.5 billion this year, $16 billion last year. The Treasurer's out right now trying to flog these bonds around the world. It kind of gives a frightening thought to those people in Ontario about where their future lies.
The Acting Speaker: Now the member for Brampton South has two minutes to respond.
Mr Callahan: I want to thank all members for participating, particularly the member for Don Mills, because every time I pass his office I say, "Are you having fun?" The reason I say that is that he came from a municipal background, which I did too, which was not subject to all this junk of partisan politics. Municipal councils join together when there is a problem and they debate it. Maybe what we need is a little more of that in here, particularly in terms of fiscal matters.
We've got a problem, gang, my colleagues in the Legislature, all honourable members. We have to put aside partisan issues. We have to deal with this issue in terms of the people of this province. I urge the federal government to do the same thing: Put aside partisan politics.
In terms of the deficit of this country, it is a cancer that we have to effectively deal with. The only way we'll deal with it, I suggest, is to put aside the question of partisan politics and sit down and figure out how we're going to attack that cancer and how we're going to knock it out.
That's the problem I've got. There are a lot of things in here that are partisan, a lot of things that are great political debates, but we are talking about the future of this province, the future of this country and, more importantly, the future of my children, your children, our grandchildren, the future that they're going to have or not have. So I strongly suggest that we look at any possible solutions that there are.
Some of the comments that have been made about Americans coming in here and taking over our companies, great. If they want to come here, that's business. But I don't want to sell my country or my province outside of this country so that it can't be controlled and I can't say yea or nay in a legislative body such as this or the Parliament of Canada in terms of what the interest rates will be for the businessmen, the home owners, the youth and all the people who are looking for jobs in this province. No, thank you. They can have their own debt. They can increase it as they wish. Through the Province of Ontario Savings Office, we should be doing what Petro-Canada should have been doing: lending money to people at a hell of a lot less and selling gas to people at a hell of a lot less to make those damned banks on the four corners in my riding think about it.
2210
The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Is there any further debate on Bill 159, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund? I recognize the member for Don Mills.
Mr Callahan: Are you having fun?
Mr David Johnson: I'm having fun. I appreciate the comments of the member for Brampton South. I guess we're both having fun tonight but we're both very concerned about this particular issue. His plea that we rise above partisan politics I think is an appropriate one. He's just scuppered my whole speech because it was sort of a partisan speech and now I have to be very forthright.
This bill that's before us, it's interesting: It's one piece of paper. It's probably the shortest bill that we will deal with this year. Just recently we dealt with the credit union bill, for example -- yesterday, I guess it was -- 187 pages, a very important bill, but by comparison this bill is one page and it simply authorizes staff to borrow $15.5 billion between now and the end of 1995. That doesn't necessarily mean they will borrow that full amount, but in all likelihood that will happen.
That money will cover the shortfall that is expected. Currently the projection is that the shortfall, the deficit for 1994-95, will be about $10.5 billion. There will be another $1 billion of debt that will be retired from previous years that has to be reinvested, and the remainder will be for the fact that it's over a period of about a year and a half, going into the next fiscal year.
I can only suppose that the borrowing is authorized up to December 31, 1995, because it's anticipated that there could well be an election during that period of time. If there is an election, then there could well be an extended period of time in which there's actually no political leadership, no government in place, and the staff will be authorized to borrow $15.5 billion.
I think the comments of the member for Brampton South are the same comments that I was anticipating beginning with, that it's essentially a mortgage on the future of the province, and it's a very worrisome mortgage. I see the parliamentary assistant is keeping an eagle eye on the proceedings here at this point to make sure they don't get out of hand -- but it is very worrisome.
The debt in the province has increased dramatically over the past four years. I think we've heard statistics already to indicate that the debt some four years ago, in 1990, was about $45 billion, which in itself is a tremendous amount of money, a tremendous burden on the people of Ontario. It's an obligation that the people are burdened with, and in the final analysis it's the responsibility of the people to shoulder that burden.
But each and every successive year from 1990 up to the present time there has been a deficit, a shortfall in the revenues vis-à-vis the expenditures in the province. The expenditures have been higher than the revenues coming in. Indeed, in one year -- I think it was 1992 -- the shortfall was some $15.5 billion. When there is a shortfall, that shortfall gets added on to the debt that must be assumed by the people of the province of Ontario, and that's how the debt grows. Actually, in the operating budget there is a line item each year that contains the interest necessary to service that debt -- simply the interest; not to pay off the debt, not to diminish the debt, but simply to ensure that the debt keeps rolling over year after year and pays the interest on it.
Another way of looking at it is that it's deferred taxes. The services are being used this particular year, but there is not money being raised to pay for them. Those services could be health services, they could be welfare, they could pay the salary of the parliamentary assistant or the Minister of Housing or the Minister of Community and Social Services, who joined us this evening. They are simply, in large part, to pay for the annual operating costs of the province of Ontario. That's what's different.
The member for Brampton South has indicated that he and I both come from a municipal background, as does my colleague the member for Mississauga South, who is with us here this evening. We come from a municipal background.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Just shows how uneven it is, eh, David? Just shows how uneven that experience can be.
Mr David Johnson: "Uneven"? My good friend the member for Kingston and The Islands says that the experience is uneven. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but have you been in the municipal domain?
Mr Gary Wilson: No, that is another point of comparison.
Mr David Johnson: Another point of comparison? Let me show you what the comparison is, to my good friend the member for Kingston and The Islands.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It means we understand.
Mr David Johnson: My colleague the member for Mississauga South says, "It means we understand."
Mr Gary Wilson: You are learning; she knows it all.
Mr David Johnson: Yes, I'm new here. But let me tell you what happens at the municipal level. At the municipal level there is a provincial law that you cannot run a deficit; it is forbidden. Municipalities are not permitted to run a deficit. They are permitted to borrow for capital purposes.
If we look at the budget of the province of Ontario -- the parliamentary assistant, I'm sure, will nod his head on this -- part of it is for operating and part of it is for capital. But the greatest portion by far, some $51 billion, I believe, this year is for operating expenses, and the vast majority -- I shouldn't say the vast majority, but the largest chunk of that -- would be for health, then for education, then for welfare and then for interest to pay off the debt. But these are day-to-day expenses. These are not long-term investments. These are to pay individuals.
At the municipal level, to get back to the municipal level, they cannot borrow money to pay for day-to-day expenses. The municipalities must balance their budget in that regard. What they are permitted to do is to borrow money to pay for capital projects such as roads, sewers or perhaps buildings, but these are all expenditures that will last for a considerable period of time. A road may last for 40 to 50 years. A sewer may last for 100 years. A building may last for any number of years but for quite a long period of time. Municipalities are permitted to debenture those kinds of payments over a period of time, much in the nature that if we purchase a house, a capital asset, then we are permitted of course to have a mortgage, and most of us have a mortgage, and pay off the house over a period of time.
But that's not what's happening in Ontario. What's happening in Ontario is really what I would call deferred taxes. We are not paying our day-to-day operating expenses, primarily salaries to people. I have some notes from one of our analysts who has prepared some notes for me. He says that this is asking us to subscribe to the theory that the best way to get out of a hole is to dig the hole deeper, and that's exactly what we're doing. We're digging the hole deeper and we're incurring more debt. We're paying for today's operating costs, today's medical costs, today's welfare and today's housing costs; for example, to pay the subsidy for the people in the non-profit housing. Perhaps my colleague the member for Mississauga South will tell me what that is. I think the budget is about $800 million. Is that right?
Mrs Marland: The subsidy is $1 billion.
Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): No, no, that's wrong.
2220
Mr David Johnson: Well, it's not far off. It's somewhere between --
Hon Ms Gigantes: "What's $100 million?" he says. "What's 200 million?"
Mr David Johnson: -- $800 million and $1 billion. It's a large amount of money, and we're paying that kind of money. We're not raising the revenue today to pay it off, so we're deferring that payment. We're passing it on to our children and our grandchildren in the form of a debt, and we will be asking them, as future taxpayers, to pick up that bill for non-profit housing, for welfare.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, no, no. You'd better understand how it is financed.
Mr David Johnson: Well, Madam Minister, it's in the budget. It's in the expenditure estimates. There is it, and we are not covering those expenditure estimates for 1994-95. Your Finance minister, who sits right in front of you, is borrowing $10.5 billion to pay for what's in these estimates.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You don't understand how it is financed. The cost per unit goes down every year to pay for the mortgage.
Mr David Johnson: That disturbs the Minister of Housing, I guess, but that is a fact, that the expenditure estimates amounting to $51 billion this year, including housing, are not being covered by the revenues and we are having to borrow the money. That's what this bill does. It says, "Go ahead and borrow $15.5 billion to pay for projects and to pay for operating costs such as non-profit housing." That's exactly what's happening.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): So just say no to housing, is what you're saying.
Interjections.
Mr David Johnson: At some point in the future our children and our grandchildren are going to say: "What on earth were you doing back there in 1994? How could you tolerate that? How could you run up the debt of the province of Ontario?" By the heckling, I can understand that there isn't an appreciation of that, but that is going to happen, and it's a fearsome burden we're putting on our children.
One of the other analogies that was drawn by one of our staff people was that it's a bit like nuclear waste in that the debt will live on for years after the government has produced it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You should know about nuclear waste and the debt.
Mr David Johnson: The Minister of Housing is heckling again.
I think that's a weak analogy in the sense that nuclear waste at least has a half-life and it diminishes over time, it decreases, it gets less. But what happens to the debt? The debt of the province of Ontario goes up and up and up. It has doubled; the debt of the province has doubled since this government took office.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You will live to see the end of a housing mortgage, but not the end of a nuclear waste mortgage.
Mr David Johnson: Madam Minister, when you took office, the debt in the province of Ontario was about $45 billion. Your own Minister of Finance, who sits in front of you, if he were here tonight, would confirm these facts: that the debt of the province of Ontario was $45 billion when you took office, and at the end of this fiscal year it will be over $90 billion. You may not appreciate those numbers, but that's true. Do you know that in terms of the gross domestic product, $15.5 billion --
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Let the people starve. Let them starve, is that what you're saying?
Mr David Johnson: Let them starve, he says, let them starve. That's the member for Durham-York.
Do you understand the impact in the future? Do you understand that in terms of the revenue, 18% of the revenue coming in now goes to service the debt? Do you understand that? When you took office, it was half. Do you understand?
Mr O'Connor: We realize that, and when the Tories left Ottawa, it was over a third of their budget.
Mr David Johnson: I'm getting heckled by the member for Durham-York, but if I look at the budget of the various ministries -- and here they are for 1994 -- if I look at those budgets, some of them are actually down, some of them are down. You're providing less services through the Ministry of Health, and I see the Minister here today, and she can take some credit. But the spending is less for Municipal Affairs, which I've been involved with as a mayor of a municipality. There is less money today available to municipalities. There's less money available to Health. Why is that so?
Interjections.
Mr David Johnson: Well, I can tell you that one of the reasons is because the public debt interest -- and listen to this. I'd appreciate if you'd listen to this, since you've been heckling.
Mr Gary Wilson: Remember 31 cents in Ottawa, though, Dave.
Mr David Johnson: Why are you worried about Ottawa? Your responsibility is right here in the province of Ontario. Since you've been in government, the interest on the debt was $5 billion in fiscal year 1992: $5 billion. In 1993 --
Mr Owens: Just tell us what hospitals you're going to close, Dave, what schools you're going to close.
Mr David Johnson: This is the money out of the operating --
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I understand that interjections are out of order. We have had a fairly quiet, controlled House this evening. Suddenly we have two members in the House, government backbenchers, who are really disrupting the debate to the point where, personally, I'm sitting in front of the speaker and I can't even hear him.
Interjection: Maybe he should stop being so provocative.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The chamber has certainly been a touch more subdued than during question period. It would be helpful if the members would allow the member for Don Mills to continue with his remarks uninterrupted.
Mr David Johnson: I thank you for that assistance, Mr Speaker. I will point out in a non-provocative way, since I've been accused of being provocative -- not often in my career have I been accused of being provocative. At any rate, I'll simply read from the budget of the Minister of Finance, Mr Laughren. I'll read from that. That couldn't be provocative, could it?
There's a line item in this year's budget, 1994-95, that says, "Public Debt Interest." That item describes how much money the people of the province are paying in interest on the debt of Ontario, simply the interest. In 1992, the people of Ontario paid $5.293 billion to pay for the interest: $5 billion. In 1993, the people of Ontario paid $6.9 billion, an increase in one year, by simple arithmetic, of $1.7 billion to pay the interest on the debt: not to pay the debt down, but simply to pay the interest on the debt.
This year, 1994 -- and the members may find this provocative, but here it is in Mr Laughren's budget -- it's $7.9 billion, another increase of $1 billion from the previous year, simply the interest on the debt. For the two years, that's a $2.7-billion increase in the interest payments on the debt.
The problem is that we may think: "Well, so what? What's a billion?" I guess the attitude of this government is, "What's a billion?" But this impacts on the services that can be provided to the citizens of Ontario. And consequently, because we're paying more in interest, we can't afford to give the same amount of money to the services we were formerly giving, services such as health and education. Education is going down in terms of support.
Let's have a look at the Ministry of Agriculture. Agriculture is down. This government is giving less money to Agriculture. I don't see the Minister of Agriculture here tonight.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, there he is.
Mr David Johnson: Is he there? He's getting less money.
Mr Stockwell: Health?
Mr David Johnson: Health is down because we have to pay more to service the debt, and that's the simple message. I'm sorry if that's provocative, but that's the fact of the situation, and I think it's a real crime.
The member for Etobicoke West will recall our days back on the Metro council. For some reason or other, and I was saying that to him earlier tonight, even the members of the Metro council were in love with debt. I don't know why. The NDP on the Metro council were in love with debt. They wanted to borrow more money, put every nickel you could into the budget this year, buy all you could, put it on the credit card and do whatever you could for that particular year. In terms of a short-range strategy, that's tremendous for that particular year, you put every nickel into services that particular year. But anybody who owns a credit card knows the problem with that.
2230
The problem is that the bills will come in, and the bills are coming in, and they're coming in in the budget Mr Laughren has put forward. As a result, we have less money to pay for health, we have less money to pay for education, we have less money to pay for agriculture, we have less money to pay for all the services we give in the province of Ontario, and the problem is that it will only get worse.
To move on to a couple of other matters: How did we get into this kind of situation? This didn't happen overnight, I'll have to say that. Back in 1992 this particular government, the NDP government, forecast that the revenues would be about $45 billion. However, the revenues were $42 billion. They were out by about $3 billion. In that same year, they forecast that the revenues for last year would be $48 billion, but they turned out to be $44 billion. They were $4 billion out. At that same time, believe it or not, they forecast that they could extract revenues, taxes from the people of Ontario, to the tune of $51 billion, and in fact this year we'll be fortunate to get $45 billion, a difference of about $6 billion this particular year.
The forecasts have been erroneous over a period of years, not only the forecasts on revenue but spending has been up and up and up. On the spending side, it hasn't just been this particular government, but spending has increased for a number of years. I'll have to admit Conservative governments have overspent, so I'll share the blame. I wasn't involved. I doubt too many members of our caucus were involved, but if you go back to before 1985, certainly some Conservative governments could be accused of spending too much. I'll share that blame.
From that point on, though, I think we would all agree that the Liberal governments have overspent, and between 1986 and 1987, the spending increased by about double the rate of inflation, a 9% increase in spending when inflation was about half that. In 1987 to 1988 the spending increased by 11%; another 7% in 1988-89; in 1989-90 a tremendous increase of almost 12%, about three times the rate of inflation.
Those were the years when the spending increased at such a rate that we could not afford. Between 1986 and 1991, the spending increased at an enormous rate in the province of Ontario. And unfortunately, it put in place an expenditure base we simply cannot afford today. As a result, the government is attempting to bring in revenues to accommodate that spending, but it cannot be done. The people of the province will not pay taxes that will accommodate the expenditure base we have in Ontario today. Consequently, as I described earlier, the expenditures have been about $10 billion in excess of revenues for the last four years, and now something has to happen.
This government is relying on growth in the economy to bring in more revenues to balance the expenditures. This is a very dubious wish, at best. The growth in the economy this year is expected to be about 3.5%, but as we mentioned earlier, we've already seen very disturbing signs in the economy that there could be trouble ahead. The Bank of Canada today increased its rate to over 7%. The Royal Bank has increased its prime rate to over 8%. These kinds of actions will have a very definite negative impact on the economic future of the province.
The government itself has forecast about a 6% Bank of Canada rate. It made a number of assumptions through 1994-95. One of those assumptions was that the interest rate would be about 6%. Already, just partway through the year, the interest rate is over 7%. We may wonder, what kind of impact will that have? "Who cares? It's just a number; it doesn't mean anything."
But the problem is that it does mean something to people who would buy a house, because it means their mortgage is higher. It means something to people who would buy a car, because the interest they pay on purchasing a car is higher. Naturally, the outcome will be that fewer people will buy houses, fewer people will buy cars and the economy will slow down.
This, I might say, is happening to some degree because of concern about inflation in the United States. The economy of the United States has been doing well for over a year now. It's been well ahead of the economy in Ontario. In the United States they have a more friendly attitude towards investment. In the province of Ontario we have a decidedly unfriendly approach to investment. We have Bill 40, a labour bill.
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Absolute nonsense.
Mr David Johnson: The Minister of Economic Development and Trade is saying this is nonsense. I couldn't tell you, Madam Minister, the number of cases of people who have come forward and expressed concern with regard to Bill 40. For example, the mayor of Mississauga, I recall, took a trip to Europe about a year ago. In England she came across people inquiring about Bill 40. They were concerned. This was before Bill 40 became law. They inquired as potential investors. They were concerned.
Hon Ms Lankin: It's not what they ask about now.
Mr David Johnson: The minister says, "It's not what they ask about now." How do you know, Minister?
Hon Ms Lankin: I'm out there travelling, talking to them too.
Mr David Johnson: How many investors have turned away and simply don't come to Ontario because they are aware of the fact that Bill 40 exists, and employment equity etc, and say, "I've written Ontario off"? Isn't it a possibility that the reason the economy in Ontario has grown at such a slow rate by comparison, let's say, to the United States --
Hon Ms Lankin: What about in comparison to the rest of Canada?
Mr David Johnson: To the rest of Canada? It hasn't done that well either. The forecast this year is good, but if you look back last year, over the past year or so, it has not been outstanding vis-à-vis the rest of Canada. It's been slower than the United States.
With the concern about inflation in the United States, the tap is being turned off in the United States. I wonder, Minister, from a Canadian point of view, from an Ontario point of view, if growth in the United States slows down, are we going to be able to overcome the impact of higher interest rates we're seeing today from the Bank of Canada and from the Royal Bank? I think there's real cause for concern that we in Ontario have seen our economic recovery. It lasted a few months.
Hon Ms Lankin: We're very trade-dependent on the US; of course we are.
Mr David Johnson: Yes, we are very dependent on the US. If the US recovery, which has been carrying on now for over a year, goes down, we are going to have a problem here in Canada. The problem then becomes that the forecast that was made in the 1994 budget will be incorrect. The forecast in terms of revenue coming in, the forecast in terms of employment, they will all --
2240
Hon Ms Lankin: All the budgets will be wrong: the Ontario budget, the Manitoba budget, the Quebec budget, and the Canada budget of course.
Mr David Johnson: All right. What you're telling me is that all the provinces will be incorrect. Sure. But I'm elected to represent people in the province of Ontario; I'm not elected to represent people in Manitoba or Saskatchewan or any other province.
What I'm telling you is that this bill says we should borrow $15.5 billion. My guess is that because of the fact that inflation is increasing, because of the fact that the interest rate is going up, and that's because of federal policies --
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Liberal policies.
Mr David Johnson: Liberal policies. My goodness, what a copout.
Because of the view of the economic situation in the province of Ontario, because of the debt and the deficit of the province of Ontario, because of the labour bill and because of other legislation in the province of Ontario, sadly, we will fall short of our revenue forecast. We will have expenditures that are high and we will need again to borrow more than what the Finance minister has recommended. This $15.5 billion in all reality, sadly, will probably not be enough at the end of the day.
I guess I could be accused of exaggerating and of being negative. Anybody in opposition is subject to that sort of accusation. I'm sure the Liberals have heard this too, that we're always negative. But what has happened in the last four years in terms of what the Finance minister has forecast, what has happened year after year in each of the four years, is that the deficit has been higher and we have had to borrow more money each and every year for the last four years.
This is becoming a standing joke in the investment community. They don't believe it any more. When the minister issues his forecast, they automatically assume it will be much higher. This has happened not just one year, but this has happened four years in a row.
Hon Ms Lankin: So much less accurate than the federal Tory projections, as I recall.
Mr David Johnson: The Minister of Economic Development and Trade compares the forecast with the federal Tory forecast. I don't care, Minister. Frankly, I could care less about the federal Tory forecast. You are not elected to represent at the federal level. I'm not elected to represent at the federal level. I'm elected to represent the people of the province of Ontario. I don't care about that. My job at hand is the budget of the province of Ontario.
Hon Ms Lankin: So what's your projection? What's the accurate number? You know it. You guys have got it right. Why don't you put it on the table?
Mr David Johnson: I thank you for that. As a matter of fact, to the minister, we have put it on record, and I'm just reaching for it here right now. The minister says, "Put something on record." Well, we have the Common Sense Revolution.
Applause.
Mr David Johnson: I thank everybody for the applause.
Interjections.
Mr David Johnson: I can't hear, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: The member for Don Mills might find it helpful if he were to direct his comments to the Chair.
Mr David Johnson: I will do that. I apologize if I directed my comments in the wrong location, but I've been requested by the Minister of Economic Development to put forward my analysis.
My analysis for the future is that the people of Ontario will demand that we come to terms with the deficit. The people of Ontario understand that we cannot borrow $10 billion or $15 billion each and every year, year after year after year, and add to the debt of the province. That is common sense, Mr Speaker, and I'm directing my comments to you. That is common sense. The people of Ontario understand that. That's what this document says. This document says that can't happen year after year. If we continue to do that, heaven only knows what's going to happen to the economy of Ontario.
The dollar today is at 72 cents or something like that. The dollar will drop right off the table; it won't be worth nickels and dimes. Interest rates will go up, and unemployment. If the members think we're being kind to the people of Ontario by borrowing more and more today to make a few ends meet today, think of the future. Think of the unemployed in the province of Ontario, because that's exactly what will happen.
When I go to meet with various organizations --
Mr Hope: I remember when the Tories thought about the unemployed and then they cut the UI premiums.
Mr David Johnson: The member opposite is heckling again.
The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.
Mr David Johnson: The member for Chatham-Kent is getting rather excited by this --
Mr Hope: I'm just trying to liven up the debate. It's boring.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I'll direct my comments to you. It was only about a week ago that I participated with Mr Pilkey, the member for Oshawa, and Mr Sorbara, the member for York Centre, on a panel with the Ontario Real Estate Association, and it was surprising to hear this roomful of people and what was just about the number one issue on their minds. Well, there were two issues on their minds, two primary issues that they were concerned about in Ontario, and these are real estate agents from all across the province. These are people who are working on the front line, dealing with people day in and day out.
Their number one concern was with the deficit and the debt of the province. They said: "What are you going to do to tackle that? It's going to be a burden on the province of Ontario for years to come."
The number two issue of the real estate agents was the conduct in this Legislature. Mr Speaker, you would identify with that, because I know this has been of major concern to you, and you have encouraged decorum in this Legislature. The real estate agents indicated to me and to the other two panelists that they are embarrassed by the goings-on in this Legislature, that they are embarrassed by the catcalls and the heckling and the carrying on. As a matter of fact, when we finished this particular --
Mr Hope: It's not a major issue with my real estate agents. Give me a break.
Mr David Johnson: The member for Chatham-Kent says to give him a break. He's not concerned.
The Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent, please come to order.
Mr David Johnson: I can tell you, the member for Chatham-Kent is not listening to his constituents. My constituents tell me that this is an issue, and I know that within the last couple of weeks we have had students in this Legislature, students who have taken our place, students who have become parliamentarians for a day in a mock Parliament, and one of their major concerns, sitting up in the gallery watching us in action, again was the conduct of us in this Legislature. I have to say that all three parties are at fault, but we all need to stop and look at that and conduct ourselves more appropriately.
2250
I digressed. I was asked by the member, the minister from Beaches-Woodbine, with regard to what I would suggest, what my analysis is. My analysis of the economy and of the financial situation of the province of Ontario is that we need a major change.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Ontario's the best in North America.
Mr David Johnson: My friend the member for Cochrane North says, "Ontario's the best in North America."
Mr Wood: The economy is picking up, everything is booming.
Mr David Johnson: I think we have the potential to be the best, and in many instances we are the best, but we have an enormous debt and we are not going to continue to be the best unless we deal with the deficit and the debt.
Mr Wood: The debt is coming down and people are starting to work again.
Mr O'Connor: Let's get people back to work.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I will attempt to address my comments to you. I'm being told that the debt is coming down.
Mr Wood: The NDP plan is working.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr David Johnson: The debt in the province of Ontario at the beginning of this fiscal year was $80 billion. At the end of this fiscal year, it will be over $90 billion. In my mathematics that I was taught in the Greensville public school outside the town of Dundas, 90 is bigger than 80. The debt is going up. The debt is going up year after year after year. It's gone up from $45 billion when the member for Cochrane North took office to over $90 billion at the end of this year. The debt is going up.
Mr O'Connor: The operating deficit is coming down.
Mr David Johnson: And the operating deficit is coming down.
Mr Wood: The Common Sense Revolution doesn't make no sense.
Mr David Johnson: The operating deficit, I'm being told, is going down. Well, that's true; the deficit is going down. It's gone down from $15.5 billion in one year, in 1992, to about $12 billion last year, and $10.5 billion is what we're going to borrow this year to pay --
Hon Ms Lankin: I thought you were talking about the operating deficit. Let's get your numbers straight. You are talking about operating requirements.
Mr David Johnson: All right. I'm talking about the capital. I've been caught out. But Madam Minister, this is what has to be borrowed.
Hon Ms Lankin: You started off talking about the operating deficit. Get your numbers right.
Mr David Johnson: All right, I apologize. But I will say that what has to be borrowed in Ontario, according to the Minister of Finance, under his assumptions, is $10.5 billion this year to cover operating and capital requirements. Yes, to the members opposite, it was higher than that the year before, it was about $12 billion, and the year before that it was about $15.5 billion. Isn't that something to brag about? We have reduced in the province of Ontario our borrowing requirements from $15.5 billion in 1992 to $10.5 billion in 1994. Now there is a major contribution to the economic community in Ontario. Yes, it's come down.
There isn't a person in Ontario (a) who would say that it should ever have been as high as it has been, and (b) who wouldn't say it should have come down a whole lot faster than it has come down. It's ridiculous.
Mr Hope: They still want more money, though, right?
Mr Wood: Ontario is a proud place to live in.
Mr David Johnson: I'm proud of Ontario, I say to the member for Cochrane North.
Mr Wood: It's working good.
Mr David Johnson: He says, "It's working good." I don't know how it sinks in. When we have a $90-billion deficit, when we're having to go through the social contract business of last year, when we're having to cut, cut, cut because almost $8 billion of our hard-earned tax dollars are simply going to pay the interest, is that good?
Mr O'Connor: To protect 40,000 jobs.
Mr David Johnson: I'm being told that it's good that over the last two years an extra $2.7 billion is going simply to pay the interest on the province of Ontario.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Wood: We've finally got things under control, and now you're criticizing us.
Mr David Johnson: I'm being accused of criticizing the NDP when they've got everything under control. If this is under control, Mr Speaker, I'd hate to see out of control. What would be out of control?
Mr O'Connor: Show us that picture of Ronald Reagan again.
Mr David Johnson: All right. I'm being prompted by the member from Durham-York to show the Common Sense Revolution. I digressed. I'm getting so many comments from the other side that it's difficult not to digress.
Just to complete my analysis of what has to happen, what has to happen is we need a major change. We have got to reduce our expenditures, the expenditures that were increased at an enormous rate during the years when the Liberals were in government. I will give the NDP some credit that they have increased expenditures but not to the same degree that the Liberals did. In terms of expenditure increases, the NDP has actually been better than the Liberals, but the expenditure base is too high.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): With a deficit like that?
Mr David Johnson: I'm talking about expenditures, and the expenditures under the Liberal regime increased by two and three times the rate of inflation. We need to decrease the expenditures in Ontario. That's what the Common Sense Revolution says. It says we should decrease the expenditures by $6 billion over three years. Over a three-year period, decrease the expenditures.
That may seem draconian, but in actual fact, if we went back to 1985 and we took the expenditures in Ontario and we adjusted for inflation and we adjusted for population growth in the Ontario, today we spend $8 billion above that, more than that.
Mr Stockwell: No. That's incredible.
Mr David Johnson: That's incredible, says the member for Etobicoke West, but it is absolutely true. We spend $8 billion over and above what we spent in 1985, adjusted for inflation and adjusted for population growth. A $6-billion reduction in expenditures still leaves us $2 billion above the real spending in 1985. So it's not as drastic as it might seem.
To balance the budget, we need expenditure reduction, but in Ontario we need to reduce the taxes, and that's the number one plank in the Common Sense Revolution. We need to reduce taxes: a 30% reduction in the personal income tax. The members opposite, I know, will smile and say, "A 30% reduction; that's ludicrous."
Mr Speaker, do you know that a 30% reduction just brings us down to the present state in the province of Alberta? That is how much out of whack we have got with the other provinces.
Mr Stockwell: That would seem to indicate we're not competitive.
Mr David Johnson: We are not competitive. I'm being told we are not competitive, and that's exactly correct. We are about 30% higher in personal income tax than the province of Alberta when you consider the surtax and the personal income tax. That's the number one plank. The number two plank is to reduce expenditures. The number three plank -- the minister is leaving; she asked for my analysis and I'm giving my analysis, but the minister's --
Hon Ms Lankin: I will note every time you're in and out of this House yourself.
Mr David Johnson: I didn't name you. I just said "the minister." A little thin-skinned there, aren't we?
Mrs Marland: She did ask you.
Mr David Johnson: She did ask. You're right; she did ask.
In terms of the third point in the analysis, in the province of Ontario we desperately need to reduce the red tape and the payroll expenses, the burden on our businesses. I know our members, such as the member for Wellington, who has joined us here tonight, who has been co-chair of a task force meeting with businesses across the province of Ontario in many different jurisdictions, has found that we need to reduce the burden on our business community.
What does my analysis say? What does the Common Sense Revolution say? It says we should reduce the employer health tax for small businesses under $400,000 in payroll. Do away with it. Let them expand and grow and create jobs. That's where the jobs are going to come in the province of Ontario, in the small businesses. But they need to come out of the burden of taxation that they're suffering from at the present time. So eliminate the employer health tax.
Reduce the workers' compensation premium: We have in the province of Ontario the highest workers' compensation premium of all provinces.
Mr Hope: I thought you said you didn't want to go after the unemployed.
Mr David Johnson: I'm saying reduce the premiums.
Mr Hope: You can't have one without the other.
2300
Mr David Johnson: The member for Chatham-Kent has to understand the difference between premiums and payouts. We have the highest premiums of all the provinces in Canada, and this is a burden. Understand that this is a burden on our business community.
We need to put a freeze on Ontario Hydro rates for five years. For many of our businesses, Hydro rates are a significant proportion of their budget. I can attest to that, having been a member of the East York Hydro Electric Commission and having heard many businesses come to me and explain the problem of the high increases we've had over the last several years on hydro rates. We need --
Mr Sutherland: Whose fault was that?
Mr Stockwell: It's a fact, Kimble.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr David Johnson: The member for Oxford is saying, "Whose fault is that?"
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member for Oxford is out of order.
Mr David Johnson: They're being very rowdy. You know, it is a favourite ploy of the government to say, "Whose fault is it?" Does it matter at this point? I could say it's the fault of the NDP; I could say it's the fault of the Liberals; you could say it's the fault of the Tories. The reality remains that our businesses are suffering in the province of Ontario. Let's not worry about whose fault it is.
Let's not worry whose fault it is that the WCB premiums are high and Ontario Hydro rates are high; the situation begs for a change. We need to address the high burden on our businesses. We need to let them expand and grow, and they're not going to grow with the heavy burden that's on them, regardless of whose fault it is.
Mr Hope: Put natural fertilizer on them; they'll grow.
Mr David Johnson: That is a witty comment: "Put fertilizer on them and they'll grow." I mean, that is really helpful. I hope the member will stand in his two minutes and make that suggestion. Business in the province of Ontario doesn't need lower WCB premiums, which are the highest in Canada, they don't need to have Ontario Hydro rates frozen; what they need is to put fertilizer on them. This is a wonderful contribution to a serious situation.
Mr Hope: The document that you make reference to is natural fertilizer.
Mr David Johnson: I was asked for my analysis. That is my analysis. That's the analysis of the Common Sense Revolution of what's required. If those kinds of steps are made, we will have in place an economy in the province of Ontario where businesses will be able to grow, where businesses will create employment. We estimate 725,000 new jobs. That is what's required in the province of Ontario, and that is my analysis.
If it was just my analysis, I'm sure I would deserve all the heckling I'm getting from the other side of the House, but let me tell you about the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Mr Martin: Another progressive group.
Mr David Johnson: Oh, you don't like them either. You know, I have this suspicion that whatever group I mention -- I could mention the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Let's hear it.
Mr Martin: Another progressive group.
Mr David Johnson: "Another progressive group." I could mention the Ontario Chamber of Commerce.
Interjections.
Mr David Johnson: You know, I could mention any one of these groups which happen to agree with the kind of message -- in other words, reduce taxes, reduce government expenditures, reduce the red tape, reduce the burden on business. All of these organizations agree with that message. They're non-political organizations --
Mr Hope: Non-political?
Mr David Johnson: Are you accusing them of being political? I'd like to see you stand up -- they're non-political, in a sense, non-partisan. They're non-partisan. They're not Conservative; they're not Liberal; they're not NDP; they're not any party. They do an independent analysis.
The problem is, when they do their analysis -- and they represent tens of thousands of businesses in Ontario and Canada -- they happen to agree with the message that we're putting forward. They don't agree with the message that this government is putting forward, so that means they're progressive or that means they're political or that means they're evil or whatever. But the reality is that they recognize the dire straits that we're in in the province of Ontario.
I have a document now from the Ontario Taxpayers Federation, which is associated with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. They recommend a program with two phases, and the first phase is to balance the budget.
The bill that we're talking about tonight recommends that we borrow $15.5 billion to balance the budget. The Ontario Taxpayers Federation says we should do that without borrowing any money. We should simply balance the budget -- as do the municipalities, in response to an earlier question tonight. Municipalities have to balance their budgets. The Ontario Taxpayers Federation says that we should have to balance the budget here in the province of Ontario.
They say we should do that within three years: We should have a plan to reduce expenditures to the point that we can balance the budget in the province of Ontario in three years, and then, beyond that, there should be a requirement that there be no deficit. This would be a mandated requirement of the province of Ontario, that we cannot run a deficit in the province.
I think they are on the right track. I think they know what they're talking about. There may be different ways of doing it, but I think their basic thrust is bang on. This is something I'd like to see a poll on. Question the people of the province of Ontario, and I'll wager you that the majority of the people would say: "They're right. This should be done. We should balance the budget and then we should bring in legislation that would require the budget to be balanced each and every year."
Mr Hope: Ask how many hospitals they would like closed, or how many schools they would like closed.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr David Johnson: It doesn't sink in.
This coalition also recognizes that tax hikes should not be allowed unless supported by a majority of eligible voters in a binding referendum. So there would be no tax increases unless there was a referendum across the province of Ontario. You know, that's --
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The democracy thing.
Mr David Johnson: That's right. The member for York Mills has said that's really revolutionary, you know; that's what's called democracy. We wouldn't expect that this government would understand that comment or that concept, to give the people the right to vote on taxation.
There's another recommendation in here that I found particularly interesting -- I'll just see if I can find it -- that if the government does not meet its mandated requirement to balance the budget, there would be fines for the ministers involved. I just wish I could lay my fingers on it here right now. The Premier and the ministers involved would incur a fine. The first year would be a 15% reduction in salary.
This is what happens in private business: again, a foreign concept to this particular government. But many business people have their salaries linked to the performance of the companies they represent. If their companies are successful, then they draw higher salaries. If their companies are not successful, they draw a lower salary. The coalition of taxpayers in Ontario is saying, "Apply that to government." The government must balance the budget; that's their target. If they don't do that, then in the first year the Premier and the cabinet ministers take a 15% reduction in their salaries. If they fail to do that two years in a row, they take a further 10%, and from there on, 10% each year for failing to balance the budget.
2310
I suspect that the members opposite --
Mr Turnbull: These ministers would owe the people money.
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): They would all have resigned.
Mr David Johnson: Well, they would have. My colleague for Essex South says, "They would all have resigned." My colleague for York Mills says they would owe the government money by this time. But the point is that we would see real action. You know, the members opposite say: "How would we do that? What schools would be closed? What health programs would be cut?" These are the kinds of questions. But, you know, with a little incentive like that -- and it may be a bit drastic -- I'll wager you that the members opposite and the cabinet would balance that budget. Municipalities do it year after year, each municipality, 800-and-some-odd municipalities in the province of Ontario.
I'm sure that the members are going to say: "Well, the municipalities have an easier job. They don't have the health problems and the welfare problems. It's easy for municipalities to balance their budget." Well, I can tell you, having been there, Mr Speaker, for 20 years in a municipality, it's not easy. It's not easy, but we do it. We have to be realistic. We don't come out with forecasts such as the Minister of Finance has come out with the last four years that don't stand the test of time. We have to be realistic in our forecasts, and we balance our budget; all municipalities do.
And municipalities do deal with welfare. I can tell you, having served on the Metro council, that one of the largest components of the budget of the Metro council -- unfortunately, it has become that way, since this government has taken office, at any rate -- is the welfare component, welfare payments. Over the last four or five years, the number of welfare cases in Metropolitan Toronto has quadrupled, from about a 30,000 case load to about a 120,000 case load. About 20% of welfare costs of the Metropolitan Toronto budget come out of municipal budgets across the province. That budget has been under duress. As the Metro council, we have had to find that money, balance that budget, deal with those welfare cases. It's been difficult, but we've been able to do it. Now, why can't the province of Ontario do the same thing? It only makes sense.
So that's what's being proposed by the Ontario Taxpayers Federation. That's foreign to this government, but 50 of the 52 states in the United States have legislation. I suppose if it comes from the United States, then this government would say it doesn't make any sense.
In the United States, various states -- and I said 50 out of 52 -- for example, in alphabetical order, to start with Alaska, Alaska has a limit that the yearly growth of the appropriations -- in other words, the expenditures -- may not exceed the percentage increase in the population and inflation.
Laughter.
Mr David Johnson: Now, the members find this humorous. The members opposite, the NDP, find this humorous, that Alaska would limit the expenditure growth to the rate of growth of the population and inflation. The members find it humorous or sad, one or the other.
Mr O'Connor: It's the popcorn; none of this is funny.
Mr David Johnson: Oh, none of this is funny? All right. Something else is funny. Something else is sad.
But that makes sense. If we had a restriction in the province of Ontario of that nature, then our expenditures in Ontario would be considerably reduced. There would be a greater need to find efficiency within the bureaucracy in the province of Ontario, and we'd be further ahead. We wouldn't have the debt. We wouldn't have a $90-billion debt today.
The state of Arizona: appropriations of this state -- thank you. What do we have here? Popcorn. I'll have that in a few minutes. I'm winding down. The state of Arizona has limitations that its appropriations of the state tax revenue shall not exceed 7.23% of state personal income. In other words, it assesses the income in the state of Arizona, and the taxes cannot exceed 7.23%. Don't ask me how they came up with that number, but they did. They gave this some thought and they came up with a limitation on the taxes and the spending.
Mr O'Connor: Can you compare all the services we provide in Ontario to Arizona? Is that you're doing?
Mr David Johnson: The member opposite has a magical impression that he can spend and spend and can afford any service that comes into his mind: "Don't worry about the future. Don't worry about the fact that our children are assuming all this debt."
Mr O'Connor: Tell us how many times the Tories balanced the budget in 42 years. Go ahead, spill the beans.
Mr David Johnson: Now the criticism has changed to, what did the Tories do over 10 years ago? I don't know what the Tories did 10 years ago. Why is that of any interest here?
Mr O'Connor: They never balanced in 42 years, that's why. They didn't do it.
Mr David Johnson: Surely we're interested in 1994. Surely we're interested in the future of this province. Surely we're not interested in 1985, 1984, 1983. Surely we're interested in what we have to come to grips with, the problems that we face today: the overexpenditure, the overtaxation, the overburden on our business community. Those are the problems that we have to come to grips with, not what we did in 1982. Who cares what we did in 1982? What are you going to do today? We have a plan of what we're going to do.
Mr O'Connor: Show us that picture of Ronald Reagan again.
Mr David Johnson: I'm not going to show you. You just hoot and holler when I show you that.
I'm going to close with one more observation, and this has to do with the level of taxation again. Because we are borrowing so much money, because we are spending so much money, the level of taxation in Ontario is very high. Indeed, there have been steps taken to increase the level of taxation, but of course that doesn't work. What happens is that when you tax and tax and tax, eventually people say, "That doesn't make any sense," they stop paying taxes and the underground economy flourishes.
In the home building industry, for example, by the estimate of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, 41% of renovations to homes are underground; no taxes paid. Why? Because people feel that the level of taxation in Ontario is too high, doesn't make any sense, and they don't feel at all poorly about avoiding taxes. It's a sad situation, but it's happening.
I was approached about three weeks ago, I guess it was, by the economic development division of Metropolitan Toronto. These people are concerned about what's happening in Metropolitan Toronto. I might add, that same concern could be registered in the whole province. What's happening is that we have a vacancy rate in this area of Metropolitan Toronto in the office buildings of about 25% to 30%; 25% to 30% of the space is vacant, cannot find any --
Mrs Marland: They still built a new WCB building.
Mr David Johnson: As the member for Mississauga South says, "They still built a new WCB building." Even though we've got all that vacant office space, no businesses to take up that space, yet we still have a new WCB building. But the point is, we have vacant office space, vacant industrial space and vacant business space, not only in downtown Toronto but throughout Metropolitan Toronto.
The mayor of North York is very concerned about the empty office and industrial space in the city of North York. This is true, I know, from my former association with the borough of East York. We were most concerned with the empty office and industrial space. In one industrial area in East York about one third of the buildings were empty, with no prospect of filling those buildings.
The economic development division of Metropolitan Toronto came to me and said that one of the problems, one of the disincentives -- again no surprise -- is the level of taxation we have in Metropolitan Toronto. They showed me a chart. I have the chart they showed me right here, and I'd be willing to share this with any member who's interested. This chart shows the income tax, the property tax and the sales tax -- the three taxes -- of a family with an income of $100,000. That is higher than the average family, but this is in Metropolitan Toronto, many of the people they're trying to attract to fill the office space in particular. This is a family income, a husband and wife, of $100,000 annually.
If you can see this chart, you will see that with one exception, Toronto is the highest-taxed city of all the cities that are being compared in that range. I'm sure that range would extend well beyond that particular income level. They compare it with Calgary, Vancouver, Detroit, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, New York. They compared it with New York City. If the family earns $100,000 in New York City, they lose about $30,000 to income tax, property tax and sales tax.
2320
Mr Martin: What do you mean, lose?
Mr David Johnson: Well, they pay. In Toronto it's almost $50,000. There's about a $20,000 difference. That's the difference.
Mr Martin: That goes into services they benefit from.
Mr David Johnson: Semantics. I'm telling you, there's a $20,000 difference between Toronto and New York City. Washington, Houston, Dallas, Tampa -- cities that businesses here in Metropolitan Toronto have to compete with. They have to compete with Los Angeles, San Francisco, Tampa and other cities.
Mr Martin: Tell us about the advantages.
The Speaker: The member for Sault Ste Marie is out of order.
Mr David Johnson: The employee in this particular example has a family income of $100,000. They pay $20,000 more in taxes in Toronto than they do in New York City.
Mr Callahan: Think of the crime they've got, though, David.
Mr David Johnson: Look at the crime, the member is saying, but you can talk about any one of these cities. The point is we are not competitive. I see the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Please send me some statistics, if you have contrary statistics, Madam Minister. I'm not making these up. I'm going to send you a copy of this tomorrow. This is a document from Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Perruzza: Please don't. We get enough junk mail as it is.
Mr David Johnson: The member for Downsview is hollering again. The cover is blue, but this is a document of Metropolitan Toronto. This was not made by the Progressive Conservatives; this is Metropolitan Toronto. You represent a part of Metropolitan Toronto. You should be interested in this. The member for Beaches-Woodbine represents Metropolitan Toronto. These are your people who are bringing this to your attention.
You should be sincerely concerned. Is it any wonder we have a 25% or 30% office vacancy rate here in Metropolitan Toronto? The mayor of North York is concerned about the huge amount of industrial space that's vacant because the taxes are enormous. Here is a document from Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Wood: Forty-seven years of Conservative and Liberal construction. That's why you've got the vacancy rate.
Mr David Johnson: What am I being accused of now? Mr Speaker, could you ask him to simmer down a little bit?
The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, please come to order.
Mr Perruzza: He's just got to blow a little steam off with this guy.
Mr David Johnson: Well, could he go outside and howl at the moon or something? I can't even hear myself think.
Mr Wood: Nobody has been listening to you for the last hour anyway.
Mr David Johnson: Well, if you're not listening, you're sure doing a lot of hollering for nothing, for Pete's sake.
Mr Wood: You've been doing a lot of talking for nothing.
The Speaker: The member for Cochrane North, please come to order.
Mr David Johnson: I'm sure to great applause, I'm just about to sit down, but the point is that Bill 159 is borrowing all this money, adding to the operating costs of the province of Ontario, causing the government to have to increase taxes. It's a vicious circle. It goes around and around. Taxes go up. When taxes go up, as is displayed in this document, then what happens? Businesses become uncompetitive, businesses can't attract people, and then we have a 30% vacancy rate in office space, we have industrial buildings by the score that are vacant. Who does that help? That means jobs are lost, the economy suffers problems.
Mr Perruzza: It's Ontario taxes that caused the global recession. That's what it is. Blame it on Ontario taxes.
The Speaker: The member for Downsview, please come to order.
Mr David Johnson: So what do we do? We blame the rest of the world.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's not clear to me. Is he saying that the Ontario tax structure caused the worldwide recession?
The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. Will he please take his seat. The member for Don Mills may continue.
Mr David Johnson: Obviously, everybody knows I'm not saying that. That's a ridiculous thing to say. What I'm saying is that the problems we're experiencing here in Ontario -- sure, I would be taking leave of my senses if I said there wasn't some impact from the recession that has occurred through the whole global economy. But I can tell you that the United States has come out of this recession much faster than Ontario has, and the reason is because the deficit, the debt, the burden, the labour bills, the legislation we have in Ontario have discouraged investment, have discouraged growth in the province, and until we realize that, we are going to continue to suffer.
We are going to continue to have over 10% of the labour force unemployed, we are going to continue to have deficits each and every year of over $10 billion. The debt of the province of Ontario is going to continue to climb by over $10 billion a year, and what a mess. The people of Ontario understand this. Why do you suppose the polls show that the government is about, what, 14% in the polls? There's a reason, there's a linkage there. The people of Ontario understand that.
With that, I will end my comments, and I thank you for the opportunity.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Don Mills for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Downsview.
2330
Mr Perruzza: The only thing I really want to point out with respect to the member's comments is that we often sit here and listen to all the woes and all the gloom and doom about these taxes and about our tax base. All of that is intended to discourage people and depress people and really get people down, and to do essentially what he said: to get political parties down to 14%. I understand that's what the opposition's role is, but every once in a while it would be refreshing to have one of the Conservative or Liberal members come into this place and really tell it the way it is and argue on the basis of what's really happening out there and what's happening in the world, what's happening in Ontario and what's happening in the rest of Canada.
I would be remiss not to say, and I believe this, that taxes essentially hold economies from growing at rates that -- if people get to keep the money, they get to do things with their money and so on and that might motivate the economy to grow a little faster. But to simply come into this place and say day after day after day how bad things are is just inflating and inflaming the situation far beyond what is needed.
I realize it's nearly midnight and that particularly at this hour sometimes we become a little distracted and lose our focus, so I'm not going to point a finger at the Conservative member who just spoke. I simply say you came in here and just threw a bunch of hogwash on the table and really didn't make any sense, given the late hour.
Mr Crozier: I was concerned that the Finance critic from the Conservative Party would repeatedly say information that was incorrect. He referred to the growth in spending a few years back, and I want to very quickly tell you some information from our Finance critic, Gerry Phillips.
The average deficit of the Tory governments from 1981 to 1985 was $2.7 billion. The average Liberal deficit from 1986 to 1990 was $1.9 billion. The average NDP deficit from 1991 to 1993 was $11.14 billion. But it gets more interesting, the percentage of growth in spending that our friend alluded to: The Tories' growth in spending was 11.3%, the Liberals' 9.9%, which was less, and the NDP's is 5.3%, which is considerably less than what he said. The average growth in debt in the five-year period for the Tories was 11%; the average growth in debt for the Liberals was 5.1%.
I just wanted to read those into the record. The information from our critic may be a little more accurate than his.
Mr Turnbull: As always, my colleague the member for Don Mills has brought some cogent comments to this debate, and the debate is about a bill which proposes to borrow $15.5 billion, admittedly for a period of more than a year, but it's a very serious indictment on this government that we are now borrowing at this kind of rate.
Just the other week I was in discussions where it was pointed out that Ontario is having more and more difficulty in placing large amounts of money. They're having to make their bond offerings overseas in ever-smaller amounts of money, and that reflects the international community's concern about the fiscal management of this province. By the time this government is out of power -- according to the government's own numbers, not something we're making up -- we're going to be some $100 billion in debt, and that must be one of the most ringing indictments possible.
The fact is that Ontario, in the few years since the Conservatives were in power, is now proportionately more indebted than Canada itself; Canada is 84% relative to GDP, and Ontario is 84.9%. These numbers are available in the publication which came from the Fraser Institute just a few weeks ago.
Mr Sutherland: Another neutral think tank.
Mr Turnbull: That is typical. You see, the government doesn't like the numbers, so it wants to challenge the source. We have never, ever heard them refuting number by number, because they know they can't. The fact is, we're massively indebted.
Mr Callahan: I want to say that the accumulated deficit, as I explained before to people watching this program, is kind of overspending your chequebook -- I'm sorry, the annual deficit is overspending your chequebook. The accumulated deficit is what you stack on top of the stuff you spent in the years before.
We require in this Parliament and in the Parliament of Canada a non-partisan finance committee. We heard all sorts of private bills tonight; my good friend the member for Halton North got his environmental bill through. I urge this government, if you really want to do something spectacular -- and I guess I'm speaking for your government, or for our government if we form the government, or, God forbid, if the Tories form the government -- we have to have a finance committee that is non-partisan, that allows us to meet as a group and say, "How are we going to deal with this horrible cancer?" If we continue to deal with deficits in terms of partisanship, we haven't got a prayer.
We haven't got a prayer because what will happen is that all the people on that side and all the people on this side will eventually disappear, be replaced by other politicians who will do nothing for the people of the province of Ontario in terms of dealing with what is really an albatross around the necks of our children and our grandchildren. If there's one thing I want to do before I leave here, it's to ensure that those young people have a shot at the same Ontario that you and I, in our wisdom and age, had.
Finally, I want to say to the member for Don Mills that I think you are having fun. It's interesting to see people come here, neophytes from the municipal level, who have not been bound by party politics or partisanship, who are able to contribute to this Legislature, and I hope to heck you don't get -- I can't use the word "bastardized," but that's the appropriate word.
The Speaker: The honourable member for Don Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr David Johnson: I'm not sure what to make of that last comment. I was going to congratulate the member for Brampton South for another fine speech in terms of not putting this on a partisan basis and saying we should think about our children and our grandchildren and that sort of thing. That's really the essence of what this debate is all about. Right up there until the end, when I don't know what exactly you were getting at, I was with you 100%. But still, I thank you for those comments.
I thank the member for York Mills for his comments. I thank him and congratulate him for having brought through successfully, earlier this evening, a protection bill for tenants in the province. That's going to be a credit, certainly, for him.
The member for Downsview, who has left now, says I should talk about what's happening today in Ontario. Well, what's happening today in Ontario is that the Bank of Canada rate went up by .68 percentage points to over 7%; that's what's happened today, and the Royal Bank of Canada has put its rate up to 8%.
Mr Callahan: The mortgage rates are going up.
Mr David Johnson: The mortgage rates are going up. That's what's happening today.
I'm not making this up. My speech is primarily based on the budget of the Minister of Finance and on information from Metropolitan Toronto and other organizations. If he doesn't like that, that's not my problem.
I thank the member for Essex South for his suggestion, but I would refer him to page 16 of the budget of the Minister of Finance. I may take issue with how the budget is put together, but I think the information in the budget is precise. On page 16 the Minister of Finance shows the spending -- and I was talking about the spending of the various parties -- and shows that in terms of real spending, the Liberal Party, according to the Minister of Finance, was the big spender of all three parties.
2340
Mr Turnbull: The seriousness of borrowing the amounts of money that we have been borrowing cannot be overestimated. Unfortunately, what we're doing is we're moving all the problems we have today to our children and their children. The government has heckled my colleague the member for Don Mills practically throughout his speech. They don't seem to understand how important it is that we resolve our problems now, this generation at this time. If we don't have the money, don't spend it. It isn't fair. We have to tighten our belts.
That's what households do. That's what people have been telling us all across the province that they've had to do with their own businesses. Businesses have had to learn to spend a lot smarter and to work in different ways. It's a fact of life in the 1990s, but this government hasn't learned that lesson. This government has in fact taken us, as I mentioned in the response to the member for Don Mills, from a position of relatively low debt to a very serious debt problem: $100 billion is very serious. We are now relatively more indebted when you gauge it against the gross domestic product than the federal government.
Mr Callahan: The Tories started it.
Mr Turnbull: Now, the interesting thing is that the Liberals, who are heckling at the moment, are the biggest spenders, because, in fairness, this government inherited a mess from the Liberal Party. Most of the expenditures they were faced with were expenditures which were started by the Liberals in those five drunken years that they were in power, when they brought in 33 tax increases.
Now, think about it. You've got record revenues. Revenues have never gone up at the rate they did during the time the Liberals were in power. Yet notwithstanding that, they increased taxes 33 times, some of which this government has in fact withdrawn, and I applaud the government for this. But as well as that, the Liberals added to the debt at the same time.
I'm not a great fan of Keynes, but in fairness to John Maynard Keynes, he did say that "You prime the pump during the bad times and you pay back in the good times." But the Liberals were in the best of times, and the thought of paying back never even entered their head. We get heckles from the Liberals. Of course, they don't like this kind of talk, but the facts are that, yes, they had one balanced budget, but that one balanced budget, and I've mentioned it many, many times, was a year that they budgeted for a deficit.
And what happened? They'd budgeted for a deficit of some $550 million, and then the federal government gave them an unusual transfer. The economy was so overheated at that time that the federal government transferred $888 million that year. Math would suggest that they should have had a $300-and-odd-million surplus, but they didn't. They had a $90-million surplus, and that is their good government that they point to. It was a mere fluke. It was a mere fluke that they got the money from the federal government. Otherwise they would have been even more in the hole than they had budgeted, because they didn't even show the amount of money, $888 million less the $550 million; they just showed $90 million.
Mr Stockwell: Ten billion in five years.
Mr Turnbull: Adding $10 billion to the provincial debt in the best five years this province has arguably ever known. There were provinces all across Canada --
The Speaker: Point of order? The honourable member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: I have a point of order. I was wondering, Mr Speaker, if you had heard the member for York Mills, as I thought I heard the member, say that the reason all this money was spent was at the behest of the Progressive Conservative Party. Did you hear that?
The Speaker: What I didn't hear was a point of order. The member for York Mills has the floor.
Mr O'Connor: I think I heard that too.
Mr Turnbull: I suppose the federal Tories were certainly sorry they transferred that money, for the amount of gratitude they got from the provincial Liberals. I seem to remember, reading the papers at the time, the premiers from western Canada were complaining at the measures the federal government was having to take to try and dampen down the economy because of the unreasonable fiscal measures the provincial government in Ontario was undertaking. They damaged the actual fiscal fabric of Canada by their reckless spending, and of course the happy recipients were the NDP. I'm sure they'll for ever be in your debt, Liberal Party, for what you gave --
Mr Stockwell: We'll for ever be in their debt.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, indeed. The taxpayers will be for ever in debt as a result of that.
We have $100 billion worth of debt admitted by the government, but in addition to this, this government has done an awful lot to hide debt. I'm not quite sure what they think they're achieving by it, because there is no doubt that the bond rating agencies don't buy their act. They have clearly stated that by downgrading the government's debt repeatedly.
We've got to the point that any more downgrades and many lenders in the world will be precluded from lending to this government simply by the ground rules which govern them. That would be a wing-clipping that this government perhaps should have had. But the fact is that the beat goes on and the people who pay the taxes are the ones who will suffer from the acts of the government.
Let's be very clear that there is no political party in this province, probably in the country, whose hands are completely clean in this. We've just got to live within our means. I'm not pointing at just the Liberal Party or just the NDP; I think all parties have taken some and deserve some blame for the debt we've got.
But the fact is that we now have our children burdened with a debt which is almost beyond belief. It's a number which I think people have to write down to see how many zeros go after it. The bond rating agencies are very, very concerned about this. The fact is --
Mr Stockwell: How long to pay it off? That's the scary thing.
Mr Turnbull: My colleague from Etobicoke West talks about how long to pay it off. Let's just think in terms of debt buildup. A couple of years ago -- I have the figure off the top of my head -- the amount of borrowing that this government was doing per man, woman and child was $100 per month. The government was borrowing, on behalf of a family of four, $400 a month. Let's just think about what -- and I see one of the NDP members across the floor who's leading this debate for the government nodding his head. The facts are absolutely irrefutable: You were borrowing $100 a month per man, woman and child in this province. Imagine what the people of this province could have done with that money if it had been in their pocket. They, I believe, could probably have done a better job of spending the money than the government did. With our plan, the Common Sense Revolution, we certainly intend to let the people of this province decide how they're going to spend the money.
The fact is that there are political parties of all political persuasions that have done the right thing across the world. We see in New Zealand, Mexico and Britain governments that have tackled these knotty problems, that have come to terms with debt and have reduced debt and have stopped deficit spending and said, "Let the people spend the money themselves."
Interjection: It was the Labour Party in New Zealand.
Mr Turnbull: It was indeed the Labour Party in New Zealand that did it, a socialist party, but it did the right thing. It cuts across all lines. You can do it if you want to, but unfortunately we see no signs from this government of any inclination to want to do the right thing. You just want to keep on spending.
It's very interesting that the Minister of Housing should be in the House tonight, because if we're ever talking about a profligate department which is wasting the taxpayers' money, indeed it is this ministry, a ministry which has built up an enormous debt. It is very difficult for future governments to come to terms with what you have done, because you have financed buildings 100%. You haven't put capital in; you've borrowed the money. And you have overspent on the buildings you have built. So now these buildings are mortgaged to more than the value of the buildings. So future governments are saddled with this problem. You don't even have the keys to the door, because you don't own them, and yet you have saddled governments with the expenditures. That is one of the great challenges that future governments are going to have to come to terms with.
2350
In the meantime, the government goes out and borrows $15.5 billion as if this was just pocket money for the weekend. Well, Mr Speaker, this is more than pocket money. This is debt which will take years and years and years of governments being very frugal to be able to pay off; and the government members will argue.
Let's just put it in these terms: If any of you had children who took your credit card and went out on a spending binge and then came home and said, "I'm not going to pay it; I'm leaving it for you to pay," I don't think you'd be too happy with it. That's exactly what you have been doing with your government. You have been on a spending binge with no responsibility to the people who have to pay the bills.
Hon Ms Lankin: Come on. Let's have some honesty in this debate.
Mr Turnbull: I hear the Minister of Economic Development and Trade talking about, "Let's have some honesty in this debate." This is honesty.
The fact is, you're building debt at a rate which is totally unacceptable. Not only is it unacceptable to the taxpayers of this province but it is unacceptable to the international lending organizations. This is why you are having so much difficulty launching your debt around the world. It will progressively be more and more difficult, and it won't be your party that will be around mopping up the mess; it will be another party.
Mr Sutherland: Here comes the arrogance.
The Speaker: The member for Oxford is out of order.
Mr Turnbull: He's also out of his mind, but that's another thing altogether.
Mr Sutherland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier today, the member for Mississauga South, who is a colleague of the member for York Mills, got up and talked about imputing motives and personal comments about people. I would ask you to ask the member for York Mills to retract his last comment. If he wants to espouse his Thatcherite views, that's one thing, but he shouldn't be personally insulting.
The Speaker: Will the member for Oxford take his seat. Indeed, I did not hear the alleged comment because I was busy trying to bring the member for Oxford to order.
Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, in fact I did say he's out of his mind, and I think it's totally inappropriate. It's questionable whether he could have been out of his mind.
At this time of night, five to 12, we get a little bit punchy, but the fact is this is a very serious matter. A $15.5-billion borrowing scheme is something which is very serious and the government shouldn't be just sloughing it off and saying, "Oh, why don't you have that debate later on in budget debate or something?" The message has got to go out over and over again: Stop spending our kids' money and stop spending their kids' money. If you want to spend your own, fine, but I really believe you've already overspent that.
Mr Gary Wilson: My kids spend my money.
Mr Turnbull: Well, apparently your kids want to pay it. Okay. If your kids want to pay the bills, they can pay the bills. Don't burden the kids of the rest of the people who didn't vote for you. Only 37.5% of the population voted for you, and that's of the people who bothered to vote. So you're spending other people's money without their permission; end of story.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for York Mills for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr Bradley: Having anticipated that there was going to be further Conservative debate, I thought that I might put forward this particular proposition. I was listening carefully to see whether the member mentioned the funding formula for Brock University in St Catharines. I don't know if you noticed that or not, but I was listening carefully and I thought he would have mentioned that under the funding formula presently used by the Ontario government, Brock University doesn't get as much money for the number of students it has as it should. I would have thought that, dealing with this particular borrowing bill, since the government is borrowing the money in any event, it would have borrowed sufficient money so that Brock University would be able to offer the appropriate services to its students by having the proper funding.
I did not hear him as well mention the problems being confronted by Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, though I'm sure somewhere along the way he may have mentioned that, where we have some significant cutbacks coming at Hotel Dieu Hospital if a report of consultants is implemented. I don't think the government will allow that to happen. I know in Scarborough, Mr Speaker, you wouldn't want it to happen there.
I know as well that the member would want to mention the fact that the Queen Elizabeth highway between Toronto and St Catharines has some patches in it that are pretty rough. They were scraped off in the middle of winter and have not yet been repaired. If the government is in the process of borrowing money, no doubt it will want to apply that money to paving that road, some time between midnight and 6 am, of course, around Oakville and around Burlington.
So all of these would have been justifiable reasons for undertaking expenditures on the part of the Ontario government and borrowing this money, but I didn't hear the member mention those particular items.
Mr Stockwell: I would have thought also, considering the fact that this government is borrowing $15.5 billion, some place they could have had a sliver of money for the Golden Helmets. That is a particular group that certainly could have used the funding, if they existed any more. We know full well that this government, in a callous moment, took an axe to that particular program.
Mr Bradley: And the pipes and drums.
Mr Stockwell: The pipes and drums were also axed. I myself, not one to want to spend money on a regular basis, would think that of $15.5 billion, the paltry sum that some of these organizations are asking for -- that you could find your way clear to see if in some instances literally hundreds of dollars could be found for some of these groups to continue on.
Also, the member for York Mills once again has proven that his knowledge of the budget and borrowing is probably far superior to that of the member for Oxford when he outlines the $400 a day per family.
Mr Turnbull: Per month.
Mr Stockwell: Per month per family. The point that I think needs to be made is that a recent study was just released that talked about an average family of four in this country. If you accumulated all the debt that the country had on its books, an average family of four -- this is a breathtaking number -- has acquired in debt from the government on its behalf $250,000. That's astounding. Governments have borrowed on behalf of an average family of four a quarter of a million dollars.
Before we can even begin talking about retiring the deficit, how are we going to deal with the debt? My estimation is that if you put your nose to the grindstone and began to try and retire $100 billion in debt, you're looking at a 50-year period to try and retire that kind of debt.
Mr Callahan: The good member for St Catharines raised the question of Brock University and I couldn't let that lie, because I'm sure that was mentioned in the speech of the member for Don Mills. I thought it was interesting. The Ministry of Education, when there was a suggestion by Brock University that they might create spaces for our young Ontarians who wanted to be teachers at $10,000 a pop, they thought that was terrible, yet at Queen's University they allow an MBA program for $2,500, which seems to me to be sort of contrary. Yet I have to tell you, there are some 1,000 Ontarian young people who are going to Canisius College, Niagara University, St Bonaventure, Loyola University in Chicago, who are spending twice that in American dollars. I say shame to the Minister of Education, denying the jobs to the people of Brock University, denying the money that would have come from the tuition, denying the spinoffs from that to the people who are around Brock University in terms of retailers and so on.
0000
On the other side of the coin, this government has this problem in terms of --
Mr Stockwell: Have you changed your policy? What the heck is the point of having a policy?
Mr Callahan: -- everybody has to be the same.
The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.
Mr Callahan: What they've done is they've driven 1,000 young people out of this province to gain the opportunity to be able to teach in this province because they denied Brock University the opportunity to provide this service, because they thought it was C$10,000. So they've sent them to the US to spend US$20,000, to the loss of Canadians in the Niagara frontier.
Mr David Johnson: I want to congratulate the member for York Mills for a fine effort tonight. Since we're talking about amazing statistics, I had the opportunity to attend with my family Miss Saigon last Friday night. I was reading in the brochure that to the United States the cost of the Vietnam war was $168 billion. Mind you, this was back a few years ago, but $168 billion was the cost to the United States of the Vietnam war.
I don't know why, but a little trigger went off in my head. If you add up $90-billion debt at the end of this year for the province of Ontario, $35-billion debt of Ontario Hydro, unfunded liability of the WCB of about $12 billion, the unfunded liability of the teachers' pension fund, the unfunded liability of the public service pension fund, you come pretty close to $150 billion. Do you know that our debt right now is about the same as what the Vietnam war cost the Americans? There's an amazing statistic.
Another statistic, since we're talking about statistics, is that the debt per capita in Ontario, just from the Ontario debt, is over $8,000, $117 for every man, woman and child in the province of Ontario. That's what's owed by the people of Ontario, and we haven't even talked about the crown corporations. Have we talked about the crown corporations yet tonight?
The Ministry of Finance -- that's not the Tories, that's not the member for York Mills, that's not me -- the Minister of Finance estimates that the outstanding debt of the crown corporations at the end of the 1996-97 fiscal year will be over $6 billion.
The Speaker: The member's time has expired. The member for York Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Turnbull: I just thought I would mention, since I was talking about the Fraser Institute study, just read the 40th to the 50th most indebted countries on the face of the earth. We've got Bolivia, and then Manitoba, Greece, Saskatchewan, Burundi, Ontario, Canada, Morocco, Kenya and Niger, in that order. Honestly, can we believe that? We're just nosed out by Burundi in terms of our debt.
Hon Ms Gigantes: So?
Mr Turnbull: The Minister of Housing says, "So?" So it's a lot of debt that you've burdened our children with, and if you don't take that seriously, you are dead wrong, because I can tell you the people of Ontario take it very seriously. They know that they're going to have to toil for a long time to pay that off. You have spent inappropriately, and there is no doubt about it, and this is why there's probably never, ever been a situation in this province where people were as eager to have an election.
Mr Sutherland: Oh, you are sounding so arrogant.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Turnbull: The question we're constantly asked is, "When is the election coming?" and I have to keep on saying, "Probably not for another year." People want to address this. They're fed up with this. It's four years now. It's time for an election, and instead, you just keep on chugging on, borrowing money, worsening the situation, when the acid test is an election.
Just see how the people feel about it. I think you will find that there will be heavy sanctions on your acts. We assure you that we intend to unravel all of the things that you have done during your time in office. It is going to be something which I would be very interested to see, how you react as you watch everything that you've wrought taken away.
The Speaker: It being beyond 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 0006.