Journal des débats 1994-juin-22 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I am rising today to pass on a message from the Toronto Centre for Creative Arts Therapy to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Toronto Centre for Creative Arts Therapy is a cost-effective, community-based mental health agency that provides services that prevent individuals from committing suicide, offer alternatives to drug and alcohol abuse, prevent and decrease hospitalizations and save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, unless this centre can get support from the government, it will be forced to close by July 31, 1994.

TCCAT, as it's known, has been approaching the government with a commitment from a family foundation to fund 50% per year for three years of a proposed $237,000 annual operating budget if this is matched by the government. This would mean $59,000 from the Health ministry and an equal amount from Comsoc, with $118,000 coming from the foundation.

To try and get the government to listen, it has produced a video that is a compelling argument for the continuing existence and support of this agency.

In a desperate attempt to communicate to the government, this video, called A Matter of Life, has been produced. I have copies that I will forward to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services, and would refer them to letters of support from very powerful cabinet colleagues, including Marilyn Churley, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Frances Lankin, the minister of all things. I hope they will listen and watch closely.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. On June 13, trustee members of the Simcoe County Board of Education visited Queen's Park to speak with members of the Legislative Assembly about junior kindergarten. They distributed letters to all MPPs describing the impact this will have on their community.

My colleagues Al McLean, Simcoe East, and Jim Wilson, Simcoe West, have made us aware of the concerns of their constituents in this regard. They have requested that the government reconsider its intent to mandate junior kindergarten. They don't support it.

On March 23, 1994, the English-language section of the Simcoe County Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution to have a delegation meet with the Minister of Education and Training to request that he reconsider the mandating of junior kindergarten. The director of education wrote to the minister, but the request was refused.

Many of the schools in Simcoe county are crowded, some are at capacity and almost all have portables. Building junior kindergarten classrooms will be extremely expensive, as will hiring teachers and operating the program. The board cannot afford this.

Our Common Sense Revolution states, "Until a complete review has been made of the impact of junior kindergarten, we will allow school boards to opt out of the program."

Primary school programs have been expanded over the last few years to include much younger children. Government has continued this trend by making junior kindergarten mandatory beginning September 1994. The practice of mandating programs without sufficient dollars must end.

I urge the minister to meet with the delegation from the Simcoe County Board of Education to discuss this issue further.

SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Tomorrow I will be presenting for second reading my private member's Bill 176, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs.

At present, tractors and other farm equipment are required to prominently display the slow-moving vehicle sign to alert other highway users of the potential hazard. The problem is that the law as presently worded does not restrict the use of slow-moving vehicle signs to bona fide slow-moving vehicles.

Some rural people are affixing these signs to their mailboxes and as driveway markers. In bad weather this can cause drivers to mistake these for slow-moving vehicles and lead to accidents.

Bill 176 will prohibit the attachment of the slow-moving vehicle sign to stationary objects such as mailboxes. The bill also broadens the definition of "slow-moving vehicle" to include equipment such as certain construction vehicles that cannot reach speeds greater than 40 kilometres per hour. Also included would be horse-drawn vehicles. However, those who object on religious grounds will be exempted from displaying the sign on horse-drawn vehicles.

Bill 176 seeks to make our rural roads just a little safer. I would earnestly hope that all members of this House will support it.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): As my party's Colleges and Universities critic, I want to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed introduction, in September, of a mandatory general education component in our college programs.

While I do not disagree with the merit of general education and the role it can play in helping to make college graduates lifelong learners, I strongly disagree with the approach that's being taken by this government, which is effectively mandating that general education be introduced at the expense of core programs.

It's important to understand that no additional funding or class time is being made available for general education. This means that a student who has decided to enrol in a technical program, a program which the student believes will provide him or her with the necessary technical skills to get a job in the technical sector, will be required to study, for instance, three hours of art and culture a week at the expense of three hours of technical training.

At present, a student enrolled in a community college vocational program spends 23 hours per week in that program. This number over the years has been reduced from 30 hours per week. Now, if general education becomes the law of the land, only 20 hours per week will be available for the core program.

It's absurd that at a time when our colleges are coping to the very best of their ability with funding problems, the Minister of Education and Training should demand that a new subject be taught in all post-secondary college programs without providing additional funding or additional class time.

The minister is making an unreasonable demand not only of our college faculty but also of our students. College students, with an average age of 26 years, are quite capable of deciding what courses they need to take to get that job, and right now they don't want to give up a single hour of technical training in their courses.

1340

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): When the Common Sense Revolution brings a Harris government to power in Ontario, people can count on the Bill 40 job-killing labour law and the catastrophic Bill 91, the agriculture labour law, being repealed.

Bill 40 will result in a loss of millions of dollars worth of investment and thousands of lost jobs in Simcoe county. The successor rights portion of Bill 40 is sending an unfortunate pro-union message to business and makes it uneconomical for independent short-line operators to take over rail lines abandoned by CN.

Bill 91 will unionize the family farm and weaken the already unstable economic climate in agriculture. It will result in higher labour costs, higher interest rates, higher insurance costs and lower gate receipts. These additional costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the hard-pressed consumer because of the farm sector's inability to absorb the increase.

This government fails to realize there is no such thing as industrialized farms. A farm is a farm is a farm, regardless of structure, size and number of employees. This government fails to recognize that strikes during harvest and other vulnerable seasons would be destructive for farmers.

Bill 40 and Bill 91 are examples of a government that has no regard for social and economic consequences. This legislation is symbolic of the anti-business, anti-agriculture, anti-job, anti-worker, anti-prosperity agenda that has prevailed with this government.

They must be scrapped. They will be repealed.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to comment on the recent adoption of environmental guidelines for the practice of professional engineering in Ontario by Professional Engineers Ontario, the licensing body for the engineering profession in Ontario.

Professional engineers are currently responsible for safeguarding life, health and property under the Professional Engineers Act. These new guidelines mean the association now expects its practising members to bring their perspective on environmental issues to bear on the many projects they are involved with. The document includes nine guidelines to assist engineers in their practice, making it clear that consideration for the environment and sustainable development are absolutely essential to human life for the present generation and for future generations.

Professional engineers are key to the Ontario economy. Engineering is evident in everything we use in our lives, from the roads we drive on to the buildings we work in to the technology used on the production line and in telecommunications. The involvement of professional engineers in such diverse sectors puts them in a unique position to address the environmental implications of these projects.

Engineers will continue to play a leading role in sustainable development. These guidelines, which will soon be made available to the 59,000 members of Professional Engineers Ontario, will help them do so more effectively.

I convey to this assembly and the professional engineers in this province satisfaction and encouragement for their initiative.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When accused individuals are placed on trial in a court of law, our legal system ensures that they have legal representation and all efforts are made to ensure a fair trial.

What about the victims of crime and their families? What does our legal system do to compensate these people for the costs, personal and financial, that they incur as a result of a crime being committed?

When a change of venue for a trial is ordered by the court, the victims and their families must take time off work, travel to the new site of the trial and arrange for accommodation and food. The cost can amount to thousands of dollars. Yet unless they are witnesses, I'm aware of no compensation for which they are eligible.

Over the years, legislatures and the Parliament of Canada, as well as the administration of the legal system, have enacted laws and regulations to provide fair treatment for those accused of crimes. It is imperative that the same elected and administrative bodies take action to ensure fair treatment for the direct and indirect victims of crime, whose lives are disrupted emotionally and whose bank accounts are drained by the many costs they incur previous to, during and after a trial.

Let us not forget those who are deserving not just of our sympathy, but also our tangible support.

MICHAEL HERMAN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to share a story with the members of this House. It's a story of a young man's campaign to help fight cancer.

Michael Herman is attempting to kayak across the five Great Lakes to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society. A resident of Bolton in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, Mr Herman's 3,000-kilometre solo kayak journey will take him from Thunder Bay to Toronto. He began his trip on May 14 and is scheduled to arrive at Ontario Place on Lake Ontario on September 17.

Mr Herman's decision to devote his summer to helping the Canadian Cancer Society is one that we can all be proud of. I hope the sacrifice he is making will assist the development of new cancer research and treatment techniques, bringing us closer to curing this disease that knows no social, financial or age boundaries. Through donating his time and effort, Michael Herman is helping to continue the fight against this devastating disease. I doubt there is a person in this Legislature who has not been affected by cancer in some way. Whether it is through the suffering of a friend, a family member or a colleague, we can all relate to the pain and suffering that accompanies cancer.

IGA grocery stores across Ontario have set up donation cans in support of Michael's efforts and the Canadian Cancer Society. You can also send your donations directly to the Canadian Cancer Society. Mail a donation marked "Kayaking for Cancer" to the Canadian Cancer Society, 1639 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 2W6.

I extend my sincere congratulations and well wishes to Michael. His journey is truly an inspiration.

SPADINA FESTIVAL

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today, as the member of provincial Parliament representing the Spadina area south of College, to extend a personal invitation to the members of the House to join me on Canada Day at the Spadina Festival.

The Spadina Festival highlights the dynamic role and celebrates the diversity of the Spadina neighbourhood. Spadina is a microcosm of Canada's multicultural and multiracial community. Throughout Toronto's history, generations of new Canadians who have settled in the Spadina area have made key contributions to our city.

I would like to personally congratulate Spadina Festival co-chairs Peter Chen, Susan DaRosa and Derek Wu, who are here today, in fact, and to thank Irene Espinoza, Suruj Persaud and Melanie Rigley, who have taken an active part in these festivities and are here today as well, the Etobicoke Chinese Canadian Association, and the hundreds of volunteers representing a broad spectrum of community interests, local businesses, schools, community centres, residents' associations and civic groups who have made the Spadina Festival a reality.

Those attending the Spadina Festival will have the opportunity to enjoy the rich mixture of multicultural performances, visit the shops and sample the food.

Spadina Avenue is presently going through a transitional period with the building of the LRT. It is important to celebrate Spadina's rich past, recognize Spadina's role as a hub of economic activity and look forward to Spadina's future as a major boulevard in the heart of Toronto.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all the members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Robin Cooper, member of Parliament in the Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. He is joined by Mrs Jennifer Cooper. Please welcome our special guests.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, Minister, you answered questions about a police investigation of a land flip allegedly made by a housing development consultant for a Kitchener non-profit housing group. You answered, and I'm quoting, "It would be very foolish...and it would be unethical for a minister to talk about the specifics of a case which is under police investigation."

Will the minister tell the House, what is the difference between talking about a case under police investigation and talking to the complainant and chief witness in the Ottawa case about the case where charges had already been laid in the matter involving your ministry?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): There is a very large difference, as the member will know. In the one case what we're dealing with is a situation where allegations have been made and matters have been referred to the police. The police are launching an investigation and therefore it really is out of bounds to discuss that case.

In the second case, I met with members of a board whose members had been at odds for many, many months. My attempt was to mediate among those board members, and in the course of that discussion --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): You're not a mediator. You're a minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- we considered many options that lay before the members of the board. We never discussed "the case," as he puts it. There was no reason to do that. What we were discussing were the tensions that existed and some of the ways there might be to relieve those tensions so board members could come to an agreement about where the board was at in terms of its work, where all the requirements of the Housing ministry were and how they were being met, and how the board could work together in the future.

Mr Chiarelli: Then, Minister, if Mr Juan Andres is charged, you would have no problem meeting with him and the board to try to resolve their differences. But in the case of the Van Lang housing project in Ottawa, a member of the board was repeatedly refused information she was entitled to receive from the board, and you and your ministry did not respond to her inquiries. The crown ended up laying four provincial offence charges against four members of the board under the Corporations Act.

I am informed by Trinh Lu, the former manager of the project, that she met with you at your constituency office on June 10, at which time she reviewed with you all the evidence of the case, contents of the charges, copies of the court docket, and you confirmed to her you would meet with the board members to actively try to settle the disputed court case.

As a result of the meeting you attended last Friday, the complainant board member is again quoted in the Ottawa Citizen today, saying: "I felt as if there was a lot of pressure coming towards me from Gigantes. I felt intimidated."

My question to you, Minister -- and I hope you do more than a one-word answer, as the Premier did yesterday when he insulted the people of Ontario -- is, will you please tell the people of Ontario why you are not in breach of section 22 of the Premier's guidelines?

Hon Ms Gigantes: As I've explained to the member, the purpose of my meeting with the board members, and all the board dispute representatives were present at that meeting, was to try and resolve some of the issues. I had indicated to the former project manager of the non-profit corporation that in fact I would be meeting with the board, so she would know that, and I told her it was my hope that there might be a resolution of the difficulties. That was all I could say to her, because more than that, I had nothing to say. I knew no more about the possibilities of resolving those issues.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm sure the people will be the judge and I'm sure there'll be additional questions on that particular issue.

To change subjects slightly, Minister, we are very concerned about the minister's mismanagement of the Cypriot Homes land flip in Kitchener. As the Toronto Star has revealed, the development consultant who earned $135,000 in taxpayers' money on the Cypriot deal was involved in a questionable land deal three years ago. Mr Juan Andres was charged in November 1991 with fraud in connection with the land flip involving a Kitchener non-profit housing group. He pleaded guilty to the possession of the proceeds of crime and was sentenced in 1993. His lawyer told the court, and again I'm quoting, "The land flip was completed at a time when everything was aboveboard...with the full knowledge of the ministry."

Minister, can you confirm that your ministry was aware of this type of activity in the past? When did you become aware of the police investigation into Mr Andres's affairs, and how could this happen a second time? I hope you're not going to say, "It's a matter which is before the courts." You're not commenting on the police investigation, you're commenting on the extent of the knowledge of your ministry.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I don't know if you considered that supplementary to the first two questions, but certainly it wasn't, in my mind.

Let me say that in the case to which he is referring, what happened was that the ministry became aware of a situation which made the ministry concerned about what was happening. The ministry was in contact with the board. New project management came into place in September 1992, as I indicated in the House yesterday. In fact, the ministry has cooperated with the police investigation. That's what happened.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, last week I asked you a question about why the Workers' Compensation Board was spending $9,450 to send one individual to the Golden Key Centre for Learning in Richmond Hill when it could have enrolled that same person in an adult education program offered by his local high school at little or no cost.

Apparently, there are literally hundreds of injured workers who are being enrolled in a number of these schools at an incredible cost to the Workers' Compensation Board. I remind the minister that this Golden Key Centre for Learning is not recognized by the Ministry of Education and Training nor by any college or university in this province. While they claim, sir, that their courses provide equivalency to grade 12, clearly they do not.

Minister, now that you've had a week to look into this matter, I ask you once again, why is the Workers' Compensation Board spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send workers to these so-called schools when public school boards would offer these courses, with grade 12 certificates, at substantially lower cost to the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I would still remind the member that when he says "little or no cost," somebody is paying for the courses in the public school system. I don't think it's entirely fair to simply say that because the admission costs are $50, or the numbers he quoted before, that's the entire cost. The taxpayers are picking up the balance of it.

I've explained to the member before that the school is using the word "equivalency," which has no meaning within the Education Act. This organization can in fact offer these types of programs, and then if students are using it, as they are in this case, as a pre-education program in order to get into college, then the college system does the assessment to determine whether there's equivalency.

Whether it is appropriate for the Workers' Compensation Board to use this particular school is something that we have referred to the Ministry of Labour and to the Workers' Compensation Board. All the questions you have asked that pertain specifically to our ministry have been answered. Now the Workers' Compensation Board needs to take what I think is a fair question about the cost.

Mr Mahoney: I would have liked to have put this question to the Minister of Labour, who is not with us. The Premier's not here. The Deputy Premier's not here. The deputy deputy is not here. I have no choice but to go to the Deputy Premier du jour.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member knows he should direct the question to someone who is here.

Mr Mahoney: Since I asked my question, I have received several phone calls from a number of injured workers enrolled in similar schools in Whitby and Peterborough. Their stories are very disconcerting, to say the least. They tell me that some of the teachers -- and as the Minister of Education, this should concern you -- are not even qualified. At one school, two of the instructors had to quit because they were just accepted into teachers' college. The students complain of poor instruction and a lack of proper equipment to complete their course work.

All these workers say that their WCB case worker was adamant that they attend these schools. They were given an ultimatum by the board, "Go to this school or lose your benefits." All these workers say they have been warned by both the WCB and the school "not to cause any trouble" or they will be put on probation or expelled.

1400

Do you agree with these tactics by the WCB to silence and intimidate these injured workers, and do you agree with spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send these injured workers to these schools where they get a certificate that is virtually worthless?

Hon Mr Cooke: It's not fair to say that the certificate or the education they get at these programs is worthless. The fact is that this type of program is then used, as I said, to achieve entrance to a college. They have to have a base education in order to qualify to get into college.

In terms of the cost and in terms of preference to the public education system, I was told by the Workers' Compensation Board that its preference is to use the public education system, but where it is appropriate to have a condensed program to have students get through the program more quickly, it looks at other alternatives. I would hope that the Workers' Compensation Board would be looking at some very real concerns that you have expressed, that I have agreed with.

Mr Mahoney: I can tell you, as the father of three university-age boys, $10,000 will pay the entire shot for a full university education, including room and board. We're talking about one course, for that amount of money, to this injured worker in this school.

What's clear is that this government, through the Workers' Compensation Board, is determined to send individuals to these schools despite the fact that they are not recognized by the Ministry of Education and Training and despite the fact that they cost the Workers' Compensation Board almost $10,000 per worker per year.

I have learned that there's an individual who is associated with all three of these learning centres who, it turns out, has very strong ties to the New Democratic Party. According to the Golden Key Centre for Learning, a Mr Mike Maloney, principal of the Quinte Learning Centre, is also the director of all three of these schools. Two of the three schools we know about indeed use his address and phone numbers on their letterhead. You might be surprised to learn that Mr Maloney was a candidate for the New Democratic Party in the riding of Quinte in a previous election. It appears that once again your government is simply helping out your friends.

Given that you cannot explain why the government needs to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these centres and given that the director of three of these centres is a former NDP candidate, will this minister call upon the Provincial Auditor to investigate this mess and report his findings back to this Legislature immediately?

Hon Mr Cooke: I had indicated to the member that I thought some of the concerns in terms of cost were legitimate concerns, but he completely destroyed his credibility on this question when he makes wild accusations. I don't even know who Mr Mahoney is --

Mr Mahoney: Maloney.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- or Mr Maloney is. I don't even know who he is. So you can make all the wild accusations that you want to, that you're used to making, but it's a bunch of nonsense, it's a bunch of hot air, that we're used to coming from that member.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, do you agree that you had a meeting with Ms Sharron Pretty on June 17, 1994, and at that meeting you pressured her by asking her several times to have charges withdrawn against several members of the Van Lang Centre board?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): As I've explained to the House, the people I met with last Friday were members of the board. Ms Pretty was a member of the board, remains a member of the board. I met with them on Friday.

Mr Harnick: I have a copy of notes taken by Sharron Pretty. She's transcribed those notes that she prepared right after the meeting. If I can have a page come over, I'm going to send those notes over to you.

Ms Pretty says, "I felt intimidated and pressured to agree to the suggestion by Evelyn Gigantes that I drop charges against the board of directors in order to solve the issue out of court." In fact, you pressured her at least three times to withdraw those charges.

Minister, this is a very serious allegation and it cuts to the heart of your credibility as a minister with the crown. I want to ask you directly, is this account of Ms Pretty accurate, or are you willing to stand in your place and call her a liar?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm certainly not going to call Ms Pretty a liar. That simply would not be fair.

Mr Harnick: Well, is it accurate then?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It would not be fair, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Take your seat, please.

The member for Willowdale posed a very serious question. It would be most appropriate if he would wait for the reply.

Hon Ms Gigantes: At several points during the discussion, on many issues that we discussed, I said to all the members of the board in the room: "I don't wish you to try and make up your minds in this meeting. I would like you to go away, to reflect on things, not to feel pressured." I said, "I would like to try and help in this situation, if it's possible."

I offered, with the agreement of the regional housing director for eastern Ontario, that there would be somebody representing the ministry at a further meeting if people wished to have one. I also suggested it might be useful for the participants, if they wished to hold another meeting to discuss options, that they would find it beneficial to have somebody from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association to act as a facilitator.

So we discussed a lot of options. I can't speak for how anybody felt at that meeting, but I certainly encouraged people to take their time, not to feel pressured, to think things through and to see if it were possible in the future to have another meeting which could continue whatever progress we might have been able to establish during that meeting.

Mr Harnick: Minister, I have given you ample opportunity to deny the fact that you pressured Ms Pretty. Her notes make it clear that she felt pressured by you to call the crown and have charges against other Van Lang board members dropped.

Yesterday, your colleague the Attorney General said in this House in response to a question I asked that if a minister of the crown pressured any individual to have charges dropped, that would be improper. Minister, even your own colleague, the chief law enforcement officer of this province, believes that what you have done is improper. You have used your position as a minister of the crown to intimidate a private citizen. Why don't you do the honourable thing and stand up and admit your mistake and resign?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd be so delighted to be able to please the member opposite, but I'm not going to oblige him on this one, because --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Willowdale, please come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- I feel there was nothing that happened during that meeting that was out of place. We discussed a full range of options. I encouraged people not to feel pressured, very directly I encouraged them. I said to them, "Don't feel pressured." I said to them when they thought about setting a time for another meeting, "Don't rush and decide or try and put pressure on one person or another to decide on a time for another meeting now."

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: "Go away, think about things, just reflect on whether we've been able to make any progress here. If we have, we'd be delighted, from the Ministry of Housing point of view, to be able to offer any help that could lead to an improvement in the work of the board in the future."

1410

Mr Harnick: To carry on with this little saga of evasion, you have had ample opportunity to stand in your place today and to tell this Legislature that Sharron Pretty's account of what happened is not accurate. Sharron Pretty stated, "Evelyn emphasized that she was only 'suggesting' a possible solution, but she did repeat her suggestion at least three times." Not once in these notes does she indicate that she was to go away and reflect on it.

What the notes go on to say is that you would ensure that if she withdrew the charges, she could remain on the board for another month, because that's all her term of office had left.

Now, I want you, as does everyone in this Legislature, to stand in your place and to deny, if it's not true and if Ms Pretty is not telling the truth, the fact that you tried to pressure her to withdraw these charges. Do you have the guts to do that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know if it is within the rules of this House to accuse another member of evasion when really he is trying to say something more serious, and I really resent the way in which he is posing these questions, because what it assumes is that certain things happened. He feels he has some evidence that certain things happened.

I will say directly, through you, Mr Speaker, to the member that I never pressured anybody. In fact, I deliberately and carefully said: "Do not feel pressured. Think about the options. Take your time on this. If we can be of assistance in setting up a further meeting at which our participation from the Ministry of Housing and the participation of another facilitator would be helpful, we're prepared to do that."

That was our offer. We discussed many options, and for him to draw conclusions that I have breached conflict-of-interest guidelines on this is wrong.

Mr Harnick: Minister, either what Ms Pretty is saying is a fabrication or what you are saying is a fabrication, and what I would like you to do --

The Speaker: Order. The member knows better. I know he would wish to rephrase.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Harnick: What I would like to know is, whose story is true: the story that Sharron Pretty has set out in her notes or the story that you're telling the Legislature?

Hon Ms Gigantes: When you're dealing with a group of people who have had great difficulty and intense struggles dealing with each other in a productive way, in fact have failed to deal with each other in a productive way over a period of time, there are very high emotions. Several times during our conversation, I asked people just to forget about what has happened in the past, to try and focus on where things were at now in terms of the operations of the non-profit organization and to see if there was the possibility of moving forward.

There is always room for different feelings about things. I can tell the member quite clearly what I said, what I meant, what I did, what I offered.

Mr Harnick: Minister, do you deny that you asked Miss Pretty three times to withdraw these charges, and do you deny that you made an offer to her that if she withdrew the charges, she could stay on the board for another month?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I did not ask Miss Pretty to withdraw charges and I did not say to her, "You can stay on for another month if you do that." That doesn't make any sense even to the member, surely. Does it?

The object of the meeting was to take a group which had been in difficulty, which was struggling internally, and to try and work out where things were at so that group would work together in the future. There were some very serious problems which that group had confronted and continues to confront.

The Speaker: New question.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A change of pace, perhaps, to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Sorry to interrupt your lunch, Bud. I understand the pressures of cabinet on Wednesday, so I don't mean to be rude there.

I have a question to the minister responsible for Hydro. I have in my hand some of the several letters that I've been receiving, and I dare say members on all sides are getting, from utility contractors across the province about part of the mandate of the new Ontario Hydro. The minister will know, because he has had representations from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on this subject, there are a lot of private contractors in the utility business, electrical contractors, line people etc, who are ticked off, to say the least, that Ontario Hydro has now moved in on their business, a business that has been shrinking as a result of the most recent recession.

I also have, as a result of today's mail, a letter from the chairman of Ontario Hydro, our dear friend Maurice Strong, and I know better these days than to annoy the chairman. The chairman's letter seems to suggest that these independent business people really don't have a problem and they must misunderstand.

Minister, what do you say to all of these hardworking independent contractors who are, to a person, ticked off and worse about the fact that Ontario Hydro, with all of its advantages and all of its peculiar opportunities, has now moved in to compete with these small contractors?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As the member will know, over the last year or two the utility has moved to try to restructure and ensure that rates will be maintained at a stable level, and the commitment for no rate increase this year and rate increases at or below inflation will be met over the next few years to the end of the decade.

In doing that, it meant that Ontario Hydro had to curtail some of its programs with regard to retrofits and assistance to home owners and businesses in enabling them to become more energy-efficient. That meant that a number of the contractors that had been supplying the work related to those retrofits have suffered and some of the small manufacturers that produced energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, these kinds of things, have suffered.

The utility is determined to assist in doing analyses of energy use, particularly in the private sector, to do audits and so on. As those audits are completed, to assist with the bottom line, private sector companies should be able to contract with the private sector to do the retrofits that would benefit these contractors.

Mr Conway: What I know is what I read from all of these good people in all of these communities across Ontario. These hardworking, self-sufficient small business people are telling me, and I think telling all members, that this is the unfairest of competition. We even have flyers going out from Hydro's central stores warehouse advertising a whole range of warehouse possibilities that Hydro has to offer. This is really going to cause hardship, is causing hardship, is displacing employment in the private sector.

Would the minister not agree that Ontario Hydro, in all of these new ventures relative to these independent private contractors, is in a complete conflict of interest, given who some of the customers are? It's an unavoidable conflict of interest. Would the minister not agree that that is a problem? Would the minister not also agree that, at the very least, he should call together the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Ontario and senior executives at Ontario Hydro to resolve this problem? I say most sincerely that everywhere I have gone on this subject in recent weeks, good people in this province --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- hardworking private entrepreneurs, are saying that if this unfair competition does not stop or become reined in, it is going to cost hundreds of jobs in the private sector and hurt the community in a way that I'm sure the minister does not want.

Hon Mr Wildman: To answer the first part of the question at the outset, no, I don't agree that Ontario Hydro is in a conflict of interest. It is in the interests of Ontario Hydro, of its customers and of the ratepayers generally for the corporation to assist the private sector in doing assessments of how to ensure that it is energy-efficient. It is also in the interests of the ratepayers for Ontario Hydro to be as efficient as possible.

1420

It is interesting that we hear members of the opposition from time to time saying that Ontario Hydro should be more businesslike and even entrepreneurial and then, when they begin to do that, they are accused of unfair competition.

In response to the last part of the question, I would be glad to facilitate such a meeting and I would be happy to do that.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. I want to go back to Mr Andres's problems as a development consultant.

We have been informed by a freedom-of-information request that he was the development consultant on three projects in the Kitchener area. He has charged what your ministry calls organizational expenses, which as you know are described by your ministry as "non-technical functions necessary for project development, including the preparation of ministerial submissions necessary for project commitment." Basically, this is a percentage of the project's cost and it's a way for consultants to make money without having to substantiate the same.

On three projects in the Kitchener area, he has charged: $75,807 in Hellenic Place, phase 2; $115,700 in Slavonia Village; $193,612 in Cypriot Homes, coming to just in excess of $385,000. Are you aware of that?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I wonder if the member was present yesterday when I outlined the changes that have taken place in the non-profit housing program. He is identifying a method of paying development consultants which is no longer being followed in the non-profit program.

The reason for that was that in 1991 we undertook a public consultation in this province, and I'm sure the member was very interested in that organization.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Were you aware of it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Willowdale please come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He certainly had a chance to participate if he was --

Mr Harnick: Why don't you know what was going on?

The Speaker: Would the Minister of Housing please take her seat.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): What about an answer to the question? It is a noble concept, but what about an answer to the question?

The Speaker: It is not helpful for members to be shouting while one minister is attempting to answer a question.

Mr Turnbull: She wasn't.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to come to order. Supplementary, the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I haven't finished answering.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, my mistake. The Minister of Housing to complete her reply.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I was just informing the member, through you, that in 1991, because this program had operated since 1986 in this province without having a formal look and a formal consultation about what the program requirements should be, we undertook such a consultation. We produced policy for the review of members and for the review of the public in 1992. In 1993 we started to incorporate that new policy in the Jobs Ontario Homes program, our non-profit housing program. What that means for development consultants is that they are no longer paid in the way he describes.

Mr Eves: In addition to the $385,000-plus that I just referred to, I'm sure the minister is aware that Mr Andres is alleged to have made $135,000 in a land flip associated with Cypriot Homes Ltd. I'm sure the minister is also now aware that Mr Andres last fall pleaded guilty to possession of proceeds of crime. In view of the fact that he was involved in all three of these projects, what steps have you taken to investigate all three projects in the Kitchener area, and if you haven't done that, why haven't you done that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: At the point when difficulties around this particular non-profit came to the attention of the Ministry of Housing, and that was early on, the Ministry of Housing undertook steps, the project management was changed at that particular project and in fact the ministry has been in cooperation with the police investigation since that time.

The ministry of course has an interest in the operation, and the good operation, according to program guidelines, of every non-profit housing corporation and co-op in this province, certainly.

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. There was another major fire at the abandoned former International Malleable Iron Co Ltd plant on May 19. We call it IMICO in Guelph. This is the sixth time that firefighters have been called to the former foundry in the last three years, and it took 12 firefighters more than three hours to bring this blaze under control, using two pumpers and aerial ladders.

I, along with the people of Guelph, am concerned about the need to clean up this abandoned site, and we're also very concerned about the safety of the firefighters, of the neighbours, and particularly of the neighbourhood children, because it's so easy to gain access to this property.

What can we do about these concerns, and how is the ministry acting on this?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I want to thank the member for raising this question about IMICO. The Ministry of Environment and Energy is indeed concerned about the environmental and safety hazards with regard to that former foundry operation and the abandoned property.

The member will know that the ministry has already dealt with the most serious environmental concerns. The ministry retained a waste disposal company to remove the potentially hazardous raw materials and waste at the foundry in October 1991. Also, the PCB waste was removed to the Guelph water pollution control plant by the contractor at the same time.

The ministry most recently, as a result of some of the investigations around ownership and changes in ownership, has now served notice of intent to issue a cleanup order on the persons and companies associated with the site. As of the end of last month, that order has been finalized and will be served shortly, pending legal review.

Finally, the order will require the site owners to submit a work plan, within 120 days of the order being served, on the steps they are going to take to clean up the site.

Mr Fletcher: Minister, I agree with you. The ministry has been trying to deal with the issue of the site cleanup, but what our community of Guelph would like to know right now is, what about the fire and the safety concerns? What can we do now to deal with these issues?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, the remaining environmental concerns are indeed the responsibility of the owners. These issues will be addressed in the cleanup order. Specifically, in regard to the question of fire safety and property standards, the member is probably aware that these are not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Indeed, they are the responsibility of the city. In that regard, the ministry district staff is meeting with officials of the city of Guelph to try and resolve the issues around the safety of the site -- today, I believe.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. This question affects every driver in the province. Minister, your photo-radar is due to come into force this August. As you are aware, the car rental operators have an unresolved matter concerning the impact of photo-radar. As you are aware or should be aware, offences under photo-radar attach to the owner of the car and not the driver. The car rental operators are liable for the offences committed by the people who lease their cars.

Minister, because of the inaction of yourself and your government to address this concern, I have been advised that car rental operators, with the consent of your ministry and as well the Ministry of the Attorney General, will be debiting photo-radar fines from the credit card accounts of their customers. In other words, you're allowing them to plead guilty to offences possibly committed by others. How can you justify this action?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is most relevant indeed. Why should the operator, the car renters, take a hit when the guilt -- hypothetically, of course -- lies with the client, the people who rent a car? That's why we have a pilot project; it's to iron out the inefficiencies. This is why our staff repeatedly has met with the car renters. That's why I met with them. We had a good meeting. The determinant was the very challenge that you pose: to find a way to make it happen. It's quite simple in other jurisdictions. It's more complex in our jurisdiction by virtue of the size of Ontario. But we're working together to come up with a commonsensical answer and approach to this issue.

1430

Mr Offer: Minister, I happen to have a letter of June 1 that actually has been signed by you. The discussions you have spoken of are truly of no effect whatsoever. Just yesterday, the Association of Canadian Car Rental Operators met in Toronto. You and your ministry and your government refused to meet their concerns.

Minister, I don't care how pompously you wish to answer these questions, but the fact remains that this August you are going to be taking the lens cap off the photo-radar camera, and the concerns, very valid concerns, of car rental operators in this province have not been met because of your inaction.

I find it outrageous that you would allow and consent to car rental operators debiting a person's credit card account for an offence that the driver might not even know they committed. In fact, Minister, the Association of Canadian Car Rental Operators don't want this. What they want is the authority to forward to you, with their invoice, any offences committed by their customers and to let you take the appropriate action. The difficulty is that for this to take place an amendment to the legislation will be required.

For the car rental operators in this province, and because of the fact that you have not dealt with this issue --

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

Mr Offer: -- will you delay the implementation of photo-radar until the concerns of the car rental operators in the province of Ontario have been met?

Hon Mr Pouliot: First and foremost, tales of Houdini, I can't be in two places at once. We intend that at the end of the day, the majority in this Parliament shall have its way. That's the way democracy works, and you can acquiesce readily that with midnight sittings, although we do have an open-door policy and want to meet as many people as we can, there are only so many meetings you can accommodate, because you have to be here as well, as you well know.

On the issue, what do you do if you get a parking ticket? Harry Smith goes to rent a car, parks illegally. It's part of the contract; it's charged back to the client. That's the very parallel that we're trying to develop.

In terms of delaying the safety initiative, the member can just forget it. It won't happen. But we are positive that we can rectify the situation and we won't have to delay this great safety initiative.

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training, and it concerns the removal of barriers to full cost-cutting restructuring measures in school boards.

Minister, I'm sure you've seen this report from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, the report on education restructuring policy and legislative analysis. It recommends changes to the Education Act and its regulations to facilitate this full restructuring by all school boards in Ontario. Some include: modifying the school year, which the minister is concerned about; forming joint management structures for transportation; and establishing consortia, which I think is very interesting, for curriculum development. Could you tell me when you are going to make these urgently needed changes which will require changes to the Education Act?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Many of the items in that report -- cooperatives for curriculum development, we're doing that. We've funded a whole series of cooperatives that are now being established in the north and elsewhere.

In terms of shared transportation and shared purchasing services, those are all the types of restructuring projects that we have entered into with boards, Metro Toronto being the most recent case where we're actually doing a project between the separate and all the public boards.

I think most of these things can be done and will be done without changes to the Education Act.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the minister's answer is just an indication of what isn't being done, because if Metro Toronto had followed its own consultant's report with regard to the restructuring, it would have saved $55 million this year. I think it goes much beyond what's being done so far, and the minister hasn't answered the question, so I'm going to ask him again.

The boards are saying we need changes to the Education Act and the regulations. I happen to have read the report and discussed it with them. I don't think the minister has had the opportunity of discussing these recommendations directly with representatives from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, so I would urge him to do that.

My question again is: Does he have any intention of following through with the recommendations in this report that require changes to the Education Act and regulations so we really can witness and feel with our tax dollars the true savings of the restructuring that could be accomplished with these changes?

Hon Mr Cooke: I have met with the trustees. I was at their convention the day after they released the report. You might want to sit down with the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, Ann Vanstone, a member of your party. The $55 million you referred to doesn't just happen because there's a consultant's report that's been put out. That's the whole purpose of the project we're undertaking now, with Ned McKeown heading up the project, to implement and find the savings.

I do not intend to bring in amendments to the Education Act. I think we can do many of the reforms that are being talked about in that report without changes to the Education Act. I reject the recommendations in that report that specifically refer to a further decentralized education system in the province. What we need in this province is more control at the provincial level so that we have province-wide standards, not a more decentralized system, as the member now seems to be advocating.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): This question is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

There have been recent reports in the Peterborough media regarding the magazine grant provided through the Ontario Publishing Centre which is operated through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. I understand that consumer magazines and book industries are eligible for this funding. However, community newspapers do not qualify for funding.

We all know the valuable work that community newspapers provide to our communities. Can the minister clarify for the House why community newspapers do not qualify for these grants?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I want to thank the member for her very important question that draws attention to the vital role that community newspapers play in bringing together communities. Community newspapers that need economic support, of course, like any other business, are entitled to apply to the Ontario Development Corp.

The point of the Ontario Publishing Centre is not to support any print industries; it's particularly to help grow Ontario's cultural industries and cultural voices. Ontario book publishers and magazine publishing companies were especially hard hit by the recession, by incredibly crushing American competition, by the federal GST and by the federal postal subsidies, and the intention of our government in establishing the Ontario Publishing Centre has been to particularly support those Ontario companies that publish 85% of Ontario authors.

Ms Carter: Can the minister tell us how these grants assist our cultural industries?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The Ontario Publishing Centre grants have especially helped the book and magazine publishing industries. When you look at the comparison of the number of them that were going bankrupt before we established the centre compared to afterwards, you can see the success of the centre in having both saved jobs and helped to create jobs.

1440

Before the centre's grants programs were created by this government in 1991, five publishing companies in Ontario went bankrupt. Since the creation, we have protected jobs fully in the Ontario publishing industries and in fact helped to create further jobs, with great strength being shown in the expansion of those businesses.

There has been a lot of recent national controversy and concern over both the past Conservative government and the present Liberal government's failure to help protect the book and publishing industries in this country. This has been the effort by this government, very successfully, to strongly help support Ontario's book and magazine publishing companies in Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Last week, the Minister of Labour was asked here in these chambers if he could name one farmer who approved of and actually welcomed Bill 91. It was most revealing when the minister, the individual responsible for shepherding this bill through the legislative process on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, could not name one individual who had asked him to introduce this legislation.

The reason for the minister's failure is obvious: This deal smells. Farmers don't want the legislation. They are very upset that this government is bringing forward this legislation against their wishes. Farm organization members are very upset. In our discussion with farmers, I have found 100% opposition to this bill. Even members of his committee that he appointed are upset.

My leader, Lyn McLeod, sent out a questionnaire asking what the farmers thought of the NDP government's Bill 91. The response was overwhelmingly negative.

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

Mr Cleary: Just over 1,000 pamphlets were sent out, and they screamed at the minister to restore the agricultural exemption under Bill 91 and put it out to pasture.

Again I ask for the name of one real farmer, not the lobbying behind this bill but individuals on a family farm that is going to have to live with this legislation and actually look forward to working with it. The minister has had a week to think about this --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Cleary: I asked him for one single name. Can you please answer the question, Mr Minister? This is a serious question. And why are there no public hearings?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I agree with the member: This is a very serious question. His leader sent out I don't know how many thousands of postcards across this area at great expense to the taxpayers and said that this bill was going to mean that family members would have to join unions, and that's not true. She said there was no provision to prevent strikes, and that's not true. So there's some uncertainty coming from the member and his party.

We are very clear on this side of the House that we want to provide farm workers with the same democratic rights to organize themselves as exist in other sectors. We're very proud of that and we're not going to change. Our position is clear.

The member and his party have been trying to generate some opposition to this bill, and I appreciate that; that's the political process. But if he's getting a lot of letters from farmers who don't like this legislation, he must be rather unique. I've gotten no calls and no letters opposed to this, because it was put together with farmers and labour, for farmers and for labour. This is a perfect bill, and the member should be supporting it rather than making noises.

Mr Cleary: That's very interesting. We all know, and even the Labour minister admits, that the central aim of Bill 91 is to allow farms to unionize. Work slowdowns, labour disputes and work-to-rule campaigns, all fair game under union and NDP labour rules, can be damaging in industry, but the problems are tenfold in agriculture. Crops and livestock simply cannot wait for labour disputes. The task force reported two years ago, Bill 91 was introduced one year ago, yet all we have from the NDP are promises that it will fix Bill 91 after second reading. As the Labour minister also admits that he is not familiar with agriculture and farming, perhaps it would be appropriate at this time to let him know that the agriculture industry is the second-largest employer in Ontario.

There's simply no proof that Bill 91 will make agriculture more competitive, more productive or more profitable. It seems the minister is willing to hurt this industry more by imposing his restrictive and damaging Bill 91.

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

Mr Cleary: Can you explain to us your vision of how Bill 91 will help the farmers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm very puzzled by the last comment. We on this side of the House know that there is no such thing as the ORLA; it's the OLRA that this bill refers to. I don't know how the leader of the official opposition could put out a memo that can't even get that straight. I don't know that the member across can give us any lessons in terms of how to deal with agriculture and with labour relations. He should read the bill. He should look at the amendments that he has in his hand, which clearly say there will be no strikes or lockouts under this legislation.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga North is out of order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: To go around the province saying that produce is going to rot or that animals are not going to be looked after is not true. He should read his own mail and look at the letters he's got in terms of what amendments will be tabled, presumably this afternoon. We should not be spreading that kind of information.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it concerns the flashing green lights for volunteer firefighters. In September 1992, I wrote to the minister in support of an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act to allow volunteer firefighters to use flashing green lights in their cars when they're responding to an emergency call. They need these lights for reasons of safety. In October 1992, the minister replied to me, "Although the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act has not been tabled, I am confident that it will be forthcoming at the first available opportunity." Since that time, 87 weeks have passed and no such amendment has been passed by the government.

My question to the minister is very simple, and I need an answer. Minister, what's the holdup?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Last year we proposed an omnibus bill with the flashing green lights in it. Those people there, the Liberals, were against; we couldn't get unanimity for this safety initiative, so now we have to go piecemeal. We'll try to introduce it as soon as possible, but if -- and I say if -- the Liberals would join us, yourself and myself, it could be passed almost within a matter of days.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's as simple as that. I thank you for your cooperation and I know you will help me talk to those people, get them on side so we can get this safety initiative.

Mr Arnott: I couldn't hear the minister's answer. Nevertheless, irrespective of what the Liberals have done, 87 weeks have passed since that commitment was made. The volunteer firefighters need these for reasons of safety. What are you going to do right away to make sure that the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act is passed?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Again, the question is most appropriate. The Liberals agitate very easily when confronted with the simple truth. We need their cooperation. The volunteer firefighters are asking all members of the House to support this initiative. We will put it in the House as soon as we possibly can.

1450

PETITIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition signed by many people from the Quinte area which I'd like to present. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follows the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevents further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth.

I have signed that petition and it joins over 4,000 other names that have previously been submitted on the same subject.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's been signed by 70 members and friends of the Lambton county branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society.

The petitioners are supportive of our government's proposed Ontario heritage act and are requesting that this proposed legislation be given support for timely passage.

I've affixed my name to the petition.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follows provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

The petition is signed by a number of my constituents and by me.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas continued government funding cutbacks will force the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to close eight more hospital beds and these cutbacks are having a continued negative impact on employment in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government is failing to adhere to their own 'principles of restructuring,' which state that restructuring of the hospital sector must be linked to equitable funding, appropriate and accessible community-based health services, and that restructuring initiatives must address the impact of these changes on hospital staff, the local economy and the health care needs of the community;

"Whereas the government refuses to give the green light to redevelop the General and Marine Hospital even though the provincial government announced funding for the project in 1987 and even though the General and Marine cannot achieve additional operating efficiencies unless the hospital is redeveloped;

"Therefore, we demand that the provincial government immediately approve the redevelopment of the General and Marine Hospital and that the hospital be given some financial breathing space to assess the impact of these bed closures on the labour and health care needs of the Collingwood community."

I've signed that petition. I think we're well over 6,500 names to date with respect to this petition, and there are a couple of hundred more being added today.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's been signed by 19 people in my riding.

The petitioners are requesting that the Ontario government "continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I have affixed my name to the petition.

LOTTERY MACHINES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no Lotto 6/49 machine serving people in the east end of Cornwall," 'east' meaning the east side of the railway crossing starting at Danis Avenue,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to service the east end of Cornwall with a much-needed Lotto 6/49 machine."

There are 339 signatures on this petition, and I've also signed it.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition this afternoon signed by 222 residents of Scugog Island, which is in my riding of Durham East. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations grant a gaming licence to the First Nation of Scugog Island to operate a permanent Monte Carlo casino on Scugog Island; and

"Whereas this decision was made without consultation with elected municipal representatives or the taxpayers of Scugog township;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly not to grant a permanent gaming licence or allow the establishment of this facility."

In keeping with the traditions of this House, I have put my name to this petition.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, refuse to accept the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital emergency department and the reduction of available hospital beds. We strongly urge the hospital boards and the Niagara District Health Council to crush the consultant's report. The Hotel Dieu Hospital board has already taken this position. Implementation of the report would have disastrous consequences for the people of our community. We are committed to keeping two emergency departments in St Catharines and beds open."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the right for workers to refuse to do unsafe work is an essential component of health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the threat of sending coworkers home without pay during a work refusal constitutes significant peer pressure to continue to work in unsafe conditions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario to bring private member's Bill 157, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, before the Legislature for third reading."

I support this petition and I have affixed my signature thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

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

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

It's signed by over 500 residents of Thunder Bay in northern Ontario, and I affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition here from the Exeter Pentecostal Tabernacle, which opposed Bill 167, which was defeated last week, especially with regard to the right of adopting children, and I affix my name to that.

I also have one which is very closely related to it. The St Columbine Catholic Women's League also are opposed to Bills 167 and 45, and any bills which give recognition to such acts as same-sex spousal benefits.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): You've heard this petition before. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not the education and child care providers, and not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I object to the term "hell-bent." Perhaps "purgatory-straight" would be more appropriate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of order.

1500

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here on behalf of the fine people of Marathon, representing on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, who is not able to present petitions:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing and markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and other provinces, rather than acting on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain-packaging strategy the most efficient and best method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

It's signed by many people from Marathon.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the public service pension plan is the pension plan established for the Ontario public service; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has entered into an agreement with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to split the public service pension plan into two: an OPSEU pension plan for government employees represented by OPSEU and a continued public service pension plan for all other active, deferred or retired plan members; and

"Whereas the split would unfairly and inequitably divide the assets and the liabilities between the two plans based on terms of the agreement negotiated between the government of Ontario and OPSEU; and

"Whereas the split would leave all pensioners who were members of OPSEU at the time of their retirement or withdrawal from the Ontario public service in the public service pension plan if such retirement or withdrawal occurred before January 1, 1993; and

"Whereas OPSEU negotiated pensions as a bargaining agent pursuant to amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act in which the government permitted pensions to be negotiated and in which the government voluntarily recognized OPSEU and only OPSEU as a bargaining agent for employees in the Ontario public service; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario had previously recognized both OPSEU and other employee representatives as bargaining agents under the Social Contract Act for the purpose of negotiations thereunder; and

"Whereas no employee representatives other than OPSEU were permitted to take part in the negotiations to split the public service pension plan; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has incorporated the terms of its agreement with OPSEU in amendments to pension legislation and has included these amendments in its budget bill (Bill 160) in order to implement its agreement with OPSEU; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario owes a duty to all members of the public service pension plan, regardless of their bargaining status, to treat them fairly and equitably; and

"Whereas the following members of the public service pension plan do not believe that the split of the assets and liabilities of the plan, as negotiated by the government of Ontario and OPSEU, treats them fairly,

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

"1. The split of the assets and liabilities of the public service pension plan should not be permitted to proceed unless it is based on an actuarial evaluation mutually agreed upon by the representatives of all members of the plan, including but not limited to bargaining agents in the Ontario public service who were recognized for the purpose of negotiations under the Social Contract Act; and

"2. All payments to pensioners who had been represented by OPSEU during their employment by the government of Ontario should become the responsibility of the OPSEU pension plan."

It is signed by 1,526 people. I attach my signature too.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Wiseman from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report that it has decided not to proceed with the consideration of Bill 160, An Act to amend certain Acts to provide for certain Measures referred to in the 1993 Budget and for other Measures referred to in the 1994 Budget and to make amendments to the Health Insurance Act respecting the Collection and Disclosure of Personal Information / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant des lois pour prévoir certaines mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1993 et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1994 et modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-santé en ce qui concerne la collecte et la divulgation de renseignements personnels.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 160 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 23rd report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any statement to make, Mr McLean? No.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Mills from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr60, An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary

Bill Pr110, An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ontario

Bill Pr125, An Act to revive The Lions Club of Kingsville

Bill Pr126, An Act to revive Electrical Construction Association of Hamilton Inc.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr101, An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on:

Bill Pr60, An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary

Bill Pr110, An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ontario

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DELTA CHI BETA EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr128, An Act respecting the Delta Chi Beta Early Childhood Centre (Windsor) Inc.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the proposed Ontario Loan Act, 1994. This is a routine bill that the government puts forward which authorizes the government to borrow a very non-routine amount of money. This year, the government is asking this House, through this bill, to authorize the borrowing of up to $15.5 billion on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund.

When I say it's a very routine amount of money, it's rather amazing that this bill is receiving such little attention as it is, considering the amount of money that we're talking about.

This borrowing authority under this bill, Bill 159, is sunsetted for December 31, 1995. Of course by that time the government will long since be gone.

This year the amount being requested to be authorized to borrow is up to $15.5 billion. Last year the province borrowed a total of $12.5 billion. So the borrowing continues. The debt continues. The debt in this province continues.

I'm going to spend some time on what the philosophy of the Finance minister is as to why he's doing that.

In the current fiscal year, the province will borrow about $11.4 billion, which will be applied as follows: $6.3 billion will be for the operating account; $2.2 billion for the capital account; $1.9 billion for alternate financing arrangements, non-budgetary and project-specific capital; and $1 billion for refinancing maturing debt.

Interest costs -- and this is crucial -- this fiscal year will total $7.9 billion. Interest costs alone will total $7.9 billion, and that's up more than 13% from last year's levels, making it the fastest-growing amount on the operating account.

That's rather astounding, that the government doesn't seem to be making any effort through its policies to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt of this province. And how are we seeing that? We're seeing that by the way in which this government continues to spend on policies that we don't need, that we can't afford, and we simply have no way of paying it back.

I think the people in this province are very worried. This bill is an indication of the financial policies of this government and how it's creating much worry to people in the financial community, people who want to invest in this province from other provinces, from other countries, and they're looking at this. They're looking at this borrowing that's going on, the debt that continues to climb in this province.

Our party has consistently opposed the financial policies of the New Democratic Party government, even from its very first budget, when you can remember the Treasurer said, "We're going to spend our way out of this recession." Then he suddenly realized he was terribly wrong. The Treasurer says the deficit is $8.5 billion. Others who are more qualified in economics than I say it's closer to $11 billion or $12 billion, considering the bookkeeping that's being kept. The fact of the matter is, it's very high. The interest costs, I repeat, will cost $7.9 billion.

Some discussion has been put forward in the media with respect to the economic policies of this government on the debt and the financing, and of course this is all related to this bill because you have to borrow to pay the interest costs. There's a wonderful paper that was put out by the A.R.A. Consulting Group Inc and gave a commentary on the 1994 Ontario budget.

I'd like to spend some time on that paper because the thoughts are quite concise, and if any of you have read it, well, I'm going to put you through it again because it's worth repeating.

This paper isn't a long paper. It's about 15 pages long and it's got some graphs and it's got some charts dealing with the topic of the measure of fiscal restraint, and of course there really hasn't been a measure of fiscal restraint by the Treasurer of this province. How do I know that? By the very fact of his bill, that he is asking authority to borrow an enormous amount of money and it keeps increasing and increasing since the Treasurer and his government obtained power.

This paper was written by Bill Empey, who is a partner in this firm. Of course, the paper is very critical of the financial policies of this government, as are we in the Progressive Conservative Party. Mr Empey talks about the real measure of financial restraint on page 13. He says: "For 1994-95 the province intends to borrow $1.5 billion more than is explained in the budget. This amount was even greater in 1992-93." I think it was $3 billion.

That's a fact, that the government is borrowing more than is explained in the budget.

"In the budget, net financing numbers suggest that Ontario will need $10.2 billion in new loans" -- just in new loans -- "in the current fiscal year. The budget indicates that some excess borrowing has already been done -- building up the cash balances."

Then Mr Empey asks a number of questions: "How much money must Ontario borrow now and in the future to cover the government's plans? Certainly more than the $8.5 billion that the minister announced. Likely more than the $10.2 billion in net financing."

So we've been told the complete story. We know there are all kinds of fancy bookkeeping entries. The Provincial Auditor doesn't approve of that. He hasn't approved of the way the Finance minister of this province is keeping the books.

As well, we now have these new corporations which are going to hold the former debt of this province, so the debt is actually much higher, particularly when you start looking at the Workers' Compensation Board and Ontario Hydro and the debt that's accumulating in those organizations. We'll be spending some time on that in the little bit of time that I'm allowed.

Mr Empey continues: "The review of budgetary items that we have made here already suggests hundreds of millions in delayed spending" -- and this is another trick that this Minister of Finance has developed in his reign of terror in this province -- "(eg, delayed capital projects and obligations arising from the social contract in 1996) that must be covered in the future."

Can you imagine what's going to happen when this social contract falls due in 1996? It's just going to be just terrible, the expectations that have been put on people in this province and the unrealistic dreams that they think they're going to have as a result of this contract, and I worry. I don't know who is going to form the next government, whether it's the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party. All I know is all heck's going to break loose in 1996 on that one topic alone.

Mr Empey continues: "By the government's own calculations the provincial purpose debt will pass $90 billion this year, headed for $100 billion." Unbelievable. "This dubious landmark now seems likely to be achieved in early 1996." That's not far away. "How much debt will foreign markets buy?" That's a question that remains unanswered in this paper, and it worries me when you look at the fiscal policies of this province, the debt that continues to increase and the amount of money that this province is asking this House authority to borrow through Bill 159.

So the question, quite a legitimate question, which perhaps the Finance minister or the parliamentary assistant or whoever is going to be responding at the end of this bill will deal with is: "How much debt will foreign markets buy? How much debt will Ontario tolerate?"

How high can we go -- $100 billion? Can we go higher? When will it be paid off? Why is there not any restraint that's being put on by this government? I know they can blame people, they can blame the recession, they can blame the federal government, they can blame the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, they can blame everybody in the world, but the fact of the matter is there is no sign of restraint in this government with respect to solving fiscal restraint.

"Many financial commentaries are convinced that Ontario passed most reasonable limits this year and there is a serious risk that Ontario debt will be downgraded to a less-than-investment-grade status. That would seriously erode the province's ability to make choices and set policy in the future."

1520

That's the problem. I know the New Democratic Party has faint hopes of governing after the next election, but whoever it is, that's the real issue: the policies that you're setting now and that you're seeking authority to borrow for in this bill. That last question I'm going to read again, because that's the question that is most important, because we have to continue to look to the future.

"Many financial commentaries are convinced that Ontario has passed most reasonable limits this year and there's a serious risk that Ontario debt will be downgraded to a less-than-investment-grade status. This would seriously erode the province's ability to make choices and set policy in the future."

It's a very serious issue that I look to the parliamentary assistant or the Finance minister, if he returns, to answer.

Then the paper goes on and talks about a couple of the other items which dart their ugly heads periodically in this House. That has to do with Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board. I personally have spent some time debating on the new bill that the Minister of Labour has just introduced with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and the unfunded liability and how it's being predicted that the unfunded liability, notwithstanding what this bill is hoping to do, is going to increase to $31 billion in a very short period of time. How is it going to operate? Where's the money going to come from? How are we going to do it? There's no sign of restraint, not one iota. Not even in the social contract is there a sign of restraint.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: The member makes noises, but the fact of the matter is that there isn't any sign of restraint. The writer goes on to say, with respect to Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board, "Ontario Hydro's massive $35-billion debt is simply noted at the end of the budget." It's just noted; there's just a little reference to it at the back of the budget. A $35-billion debt of Ontario Hydro and there's simply a note. Why doesn't the Finance minister do something with respect to policy with respect to that utility?

"The utility's current losses and struggles are mentioned in the budget speech, along with a commitment to hold down the recent staggering increase in rates.

"The huge and hidden debts of the workers' compensation fund are mentioned in passing. But the mismanagement of WCB has been the current of extended study and controversy in 1993." This is the part that has been referred to in previous speeches when we were talking about the Workers' Compensation Board. "Some estimates indicate that the unfunded liability" --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): What is the unfunded liability?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a questions and comments period. Order.

Mr Tilson: Right now it's over $11 billion and you had no justification to allow it get that high.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, this is not questions and comments period.

Mr Tilson: Continuing on with this paper -- I recommend that you read this, and if you don't have it, I'll get it for you, because it's an excellent paper.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: You laugh and you chuckle, but you don't do anything. You just sit there like sheep and let your leaders put you into more and more debt in this province.

"Some estimates indicate that the unfunded liability of the fund, which is now $11.5 billion, could exceed $31 billion in 20 years. Without mentioning these basics, the budget promises to reduce the unfunded liabilities by $18 billion over 20 years." This statement I emphasize: "Even if this effort is successful," and most of us are rather dubious that it will be successful, but even if it is successful, "the current level of obligation will remain on the books." That current level of obligation is going to stay there. "In fact, the proper accounting of the province's debt should include the $11.5 billion unfunded liability," and that's not being done.

The Treasurer is doing all kinds of unbelievable tricks that have been put forward. I see the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is here in the House, and he has reiterated this point many times, the unbelievable bookkeeping tricks and moving things to corporations, moving debts off. But I can tell you, the people at the bond-rating agencies aren't going to accept that.

The conclusion of this report: "A careful reading of the province's financial status reveals a very different picture than the one portrayed by the minister on May 5." That was the budget. "We see accounting tricks and hidden obligations" -- I'm not the one that's saying this; this is being said by members in this House, by members of this Legislature, by critics, sound economists who are referring to the tricks of this Treasurer -- "that confront Ontarians. These will likely add more debt to the province's load in this year than last -- perhaps by more than $11 billion if all is accounted. Expenditures and other obligations that have been delayed by this budget will add to deficits in the next fiscal year."

That's the other thing; the putting off of debts into the future. There's just no way, whether the Liberals, Conservatives or NDP form the next government -- they're going to have an awful time. You have just made an unbelievable mess of the economy of this province and how this place, the province of Ontario, is going to operate in years to come.

Carrying on with this paper: "These obligations make it likely that debt related to the budget will pass $100 billion by 1996 (or sooner). There is at least another $40 billion to $50 billion in accumulating obligations from Ontario Hydro and the workers' compensation fund." That's a very low estimate, in my view.

So finally, with respect to a critique on the budget -- and it's a budget that should be showing the signs of restraint and it hasn't, and that's why you've come together with Bill 159 to ask for authority to borrow up to $15.5 billion -- the concluding paragraph: "The budget provides an inadequate accounting of the province's obligations and an unworkable plan for controlling the finances. If Ontario does not get a new plan soon, we will be on an irreversible course to $150 billion in debt when the term of the government ends next year." Some $150 billion in debt. What have you done? What have you done to our province?

In some of the opening remarks of this paper, and I'd like to speak to some of those, comments were made by the Treasurer in the budget. I think we should analyse what he says and determine whether or not he is really trying to talk about restraint, because, no question, Ontario does need fiscal restraint now.

Mr Empey -- I'm probably pronouncing his name wrong -- quotes the Treasurer in his paper. This is from the budget. Mr Empey says: "Now is the time to impose a strong measure of fiscal restraint on the Ontario government. Spiralling debt is undermining the province's standing with international lenders and eroding confidence among business groups and the community."

That's the word: business confidence. Who has confidence in this province? There's no question that the government is trying to spend its way through government spending, but private enterprise isn't spending; private enterprise can't, because of your fiscal policies. If you don't improve the policies with respect to encouraging private enterprise to operate in this province, we're going nowhere.

1530

"One immediate response to the budget, by the Canadian Bond Rating Service, has been to place Ontario debt on a 'credit watch' with the threat of downgrading the current rating. Evidence of recovery is the signal that spending should be cut and the deficit eliminated." The province of Ontario "is again failing to grasp the opportunity."

Then he quotes what the Finance minister said at page 18 of the budget: "'We are bringing the deficit down in a balanced and responsible way. To reduce the deficit even more this year would slow the recovery and job creation and undermine the services Ontarians value.'"

That is the policy of the province of Ontario. He says you can't do it. He says it would "slow the recovery and job creation and undermine the services Ontarians value." We cannot afford the services that you're implementing in this province. We can't afford them. We don't have the money to pay for them. You know that.

Mr Empey says: "In this statement the Finance minister reveals a basic inconsistency in his policy. In 1991 the government introduced massive stimulus to create jobs during the recession."

Remember that? That's when he said: "We're going to spend our way out of the recession. We've got lots of money."

Carrying on with Mr Empey's paper: "Now, with evidence of recovery, the minister must move to the next natural step -- restraint. Indeed, Ontario's recent history of weak fiscal discipline suggests that fiscal restraint now must at least equal the degree of stimulus in 1991-1992." But that isn't what the Treasurer is doing. He's just going upwards and upwards on debt. How do I know that? I know from what he's asking with respect to Bill 159: $15.5 billion.

One of the issues, of course, is always jobs. We all talk about jobs in this place. Mr Empey says: "Fiscal restraint will create jobs only if it raises the confidence level of business. The private sector will create jobs when public confidence on economic circumstances is high."

Now, can you ask yourself, have you provided that confidence? I'll be looking forward to the two-minute responses for you to give examples as to how your government has promoted confidence in this province.

Carrying on with the paper: "If serious fiscal restraint is combined with other initiatives that favour private jobs, an economic turnaround can be created. The opportunity to begin serious regulatory reform and to reduce the burden of tax and implementation was lost. The minister," namely, the Minister of Finance, "was able to point at the right areas -- eg the cost of tax and regulation, workers' compensation and Ontario Hydro rates -- but nothing significant was delivered."

He mentioned them very briefly in the back of his budget but he did nothing, and he continues to do nothing, even in his bill. Even the Workers' Compensation Board bill really does nothing with respect to that unfunded liability.

"Instead of creative solutions, the government resorted to the use of questionable accounting tricks and fiscal deception."

I'm allowed one half-hour with respect to making comments on this bill, but I'd love to spend half an hour on this topic alone: the creative solutions that this Minister of Finance has put forward to try to trick us in the opposition, the bond rating people and the people of this province that everything's okay, that the debt's not going up, that it's going down.

In the comments that follow, here are some examples of these tricks:

-- "Accounting illusions

-- "Fiscal timing: hidden delays as economy

-- "Shifting responsibilities to other governments." In other words, downloading.

-- "Fiscal terrorism" -- and these aren't my words; these are the statements of this report, and there have been other reports, other papers like this. "Fiscal terrorism: inflated estimates and illusory solutions.

-- "'Straw man' or false targets

-- "Leaving out the detail."

Then the paper goes into a considerable number of charts showing the extent of the private domestic restraint. That's the problem, when you start thinking of it, of the domestic part of our sector, of our economy: the restraints that they've been forced to put through, because if they don't, they're going to go under. If they don't have restraint, they're going to go under. Everyone has practised restraint, except the province of Ontario. I, for the life of me, can't understand, when a bill like this comes forward, that there aren't more signs of restraint -- not more signs; that there aren't signs of restraint.

The final area I'd like to refer to is with respect to page 6 and 7 of this paper. "The weak economy is closely linked to the low level of public confidence in government."

The minister said on page 2 of his budget speech: "Ontario is getting a vote of confidence from business investors. Investment in machinery and equipment is expected to increase by over 10% to more than $21 billion" this year. This is what the Treasurer said in his budget.

But as this paper points out, "The minister overlooks the monstrous 75% decline in non-residential construction between 1990 and 1993." Who's building apartment buildings? Who's building them? Well, non-profit housing is having a wonderful time, but there is no construction in the private sector apartment business. "This area of business investment will not return to previous levels of activity until the next century." That's the prediction of this writer.

Then the minister returns to the matter of investment and confidence when he says, and this is at page 9 of his budget: "This government is providing a competitive corporate tax system to attract new investment and create jobs. Ontario's corporate...tax rate for manufacturers is more than 4 percentage points below the US average." That's what the Treasurer said.

But this statement and others like it have said: "The assertion that Ontario's tax system is competitive is not borne out by more sophisticated analysis. The government's own Fair Tax Commission had research done by Jack Mintz at the University of Toronto that analyses the impact of Ontario's corporate income tax on business investment. The results show that Ontario imposes a higher tax on new investment than any other province in Canada. Many other areas of tax in Ontario are also high in comparison to other provinces and states."

The tax levels in this province have got so out of hand that I don't know how private enterprise has stayed alive to date as it has. "These high tax rates undermine business confidence." Keep those words in mind: "business confidence." If you tax people to death, people who are going to invest in this province won't invest because of fiscal policies of high taxes. "These high tax rates undermine business confidence, turn away new investment and encourage the growth of the underground economy."

With one minute left, I would like to spend some time on the underground economy, and we know, of course, I can't do that, but that has been debated in the past. In fact, we found out with the cigarette tax the effects of the underground economy and how we lowered taxes, and we're going to be talking about the tobacco tax in third reading. But that's what's going on in this province. People are being forced, because of the high tax measures, to get into the underground economy.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): What about the GST?

Mr Tilson: Oh, GST? Give me a break. You know perfectly well that the policies of your government have driven us down, down, down, and the debt has gone up, up, up, as has been shown by Bill 159. Otherwise, why are you asking for all this money?

1540

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? If not, further debate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate and spend a little bit of time on the bill. I think everybody appreciates what we're dealing with here. It's a bill by the government requesting the approval of the Legislature to borrow $15.5 billion between now and the end of the calendar year.

It's an opportunity for us in the Legislature to reflect on the very serious problem we have in this province and in this country around the whole area of debt and the problems it will present to all of us as we try to deal with that in the future.

The problem is that when we're dealing with numbers in billions, I think it becomes almost irrelevant to individuals in many cases. But the fact is that in Ontario, when Premier Rae became Premier, the debt of the province was roughly $40 billion. Four years later, after four Rae budgets, the debt of the province is $90 billion. It took the entire history of the province to accumulate a debt of roughly $40 billion and it has more than doubled in the four years since Premier Rae became Premier.

What does that mean to us all? What it means is that when he became Premier, for the average family in this province, their share of the provincial debt was roughly $12,000. So each family in round terms was paying about $1,200 a year in interest payments to service that debt, to pay the interest on the debt. Now it's gone to $90 billion and the average family owes $30,000 in debt and is paying roughly $3,000 a year just to service the interest on that debt. Believe me, it is costing that amount of money. This year, we will be paying out roughly $8 billion in interest charges, and that comes from no one else other than the taxpayers. So we all have an enormous stake in this issue.

The reason we are borrowing $15 billion is because we've seen the province take its debt from $40 billion to $90 billion in four years. For anybody who likes to look at numbers, there's a chart in the budget that I find fascinating. It's a 10-year history of the finances of the province. You can see, when Bob Rae became Premier, the public debt interest as a percentage of revenue -- this is a measurement we all use, that is, how much of the revenue, the tax dollars we're bringing in, are we using just to pay the interest on the debt? It's some measure for the taxpayers of where they are having to lay their hard-earned tax dollars out. When you're paying interest on the debt, frankly you're getting no service for that.

When Bob Rae became Premier of the province, we were spending less than nine cents of every dollar we brought in to service the debt, to pay the interest on the debt. This year, we have more than doubled that. Roughly 18 cents of every dollar that we bring in now in the province is going straight out the window to pay the interest on the debt. You can see the trap we're beginning to get into, which is that all of the increased revenue that's coming into the province is going right out to pay the dramatically increasing interest on our debt. We used to spend nine cents of every dollar we brought in on the interest payments; it's 18 cents now.

Debt as a percentage of gross domestic product: This is a measurement that is used really around the world to give some indication of the stability of governments around the world, what is the government debt relative to the gross domestic product, gross domestic product being a measurement of the output of the economy. When Bob Rae became Premier it was under 15%.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Bob who?

Mr Phillips: When Bob Rae became Premier it was under 15%, the debt as a percentage of GDP. This year, according to the budget, it will be over 30%. When you combine that, I must say, with the federal number, we now have the unfortunate distinction that in Canada the debt is over 100% of our gross domestic product.

It is a serious problem that is having a profound impact on our ability to provide services in the province. What's the reason for it? I'd say there are three fundamental reasons. I think even the Premier would acknowledge now that if he could ever turn the clock back to that first budget, it would have been a very different budget. We all learn from mistakes, but that one was a significant mistake.

Interjection: Sounds like David Peterson in 1990.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comment because I'll have a chance to respond.

The first Bob Rae budget where they were going to spend their way out of the recession was an enormous mistake. I've read and re-read that budget many times. The word "restraint" is not in the budget. You can't find the word "restraint" anywhere in that budget. This was the only government in North America that presented a budget that year that didn't talk about restraint and the need to get spending under control.

I can remember what the words were: "We are proud to be fighting the recession. This is not the time to be fighting the deficit."

Mr Cleary: Spend their way out.

Mr Phillips: "Spend their way out," my colleague says. They took the deficit from $3 billion to $10 billion, and now we have gone through enormous pain as the government attempts to rectify that problem, but we haven't rectified it.

We now have seen four straight budgets with deficits over $10 billion. Although this budget, the one that was presented, said that the deficit was going to be $8.5 billion, I will say, as all of the analysts out there say, that the 1994 deficit is not $8.5 billion; it is at least $2.5 billion more than that. The money markets have seen through that, the analysts have seen through that, virtually everybody in the province has seen through that, and I think we'd do ourselves a service by saying, "Yes, the real number is substantially higher than $8.5 billion."

Problem number one was that spending didn't work. Problem number two was that the government, as we remember, took taxes up for three straight years. I believe the hope was that the tax revenue would go up, on average, by over $1 billion a year. Three straight years with dramatic tax increases: one year, $1 billion; the next year, $1 billion; the next year, $2 billion.

In that same period of time, what happened? When the government expected tax revenues to grow, tax revenues actually declined. Why is that? It's clear now, as we look back on it, that it was because the tax increases had a dampening impact on the economy. Even now, as we head towards the half year and on into the end of 1994, the Ontario economy is still producing less in 1994 than it did five years ago, which is an amazing statistic.

We've had a significant growth in population, a significant growth in investment and capital equipment, but at the same time the province is still putting out fewer goods and services than it did five years ago. Why is that? Yes, North America has had a problem with the recession. Yes, Canada has had a problem with the recession. But Ontario has had a unique problem. We have had a longer, deeper, more profound recession than anywhere else, and I would submit to you that it's a combination of the fact that there's a lack of confidence in the government's ability to manage its finances and the fact that the tax increases had a counterproductive impact on the economy. Not only did we not get the revenue; we've dramatically slowed the economy down.

The third problem, of course, is the one we all talk about, and that is jobs. I recall clearly coming back in September of 1991. Bob Rae, the Premier, got up and said: "Jobs are our number one priority. This is where we're going to focus all of our time and attention." Since then, on at least four other occasions, different times, it's been the same message, but what has actually happened is that in 1993, and remembering that jobs have been the Premier's number one priority, he says, for some time, we actually saw more people out of work in the province of Ontario than at any other time in the history of the province. I might say that this budget predicts that there will be fewer jobs created in Ontario in 1994 than there were in 1993.

I couldn't believe it when I picked up the budget, that the government, in its own document, is saying: "Yes, it's true. We are going to see fewer jobs created in the province of Ontario in 1994 than we did in 1993." For those of you who have a budget at home, it's on page 51. If that is the case, we're going to see more people entering the labour force than jobs are created and we're going to see a record number of people out of work in 1994. All those three things have come together to mean that we have a serious problem with our debt in this province.

1550

I want to talk briefly as well about the games that I think are being played with the finances, and the reason I want to talk about them is that somebody is going to have to deal with these in the future. It is important that we all understand what is happening.

The first game is something called loan-based financing. That may sound a little arcane, it may not be of immediate importance to the public in Ontario, but I think it is. The reason is, it used to be that the province every year spent roughly $1.6 billion on schools and hospitals and colleges and universities and transportation and things like that and provided it in the form of a grant. So we've recorded the $1.6 billion as an expenditure. It went out in the form of a grant.

We're not showing that as an expenditure this year. The province is saying to those organizations: "You go spend the $1.6 billion, but we don't want it on our books. You go borrow the money." So the school boards in this province are out borrowing the money right now. "But whoever you borrow that money from, tell them not to worry because we will guarantee to repay it over 20 years." I said, "Listen, as far as I'm concerned, in five years, there will be $8 billion, just in five years, of debt hidden off the provincial books, over on someone else's books, but the province has 100% of the responsibility for that."

I will say, $8 billion is an enormous amount of money. It's more than the debt of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland -- it's more than the total provincial debt of five of the provinces. But it's all going to be off the books, hidden away for someone else to manage.

The second game they're playing, in my opinion, is the whole issue of asset sales. What the government is doing, as we all know --

Hon Mr Buchanan: If you're going to talk about other provinces, talk about how they're going to do it.

Mr Phillips: The member is heckling across the way, but it's important, I think, that the public understand that all the government buildings in Ontario which are owned by the public -- there's a phantom sale going on right now. They are being sold to a government agency. The government then says, "Well, we've sold the buildings -- that's revenue." It's right in the budget. They're reporting $250 million worth of revenue, and then they immediately lease them back.

I have no difficulty with the government selling off excess assets. It makes all the sense in the world. Any asset we don't need, we should be selling it, as long as the market is reasonable for a sale, and using that money to reduce our debt. But in this case, it's not a sale. It's an absolute phantom sale. It simply is moving to a crown agency and then immediately leased back.

The third area of concern on the budgetary matters is what's happening on the pensions. This will truly come home to haunt us because there is a combined unfunded liability in our two major pensions, the teachers' pensions and the public sector pensions, of $10 billion. It is growing every year at roughly $800 million, roughly 8% each year. So the $10 billion would become $10.8 billion, then the following year it will add another $800 million. But the province has decided to make no payments against that $10-billion unfunded liability -- zero.

So all we're doing is -- the costs are still going on there, the expense is still going on -- we've just stopped payments. The reason they stopped payments is because they don't report that in the financial statements as part of the provincial debt. So it's an easy way to avoid showing a significant accumulation in debt. We'll just stop the payments against this one. No one sees that as a growing debt at $800 million a year.

The reason I raise all of these things is because the province in the last three years -- the reported three deficits, combined, were roughly $30 billion, but the province actually borrowed $37 billion. So we borrowed $7 billion more than you would think we needed just looking at our deficits. A key reason why that happened is because they had to borrow money to buy the government buildings and they had to borrow money to provide for what's called loan-based financing. We are seeing now the true impact of all of the accounting tricks: Our borrowing requirements are far higher than our accumulated deficit.

The secrecy is beginning to come off these numbers. The problem is beginning to really manifest itself. The first signals that have come out have been from the credit-rating agencies because they spend the time to look at these numbers. As people in the province know, when Bob Rae became Premier the province had an AAA rating. We've had three downgrades since then. We now have something called an AA-, so we've been downgraded from AAA to AA+, AA, AA-.

What does that mean? What it means is our borrowing costs go up. There's a rule of thumb in the industry that says historically for every downgrade you pay one quarter of 1% more interest on your borrowing costs. What that means is that for every downgrade, we spend $25 million more for $10 billion worth of borrowing. We calculate that the downgrade is costing the province right now $150 million, for nothing other than the fact that our ratings have been lowered. We get nothing more for that; it's just the increased cost, the higher interest rates we must pay as a result of this credit downgrade.

There are some storm clouds on the horizon. As you follow, I'm sure, Mr Speaker, what's going on in the markets as we speak, where many foreign lenders -- and by the way, I think in the last two years we've been the biggest international borrower outside of what's called sovereign countries. Countries have borrowed more money than Ontario, but after countries, there's been no other organization, no other state, province or company that has borrowed as heavily as Ontario has on the international markets.

Now we're beginning to see the impact of that. It is becoming more difficult for the province to borrow. The spreads are widening. It's becoming more expensive for the province to borrow. Part of the reason we're seeing interest rates rise -- certainly the Quebec election's impacting it. I think if you talk to people in the money markets, it is the combination of the debts of the provinces and of the federal government.

I wanted to spend a few minutes just getting that on the record, to say that the reason we are borrowing dramatically more money than the reported deficit -- and realize we're going to the market for $15 billion; the reported deficit was $8.5 billion -- is because we have to provide funds for some of the games we're playing: the loan-based financing -- the parliamentary assistant's shaking his head, but it's true. It's true. You are borrowing money to pay for the games.

As a matter of fact, the Treasurer, or the Minister of Finance as they now call him, confirmed that. He said that just on these -- he calls them alternate capital financing; I call them the games -- alone, $2.5 billion.

This bill obviously will carry, but I think it's important that the public understand the trap we're getting into. The public I hope would take some time some day to get a copy of the budget and look at the very troubling numbers as we see public debt interest as a percentage of revenue, which is how much of your tax dollars are going to just pay the interest on the debt.

It was in a strong downward trend until 1990-91. Since then it has more than doubled; virtually 18 cents of every tax dollar now is going for nothing other than to pay the interest on the debt. The debt as a percentage of our output has more than doubled; it's now over 30%. We are running the risk of getting ourselves into what even the Premier called a debt trap. The Premier, at one stage, said, "Listen, we are in danger of heading into a debt trap." Make no mistake: The federal government is trapped in that debt trap. Some 34 cents of every dollar you pay in federal taxes go just to pay the interest on the debt.

So I'm always cautious to say that one can't blame all of the problems in the province on Bob Rae. I've always said that. It is unrealistic. The public understand that Bob Rae didn't singlehandedly create the recession and didn't singlehandedly create all the problems.

1600

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Had a lot of help from you.

Mr Phillips: A lot of help from us. They provoked me again. Gosh, I often say that I almost think we tricked you into winning the election. Believe me, that wasn't my intention. I'd much rather be where you are than where I am, but I am here and you're there.

Anyway, I know you like to think it was all someone else's problem. Whether it's the federal government or it's free trade or it's NAFTA or whatever it is, it's someone else's problem. I just want to quote from the Provincial Auditor, because I think people have confidence in the Provincial Auditor; frankly, they have a lot less confidence in politicians. They've got confidence in the Provincial Auditor. He looked at the issue of the deficit. I know you're fond of saying: "You said there was going to be a surplus. You left a $3-billion deficit. You dirty Liberals, you were awful to us."

What did the Provincial Auditor say about that? Firstly, he said Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years. This was the report in 1991, so it's really only one surplus in 25 years. That was the year ending March 31, 1990. That was the only surplus in 20 years. To my Conservative friends, I know they're fond of being the good money managers, but I say, listen, the Conservatives went 15 straight years and never ran a surplus, good times, bad times, all of those things. But Ontario has had only one surplus now in 25 years, the year ending March 31, 1990.

Then the election was called and held about five months later. There was supposed to be a second surplus, as we all know, that turned into a $3-billion deficit. Everyone wanted to know: "How in the world could that happen? How could you present a budget that called for a surplus and end up with a $3-billion deficit?" The auditor provides the answer here, which all the public, I hope, will take an opportunity to read, because I know the NDP would love to blame Bob Nixon and David Peterson. Here's what the auditor said.

There was a surplus forecast, and the actual deficit ended up at $3 billion. The major factors contributing to this variance were: The extent of the recession, which was not foreseen at the time of the budget, resulted in total revenues dropping by $1.1 billion. So he said it was reasonable when the budget was presented to expect the revenues to be what was forecast, but then the recession came and revenues dropped by $1.1 billion. I say to my business friends, that's about 2% of the revenue. I imagine many businesses in this province, over that period of time, were off by more than 2% of their revenue forecast.

He said the second thing leading to the $3-billion deficit was that there were payments of about $1 billion, with the increase in social assistance payments being the major contributing factor. That's the second thing not foreseen: The recession hit, social assistance costs went up.

We've now accounted for $2.1 billion. The third thing, the other $900 million: Special payments were made by the new NDP government. They came in and decided to make special payments that weren't planned for. One of them was $200 million of teachers' pension spending. That wasn't due till the following year; it wasn't supposed to be paid for another 12 months. But I guess it looked like the deficit was going to get under $3 billion, so they moved a $200-million expenditure up.

The second expenditure was the $400-million UTDC, Urban Transportation Development Corp, loan. The $400 million wasn't due; it was written off. That's fine. It had to be paid at some time. They decided to pay it then. It hadn't been planned then, but they moved it up.

And of course they wrote off SkyDome, $321 million. Probably not a bad idea. Come in, get that off the books, and then actually you can show it, when you sell it, as revenue, which of course the government did just last year. They finally sold the Dome and were able to show that as revenue coming in.

The reason I go through all of that is because one of the members across wanted an explanation of that, of how was it that you ended up with a $3-billion deficit? The auditor gives a very good explanation, which I appreciate, and as I say, it's well worth reading.

That doesn't mean that the NDP didn't come in when there was a recession. There's no doubt about that. It doesn't mean that they didn't face a difficult time. There's no doubt about that. But I don't think any objective observer could conclude anything other than that the finances of this province have been severely mismanaged by the Rae government, and it started basically with the very first budget, with the $10-billion deficit. That was the hole that we dug ourselves, and now we're paying an enormous price to get out of it.

One of the prices we'll pay is this bill we call Bill 159, which is designed to authorize the government to borrow another $15 billion. As I say, we will in the end approve it, but that's how we got to where we are and that's why we're being asked to approve once again an enormous borrowing bill.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to speak, because I was intending to speak on the budget, but seeing as how the budget debate is being delayed, I think I will incorporate my views on the budget with Bill 159.

I would like to start by saying that Bill 159 shows exactly what is wrong with our system, because it is giving authority to the government to borrow up to $15.5 billion to provide ad hoc solutions to problems that appear to be ad hoc but are essentially long-term problems. They are inherent in the system, which has developed over a long period of time in response to problems of a bygone era and which has become part of our bureaucratic approach to problem-solving. This bill is part of the problem and not part of the solution. It will allow the government to spend, as I said, up to $15.5 billion which it doesn't have.

Here I'd like to point out that it is one thing to borrow against expected revenue; it is another thing to borrow over and above expected revenue, and this bill does exactly that. Even according to the budget estimates of an $8.5-billion deficit, that means this government will only be able to cover $7 billion of this $15.5 billion it expects to borrow. This borrowing will meet operating expenses that are partially inherited but that are also partially the direct result of government decisions, and these decisions were not based strictly on government business criteria, but also, and probably to a greater degree, on political criteria.

Here I would like to refer to a speech that was made by Mr Ted Ball, the chairman of Quantum Solutions, to a meeting of the strategic planning board at the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre on May 11 this year. It was entitled "Nibbling At The Edges, Cutting At The Margins Just Isn't On Anymore," and it was a speech held on Ontario's health, education and social service systems to a series of professionals who were meeting to try to solve those problems.

1610

I'd like to refer page 7 of that where he refers to the remarks made by Paul Martin Jr after the federal budget on April 18, but also refers to the measures taken by the provincial government subsequent to that. He quotes the Minister of Finance, Mr Martin, as follows:

"We regard next year's budget as the one that is going to set us on the road to the eventual elimination of the deficit. And what that means is a complete restructuring of government, and it is going to mean major, major cuts which are going to affect every sector of our society. Nibbling at the edges, cutting at the margins just isn't on any more." That's a quote from Martin's speech.

Mr Ball goes on to say:

"One would think that that is a fairly clear indication about the future. But one week later, when the provincial government failed to make the modest 3% cut in transfer payments that most people expected, many of our opinion leaders in the health, education and social service sectors appear once again to be deluding themselves into believing that somehow the day of reckoning will never come.

"But the reality is that by putting off this year's budget cuts to accommodate for the election" -- those are his words -- "the pressure on the next government will be enormous, whoever the government is. The fact is that the next government will be faced with a juggernaut that the system will be required to swallow all at once."

In addition to the problems the next government will inherit, my concern is focused more on what the next generation of Ontario taxpayers will inherit. What about our students graduating from Ontario community colleges and universities? What kind of economy are they graduating into? An economy that has no jobs for them, but an economy that is throwing an enormous and ever-growing burden upon their shoulders. Debt yes, jobs no. How are they to be expected to repay this debt if we don't provide jobs for them?

I'm talking about those young people fortunate enough to have the ability to attend and graduate from an institution of higher learning. I'm talking about those who have had the opportunity to attend such institutions and those who have had the means, the financial resources, to go to these schools. If we are being unfair to these young people who can be considered privileged, what are the prospects for those youth who have dropped out of school for lack of means or lack of ability or lack of opportunity or any combination of the above? How are they going to shoulder their fair share of the burden?

Bill 159 is unavoidable under our present system. What we need is a new approach, a long-term approach, one that looks beyond the next election.

Now I want to refer back to that speech I was talking about by Ted Ball, the chairman of Quantum Solutions. I want to read into the record just certain highlighted portions, parts of his speech that are written in large print and which he elaborates on in the rest of the speech. I think just reading the highlighted sections can give us a perception of what we need to solve our problems for the future.

On page 2 he says, "We can no longer deal with the funding crisis on an ad hoc, institution-by-institution basis." On page 3 he says, "What a decade worth of studies have told us is that the existing system needs to be fundamentally restructured, reconfigured and reformed." Going on, he says, "If we fail to take a fully integrated systems approach to the restructuring of our human services system, we'll be in danger of losing medicare and our social safety net altogether."

He goes on to say, "If we're going to succeed, we're going to have to learn to work together, instead of pointing fingers and trying to figure out 'who is to blame.'"

I think that's one of the major problems of our system today. Every party in this chamber, both opposition parties and the government, seems to be more concerned in pointing fingers at the other two parties rather than facing the problems and coming to a solution, and the only way we'll come to a solution is if we face up squarely to what the problems are, forget who caused them, and try to solve them for the next generation. That means we have to get our act together, all three parties.

Mr Ball goes on to say, "In our anxiety, and in our fear of change, we tend to look for people to blame for the problems that we have collectively created." I think that's important. "We have collectively created" means not just the politicians, that means society in general, because politicians react to what people want, and when people ask for more than they're entitled to get, that's what causes the deficits that we have.

Here it's the private sector, the business sector and the rest of the community, because the business sector, in some instances, has been no better than common folk in asking the government to provide more than the government should and more than the government can afford.

He says: "The trend towards decentralization, devolution and local community empowerment is a global phenomenon." That is one thing that he is suggesting, that we have to decentralize. That means less and less of the decisions have to be made in this House.

He goes on to say, "Hierarchical, centralized bureaucracies designed in the 1930s or 1940s simply do not function well in the rapidly changing, information rich, knowledge-intensive society and economy of the 1990s." And how are we going to change? By restructuring and "restructuring needs leadership and cross-sectoral cooperation if it is to be successful."

Finally, "We are now entering an era in which the focus will be on outcomes and value for money." I think that's the critical point. We have to get value for our money because the previous approach threw money at problems in the hope they would go away, and all that did was the problems increased.

I have to refer back to the government again. This government when it came to power in 1990 inherited an operating surplus of approximately $200 million. It was their decision that transformed this surplus of $200 million into an overnight deficit of over $7 billion. That started the ball going downhill, and that's what created a $40-billion accumulated debt for the province to become $90 billion over a four-year span.

If the Treasurer had to do it over again, he probably would come up with a budget that was similar to the budget he came up with in 1994, and I would like to create a "what if?" scenario or a make-believe scenario, if the first budget had not been the one that took a $3-billion deficit to over $10 billion, that turned an operating surplus into a huge operating deficit, and what the situation would be today.

If we play flashback or "what if?" or make-believe, we can ask, what if this budget of 1994 replaced the budget of 1991? What if the Treasurer had not said, and I want to quote what he said when he introduced his budget in 1991: "Mr Speaker, I think it is important for people to understand that we had a choice to make this year: to fight the deficit or fight the recession. We are proud to be fighting the recession."

Those are his words. That is a decision of that government and that is the reason he is in a situation out of which he does not see how he can escape, because had he had even this budget of 1994 back three or four years ago, he would not be faced with the lack of choice that he has today. I think the member for Etobicoke West said it best when he said that the government had an optionless choice. They had backed themselves into a corner in which they had no choice but to move in the direction that they didn't want to move in.

1620

For instance, had they had this 1994 budget in 1991, their deficit this year would not be approaching $8.5 billion, according to their figures. It might not even be approaching half that. Had they had this budget of 1994 back in 1991, the accumulated debt in the province would probably be closer to $60 billion than the projected $90 billion. I'd like to ask the Treasurer and the government whether they would not prefer a situation in which their accumulated debt was 50% lower than it is projected to be. Imagine the manoeuvrability they would have in their budget decisions, in their budget choices.

Now I want to point out something else in this document that I've been reading, "Nibbling At The Edges," and it concerns change, how to approach change, how to implement change, and I think it's one consideration that all three parties should look at when they contemplate change. It will point out why I think this present government has been unsuccessful in implementing much of the change it has tried.

Mr Ball quotes a 1957 address by a person by the name of Bossee, who listed 10 key points about change, and they are the following:

"Change is more acceptable when it is understood than when it is not;

"Change is more acceptable when it doesn't threaten security than when it does;

"Change is more acceptable when those affected have helped to create it than when it has been extremely imposed;

"Change is more acceptable when it results from an application of previously established imperative principle than when it is dictated by personal order;

"Change is more acceptable when it follows a series of successful changes than when it follows a series of failures;

"Change is more acceptable when it is inaugurated during the confusion resulting from another major change;

"Change is more acceptable if it has been planned than if it haphazard;

"Change is more acceptable to people new on a job than to veterans;

"Change is more acceptable to people who share in its benefits than to those who do not; and

Change is more acceptable if people have been trained for improvement."

These are points I think we should all take into consideration because too often we have ignored most of those. We have maybe just taken advantage of the confusion principle in trying to incorporate change.

I would also like to touch on some other points from the budget, and that is how destructive strict adherence to ideology can be when there is a change in government, when one does not take into consideration circumstances as they are but circumstances as one would like to believe them to be, and when one goes ahead despite warnings from all sides, despite a serious attempt by all sides to be constructive rather than destructive. When the Treasurer brought in his budget in 1991, the private sector, both opposition parties, I think most sectors, stated that the situation had changed.

The government itself was aware that the situation had changed, because the 1990 budget had projected a surplus and what this government inherited, partially through its own decisions, was a deficit. Despite that, they closed their eyes and went ahead in order to appease some of their political backers.

What was the result? Because of decisions made in 1991 which put askew all of the financial possibilities of the province, the government had to renege on written agreements with its own employees. It had to introduce the social contract, and due to the social contract, this government lost the support of most public service unions. They are partially to blame because they also ignored the realities of the time and figured, "We have an NDP government in power, and now it's our turn at the trough." They got settlements that were higher than inflation, they got settlements that skewed the financial situation in the province to such an extent that in 1993 the government had to come up with a social contract, cutting back salaries by 6%, forcing the members of this House to cut their budgets by 5.5%, which many of our employees felt in their pocketbooks, and creating an environment, a tension that still has not dissipated.

They feel it on hustings right now. There is an animosity towards this government from the public sector unions, but also some private sector unions, that was never there before. That is based on a conscious decision, a political decision, not a business decision, made by this government in 1991.

I have to issue a challenge to all sectors of society that we have to be conscious of what we're doing to our own children, to our young people in our excessive demands today, because every future deficit will fall, not on the shoulders of the present generation of taxpayers but on the next generation of taxpayers. Every future deficit is going to create a situation that will be unbearable to the next generation of taxpayers. The provincial debt could more than double in four years because the NDP government decided to step on the gas pedal of spending in 1991.

Despite their best efforts, according to the 1994 forecast, even stepping on the brakes with both feet of all the cabinet members, they do not see righting the financial ship of state, the operating deficit, until 1998. I'm not talking here even of the total deficit; just the operating deficit will not be balanced until 1998 because of a decision made in 1991. That shows the consequences of a wrong decision at the wrong time.

In the last couple of weeks we have had a lot of noise made about the word "leadership." Leadership meant to certain interest groups, giving in to certain minorities. Leadership meant ignoring the wishes of the majority.

Wherever I go within my riding or within the province, the overriding concern seems to be taxes, overtaxation, and people don't differentiate between a municipal tax, a provincial tax and a federal tax. To them, a tax is a tax is a tax and a politician is a politician is a politician, whether he represents a city, a province or the federal government. Therefore, when they are fed up, we have to listen. Leadership sometimes means saying no, and I would say probably more often than not it means saying no to the special interest groups that say: "Cut everything else but don't cut my special project. Don't cut that which will affect me."

1630

Leadership means being honest with the people, presenting the total picture and presenting a long-term goal that will eventually get us out of the mess we are in. Leadership does not mean giving in to public pressure. It does not mean looking at the political winds and saying, "Within a short span of time there will an election. Therefore, we have to make sure that the electorate is with us," because we have seen in the last four years what that means. It means a situation that was solvable four years ago is almost unsolvable today.

When one looks at the language we use, I think if we look through the last four budgets we can see how we can delude ourselves. For instance, in the 1991 budget, in the table of contents you'll see a heading, "Effective Fiscal Management." It gives the indication that the government knows what it is doing, that it has everything under control. If that was the case, I would ask, if in 1991 the fiscal management was effective, why do we need the following headings in the 1992 Ontario budget? "Controlling Spending and Maintaining Services" is one heading; another one is "Keeping the Deficit in Check." In 1991 we claimed we had things under control; in 1992 we tried to repaint the same picture.

Then we take a look at the 1993 budget. What does it say? There's one heading, "Maintaining Services, Controlling Government Costs," and another heading, "Controlling the Growth in Debt." If things were under control in 1991 and 1992, why do we need a heading in 1993 to control the growth of that debt?

I want to look at this year's budget. Again we have "Reducing the Deficit." We supposedly had things under control for three years, we supposedly had reduced expenditures, we supposedly had reduced the debt, and here we have a heading, "Reducing the Deficit."

I think in future budgets we have to cut out the rhetoric, stop trying to paint a nice picture, and present the stark reality to the people of the province. I think in that instance the people of the province will be more willing to tighten their own belts, even though they've been doing it for a while, will be more willing to accept strong measures that hit them where it hurts. Because they would see that at the end of the line there is a solution, I think they would be more willing to go along with the solutions we are offering them.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we have come into a situation in which we have to repeat the phrase that the member for Etobicoke West said, that we have an optionless choice. We have to reduce government expenditures, we have to reduce the expectations of the electorate and we have to face reality, because if we don't, we are selling down the drain the future of this province, the future of this country and the future of our youth, who are the ones who will be bearing the burdens of our mistakes.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I congratulate the member for Mississauga East for bringing another voice to this debate with regard to allowing permission for the Finance minister of the province of Ontario to borrow $15.5 billion between now and the end of next year.

The member for Mississauga East has raised the question of the deficits over the period of years and has raised the question of the total debt, which, as we now know, will approach and exceed $90 billion by the end of this fiscal year. I think he's quite correct in pointing out the deficits and perhaps the inaccuracy of the forecasting for the Finance ministry. The Finance ministry is proud to say their deficits have come down, but the reality is, from three years ago, a borrowing of $15.5 billion for one year to balance the books -- borrowing $15.5 billion to pay for operating costs in one year, adding $15.5 billion in debt. Yes, then it did drop down to about $11 billion or $12 billion the following year. That is not, in my books, I might say, a major success, and I suspect the member for Mississauga East shares that view.

The announced borrowing level for this fiscal year, which is part of this whole bill that we're dealing with today, is $10.5 billion and, yes, that is down if they meet that target. I might say there are many sceptics on this side of the House, and the public -- millions, I suspect, in the public. With interest rates going up, with the Bank of Canada rate having gone up yesterday, it's almost a certainty that the government will have great difficulty meeting its $10.5-billion target. We'll be borrowing more money, adding more debt, and I'm sure this is a great concern to the member for Mississauga East.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Sola: I'd like to thank the member for Don Mills for his kind words and also congratulate him on his speech last night, because I was here for most of it. I thought he was also trying to be objective in his analysis. He was trying to refrain from pointing fingers as much as he could because he did, at that time, acknowledge that the situation we're in today is the result of decisions taken by all three parties when they were in power.

As the report that I had read into the record earlier states, we have to refrain from trying to find people to blame, from pointing fingers. We have to start concentrating on the solutions. The solutions are not easy. The solutions will be difficult, but because they are difficult they will require all of us in this chamber, all three parties, to get our act together, because we have a tough message to sell to the public.

Up to now, it has been customary in this country and in this province that we try to paint the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for everybody, and everybody's wishes were just an additional colour to the rainbow. But I think right now we have to start facing reality that, as we follow the rainbow, it keeps moving away.

I think we all want to be fair to our children and to our grandchildren and to give them a chance to have a future in this country. When I think of the fact that my father came to this country in 1951 with four kids, had four more kids here, without an education, with just a strong back and strong muscles, that he was able to provide a better future for his eight kids than I am for my five kids, despite having been raised and educated here, that is --

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

1640

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I listened intently to the member for Mississauga East. I thought his comments were certainly germane and of some value and that certainly the members opposite could examine them at a later date and offer up some alternative arguments to those, because I'm not certain what they would be.

In my brief comments today I want to explode a couple of myths that this government is out passing off as fact, that on closer examination, with respect to deficits and budgeting, are not fact.

Let's deal firstly with the common refrain from the members opposite about how they're cutting the costs of government. You often hear members standing up and saying in this Legislature -- the Premier's said it, the Economic Development minister has said it and it's filtered back to the backbenchers and even those ministers responsible for ministries that are not necessarily financial by nature. You often hear members opposite stand up and say, "We're the first government in so many years to cut spending, year over year." Anyone who is watching this show, this program, and anyone who reads in the newspapers that comment, I will stand in my place and say that is factually untrue, categorically untrue and it's playing with the figures in the budget.

I've heard the member for Oxford suggest in this place that his government is the first government to meet government spending head on and reduce government spending. What they've done in order to make this statement -- which is kind of humorous, actually, but the seriousness of the deficit we face and the spending levels we're at make it not that funny -- is they've taken the raw data of spending and they've added up the numbers that they spend ministry by ministry. Then they exclude debt servicing. Debt servicing is a line item in the budget. It's an expenditure, and it's an amount that you pay per year to service your debt.

Mr Sutherland: We said, "On operating budget."

Mr Stockwell: No. The member for Oxford says, "We said, 'On operating.'" That's not true. I've heard them on a number of occasions say, "We're the first government in so many years to reduce spending in the province." The Treasurer said it.

Interjection: Operating.

Mr Stockwell: No, he didn't even include "operating." He said those words.

The other thing that he needs to point out is that once in a while they say "operating amounts." You may ask yourself, what does it mean when they just say, "We're the first government to reduce spending on operating amounts"? That really basically means nothing. What it means if you're the taxpayer out there is that this government has reduced spending, when it says "operating," if you exclude debt servicing.

Who's acquired all that debt? Well, $45 billion was acquired before this government took office, for 100-odd years of the province being in the business of governing, and in a short four years they've acquired $45 billion. They've acquired a good chunk, 50% of this debt. So when they exclude debt servicing, they say, "We've reduced the cost of government."

If we exclude a lot of things, we can reduce the cost of government. If we refuse to add up all the numbers, we can reduce the cost of government. If we simply make a mistake, we can reduce the cost of government. If we transpose a number, we can reduce the cost. But the bottom line is this: Where's the Treasurer today?

Hon Mr Buchanan: You know where he is.

Mr Stockwell: He's overseas. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he was going overseas. That's what I meant to say. I think he is overseas.

Mr Sutherland: Yes.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, he's overseas. Where's the Treasurer today? He's overseas, trying to flog $15.5 billion worth of government bonds. Why is he going out to flog that much money? Because when you go to balance your books and you have to borrow money to balance those books, you don't go out and borrow your operating amount; you go out and borrow how much money you need to balance your books. That includes debt servicing.

So when you add up the amount of money it costs to run this government year to year, they spent more this year than they spent last year, they spent more last year than they did the year before and they spent more the year before than they did the year before that. Successively, every single year this government has been in office, it has spent more money year over year than it did the year before. That myth is exploded.

Now they say, "We've reduced the cost of operating accounts." They've reduced the cost of operating accounts, but you have to understand that in the first year they were in office they increased the cost of government. I say to the member for Oxford, if he knows, how much did they increase spending the first year they were in government? Do you remember that number?

Mr Sutherland: I know what figure you are going to use.

Mr Stockwell: You can give me your figure. From year over year, how much money did you spend more than the year before? I'll tell you, Mr Speaker. Year over year, the first budget these people brought in, they increased spending by 13.7%; 13.7% in one year. Now they come, two years out, and say: "We've reduced the cost, excluding debt servicing, by minuscule amounts. Aren't we a responsible lot?"

When in one year you increase spending by 13.7%, my constituents aren't going to hold a parade for you when you reduce spending, excluding the debt servicing, by a minuscule amount. They built in the increase and clawed it back marginally and they want to have parades around the province on how fiscally responsible they are. Those are very important myths to explode.

Hon Mr Buchanan: That's what the Canada Day celebrations are all about. We have firecrackers.

Mr Stockwell: You want a Canada Day celebration for the fact that they increased spending by 13.7% and rolled it back a minuscule amount.

Oh, and the hand-wringing and the sweating and the turmoil they went through: "We had to bring spending into line, although we increased it 13.7% the first year, and we've done such a good job that, if you exclude debt servicing, spending's down. But we still have to borrow for the debt servicing, so you're no better off."

What a myth. What an absolute myth. What manipulation of numbers they go to to make statements that are just fundamentally inaccurate.

So when we deal with the overspending problem, we understand on this side of the House that they have big trouble, and they got it because they increased spending.

They always point to this budget about how responsible they are and they have in the budget the amount of money that they plan to spend this year. You may ask yourself how many times in previous budgets they set the budget and they actually came in under or even with the amount of money they said they'd spend. According to these financial gurus across the floor, these financial wizards, these hold-the-line fiscal conservatives, you'd think every year they had a budget they must have come in lower than the program they expected to spend.

Since this crew's been in government, not once, in all the budgets they've brought to this House, did they bring in a budget that actually spent less than or the same as they said they would? Not once. But this year the Treasurer said, "I'm telling you, this year I promise" -- and he did that every other time -- "we're going to bring in our budget on or under the amount of money we're suggesting."

The member for Don Mills said earlier there are cynics out there. Count me as one, because I've heard this song before. The problem with this song is there's no ending. You just sing the same song, but when it comes down to this particular verse, you've always spent more than you did the year before. So why should we believe you when it comes to this budget on government spending, when you said it every other time and you couldn't follow through with your commitment. There's another major explosion of the myth of NDP fiscal policy.

The next myth is the deficit myth. Here's a government that wants to have not only parades for themselves for bringing spending down because they increased it by 13.7%; they also want to have parades because they're reducing the deficit. Here's a laugh. They carry forward a deficit of some $15.5 billion -- astronomical. Before they came to power, the largest deficit in the history of the province was some $3.5 billion, in that range. Then they increased the deficit in their term of office to $15.5 billion. That's the claim that they made when they brought forward the recommendations of the social contract: "This is what the deficit would have been, so we're bringing it down from that point." Oh -- $17 billion they took it to. Better yet, $17 billion; $15.5 billion is what they're borrowing. So they've brought the deficit up to a magnificent, high number of $17 billion. The highest we had in this province was around $3 billion, $3.5 billion. Now they're trying to rein this back in. As they say --

Interjection: We didn't put it up there.

Mr Stockwell: But my point is, you're saying it would have been there had you not done your fiscal best at hand-wringing and concern about spending and so on. You haven't really reduced spending at all. It's gone up every year. Every year it's gotten higher, and then they come forward and say, "Now, have a parade for us because this year we're going to bring the deficit in at $8.5 billion."

1650

If they were going to bring the deficit in at $8.5 billion, I may say to them, "Well done." But the fact is, they manufactured the $17 billion in the first place and they've manufactured the $8.5 billion. If they only need $8.5 billion, why are they out borrowing nearly double that? One, they're going 18 months, and two, the deficit isn't $8.5 billion. Even the member for Oxford, I know the knowledgeable guy he is when it comes to finances, I know the fairminded individual he is --

Mr David Johnson: Don't go too far now.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I know he is, and I know he understands this stuff, because it's tough for him when someone asks him a direct question like, "What is it you're going to need to borrow this year to balance the books?" He hems and haws and he goes: "Well, you see, the deficit figure's $8.5 billion, and if you exclude debt servicing we're spending less than we did last year, although we didn't actually come in on the money. In fact, we've always spent more than we thought we could. But now that you've asked me the question directly, the deficit's $8.5 billion." Then the next question to the member for Oxford and the Treasurer is always: "What about this $2 billion you need for your crown corporations? Don't you have to borrow that money?" And they say, "Oh, well, sure we have to borrow that money, but that's not the province's responsibility. That's a crown corporation," like this money gets poofed out of thin air somewhere and the taxpayers don't actually have to pay it back. There's another myth and explosion of a myth.

If there is anybody in this province who believes, other than maybe the member for Oxford and a couple of backbenchers in the NDP caucus -- I don't even think the Minister of Agriculture believes it, or the Attorney General or even the Minister of Environment and Energy. Anyone in this room who believes that the deficit this year will be $8.5 billion, there are bridges and abutments that need to be bought in this province and there are municipalities willing to sell them to constituents, because there isn't a soul who buys the fact that it's going to be $8.5 billion.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We're not selling any bridges. Come on, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe I shouldn't use the example of bridges any more. They're selling so many things, they may start selling bridges.

Mr Speaker, $8.5 billion hasn't got a prayer of coming in at $8.5 billion, and you know why I can say that? It's the $2 billion. But do you know the other thing that is interesting about the deficit? The member for Oxford, year in and year out, gets up and argues the goodness of the budget, the fairness of the numbers and the hand-wringing and sweating and toiling and how accurate and reflective they are, and every year at the end of the year he has that painful job of standing before us and saying: "Well, maybe we miscalculated. Maybe we spent too much here. Yes, the deficit figure's a little low." It's so embarrassing, because everybody knows when they announce the budget that it's not $8.5 billion; it's going to be $10.5 billion.

So, a few myths that the people of this province should understand: When these people say they're cutting spending, they're not. That's the first myth. When they say they're cutting spending, categorically they haven't. When they say they're going to come in on the money or under in any of their budgets -- you've never done it before; why should we believe you now? When they tell you the deficit figures are $8.5 billion, they're inaccurate; everybody knows they're higher.

So when we've reached those three conclusions at the end of the day, we say to ourselves, "How much can we believe in this document that they put out?" The difficulty with the average taxpayer out there, the difficulty with the bond rating agencies and the difficulty I think you have with us across the floor is that we don't believe any of your numbers any more.

Hon Mr Buchanan: We don't believe any of these guys' numbers either.

Mr Stockwell: Well, maybe you don't. He holds up the Common Sense Revolution, and I myself am a big fan of that document. He may not believe it. Maybe we'll be lucky enough to take the opportunity to implement our plan. I hope we do because I think we can do it.

But the bottom line in the history books that are going to be written about this government is quite simple: You couldn't call a one-horse race. You can't call your deficit figures, you can't call your spending figures, you can't even tell the facts when all the accounting comes in and you have spent more this year than the year before. You've got to start excluding things to tell people that you're spending less.

The sad part about it is, of all the bills that we debate in here and all the pieces of legislation, this piece of legislation is one of the most important pieces we will debate, because this government is asking for the authority, on behalf of the constituents of this province, to go out and borrow $15.5 billion. I think that if there was an election held today, the people of this province would not give this government the authority to borrow any more money on their behalf, because I don't think they trust the way they spend it or trust the way they report it.

Finally, to end up on a totally non-partisan point, a point that I think any government should adopt, I mention this quite often when we deal with financial analyses and budgets. I wish this government would do it, quite frankly, but it doesn't appear it's going to. I'll have to throw my ideas to the next government, hopefully us. I'll push for this. Whether or not it's us, I'll continue to push from in this place or outside. Some government at some point is going to have to deal with this issue straight up: The issue is government reporting of its books.

There's no secret that in the past we have had all parties play around with the books. In most instances, it began as an innocent little attempt to camouflage a program or an expenditure. Today, it's gotten to the point where we're literally trying to fool the public into believing we're borrowing $2 billion less than we are. In some instances, it's even worse.

I'd ask this government one last time -- maybe not the last time, but certainly again -- if it would institute a proper accounting program that is instituted and enshrined in legislation that forces your government and future governments to report their books exactly the same way under accepted accounting practices. That way, when the year-end comes, the books are reported out and signed off by an accountant and auditor, "signed off" meaning they meet the same rigid requirements that private sector companies do that are trading on the public trading.

This is totally non-partisan. All I'm trying to get across here is that it would take away from the really frustrating part of debate, and that's the debate we always end up in as to what are the real numbers. That, to me, is the most frustrating part of the debate. What I find the most successful and the most meaningful part of debate is when you get the real numbers and you start debating your policy on expenditures and expenditure controls and our policy on expenditure and expenditure controls. When you get the real numbers, you can get into a serious policy discussion.

You can tell me why you need to spend as much money as you're spending and I can tell you why you don't need to spend that much money, and we can let the public decide who they think would make a better government. But what we end up with when it comes to budgets and deficits and auditors' reports is a bunch of convoluted -- I don't want to use too strong language -- in a way, deceit. It's deceitful reporting on what the financial picture of this province actually is. I say this to all parties. I say this about the federal Conservatives. I think they knew the deficit was much higher last election than they led us to think. I say it specifically about this government and those members across the floor.

Always happy to leave on a non-partisan note, I wanted to explode those couple of myths that they continue to pretend to be truth and let the public know that spending has never gone down under this government, ever. Spending has never, ever gone down. They've never, ever spent less, or on the money, to what they said they would spend in a budget. They've never, ever come in accurately on their deficit figures. In the last few years they've never, ever reported their deficit accurately. They've always excluded portions because it made them appear to be better, but financially they were much worse.

1700

Mr David Johnson: I would like to congratulate the member for Etobicoke West and also to back up his statement. I suspect there's some doubt on the opposition members' side with regard to the statement that spending has not gone down. I know it's a fact, because I use as the source, and I'm sure the member for Etobicoke West has as well, the report of the Minister of Finance, the 1994 budget, which I have in my hand.

I would refer the members of the government to page 119 of that particular report. It lays out the expenditures for the years from 1985 right through to 1994. You simply have to add up the numbers on that page plus the numbers that have been taken off book on page 115 of the Finance minister's budget. I know the Finance minister always tells the truth, so here are the numbers:

If you add the operating expenditure, the interest on the debt, the capital expenditure and the amount of money taken off book, in 1991 the expenditures were $51.683 billion. In 1992, the expenditures rose $2.5 billion to $54.235 billion. Between 1992 and 1993, during the social contract year in 1993, the expenditures still rose; if you add all of those categories -- they're all spending; they all need to be added in -- the expenditures rose $100 million, up to $54.333 billion.

Finally to this year, where it's been stated that program costs have been down, certainly if you look at the budget and add all the numbers together, we have gone up another $1.2 billion in 1994, up to $55.637 billion.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Program cost has never come down.

Mr David Johnson: It's right here in the budget. The Minister of Housing can make whatever statement she wants. Minister, simply add up the numbers on pages 119 and 115. The numbers are there; spending is up.

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Further questions or comments? The member for Etobicoke West, you have two minutes.

Mr Stockwell: My argument was made at the beginning of this by the Minister of Housing, who wasn't here for the beginning, and she did what they all do. They say, "Program costs have never come down in the history of this province." So what? What do you have to do? What do I have to do to get it through to you? You spend successively, year over year, more money. So program costs have come down. Does that mean we spend less money? Does that mean we have to borrow less money? No. You see, exactly what I was saying, the Minister of Housing wasn't here for the beginning of it, but she came in at the end and proved my point.

This mantra, this common refrain is, "Program costs have come down." Do you have to borrow more this year? Yes. Did you spend more this year? Yes. Are you excluding debt servicing? Yes. So what? You could bring program costs down to nothing if you're paying more every year on debt servicing and you're going to spend $60 billion on debt servicing. It just means you have to go out and borrow the money and we go further in debt.

This is what this government does. They can't get cost down year to year. They can't reduce spending year to year. They can't accurately affect their deficits. They can't accurately bring in the amount they're going to spend according to your budget, so they do some jiggery-pokery, come up with some harebrained answer that, "Well, if you exclude this and you add this in, we spent less last year."

That 75 cents will get you a cup of coffee. Big deal. Because when you go to borrow the money and when you go to the bond rating agencies like Mr Laughren's going out today to flog them, he's still got to borrow more money this year than he had to borrow last year because you can't control your costs, and all the handwringing and broken promises and broken agreements with the doctors and so on isn't going to change that. You can't control your costs because you don't have the political will to do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sutherland: I want to thank the members who participated in the debate. I want to make a few remarks in response to some of those comments, and the reason I want to do that is because the speakers who have come forward have said: "Don't talk about the history. All you, as the government, want to do, is blame it on someone else or blame it on the past." The member for Don Mills said that in his speech. But you know, it's interesting. If you listen to their speeches, all they want to do is issue blame and say these are all the problems and present a very doom and gloom scenario.

For those people who have been following this debate, I think we need to put things in a little bit of context, first of all, in terms of how we got to the situation we were in in 1990. It's important that we talk about that because the member for Dufferin Peel brought up the WCB and Ontario Hydro. The member really tried to say, "The problems with WCB and Ontario Hydro are all the fault of the NDP."

If we go back and look at the history, and the facts speak for themselves, in 1980, the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board was only $400 million, extremely manageable. By 1985, where was that unfunded liability? Up to $6 billion.

Then we had five years of a Liberal government, and where is the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board by 1990? It's $10 billion. Now, I'll admit it has gone up a bit since our time, but I want to tell you, that $10 billion through the 1980s is the responsibility of the Progressive Conservative government when it was here, and of the Liberal government. We're taking action to deal with that. We're taking very concrete action to deal with the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board.

The member for Dufferin-Peel talks about Ontario Hydro and its $34-billion or $35-billion debt. Let's go back and look at what the debt was on September 6, 1990, when we came into power. Gee, what do we find out? It was $34 billion. When we're looking at the historical context here of WCB and Hydro, the other two parties can't claim that they've got all the answers and they're such wonderful managers, as they try and project.

If we want to look at unfunded liabilities in some of the pension plans, let's go back again and look at the history there in terms of past governments borrowing from those plans. They found it a cheaper way to borrow, but those unfunded liabilities grew. I give the Liberals some credit. They decided they were going to stop borrowing from the teachers' pension plan in 1989, because the unfunded liability was getting too large. The Liberals did see some reality there.

I also found interesting the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's comments, because he always brings out these comments from the auditor to justify how we would have had a balanced budget but it came out to $3 billion. He brings out this line "unforeseen decline in revenue due to the recession."

Throughout this debate, many of the opposition members have talked about forecasting. Let's all be quite clear. Forecasting of revenues is not quite a science. Particularly in a deep recession, as we've gone through, it's even more unpredictable. The government numbers put forward in terms of revenue projections aren't something that I pull out of the air, that the Minister of Finance pulls out of the air. There's very concrete analysis done.

The projections on increase in economic growth and employment and housing starts, all those things are taken into account, and they're not just Ministry of Finance numbers. If you look at where our projections were through the 1991 budget, the 1992 budget and the 1993 budget, and you go out and compare them to where the private sector forecasts are, you'll find that ours were probably in the middle, and in some cases maybe a little more conservative. People need to take that into account.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt says the first budget was the big mistake. I remember the member for Renfrew North saying that if the Liberals had been in government, they probably would have had a $7-billion deficit that first year too. It's great to say in hindsight, "Your numbers were all off." But if you look at the private sector forecasters, they were saying the recovery was going to occur much quicker, that it wasn't going to be as deep as anticipated at that time when we brought in that first budget in 1991.

Yes, people were wrong with their forecasts. The Ministry of Finance numbers may not have been as accurate, but let me tell you, the major banks and all the other private forecasters, a lot of them were way off too in terms of that.

When the member for Scarborough-Agincourt justifies that we would have had a balanced budget expect for this unforeseen decline in revenue, I think it's great. That's fine. It's fair that the auditor has said that and he wants to use it to justify that.

What is a little much for us to take on this side is that somehow after September 6, 1990, you can't use that argument any more. You can't use that argument that an unforeseen decline, a consecutive, three-year decline, in government revenues is a problem.

Let me say too that part of that challenge is how the spending occurred during the Liberal time. They built up a system of public services that would be financially sustainable only if economic growth continued at 5% to 6%. They didn't put any money away for the rainy day. They didn't anticipate that maybe the economy would go into a serious recession and we'd have all these services built up. We've had to make the changes to those services. It's been difficult, it's been trying, but those services are becoming far more effective and far more efficient.

Just two other minor points that I wanted to make: I'm glad the member for Don Mills mentioned about municipalities and how they borrow for capital and pay for it over 25 years. I'm glad he thinks that's a good idea. I wish he would support provincial governments doing that as well, rather than paying for it all in one year.

The member for Dufferin-Peel in his comments tried to say that the debt of Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board should be included in all the accumulated debt and deficit figures of the government. It's very interesting that this is somehow the new way, that we want to put that all in as to what the absolute total was. Those totals were never included under Tory governments or under Liberal governments.

I want to conclude my remarks at this point. I just wanted to highlight those few points from the discussion.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 159, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1711 to 1722.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 159, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac- Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), McGuinty, O'Neil (Quinte), Runciman, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 57; the nays are 19. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? All those in favour? Is it agreed? Agreed. Therefore, it is going to third reading.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before I call the next order, the House leaders have had some discussions regarding a private bill, Bill Pr117, which was introduced, I believe, on June 20. We are seeking unanimous consent to waive notice on this bill so that the committee on private bills can deal with it this afternoon before it finishes its sitting.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, just again before I call the next order, I believe we also have an agreement, so I seek consent for that agreement, that during committee of the whole on the next item, which is Bill 91, we have agreed that where amendments are seen to be in order, we will see or deem a division and stack those divisions until the point at which all of the amendments have been dealt with and that we would then have a single bell and deal with the votes associated with those amendments.

The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

I will now leave the chair and move to the table for the committee of the whole House.

Report continues in volume B.

22 juin 1994