Journal des débats 1994-nov-23 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to say that I think we're close to a solution on a problem that I've been dealing with and that I think other members of the Legislature have had occasion to deal with, and that is the scam loan brokers in this province.

You may be aware that there are literally hundreds of people who have been ripped off by, I think the best description is, scam artists who say: "Need a loan? We can get you a loan." You then get a promise of a loan from these individuals. They virtually commit that they've got the loan and say it's simply a matter now of coming down and signing the piece of paper.

People get down there and then they're asked to give a $300 or $400 or $500 fee. They find out one or two days later that the loan doesn't materialize and that the fee is gone.

I have literally hundreds of letters and I suspect other members of the Legislature also have similar letters.

You may recall that I introduced a private member's bill. It passed second reading here and then essentially was shelved. I'm pleased to say that the government has indicated it has some amendments that it's going to propose to the bill, which as I understand them seem acceptable, certainly to myself. It is my hope that we can deal with these amendments over the next two weeks so that by the time Christmas comes around, there'll certainly be some good news for future people who might get ripped off and hopefully some redress for individuals who may already currently have been ripped off.

NEGATIVE OPTION MARKETING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Every day, Ontarians receive junk mail which they regularly throw out without reading. What increasing numbers of consumers are finding, however, is that in so doing they are unknowingly consenting to be continually billed for a product or service such as pest control, extra cable channels and monthly book clubs.

This is called negative option marketing, because the onus is placed on the consumer to say, "No, I don't want what you're selling," by way of a phone call or a letter to the company before he or she is taken off the direct-billing treadmill.

According to the Stop Junk Mail Association, every year more than 44% of the 55 billion mail order catalogues and other pieces of third-class mail sent to consumers goes directly unread into the trash.

Because negative option marketing enters our homes as third-class mail, the fine print is unread and many vulnerable consumers such as seniors, those with disabilities and others on fixed incomes are then faced with unwanted and unbudgeted bills they can barely afford.

The Consumers' Association of Canada recommends that only the positive consent option, where consumers make an informed request to purchase a product or service, be allowed. Unfortunately, Ontario lags behind Quebec and Prince Edward Island, which already have forms of this legislation within their consumer protection acts.

I call on the NDP Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, to take time out of her busy promotion of casino gambling in Ontario to protect vulnerable and unsuspecting consumers who are forced to gamble with their personal budgets as a result of being caught in the money trap of negative option marketing.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): In the past few weeks, I've received a number of calls in my riding regarding the auditor's report on water quality. Much of this concern is due to the reactionary opposition response. Our government is acting on all of these concerns. I know our water is safe and I want to assure the residents of Haldimand-Norfolk that this is the case.

In my own riding, scores of improvements have been made to ensure the safety of our drinking water. In fact, more then $52 million has been spent on water projects in Haldimand-Norfolk. Previous to 1990, water treatment plants in Delhi, Dunnville, Port Dover and Port Rowan experienced problems, and we've been constantly investing in those plants to ensure water quality. Recently, I opened a new $10-million treatment plant in Port Dover, with another $500,000 earmarked to upgrade watermains and service to area properties. As for Dunnville, we're investing $1 million that will improve their sanitation system. In Delhi, we have funded a complete study which is expected within months. In addition, we've also funded $800,000 to drill a new well for that community.

Since we've taken power, all of those water treatment plants are in compliance with all requirements, and there are more improvements on the way. Since 1990, we have done more than previous governments to ensure water quality.

Just to round out my statement, I would ask that the rhetoric be lessened on this issue.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): A proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp for a treatment plant to handle toxic waste in our province was rejected by the Environmental Assessment Board today.

The Ontario Waste Management Corp was created in 1981 to develop, establish and operate an industrial hazardous waste treatment and disposal facility. Today, this proposal for a hazardous waste treatment plant in the township of West Lincoln was rejected. I recognize that there is a right of appeal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to this decision, but there is no question that the issue around the disposal of toxic waste remains, and the question is, how is it to be disposed of?

The Ministry of Environment and Energy, the government of Ontario, has a duty, a responsibility to clearly indicate the direction it is to take. This toxic waste must still be disposed of. Will the government permit existing facilities to enhance their capacity to dispose of this waste? Will the government permit this waste to be exported? Clear questions require clear decisions. Issues of the environment and the safety of the people of this province lie in the balance.

I call upon the Minister of Environment to indicate clearly the course of action he is prepared to take in this matter.

1340

CLOSURE OF PERTH JAIL

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Premier on behalf of every municipality in Lanark county. Our message to the Premier is this: Your government has trumped up the costs of the Perth Jail, downloaded costs to the municipalities and deprived the entire county of an essential service. You have failed to achieve any savings.

When every town in Lanark county came forward to work towards a solution, we faced extreme prejudice against the Perth Jail and a done deal based on grossly exaggerated government accounting figures.

You claim to be reducing staff costs but have shifted these expenses to other facilities. You project a 12% increase in wages over last year, which is impossible under the social contract. Operating expenses which should have been stretched out over five years were crammed into one. Equipment costs were bloated by $38,000 over last year's figures. Per diem rates were blown out of proportion and occupation levels grossly underestimated. All told, the government has overstated the annual costs by $218,000.

Premier, we ask today that you look at the real costs and help us work towards a reasonable solution.

BEYOND WORDS

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to tell the members of the Legislature about an organization and a group of individuals who are excited about Jobs Ontario Training. The organization is Beyond Words, and the role they play in the Waterloo region is exactly that -- beyond words -- but I'll try.

Beyond Words has been operating in the region for the past eight years. For the past year, they have been Jobs Ontario trainers and they have quite a success story to tell. They offer five training courses, which include New Directions Work, Office Literate, Preparing the New Manager, Leadership, and the Sole Support Parent Program. These courses offer a variety of training from basic to advanced computer skills, management and office skills, production, marketing, graphic design, database management, presentation skills, communication, interactive and interpersonal skills.

In one year of participation in the Jobs Ontario Training program, Beyond Words will have over 130 graduates from their program. On October 25, I had the pleasure of attending the graduation of the most recent group of graduates from the Preparing the New Manager course. They were George Balan, Sherry Loree, Heni Lloyd, Nidal Jazar, Roberto Duran, Michael Klzakowski, Michael Coward, Crista Wright, Jacqueline Lichty, Wolfe Prince and Margaret Hitchcock. These individuals know that Jobs Ontario Training works.

I would again like to offer my congratulations to the graduates and my thanks to Sharon Mackinnon, general manager of Beyond Words, Joanne Young-Evans, and everyone else at Beyond Words.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): At a time when the number of seniors in Niagara needing the use of senior citizens' homes is increasing significantly, the government of Ontario is warning of funding cuts that could leave the Niagara region with a shortfall of up to $4.2 million.

I have received numerous telephone calls and letters from the families and friends of Alzheimer's patients who are alarmed that the cuts that have already taken place have diminished service to these vulnerable individuals. Further cuts by the provincial government of Bob Rae will mean even less care for patients who require almost 24 hours of observation and assistance.

With a larger-than-average seniors population in the Niagara Peninsula, the impact of provincial budget cuts will be devastating to the people of our part of the province. Major layoffs will result, according to the social services and senior citizens department director, Doug Rapelje, with the most vulnerable in our society being hurt the most.

At a time when the Ontario government has millions of dollars for self-congratulatory advertising and when many in its ranks were such vociferous advocates of those in need before being elected to the Ontario Legislature, it is ironic and unacceptable that the Rae government would contemplate a reduction in financial resources for senior citizens.

I call upon the Minister of Health to end the uncertainty and to restore adequate funding for senior citizens' homes in Niagara.

INTERIM WASTE AUTHORITY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise to inform the House and members of the public listening today that the Interim Waste Authority has once again flexed its muscles and is trying to prevent the public from being heard during the preliminary hearings for the three mega-dumps being planned by the NDP government for Durham, York and Peel.

The consolidated board will be meeting for the first time in Bolton tomorrow to listen to requests for party status at the environmental assessment hearings. As members of the public will know, party status is basically reserved for groups and organizations with the financial resources to hire a lawyer to fight on their behalf. This entire process has been taken away from the public because the board does not allow for reasonable individual public participation.

I have personally been told that it is unnecessary for me to attend the preliminary hearings tomorrow and Friday because I will not be called upon to say anything as a participant. Many residents, myself included, have neither the time nor the resources to study the thousands of pages of documents being prepared by the IWA to mount a scientific defence.

The IWA has a blank cheque provided to it by this government to hire all the lawyers and consultants that it wants. That cheque is now over $75 million to date, with the cost rising every day. From the standpoint of the average person in York, Durham and Peel, it feels like we are fighting a monster that has unlimited resources. To make matters worse, the IWA is using its own money to fight us with and to prevent the public from speaking.

It is one thing my being told that I can't speak; it is incomprehensible that I have been told, "Don't even bother showing up."

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I would like today to recognize in this Legislature that November is Adoption Awareness Month. The Adoption Council of Ontario, on behalf of one million Ontario citizens who have been touched by adoption, would like to join with them and celebrate the month of November 1994 as Adoption Awareness Month.

By recognizing Adoption Awareness Month, the Adoption Council of Ontario hopes to encourage appropriate celebrations of family-building though adoption, increased public awareness of the plight of children waiting for permanent families and increased public awareness of adoption community issues.

The Adoption Council of Ontario is committed to working as an advocacy group to improve the lives of all parties to adoption. The Adoption Council of Ontario provides support, information and awareness to adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and prospective adoptive parents. The council works with several agencies and professionals to improve the lives of adopted people and their families in our communities.

I hope that the citizens of Ontario will recognize the month of November as Adoption Awareness Month and celebrate and honour its importance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Later today I will be introducing the Assessment Amendment Act, 1994. This bill will enable the government to put into effect a consensus solution that has been reached to relieve property tax burdens on smaller retail stores in Metropolitan Toronto shopping malls. To protect smaller retailers, the agreement will shift approximately $8 million in property taxes to the large anchor stores.

The government worked to bring together representatives of the smaller retailers and the anchor tenants, nine months of hard work building bridges between people in order to save jobs, retail jobs that Metro needs. With all sides committed to solving this problem, the government was able to broker what I believe is a fair deal.

1350

As a result of recent rulings by the Assessment Review Board, a store's share of the mall's property taxes has been based on the tenant's portion of the total rent paid by all the mall's tenants, in accordance with the Assessment Act. Previously, stores were assessed according to their share of the mall's total area. Since smaller stores generally pay a higher per-square-foot rate than the larger stores, the Assessment Review Board ruling shifted a large tax burden from the anchors to the smaller retailers. Property tax increases for smaller tenants ranged from 18% to more than 800%. It threatened the survival of the smaller retailers and the thousands of jobs that they provide.

This bill will amend the Assessment Act to allow the Minister of Finance to set a regulation to apportion shopping mall assessments in Metropolitan Toronto. It will increase taxes for anchor stores by $8 million and reduce taxes for the smaller stores by the same amount.

I hope opposition members will cooperate in this effort to produce a speedy solution for smaller retailers in Metro Toronto malls.

In closing, I want to thank the representatives of the anchor stores, who've been very helpful, as well as the Fair Assessment Coalition Toronto, affectionately known as FACT, which represents the smaller retailers, for their work in developing this compromise to provide stability for this vital part of Ontario's economy. Both sides worked extremely hard to fashion this compromise.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I was concerned that this legislation was not going to be tabled before the House adjourned, and in fact there are just two days left in which to table new legislation.

I want to say to the minister that I congratulate the Fair Assessment Coalition, the representatives of the anchor stores and those who worked out this consensus solution. The reason for my concern was that the solution that has been found, while it is a consensus, is not unanimous and I was worried that the government would get cold feet about introducing it, because the truth is, not everyone agrees.

In fact -- and this is fact -- many small businesses will still be paying more, significantly more, than what they can afford. They are struggling to hang on to their businesses. We know from StatsCan that it is in the small business sector where we are seeing jobs created, and this sector, particularly those in malls that are suffering from this reapportionment, will see jobs lost, notwithstanding this legislation, because of the reapportionment decision.

Those store owners, like many across the province, are feeling the burden of NDP tax increases during their mandate.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Tell your pals in Ottawa to stabilize the interest rates.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Caplan: People are worried that their businesses will go bankrupt and that their jobs will disappear.

Mr Wiseman: We took away the commercial concentration tax and the tire tax.

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

Mrs Caplan: Mall apportionment and reapportionment are all about taxes, and I can say to you that we will cooperate in all ways possible to see that this legislation is passed through this House before the end of the session. But I want to point out to the government House leader that we would expect that this would stand alone and that you would not use this as a bargaining chip in other discussions with the opposition.

I said to the members of the Fair Assessment Coalition that I would withdraw the legislation that I tabled and would expedite this if the Finance minister tabled his before the end of the session. That has been done and I will be withdrawing my bill as a result.

The Treasurer says this is a fair deal, and I want to say that most of those who support the deal feel that it is better than the alternative. Many of them feel that while everyone gave a little bit on this, the real issue -- the problem of high taxes, the problem of high business tax and commercial assessment issues -- has not been resolved, and it's my view that a first priority must be commercial property tax relief.

We know that those retailers in Fairview Mall who are in Oriole riding are supportive of this. The Fair Assessment Coalition had a meeting last week that I attended and they were assured that if the government came forward with its legislation, we would hope to see that passed before the end of the session.

I would repeat that the real issue of high property tax levels has not been addressed, and if we're going to see revitalization, particularly in the small business sector --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Who raised those?

Mrs Caplan: The minister says, "Who raised them?" The NDP tax increases over the last four years have killed small businesses, and I would say to him it's no laughing matter. On behalf of the small businesses which will receive some relief as a result of this, I say to the government that this legislation is worth supporting but it does not solve the entire problem.

Hon Mr Wildman: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

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

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I just want to add my thoughts. I think this particular problem is symptomatic of a whole series of tax issues going on across Ontario, particularly in Metro Toronto. If one reads the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto's submission, it will point out that Metro Toronto has lost 200,000 jobs since 1989, roughly 15% of the jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. As a matter of fact, even here in 1994, where the rest of Ontario is seeing good job growth, Metro Toronto actually continues to lose jobs -- 200,000 fewer jobs.

The board of trade would say to us and others that there is a major problem with taxation on businesses in Metro Toronto. I think many assumed the Fair Tax Commission, with I guess a budget of roughly $7 million, was going to find a solution. It now appears that's not the case. I would just say that businesses in Metro Toronto are looking to this government to find some solutions to the job-killing situation they find themselves in right now.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The government members are having fun with the Liberals because it was the Liberal Party that introduced the commercial concentration tax. I have to concur with the government in that respect. That was the most burdensome tax on business in the Metropolitan Toronto region. But before, I must say, they pat themselves on the back too much, the facts of this particular situation indicate that this problem arose a year ago. I don't know what the definition of the word "broker" is. The government's patting itself for being a broker, but essentially the government has sat on the sidelines, thrown the problem to the retailers, thrown the problem to the anchors and said: "That's your problem. You solve it."

To the credit of the small retailers and to the credit of the anchors, they have come up with not one but two solutions: one for 1994, which has already been implemented, and one that we'll see in this particular bill for the years ahead. But the credit there is due to FACT, which represents the small retailers, and to the anchors, led primarily by Hudson's Bay.

That's where the initiative has come from. The initiative has not come from this government, nor has the initiative come from this government in terms of the broader issue of taxation, of assessment within Metropolitan Toronto. And you know something? Both parties are right. The anchors are right; the retailers are right: They both pay too much in taxes.

The Metropolitan Toronto board of trade has issued a booklet that's entitled Killing the Golden Goose, and the subtitle is How High Business Property Taxes Are Suppressing Metropolitan Toronto's Economic Recovery. That's what's happening: over 200,000 fewer jobs today than five years ago in Metropolitan Toronto; vacant industrial buildings, vacant commercial buildings.

Why? The Metropolitan Toronto board of trade says it's high property taxes because of the antiquated assessment system that this government refuses to address; high taxes because of school taxes; high taxes because of the welfare burden on the property tax. Those are the conclusions of the Metropolitan Toronto board of trade. That's what's killing jobs in Metropolitan Toronto.

Does the board of trade talk about Jobs Ontario? Do they anywhere in this booklet mention Jobs Ontario? No. They know what the real problems are in Metropolitan Toronto: the assessment system, the high taxes. Last year, in Scarborough there were 42,000 property appeals; 24,000 appeals in North York; 11,000 property assessment appeals in the city of Etobicoke. In the city of Toronto there are hundreds of millions of dollars of business assessment under appeal as we sit here. Is the government addressing these problems? No. Sweep it under the carpet. Let time go by. Ignore the problems.

1400

The city of Scarborough has hired an individual to appeal property taxes in the hope that with lower taxes businesses will stay in Scarborough. I have a letter from the mayor of Scarborough. She is raising an issue with regard to a large printing company in Scarborough. This printing company has hired a consultant to find a location outside of Metropolitan Toronto. Some 200 jobs, $353,000 in tax revenue and 160,000 square feet of vacant industrial space, and the minister will not even meet with the mayor of Scarborough to discuss this most pressing issue.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a more personal note, I would like to thank the Treasurer for keeping us abreast at least of the negotiations and the ongoing letter writing that is taking place. I will note the Treasurer offered us this information a couple of weeks ago that a deal was taking place and in fact a deal had been struck. I'd like to thank the Treasurer for doing that. We in this party appreciate being kept abreast.

We will promise that we will not, as the member for Oriole did, simply lift your piece of legislation, put their name on it and submit it as their solution to a problem that she had nothing to do with in arriving at. That, my friends, is not the way politics is played, in my opinion. It is a partisan approach that is used by the member for Oriole to score points on her behalf that I find repugnant.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION CONTRACTS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question was going to be to the Premier, but in his absence it will be to the Minister of Transportation and has to do with Highway 407, which is, as I think most people in the province know, the largest contract ever awarded in the province. At the time the negotiations were going on, the minister will remember that the government committed that it would release the details of that agreement. We have yet to see the details of that agreement. The question to the minister today is: Will you undertake, forthwith, to release the promised details of the Highway 407 contract?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): When we were planning to deliver Highway 407 in an innovative and creative way, the private sector firms demanded that we keep any bids received confidential. In response to this demand, the request for proposals we released clearly stipulated that bids would remain in fact confidential. I would explain to the member that confidential means that you do not disclose it.

The bids we received contain substantial commercial information about the consortia involved. Therefore, to release the bids would offend the province's freedom of information and privacy legislation. Releasing the bids would also be in violation of good contract management and the RFP practices. I think that very clearly speaks for itself.

Mr Phillips: I can almost guarantee you that you will not be able to stand on that position. The people of Ontario are going to demand to know the details of this contract. I will go further and say that the previous minister, in the House, in answers to questions in the House, guaranteed that we would get this information. Among other things, he said: "Within a matter of three or four weeks we are hopeful that all the details will be released. We will release all that is known and said."

What we've got here is an attempt to hide from the people of Ontario the important parts of the largest single contract ever awarded in the province. This is ridiculous. The people of Ontario deserve to know the details of that contract. You're spending $1 billion of their money, and it is quite permissible to release that information. You have an opportunity to release that information.

I will say again to the minister: Will you undertake to fulfil the specific commitment made by the previous Minister of Transportation to let the people of Ontario know all of the details of this massive contract?

Hon Mr Farnan: Contracts, as I explained, in this particular project contain proprietary information, information that is of significant commercial value to the consortia involved. If indeed the private companies, the private corporations, were prepared to release the information, to break the confidentiality of the agreement, that would be their business and their right, but we have a process in which confidentiality was a significant component of that process. When you enter into a process, you enter into it with integrity and the reality that you will follow through on the commitments that you make. We would be breaking commitments if indeed we broke the confidentiality component.

Mr Phillips: It is absolutely unacceptable that you entered into an agreement where you're not prepared to disclose things that are absolutely fundamental to the people of Ontario to know. Why you would ever, ever have agreed to that, I don't know. Why you structured the proposal that way, I don't know. It is crazy that we spend $1 billion worth of taxpayers' money and you're unwilling to disclose the details of it.

We're told there are escalator clauses in that contract that are important for the people of Ontario to know about. You've said this was going to be a model that we can use around the rest of the world. The world is going to be laughing at you when you're unprepared to tell the people who are paying for this the details of it.

I repeat to the minister, it is clear that you can release data under this agreement. Will you today commit to tell the people of Ontario the important details of this huge contract and stop, if I may say, stonewalling the important public business of this province?

Hon Mr Farnan: Let me suggest to this member the process that was followed: a team of deputy ministers to select the winning process; a committee that was supported by an interministerial advisory committee of senior managers, which in turn was supported by six evaluation teams which were assisted by external engineering, financial and legal advisers. Both proponents were given the opportunity to present their proposals to the evaluation teams and the selection committees. Price Waterhouse was retained as a process consultant. They subsequently certified their complete and unequivocal satisfaction with the adherence to the evaluation methodology and the process.

This is a process that was very, very carefully designed for fairness and objectivity, and it is underlined by the endorsement of Price Waterhouse, a firm of irrefutable excellence. For the member to be questioning such a process and such an endorsement simply doesn't hold water.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Deputy Premier. It's a question, I think, that goes right to the integrity indeed of your government.

Mr Deputy Premier, I'm sure you're aware of the very serious allegations which were contained in the Toronto newspapers this morning regarding the fund-raising activities of the New Democratic Party. Your Premier will remember, and you will remember, that there was a fund-raising dinner which was held in the Premier's honour last January 20, and this fund-raiser was organized by Local 183.

According to newspaper reports, the head of an Ontario construction company says he was approached by a senior union official. That official told him, "You are a big company and you should buy a table for the Bob Rae dinner. Make sure you buy some tickets or we will make lots of trouble for you," the whole time waving his fist at this individual. This is a very serious allegation. Threats of violence and intimidation have been alleged.

To the minister, are you aware if the Premier has obtained a copy of this letter, and if so, has he undertaken an investigation into this matter?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): First of all, I don't know if the Premier has received a copy of that letter, but I appreciate the fact that the member from Mississauga West quite accurately uses the words "alleged," "allegations." I think that's the way questions such as this should be put in this assembly, and I would simply reinforce that aspect of the issue, that certain allegations have been made. I don't know whether those allegations are correct or not, and I suspect that the member opposite doesn't either.

1410

Mr Mahoney: It appears that we all know that the Premier indeed attended the fund-raiser. The money was in fact raised in his name. Allegedly an individual was threatened and intimidated in the Premier's name, and I think the Premier frankly has a responsibility to get to the bottom of this. People went out and threatened at least one company, in the allegations that are made in this letter, telling them to buy tickets or else.

The question is, do you know, sir, what steps have been taken to look into this situation, and can you tell us what the Premier has done to see whether or not these techniques were in fact used to raise funds for a dinner on his behalf?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I do not, but I can assure the member that I will have a conversation with the Premier to determine just what actions have been taken.

Mr Mahoney: Can we ask for a clear undertaking from the Deputy Premier that he will meet with the Premier on this matter forthwith, that he will look into these very serious allegations? There is a president of a large Ontario construction company who feels he has been intimidated in the name of the Premier of this province, who feels that he has been treated very roughly and very unfairly, and we want an absolute, clear-cut assurance, sir, that you and your boss, the Premier, will investigate this matter, will get to the bottom of it and will bring a full report back to this House, and indeed if the allegations turn out to be true, that you will ensure that this type of activity is not carried out in the name of the Premier under any circumstances whatsoever. Will you give us those assurances?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think the member said anything with which I would disagree, and I just want to reassure him that the kind of behaviour that is alleged, if that's true, is not the kind of behaviour the New Democratic Party or the government, the Premier or I, certainly, or any other members of our government would ever condone. I would suggest, even further than that, that if at the end of the day such allegations were proved to be true -- and I hasten to add, I have no idea. People can make allegations on any matter, as the member knows.

Mr Mahoney: I sure do.

Hon Mr Laughren: As a matter of fact, I know he knows that. But if such allegations were ever proven to be true, then I would endorse what the member is suggesting, that something really should be done about it.

The Speaker: New question, the third party.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The minister will well know that I have been questioning the Highway 407 deal for many months to the total dissatisfaction of myself and my party. Today's press contains very serious allegations of intimidation tactics --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: It's very sad that the government is making light of the fact that serious allegations of intimidation tactics have been made today on the part of the Labourers' International Union, Local 183, with regard to a fund-raising dinner, as has already been mentioned, which apparently raised the largest amount of money in history for your party, sir.

The union is also under police investigation for allegedly using Jobs Ontario money to renovate the home of a federal bureaucrat who approved a $1.6-million grant to the union.

Your ministry has given two significant roadbuilding contracts, for almost $1 billion, in the case of the first contract, and then $60 million, to the consortium that signed a very lucrative deal with Local 183.

The bottom line, Minister, is that multimillion-dollar contracts have been awarded without proper public scrutiny. They have been awarded, without any allowance for the public to understand through the public process what is going on, to a consortium which uses a union accused of strong-arm tactics during fund-raising for you. Will you turn this matter over to a legislative committee for investigation?

Hon Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, I know how awkward it is when you're a member of the third party and a question has been asked by the member immediately before you. You have to rejig your notes and have to work around the issue and somehow get a question in. I congratulate the member for managing in a roundabout way to get back to the 407.

How many times must we repeat the absolutely extraordinary process that we went through? I don't think there has ever been a process that has been so detailed, so significant in pushing for fairness and objectivity. I could recount again that process, but clearly I'm not going to do that, because it's been written into the record several times now.

But I do want to emphasize that Price Waterhouse was retained as a process consultant, an independent objective body looking at the way this was handled. Their result, after a detailed examination, is that they certified complete and unequivocal satisfaction with the adherence to the evaluation methodology and process. They gave it a complete bill of health.

The Speaker: Could the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Farnan: What more can we ask for?

Mr Turnbull: Well, Minister, let me first start out by saying that you, sir, and your government have absolutely no right to give contracts in secret without the public having any scrutiny of it. You have no right whatsoever.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You guys wrote the book on that. You wrote the book.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mr Turnbull: The process that was put in place in 1952 was to ensure that contracts were open and aboveboard and that people understood it. You have subverted this process.

You refer to Price Waterhouse. Let me point out the fact that Price Waterhouse reported on a very narrow basis as to the fact that the process you had set up had been complied with. That is all they certified. The fact is that the government has never released any details of how this contract was arrived at. You gave a contract which I have continually asked in this House and in estimates as to whether the lowest bidder got the deal and we have never had a straight answer to that. They are building six lanes of concrete, instead of four lanes of asphalt for the losing consortium. We have never seen any details as to how you compared that.

My question to you is, how can the government treat the workers for this consortium differently and award a contract with this highly lucrative contract which is going to give up to 23% wage increases over five years when you treat the public service with wage rollbacks?

Hon Mr Farnan: It's an extraordinary convolution of issues, but let me turn to one point. He goes back to the old way of doing business, and certainly the way of doing business has changed in this province. You know, there was a time when you contracted out. The Ministry of Transportation engineered an area of road. It was contracted out. You were comparing apples to apples. That was the old days.

We were looking at a major project, a project that the Liberals were going to take 20 years to build, and we went out and we developed, with consortia, a possibility of building the 407, not in 20 years but in four years, then working with the consortia. Remember, it was the private sector firms that demanded that any bids that were received must remain confidential because there was proprietary information. The member understands what that is. He can talk to the business leaders. They will tell you, "Why are you not releasing the information?" It's because it is of significant importance to us. If we're going to go after contracts abroad, that information is significant to us.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Farnan: They don't want to release it. All the government is doing is respecting the confidentiality demanded by these companies.

1420

Mr Turnbull: It's quite clear that the public has a right to know about the awarding of a contract of $1 billion. I really have to emphasize that you, Minister -- not you, but the minister before you put in place a process where the ministry insisted on the confidentiality clauses.

The reason that was given at the time was to protect the proprietary aspects of the financing agreement, which at the last moment you took out of the deal. I don't doubt that there may be some aspects that might be proprietary, but in a general sense this can be released. The ministry is using this to hide behind the process you put in place. It wasn't the contractors who bid on it. Let's get that quite straight. I was around at the time; you weren't, Minister.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question.

Mr Turnbull: "Accountability" is the key word and taxpayers have a right to understand how public money is being spent on this highly controversial secret contract that is being handed out to somebody, and we don't know how you're spending our money. Questions of propriety have been raised about the relationship between --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Turnbull: -- your government and the Premier and this union. Will you not agree to a public legislative process which will examine the circumstances around the contact between you and this union and indeed the awarding of this contract?

The Speaker: The question has been placed.

Hon Mr Farnan: This member needs an entire question period all for himself. I couldn't possibly begin to answer the five or six questions contained in the one preamble, but let's go back to a couple of points.

The first point is that the confidentiality was demanded by the private sector firms involved. That's the first point.

The second point is that I'm delighted that in the member's question you have at last recognized that there is proprietary information, that this information is significant to those companies, that this information must remain confidential.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for York Mills come to order.

Hon Mr Farnan: Because that information is proprietary, we're talking about two different kinds of contracts, we're talking about apples and oranges, and you should realize that, seeing you've been around the issue long enough. If there is any information that I can release that doesn't break the agreements that have been made with those companies, everybody in this House knows I will release it, but I will not break a contract of confidentiality.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, as you know, the consolidated board this morning brought down its ruling on the Ontario Waste Management Corp's proposed hazardous waste facility in West Lincoln. As you know, the ruling rejected the proposed facility.

My question to you is, what are the government's contingency plans? Now that this alternative is gone, would you tell us what the government's contingency plans are for dealing with hazardous waste in the province of Ontario?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Indeed, the joint board has rendered its ruling. It's quite voluminous, as you can see, and it's dealing with a very complex and important issue. The integrity of the environmental assessment process, of course, required that as we move forward with dealing with the reduction of hazardous waste in the province and the development of new technologies and new approaches, we await the final decision of the board before we make a final announcement of a comprehensive strategy.

The member knows very well that there is now a 28-day appeal required by the process, and we will await the expiry of the 28 days in order to determine whether or not the decision is final. We will be making announcements early in the new year.

Mr Tilson: I understand. I expected your answer was going to be that it was going to take you 28 days to read that thing, and I understand that. I guess my question really was that you must have contingency plans if this fails. Hazardous waste is really a serious problem in this province and I think we're all interested in knowing what you're going to do if this fails.

As you know, $140 million has been spent on this process in the last 14 years. It has been a long process. Are you telling the people of Ontario, with the answer that you've just given, that there are no contingency plans in the province of Ontario in the event that this facility will ultimately be rejected, as it was this morning? Is that what you're telling us? Are we back to square one after $140 million has been spent, and you still don't have any alternatives for disposing of hazardous waste in Ontario?

Hon Mr Wildman: The short answer is no, that's not what we're telling you. The member is quite correct in saying there has been a great deal of money spent. As a matter of fact, the Conservatives proceeded with this proposal without an environmental assessment. I can't believe that they would propose that we should proceed with such an important facility that might have ramifications for the environment without an environmental assessment.

The Conservatives indeed spent $43 million on this proposal and were prepared to proceed without proper environmental concerns being dealt with. The Liberals spent $70 million on this process. Our government has spent approximately $26 million. We slashed the annual budget last year from what it had been, around $15 million a year, to $2.1 million.

The member wants to know what our strategy is. I would point out that while we awaited the final decision, we have developed a number of projects. Some 165 municipalities have received grants through our household hazardous waste collection program. The industrial waste diversion program has distributed grants of $4 million, which have resulted in 100,000 tonnes of waste being diverted from landfill and incineration. Since 1990, almost $5 million has been contributed by this ministry through the environmental technology program to develop private enterprises for the development and commercialization of new technologies for the treatment of hazardous waste, such as Eco Logic.

We've been involved, we're developing it and we will make a final decision that will take into account all of the work we've done so far, the decision rendered by the board and any appeals that might be brought forward in the 28-day period.

Mr Tilson: Minister, I didn't stand up in this place to have a debate as to who's spent the most money on this project. I'm simply --

Hon Mr Wildman: I bet you didn't.

Mr Tilson: I can tell you, we all know who's spending the most on these types of projects. All you've got to start to do is to get into the Interim Waste Authority, where it's $75 million, and look where you are. So don't start lecturing us as to who is spending more money.

I'm simply saying that as to the ruling this morning, I haven't read the thick pages well but I have read a summary of it. It appears that much of the ruling this morning was based on the fact that the Ontario Waste Management Corp has not thoroughly looked at the alternatives that are available to dealing with hazardous wastes. That was in the second paragraph of the summary, which I'm certain you have before you.

Minister, this ruling by the consolidated board tells us that the three proposed dump sites of York, Durham and Peel will also be turned down -- at least it would seem to me the board is bound by its decision it has now made today -- because the Interim Waste Authority under your direction has not looked at alternatives.

My question, Minister: Are you prepared, as the sole shareholder of the Interim Waste Authority, to direct the Interim Waste Authority to consider all alternatives, whether they be energy from waste, long rail-haul to willing host communities and all the many other alternatives, knowing today, as a result of this decision, that the three sites will be turned down by the consolidated board if you don't make these changes? You're going to avoid the taxpayers spending zillions more dollars on three sites that aren't wanted. If you won't do that, are you prepared to stop the process until this matter can be resolved?

Hon Mr Wildman: In that question, which I guess is supplementary, there were a number of statements made that I think I should respond to. The member says that we shouldn't be talking about how much money was spent on the OWMC proposal. I think that in this House we've all been hearing today arguments that we should indeed be talking about how much money is spent of the public purse.

The ministry of course is working very hard to reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced. We have agreements with many companies which --

Mr Tilson: You're storing the stuff, that's all you're doing, you're storing it.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member says we're just storing it. Just to clarify that, in just one sector, the auto sector, Ford, GM and Chrysler, we have 15 pollution prevention projects which we've entered into. In this sector alone, chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents have been reduced by 151,000 kilograms, toxic metals by 7,300 kilograms, paint sludge by 227,000 kilograms and liquid industrial waste by 228,000 litres, and the member says we've just been storing.

Specifically with regard to the IWA, the member knows full well that the Interim Waste Authority process has looked at many, many alternatives to the three sites that are now going before the full environmental assessment. He also knows that is a scope process and that there is no indication whatever --

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

Hon Mr Wildman: -- in this decision that it hinges upon the Environmental Assessment Board's decisions. The member also knows, as I've said many times, that if anyone wants to develop a proposal for moving waste into Kirkland Lake, they're welcome to go through the environmental assessment process.

1430

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is to the Attorney General. In view of the decision of Judge Patrick Lesage agreeing to the request of the lawyer for Paul Bernardo to move the site of the trial on charges of the murders of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy from St Catharines to another location, I asked the Deputy Premier last week if the provincial government would agree to compensate the parents of these victims for the costs they would incur as a result of this judicial decision.

The Deputy Premier agreed to discuss my request with you and certainly did not rule out this possibility. Would the Attorney General inform the House of the result of this consultation with the Deputy Premier? Would you inform us if you are able to reply positively to my request on behalf of my constituents the Frenches and on behalf of the Mahaffys?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I did have an opportunity to speak with the Treasurer about the issues that the member had raised.

The member may be aware that there is no precedent in Ontario for such compensation, even though we've had many tragic cases where the families of victims have certainly been inconvenienced by the changing of the venue. I think of families like the Jessop family and the Buxbaum family and so on, and there has not been in the past a program set up to do that.

It is a bit premature, until the honourable justice rules on what the venue will be, for us to have any notion of what the families' needs and wants might be in this respect, but we are working very closely with them. Both the police and the prosecutors have maintained close contact with both families, offering them what support we can and information as time goes along.

We regard them as we do other victims of crime. I think most people in this place would recognize that in these tragic circumstances, the families of the victims are indeed victims themselves. We have committed ourselves to doing everything within our power to assist them once we know what the venue is and what their needs and wants would be in that respect.

Mr Bradley: I am encouraged by the answer of both the Deputy Premier and the Attorney General that there are those discussions going on that would look at least to the possibility of covering some of those costs.

If I may be just a bit more specific, and I understand why the minister cannot at this time be as specific as she would like, would the minister when considering those costs take into account the cost of accommodation, the cost of transportation, the cost of meals, and a fourth one, which is the loss of wages for these people?

I know in at least the Frenches' case, both are working at this time. You would understand they've incurred a lot of costs that don't show up necessarily on the public ledger. As to the Mahaffys, I'm not certain of their employment situation. Would she consider the four things that I have mentioned as potential for some assistance from the government?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I don't think there's any doubt that compensation for lost wages is a much more difficult issue than out-of-pocket expenses. I think we all recognize that and I can't make a commitment on that at this point in time. I understand that my colleague had wondered aloud as to whether the criminal injuries compensation fund had any provision for that, and it does not.

So at this point in time I could not commit myself to that, except to say to the member that we certainly are aware of how the tragedy multiplies for families like this when costs and the cost of participating in this kind of trial continue to mount. We will certainly do what we can in conjunction with them to meet the needs and wants they identify, but I cannot commit to that at this particular point in time.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Attorney General. Yesterday, I raised with the Premier a court decision that will mean an individual charged with rape will never come to trial and justice will not be served because there was not a courtroom available. Attorney General, can you tell us today exactly how many cases currently in the system in fact could be thrown out due to delays on the same basis as the judgement that was used in this trial?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): The member should realize that there is an appeal process in these cases and should not make a statement quite as blunt as he did, that there is no hope this charge will come forward. The crown attorney for downtown Toronto has recommended that an appeal be launched by us. My expectation is that may happen, and if it does, it would be inappropriate for us to talk about that particular case.

I can give the member some information about the current backlogs and the kind of situation there is, and say to him initially that it is a very, very serious issue. As the member knows, when the Askov decision came down at the very beginning of our term, the backlogs that had grown up over many, many years in our courts were such that over 50,000 cases were lost as a result of that decision. The last four years have seen a really remarkable change in terms of how we are dealing with some of these issues.

The first thing the member needs to know is that we have fully implemented in the Toronto region, and are gradually implementing in the rest of the province, what we call an investment strategy, which focuses on the early screening, the disclosure and the resolution of cases. It's designed to reduce the delay and many of the costs that are related to the prosecution of criminal offenses. The delay in the provincial division right now is under six months. That's well within the Askov rule. The early resolution rate in Toronto has increased from 46% to 65% in the one year since this has been in place, and so there is no backlog at the provincial level.

At the General Division, though -- and Mr Speaker, this will take some time. The member asked for information that relies on --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. I appreciate that the minister has a great deal of detailed information. She should know that she also has an opportunity to table information if it is detailed and can't be contained in a concise reply to a member's question. I would ask her to try and conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, I will. I will give the brief information, though, because tabled information does not go to the public, and I think the member is concerned that the public get some of this information.

Seventy-five per cent of the General Division cases are less than a year old, again within the Askov rule. Another 25% are above, but in many cases there are relevant reasons why they are: the unavailability of counsel, a change in counsel, the unavailability of the witnesses. So we know that we are in a situation --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- where very few of these cases are in fact in danger, and where they are, we will do everything we can to expedite them.

1440

Mr Harris: There are ministerial statements or tabling information to be public. The fact of the matter is that we are interested in the information. Today, though, I was asking the question how many, and clearly you either don't know or won't tell us.

By way of supplementary, Attorney General, I want to tell you that I assume you're giving us the information laying out the seriousness of the situation and I sympathize with the mess you inherited from the Liberals. I understand that.

Hon Mrs Boyd: And you.

Mr Harris: But it has been four years -- 10 years since my party was in government -- since the Askov decision warned you that unacceptable delays would result in cases being thrown out of court. It has been over a year since the Martin report told you how to fix the system.

Attorney General, why have you not implemented the Martin report recommendations that would have fixed the problem? Clearly, those within the system and working within the system tell us that if they had been implemented, you would not have had this problem yesterday. You don't know how many other cases there are or you won't tell us, which was my first question, so an indeterminate number of cases. You've been sitting on that now for 15 months. That's when the report came out, August 1993. Why have you not implemented those recommendations of the Martin report that would have prevented this from happening and when are you going to get on with doing it?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is clearly mistaken. We have implemented the Martin commission. That's what the investment strategy is. We have increased the early resolution rate from 46% to 65% in Toronto since the introduction of the Martin commission recommendations. It is working.

Mr Harris: It didn't work yesterday and it's not working now. The other cases, that's what I'm asking about.

Hon Mrs Boyd: Indeed, there has been a 20% reduction in new indictments in the General Division. There are 4,455 criminal cases currently before the General Division and 89.4% of those are less than a year old.

Mr Harris: The Blue Jays aren't playing baseball. It has nothing to do with my question. None of your studies have anything to do with my question. Answer the question.

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

Hon Mrs Boyd: That is a remarkable record. We are working very hard with all parts of the judicial system and with the bench to ensure that we continue to improve. We are succeeding. We have implemented Martin and it is working.

Mr Harris: Why are you covering up the information?

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. For months, the Liberal Party has criticized this government for closing its international offices. I was interested to read recently in a Toronto Star article by Thomas Walkom that the Liberal leader was equivocating on whether in fact a Liberal government would reopen the offices. I guess that means they're finally agreeing with our course of action.

On this subject, I read a press release from your ministry on a further development in this area. Could you elaborate on how that announcement ties in with the closing of the international offices? I'm sure my colleagues across the floor would be interested.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I am assuming the member is referring to the press release last week that referred to the memorandum of understanding signed between the federal and provincial governments with respect to an era of much more cooperation between the two governments on our international trade strategy.

When we decided to close the international offices, I said at the time that we would be embarking on a new strategy and that it would involve working with people in a different way. You will know that we've brought about the private-public sector joint venture in the Ontario Investment Service; we have the Ontario International Trade Corp headed by former Premier Bill Davis -- the work it will be doing will be important -- and the special envoy program which we'll be rolling out later this month.

We talked about working with all sorts of organizations, whether they be the chambers of commerce, like the Japan-Canada Chamber of Commerce etc, to use those networks more effectively. We also talked about improving the way in which we work with the federal government.

This memorandum of understanding -- it might seem odd to the public that we would have to actually negotiate a memorandum between levels of government -- moves us to a point where we're coordinating our timing of planning strategy, our trade missions. We are coordinating that we do more export readiness and they do more of the foreign posts. I think it's actually a remarkable step for governments to reach this level of cooperation and I'm very pleased to have been part of that.

Mr Malkowski: Back to the international offices themselves and the ever-changing Liberal position, I read now that Lyn McLeod is not so sure she would reopen the offices, but rather she would consult with business to see what she should do. Minister, did you consult with business before embarking on this new trade and investment strategy?

Hon Ms Lankin: Yes. With respect to the whole strategy, we did. I want to say, specifically on the issue of the closure of the international trade offices, that we had extensive support in writing and verbally on the record from the Ontario chambers of commerce, the exporters' association, the manufacturers' association. They all supported that move and said this made sense, that we shouldn't have that kind of bricks-and-mortar representation, that there are better, more cost-effective ways of doing it.

I want to point out that we saved $17 million from our budget as a result of that move. That may be why the Liberal leader has changed her position. As I read in another article, while she's been slamming us around the province for months on this and saying that they would open it immediately, she's now saying that she actually wouldn't commit to it because it may not be "financially realistic." I thought that was kind of interesting.

I want to say that I appreciate the work I was able to do with Minister MacLaren and Minister Manley. Minister MacLaren has made comments that have been quoted in press releases about this kind of cooperation and building the Team Canada approach, his appreciation of it, and that he intends to work with other provincial governments to achieve similar arrangements. So I'm very pleased.

I'm not quite sure that I can explain to the member why the Liberal leader is changing her position on this or with respect to her target for unemployment or her target for deficit reduction. It really isn't something within my ability, to explain why the leader can change her position --

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

Hon Ms Lankin: -- on this, or on any other issue for that matter, which seems to be the regular course of matters for the Liberal leader these days.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, last month, I believe at the end of October, you were quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying: "I've come to the conclusion that we need school boards. The province is just too big to move every school to school-based management. Even so...there are too many school boards in the province, and that includes Metro Toronto."

Minister, since you made that statement we've learned from numerous people around the province in the education community that in fact you are working on a plan towards the amalgamation of school boards. What we would like to know is, is it your intention to introduce legislation regarding the amalgamation of school boards before the Christmas recess or are you intending to wait for the report of the Royal Commission on Learning? Could you share with us today what your plans are with respect to the amalgamation of school boards?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I believe tomorrow's the deadline for legislation and I guess we'll just have to wait, but it's highly unlikely that we'll be introducing legislation before the royal commission reports. Perhaps in your final question you could indicate what your position is. I know what the position of the Conservatives is. If we do bring in legislation, will we pass it very quickly in a reduction of the number of school boards? We could have all-party support.

Mr Beer: Interesting. One has to always remind the Minister of Education that he is now the government and supposedly we're going to learn from them what things they're going to do.

One of the problems, Minister, with this is that we now learn that the royal commission report won't be released until mid-January or late January. Perhaps when you get up to answer the supplementary you might confirm what the date is when that report will be released. Yet the minister knows there are many serious problems that are facing school boards, in particular the whole question of the reform of educational funding.

I understand that circulating within your ministry right now is a paper entitled Building on Progress, and in that document, which is supposed to be going to cabinet, if indeed it hasn't already been, you talk about appointing a task force to develop educational funding reforms for October 1, 1995.

Minister, we have been in this House for four years and more days, waiting for proposals on educational funding reform. At different times you've talked about perhaps draft legislation, at other times about white papers. Minister, what we need to know in this House is what you are planning to do specifically with respect to educational funding reform. Will you be making a statement on this issue before we rise at the Christmas recess?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, I wasn't really asking for the position of the Liberal caucus on the number of school boards for the purposes of deciding government policy. It just would be nice to know, at least in one area, what the Liberal position is. When we bring in legislation, we will want to know what your position is. If you want to do all-party support, we could move very --

Mr Beer: Present the legislation and we'll tell you.

1450

Hon Mr Cooke: Well, that's the other point with ed finance reform. We are working on some proposals, but it would be interesting to know where you stand, because when we've made changes at this point, changes to the grant ceilings or changes to the sharing of commercial-industrial assessment on one hand, you one day get up in the House and you encourage us to move forward with education finance reform. Then, when we make steps forward on it, you automatically raise all of the concerns of the boards that are losing some revenues in order to adequately share it.

You're constantly and always trying to have it both ways. That's the position of the Liberal party, always has been and does not contribute to fairness or progress in education at all.

Mr Beer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The minister, what he just stated, that is not correct. I have supported him on a series of issues that --

Hon Mr Cooke: Look in Hansard.

Mr Beer: Mr Speaker, the minister is wrong. Those remarks which are misleading --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. The honourable member for York-MacKenzie will know he does not have a point of order. There's obviously a difference of opinion.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question's for the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services. It concerns a report from the public institutions inspections panel of the county of Simcoe, which said it was "extremely pleased in general and pleasantly surprised that the provincial government has a productive self-sufficient institution incorporating the inmates as a workforce. We strongly feel that this facility be a model for other minimum institutions due to its cost-effectiveness, self-sufficiency, assistance to outside charitable organizations and the community at large and other government-run agencies."

Minister, why did you close down Camp Hillsdale?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I didn't hear the first part, but I think I have the gist of the question. If I've missed a piece of it, please reiterate in the supplementary. The question, as I understand it, is why did that particular facility close.

The honourable member will know that in the auditor's report of last year, which we took very seriously, as we did the auditor's report this year and are attempting very much to respond to the recommendations there, one of the things that needed to change in our correctional prison system is to be far more efficient, not just in terms of the individual facility but also in terms of the overall system that we have and to emphasize in the areas where we need to provide better service and more service and recognize that in other parts of the system we have room already in terms of capacity.

This is an absolute minimum security facility, or was. There were no fences, there was nothing there at all. Quite frankly, we had spaces in other parts of the system that would allow us to accommodate those individuals and we were able to save a fair amount of money in the system that the auditor has said needs to be run more efficiently and as efficiently as possible.

Mr McLean: It's unfortunate that you didn't read any reports because there's a report on institutional services from the standing committee on public accounts which shows Ontario had the highest staff-to-inmate ratio of all provinces studied. However, of the 51 Ontario institutions surveyed, Camp Hillsdale had the lowest staff ratio.

Surely the Minister of Correctional Services is aware of the Attorney General's recent comments about finding alternatives to imprisonment of non-violent offenders. The Attorney General said that, despite the 30% expansion since the mid-1980s, the Ontario prison system remained overcrowded because more than 75,000 people were sent to prisons last year; more than 80% of them were jailed for municipal and provincial offences.

Minister, you've closed down one of the most economical operating facilities in the province and left the most expensive ones open. This is the most reasonable and the cheapest one to operate. Why did you close it? When the Attorney General said that our prisons are too costly and crowded, why wouldn't you put them out in a farm such as this to save money for the people of this province?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I've attempted to respond to that, and let me say that I understand the honourable member's need to represent his community and certainly taking issue with this would be an important part of his local responsibilities; I understand that. But my responsibilities are to make sure that the taxpayer is getting the safest and most efficient system that we can provide.

The fact is that we have enough room elsewhere to provide this particular service. This is minimum security, as I've said. There are no fences, there's very little security there, and that is a particular part of our system where we have capacity elsewhere to put those individuals who need to be in an institution or, if there are alternative measures that can be applied to them, again since it's such a minimum security, it lends itself to those individuals who were there.

Again, to close, I understand the concern of the local community. It's not something that one likes to do, but the fact is that we need to run the safest, most efficient system we can and this decision is very much a part of that kind of thinking.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As you are aware, the Queen E is now being widened through the Niagara Peninsula. Construction will start in the Grimsby area next year, and the mayor of that town has led people to believe that the province should be paying for the construction of an adjacent service road. Will the Ministry of Transportation be constructing a south service road connecting through Grimsby as part of the Queen E widening project?

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): The south service road connection in Grimsby is not part of the QEW widening project. It serves a municipal function and serves mainly local traffic. The mayor and the council of Grimsby have been told many times that the Ontario government is not responsible for building this road.

I understand from previous conversations with the member for Lincoln that the local citizens are concerned about emergency traffic being diverted through the town. Our government is receptive to their concerns, and I can assure the member for Lincoln that the improvements to the QEW -- the addition of lanes, the construction of median barriers and better lighting -- will make it a safer road and will allow traffic to move more freely through Grimsby. Indeed, there is a north service road to handle emergency traffic if necessary.

Also, by widening the QEW using a total project management approach, we will get it completed three years ahead of schedule and create 1,100 full-time jobs for the local construction community.

Mr Hansen: Can the minister advise this House and my constituency of what kind of assistance he can provide to help the town get this road built?

Hon Mr Farnan: In 1992, my ministry funded 75% of the cost of a transportation study for Grimsby that included the south service road extension. The report concluded that the connection was needed, but it also concluded that it would serve a local function only. My ministry has offered to help the town of Grimsby pay for an environmental assessment plan for the road if they choose to build it. I think the member can go back to his community and say yes, my ministry will be prepared to put dollars forward for an environmental assessment plan.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, and the members of the House will be aware of the considerable difference in gas pricing in terms of northern and southern Ontario. We have the new minister actually on record, as have been many of his cabinet colleagues, saying that, yes, this is a problem in the province of Ontario and, yes, we must fix it.

Let me remind the minister of his comments in Sudbury just back in 1991 when he said: "Above all, what I would like to see is the assurance that I am being treated fairly in terms of gas prices. What I want as a consumer and for the people I represent is that I get a fair shake for my hard-earned dollar."

As the new advocate for the people of northern Ontario at the cabinet table, I'm very interested in what you are doing as that advocate and what measures you are taking to address this problem.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): The member opposite knows full well that the Liberals in Ottawa, that the federal government has indeed a direct relationship and a responsibility regarding the cost of gasoline and its discrepancies -- fairness across Ontario.

1500

The member took a great deal of pride in reminding me of my responsibility to protect the interests of the consumers in northern Ontario in 1990, and he could have gone back since 1985. But let's reminisce.

In the year of our Lord 1987, the then Minister of Finance, the Treasurer of Ontario, sitting where the legendary Floyd Laughren is sitting, the very seat, in answer to a question posed by the member for Lake Nipigon vis-à-vis the discrepancy between the riding of Lake Nipigon and the boys at Earl's Shell, a 15-cents-a-litre difference, and the Treasurer tells me then, "You are being ripped off."

That's what he said. It's a federal responsibility; we know of the discrepancy. It's a little better, not as bad as it was under that regime. We will work with our federal counterpart, investigate the matter. We are doing that. We will get it rectified but we need the Liberals in Ottawa to help us.

Mr Miclash: The minister has just indicated that the problem is better and I indicate to the minister at this point that we have as much as a 20-cents-a-litre difference today, and this is you and your government giving a commitment to the people of northern Ontario back in 1990. We were given that commitment during the campaign in 1990.

Mr Minister, I have had thousands of people sign petitions which indicate that they want you to follow through on the commitment that was made, again a commitment made during the campaign of 1990. These petitions have come in to your members in northern Ontario; they have flooded my office; as well, I have a good number of resolutions from communities in your riding, communities that say, "Yes, we must have equalization of gas pricing, as the NDP promised during the 1990 campaign."

Minister, again I ask you as the advocate for people in northern Ontario, what you are doing to ensure that this issue is at the cabinet table?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right and the question is most legitimate and I thank the member, so therefore he shall recall, and vividly he should, that in 1991 this government eliminated the sticker fee, the registration fee. It saved the residents of the north $90. You could have said yes, you could have done it. We've been asking for it for decades. We did it.

There are 490,000 registered cars; supplementary to it of course, the recreation vehicles in the province of Ontario. We're acting on it. We're doing the best we can.

We want to make railroads more competitive. We don't want to rip up the track like Jean Chrétien and the chairman of CNR. What's good for CN-CP, what's good for the gas company first and foremost must be reflected because it is good for the consumers in the province of Ontario in our special part, northern Ontario. We're doing all we can. We're acting on it, but we need cooperation from the feds.

PETITIONS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition here, Mr Speaker, that the residents want you to take very seriously, and it reads:

"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 psychiatric care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas the nearby community could be assessed and treated differently; and

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

"We, the undersigned residents, therefore petition the Parliament of Ontario and the NDP government 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 have affixed my signature to this document.

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has given second reading to Bill 173, An Act respecting Long-Term Care, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;

"Whereas seniors and the disabled community are entitled to accessible community-based care;

"Whereas we do not believe that Bill 173 will provide more cost-effective and accessible care;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe the government of Ontario must recognize and value the work of volunteers in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure that amendments are made to Bill 173 to allow for provision of community care based on the needs of the local communities in Ontario and acknowledge the role of volunteers in the delivery of care."

That is signed by several members of People First in Burlington. Both Rosalynn Kitchen and Marilyn Heintz are present in the chamber this afternoon. They signed this petition. It also has my signature of support.

SICKLE CELL ANAEMIA

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition about a rather unrecognized medical condition:

"Whereas sickle cell anaemia is a serious medical condition with 10% of the population of African origin carrying the gene; and

"Controlled studies show a significant reduction in the number of childhood deaths by long-term treatment with penicillin to such a degree that it must be considered an essential drug;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services to ensure free provision of the drug to all affected children."

I am signing my name to that.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I have a petition here signed by some 1,000 people to the Parliament of Ontario. It reads:

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

"We are pleased to provide support to Parents for Giant Steps Toronto. This project is an initiative of parents of children whose needs cannot be met through existing programs. These children require comprehensive and focused therapeutic and special education intervention to address underlying neurological dysfunctions in order to progress academically and in their ability to function in their communities. The Giant Steps model is well-organized, offers a complete range of therapeutic services that addresses the child's needs as a whole and provides value for money. The model has been in operation since 1981 and has been replicated in five very different jurisdictions.

"We urge the provincial government to build bridges for these families between ministries and departments and support the proposal by Parents for Giant Steps Toronto."

I have signed my name to that petition.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas in 1923, seven Ontario bands signed the Williams Treaty, which guaranteed that native peoples would fish and hunt according to provincial and federal conservation laws, like everyone else; and

"Whereas the bands were paid the 1993 equivalent of $20 million; and

"Whereas that treaty was upheld by Ontario's highest court last year; and

"Whereas Bob Rae has not enforced existing laws which prohibit native peoples from hunting and fishing out of season; and

"Whereas this will put at risk an already pressured part of Ontario's natural environment;

"We, the undersigned, adamantly demand that the government honour the principles of fish and wildlife conservation, to respect their native and non-native ancestors and to respect the Williams Treaty."

I've signed my name to that. That petition is from Petrolia, Wyoming and Sarnia.

CHARLOTTE ELEANOR ENGLEHART HOSPITAL

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition from members of my riding to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I present the following petition from the residents of Lambton county:

"Whereas the residents feel that it would be an injustice to the Lambton county area to consider closing the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital in the town of Petrolia. The hospital provides an essential service and support relied on by the community not only for emergencies but for continual health care."

I have affixed my signature to this petition, as I agree with it.

1510

LONG-TERM-CARE REFORM

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

"Whereas we are extremely upset that Bill 173 will result in less client service, a more costly service system and a decrease in volunteers in the long-term-care system;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that the Minister of Health amend Bill 173 to correct these flaws."

That petition is signed by almost 200 of my constituents, and by me.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition signed by several hundred residents of my riding:

"Whereas the provincial government has recently slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country; and

"Whereas this reduction in coverage will affect all Ontarians but will have the greatest impact upon our seniors, many of whom travel south of the border for important care health reasons and who will be forced to absorb a tremendous hike to their health insurance premiums; and

"Whereas the government has justified its decision on the basis of not wanting to pay exorbitant hospital costs, even though, currently, out-of-country hospital coverage is based solely on the rates charged by Ontario hospitals; and

"Whereas the reduction in out-of-country hospitalization coverage below the rates charged by Ontario hospitals represents an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, under the leadership of Mike Harris, makes the preservation of medicare a priority in its Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"Therefore, we petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair and just manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and to immediately restore out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

I'm affixing my signature in support.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions:

"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 costs 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 of Ontario 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."

This is signed by many members of my constituency, particularly from Kagawong and Gore Bay.

DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas Christopher Higginbottom is a known homosexual paedophile who has been released into the Burlington community even though he was diagnosed by medical experts as remaining highly at risk of reoffending; and

"Whereas Higginbottom was acquitted of another sexual assault involving a child on the basis of an inappropriate and unjustified conclusion drawn by the trial judge in relation to the evidence of the victim, all of which are unjustified in law; and

"Whereas in rendering the decision to acquit Higginbottom the fact of his breach of probation and the long history of his past sex attacks on children was not adequately taken into account by the judge;

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

"That Attorney General Marion Boyd undertake an appeal of this case and that she pursue amendments to the Mental Health Act of Ontario and/or support federal high-risk offender legislation to prevent the release of offenders such as Higginbottom into the community, and that the government of Ontario undertake to entrench within law a bill of rights for victims of crime."

This has my signature of support as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Petitions? Reports by committees.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Petition.

The Deputy Speaker: I had asked for petitions. If you have a petition, the member for St Catharines, please go ahead.

Mr Bradley: No, that's okay. I don't want to upset things in the House.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck 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 Pr129, An Act respecting the Ontario Professional Planners Institute

Bill Pr135, An Act to revive Durham Regional Police Association Inc.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr51, An Act respecting the City of Windsor and the Will of Edmund Anderson Cleary

Bill Pr132, An Act respecting the Township of East Luther and the Village of Grand Valley.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Marchese from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee recommends that Bill 56, An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario, be not reported.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE

Mr Laughren moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 197, An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 197, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): The Assessment Amendment Act, 1994, will enable the government to put into effect a consensus solution that has been reached to relieve property taxes on small retail stores in Metro Toronto shopping malls. To protect smaller retailers and save jobs, the agreement will shift approximately $8 million in property taxes from the smaller stores to the larger anchor stores.

The bill will amend the Assessment Act to allow the Minister of Finance to file a regulation prior to roll return. The regulation will apportion the shopping mall assessments to increase taxes for anchor stores by $8 million and reduce taxes for the smaller stores by the same amount pending reassessment.

SARNIA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

Mrs MacKinnon moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr139, An Act respecting the Sarnia Community Foundation.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CITY OF LONDON BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

Mr Winninger moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr151, An Act respecting the Board of Education for the City of London.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

SIMCOE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ACT, 1994

Mr O'Connor, on behalf of Mr Wessenger, moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr153, An Act respecting the Simcoe County Board of Education.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, we'll be working our way through three orders today, and obviously I can't predict precisely how far we will get. But the orders I'll be dealing with today are the 37th order, the ninth order and the 38th order. The ninth order will be for committee of the whole House on Bill 175. I have some agreements with the other House leaders that I have to raise before we start that process.

Firstly, on the ninth order, for committee of the whole House on Bill 175, we have agreed, and I seek the consent of the House, to see any votes that are required in that committee stacked until the end of committee of the whole.

Secondly, there has been an agreement in the subcommittee of the finance and economic affairs committee that should we finish the 38th order either today or sometime between now and Thursday, December 1, the bill will be referred out to the finance and economic affairs committee for one day of hearings on December 1. I seek the agreement of the House on those matters.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it agreed? Agreed.

BUSINESS REGULATION REFORM ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 PORTANT RÉFORME DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES ENTREPRISES

Resuming the adjourned debate on Bill 187, An Act to reform the Law regulating Businesses / Projet de loi 187, Loi portant réforme du droit réglementant les entreprises.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe that the last time the member for Dufferin-Peel had the floor.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 187, which is put forward by the minister. It's called Clearing the Path legislation and it's designed, I suppose, to be a plank in this government's platform, which is going to say, "We have cleared up bureaucracy." In fact when introducing the bill the minister actually said that this bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business.

I must say anyone in this House obviously encourages any government reducing red tape, reducing bureaucracy, but I have to say that watching what this government has done in the last four years and some-odd months, and the bureaucracy that has been created, I'm rather cynical. The names that are thought up for these pieces of legislation -- Clearing the Path suggests that all the red tape is going to be cleared up.

I recall another word that was used, I think it was in the insurance legislation -- I could have the wrong number -- Bill 164, the NDP's answer to auto insurance. I think that was called The Road Ahead. When you look at that legislation, the insurance companies are just going berserk trying to figure out whether they can pay all the benefits that are being charged as a result of this legislation without increasing the rates unbelievably.

That was called The Road Ahead, that piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is called Clearing the Path. It's like the road's already been cluttered. I don't want to play games with names, but I sometimes think that's what the government's doing when they create these wonderful names as to their pieces of legislation. It's almost designed to say, "How can you not support this legislation," and of course we all support removing red tape from bureaucracy.

But I will just remember that the minister, the House leader, was in charge of bringing forward the auto insurance legislation and the problems that have been created. All you have to do is ask anyone. Ask your neighbour next to you how their insurance premiums are going and they'll tell you their rates are going up and up and up. That was the answer why that legislation was brought forward. That legislation was brought forward to stop the increasing premiums.

It started back with the Liberal government and its Ontario motorist protection plan legislation, OMPP, and of course we watched how the Conservative Party and the NDP, when they were in opposition, fought that legislation. But all they've done with that legislation, that Bill 164 legislation, is create unbelievable bureaucracy and a myriad of regulations that a lot of people have trouble understanding.

An interesting document was put out by the government, Clearing the Path for Business Success. It really explains some of the things that are being done. It talks about, and I mentioned it in one of my responses to one of the previous speakers, some of the things that are being introduced to assist people in understanding this legislation. Remember what this legislation is for: This legislation is to stop bureaucracy.

I think someone has mentioned four forms are going to be eliminated or consolidated into one form, although I can hardly wait to see the size and the length and the complication of this new form. Who knows what it's going to look like and who knows how complicated it is. It may well be brief, and I hope it is, but I have my doubts.

As I explained in one of the responses I made to one of the earlier speakers, this document has just been put out by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations talks about some of the things that they're using, some of the tools that they're using, to help members of the public understand this legislation.

It talks about kits that have been prepared by the government -- I have no idea at what cost or how many bureaucrats it took to prepare them -- which include existing registration forms and provide general information about registering business names and for retail sales tax, employer health tax and workers' compensation. I assume those are the four forms that this legislation is designed to improve. Our party, of course, will be doing away with the health tax, so you won't need that anyway.

But then they say they're going to talk about a pamphlet. They're going to have a kit, and then they're going to have a pamphlet that's going to describe the kit, which is going to tell you how to understand the kit. Remember what we're talking about. We're talking about eliminating bureaucracy. So this pamphlet which is going to describe this kit also tells you how to get one, how to get this kit. They say it's now available for general distribution. It'll be available at constituency offices, government offices and business self-help offices.

Then it comes out with another thing. They say they're going to have a telephone line. They're going to have a help line where you can call to explain the pamphlet which explains the kit. So they're obviously anticipating -- if someone has seen this form, I'd love to see it. I've never seen it. Has anyone over there seen it? I'll bet not. But I'm anticipating it's going to be very complicated. Otherwise, why are we going through kits and pamphlets and help lines and self-help offices where work stations are going to be located?

This document, again which is prepared by the ministry, says the kit includes a covering letter describing this package. It talks about qualifying questions to aid clients in determining which forms are to be completed, an explanation of the registration process for each program area. This makes me dizzy just reading it, and yet what the legislation is designed to do is to simplify.

So I must say I'm terribly cynical about this legislation as to whether it's really going to solve the bureaucracy that has been created, and I don't care who it was created by. Whether it was created by the New Democratic government, the Liberal government or the Conservative government, there's no question the bureaucracy and the forms have to end, and many of the taxes have to end. Much of the taxation has to end, because it's the taxation that has created these forms.

You have to fill out all these funny forms. I know many offices in my riding hire people. They haven't got the time, and in many cases they haven't got the ability, to complete these myriad forms, so they actually hire people. Now, they do other things, but one of their job descriptions is to complete these many forms.

It's not just this government that's at fault for that. There's no question the government has forms as well. But I guess that's what our society is doing, so on the one hand I compliment the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations for at least making an attempt, but if she and other members of her party are going to come forward and say during the next election, "We reduced bureaucracy," I can tell you I am not going to accept that line if that indeed is what's going to be used.

I get cynical as well. Everything it seems that this government has done in the last four years -- I know they honestly believe that some of the things they have done have been good things, that they help people, whether you're talking employment equity, whether you're talking advocacy -- every piece of legislation has a commission. The employment equity legislation has an Employment Equity Commissioner. The advocacy legislation has a commissioner, and of course that was very controversial. Mr Reville, I think, is the head of that now and it was very controversial in his appointment -- but the bureaucracy that goes with these things.

Again, I remind the government that they have now an opportunity to eliminate bureaucracy, and I think it has gotten so bad, the bureaucracy of this province, that no one knows what to do. The very fact that we have to hire people to complete forms is unbelievable.

1530

When you start talking about the Advocacy Commission, which was established by Bill 174, and all the criticisms of that bill -- I know I'm getting a little bit off topic when I start talking about advocacy commissions, but we're talking about bureaucracy. We're talking about advocates, which the advocacy legislation created, and in many cases people don't know what to do. They don't even know what an advocate is. The legislation doesn't make any mention as to who or what an advocate should be. It doesn't offer any guidelines as to the types of qualifications that an advocate should have or the levels of training that should be required. Again, we're creating bureaucracies with all of these things, and yet we come along with Bill 187 and the minister in her opening statement says, "This bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business."

I hope you can see why I'm cynical of it, because I don't understand, particularly with these bureaucracies that have been created. The Advocacy Commission: I've no idea what it costs. I'm sure it came out in the hearings what it's anticipated it's going to cost and the complications that are going to be involved, the forms that are going to be involved, the regulations that are going to be involved for the average person to deal with these things, particularly when we're talking about advocates and we don't even know what an advocate is.

You know, there is a candidate who told the committee that heard this legislation that she believed it was appropriate for an advocate to offer advice to a mentally challenged pregnant woman on whether to carry her child to term or discontinue her pregnancy, even though the advocate was an active member of the pro-choice or pro-life movement. So you question the ability of any individual to advise objectively when their own personal values are involved.

What I'm saying is that we're very critical of these pieces of legislation that have been introduced gradually in the last four years plus so many months, because of the bureaucracy, because of the weight of the debt that has been impacted. Will these things work? Will these bureaucracies work?

The advocacy legislation, for example: There are over 100,000 people in Ontario in rest homes alone and there are over 220 hospitals across the province. There are only going to be 150 advocates, assuming we know what they are, paid for by the taxpayer. I guess the question is whether it's even possible to handle this bureaucracy. We create this bureaucracy and then we come along with Bill 187 and say, "Look what we're doing to solve the bureaucracy of this province."

I attended some of the hearings with the Employment Equity Commission, and one of the big concerns was that the Human Rights Commission doesn't handle, can't handle, all of its cases, that they're bogged down for something like over a year before any case is heard.

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, just a small point of order: I'm wondering if the member would like to stick to Bill 187, as opposed to reaching beyond into other areas that in fact are not in the ambit of the bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for kindly helping the Chair. The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: I know what you're saying when you say, "Are these topics of commissions relevant?" I get concerned when your minister stands in her place and says, "This bill reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape in this province." I'm only saying the obvious. I'm listing off some of the commissions and some of the bureaucracies that you've created, and I'm saying that the bureaucracies and the red tape that you've created for the people of this province simply are unbelievable.

I'm terribly cynical of this piece of legislation. I suspect the bill is going to carry. I suspect that you're going to get support from all three parties, but I can tell you that we're cynical when we listen to you give the implication that you're solving the red tape.

I can't let go by another commission that was created.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): What happened after 42 years?

Mr Tilson: Well, you know, the good old line of what happened after 42 years: I'll tell you what happened after 42 years. This government has created more red tape and more bureaucracy and more commissions than have ever been heard of in this province, all in the short space of four years. We're overwhelmed with bureaucracy. We're overwhelmed with red tape. So don't try and tell me what's been going on after 42 years. I'm telling you what's been going on after four years and the red tape that you've created.

I can't let it go by without talking about the red tape that was created with the Environmental Bill of Rights. Everybody supports the principle of the Environmental Bill of Rights, except it's creating a bureaucracy that we can't afford. The minimum estimate that it was going to cost for that bureaucracy is $4.5 million.

I guess the principle of that piece of legislation is that you have an office called the Office of the Environmental Commissioner, and I'm not questioning the ability --

Ms Haeck: Mr Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order? When you stand up, you have to say "On a point of order," otherwise I don't know why you're getting up.

Ms Haeck: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I'm sorry; I don't do these very often. But I have been paying attention to what the member has been saying and I really would be interested in his remarks on Bill 187 since I know that he probably has some good things to say, but up until this point he's been a little wide in his smart remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: It's been quite a habit recently for members not to address themselves to -- and I'm sorry to say that all members were guilty of that. I would like to remind the member for Dufferin-Peel just to debate Bill 187.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I am trying to do that and I feel I have the right to refer to other examples of bureaucracy. When you read Bill 187, it talks about what the purpose of the bill is. The purpose of this is set out in section 1 of Bill 187 and it talks about, "The purpose of this act is to assist the formation and operation of businesses in Ontario by simplifying government regulatory requirements and eliminating duplication in procedures and improving government organizational arrangements." That's the purpose of the bill.

I have every right, Mr Speaker, to stand in my place and talk about the massive bureaucracy that's been created by this government in a very short period of time with unheard-of commissions that are doing absolutely nothing; most unsatisfactory results. So I have every right to say that, Mr Speaker. I know that I am not referring to specific sections and it may be at another time we'll get into going through clause-by-clause debate of this, but when this bill talks about, "That's the purpose of this piece of legislation," I have every right in this world to show how this government has, in the last four years, created all this bureaucracy and then they have the nerve to come into this place and say, "We've solved the bureaucracy."

Can you imagine it? Can you imagine at the next election campaign they're going to stand on the campaign hustings, they're going to wave Bill 187 in our faces and they're going to say: "We solved the bureaucracy of this province. There's no more bureaucracy. We've made major cuts with respect to the red tape"?

I say to you, Mr Speaker and all members of this House, that is not what has happened. In fact, we've gone the other way. With all the many, many commissions that have been created, and it's most relevant for me to list -- I know the government doesn't like to hear that. I know they don't like to hear about the bureaucracies that they've created. They can't pass a piece of legislation in this place without creating yet another bureaucracy, yet another commission that's doing who knows what.

1540

The most amazing thing happened to me with the creation of the environmental commission with respect to environmental rights. It was supposed to deal with environmental problems that different ministries are not following. It's supposed to deal with cutting back on bureaucracy. It's supposed to do with solving environmental issues or assisting in drawing to people's attention environmental problems in this province.

When the bill was passed, myself and Mrs Marland, the member for Mississauga South, or wherever she's from --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Go easy on Margaret. Get it right.

Mr Tilson: I will. You're right; I should look it up.

Mrs Marland -- and everyone knows who Mrs Marland is -- we wrote a letter to the Environmental Commissioner expressing our concern with this wonderful Flying Toad co-op on the Toronto Islands. We were concerned with the environmental issues that were being created and the bureaucracy that's being created at that particular site.

The Office of the Environmental Commissioner wrote me back a letter in response to our letter -- and this is a group that's trying to solve bureaucracy in all environmental issues and other matters -- saying:

"The commissioner has completed a review of Bill 61 and the consequent expansion of housing on the Toronto Islands. The information and documentation available indicates that the proposal to develop cooperative housing on Toronto Islands is within the jurisdiction of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust Corp and is mandated by Bill 61." Well, I knew that.

"Pursuant to section 61(1) of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993, and Ontario regulation 73/94, a request for a review" -- and this is the request that Mrs Marland and I made -- "of the Toronto Islands Residential Community Stewardship Act may not be considered until April 1, 1998." That's when they're going to look at it.

The building's going to be up and who knows if the problems are going to be solved. All we're trying to do is to ask the Environmental Commissioner's office to deal with matters that we feel are inappropriately taken by the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and that's the earliest that she can look at it.

This is a commission that is supposed to cut through the red tape of other ministries. That was the very first thing I saw when this bill came forward: this letter. This is a prime example of unbelievable bureaucracy. The building will be up, the people will be living in it before the Environmental Commissioner can look at it and determine whether or not our charges are well-founded.

I'll tell you, if that's an example of what the commissioner's office is going to be doing, then the whole thing is a farce, the whole environmental commission is a farce.

Look at other pieces. Look at the Human Rights Commission and, yes, that was not created by this government, but there's no question there are a lot of problems with it. Why don't they cut down some of the red tape there? Why are they talking about unifying some four forms? Why don't they cut down on some of the red tape there? There are very serious human rights problems in this province in that this government doesn't appear to be doing it.

Of course, then we get into conflict of interest, and the scads of bureaucracy that's created with that. I think we shake our heads even when decisions are made. We had the former Minister of Mines charged and convicted, essentially, by the conflict commissioner of violating the rules. Yet nothing happened. You have all these rules, you create all these commissions, you create all these bureaucracies, they cost zillions of dollars and nothing happens. Then we come out with this bill which was introduced November 3 and we listened to the minister say, "Oh, this reflects the government's commitment to cutting red tape for business."

It says that the purpose of the bill is to simplify government processes for starting and operating businesses. Bill 187 allows the Lieutenant Governor to designate any act for the purpose of the bill and so on, pretty boring stuff. As I say, I'm sure most members of the House will support it, notwithstanding the fact, I hope, that they're not taking four forms and reducing it to one form which will be unbelievably complicated. If someone has that form over there, I'd love to see it, because I'm very suspicious that it will be even more complicated than the previous forms.

I look at some of the forms that are being created. One of the forms I gather that this government's going to deal with in this piece of legislation is the change-of-name form, or the registration of a business name. Look at some of the forms that exist for corporations. It used to be, I thought, fairly simple. I mean, there's no question that the public is entitled to know who the directors of a corporation are and who the officers are and their addresses and when they became directors and when they resigned; that's all standard stuff. It used to be in a very simplified form. Now, of course, you look at it and it's rather complicated. It is, if you have to look at it. It was just changed fairly recently.

Of course, I guess you have to justify charging $75. The minister stood in her place and made some comments when this matter was last debated in the House, talking about the $75 that's charged as the annual fee. She said, "The reason why we're doing it is because everybody else does it." It seems that at that very time the forms started to get more complicated. In other words, I guess if you make things complicated, that's going to cost money.

We're talking about doing business in this province; we're talking about surviving in this province. I'm sure someone over there's going to stand up and list off all the many businesses that have started, but I can tell you, in my own riding of Dufferin-Peel, I have had individuals come to me and say: "Listen, I have been approached by some of the southern states. I've been approached by the governments in North Carolina and Tennessee and some of these other governments. They don't have all this stuff. In fact, they encourage us to operate. They really do."

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: Well, they do, they encourage, and companies are going down there. They're leaving this province with all the jobs that did exist here and they're going to those places. Why are they going down there? Because of the tax structure, because of the union laws, because of less bureaucracy, because it's much simpler to operate in those states.

I know -- I will guarantee -- that in some two-minute response or at another time, members of the government are going to stand up and list companies. I can't believe that you don't have people in your own ridings where you've experienced that, where they have told you that they're going to other jurisdictions because of all of this stuff. So here we are with Bill 187, and it's supposed to be the saviour of bureaucracy.

I stand here. I'm terribly cynical when I look at the forms. I understand that there are in excess of 43,000 forms that the government requires to be filed every year, 43,000 forms in different aspects throughout our society that have to be completed by the citizens of this province every year, and this bill is going to do away with four of them. In fact, they're going to make one out of four, and it'll probably be a very complicated form.

I give a slight pat on the back to the minister, but you can do much better. I'd get the member standing up in her place criticizing me for getting off topic listing all the bureaucracy that's been created, but I get annoyed when you stand and you say: "This is what we're doing. This is how we're solving the bureaucracy of this place."

As I say, I support the principle of the legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to move towards a single form for registration in businesses, reducing some four forms to one.

The bill won't reduce taxes, the bill won't reduce the regulatory burden, but it purports to reduce the compliance burden. I think as well, for example, that the number of dates is being diminished. Some members are right: There are some positive aspects to this bill. But it's not close enough to saying that we're solving the problem, that -- what were the minister's words? -- "It reflects the government's commitment to cutting the red tape."

The government states that Clearing the Path initiatives will help business in Ontario, but at the same time we have to remember the punitive tax measures that the NDP deal in, such as the $75 corporate tax filing fee which the minister referred to in her remarks the day before yesterday. Almost every step they take in improving the situation is a negligible one.

1550

Mr Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make my remarks today. There are other things we could talk about with respect to the bureaucracy. We could talk about Jobs Ontario. That's another plank that I know the government's going to be talking about. They're going to say, "Look at all the jobs we've created." Everyone stands up and says that. All the ministers stand up. Everything is Jobs Ontario. I had a museum in my riding that was built under Jobs Ontario. It's a magnificent museum, I might add. It's in the county of Dufferin. But I get cynical when they say it's solving Jobs Ontario.

Just remember when you're talking about these wonderful bureaucracies that you're creating, read the Provincial Auditor's report as an example and look at the unbelievable waste that you've created, the very fact that the administration, the bureaucracy, costs something like $70 million.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was intrigued with the member's reference, because it's an appropriate one, to the corporate filing fee. Many people have written to us, many people have called our constituency offices to complain about the corporate filing fee and the fact that it's an imposition on business.

The people from various organizations which are non-profit have also been concerned that they would be faced with this charge. They got letters saying they would be out of business, and I'm pleased that you did raise that. I wish I could say more but --

Mr Jamison: Good water.

Mr Bradley: Good water is all that will keep me going in this case.

The member has also appropriately pointed out that this is a very small step forward, not a major step forward, in dealing with the problems of business. I know he would probably have received the same kind of representations from people who own car repair shops who would have new forms being presented to the car repair shop. These new forms are rather interesting, because the only significant difference appears to be the colour of the forms and the cost of those forms.

I spoke to an individual who runs an auto shop in St Catharines where I take my car once in a while to get it maintained and fixed and I must say he made a very good point. He's not a person who complains that much about government. He's pretty even-handed and understands, but one of the things he mentioned was the fact that governments keep hitting him with new forms and new costs for these forms. If that were part of this legislation, it would be even more supportable than it is at the present time, where I understand all parties will be approving this small step for humanity.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I appreciate the member's support for this bill. He recognizes that this is something business does look forward to, streamlining the operations of government. We appreciate his support on that.

The point I wanted to comment on was that he made a point of saying that businesses were leaving Ontario and moving to the southern United States and other jurisdictions. I wanted the member to know that in the last year, in the food industry, only California had more investment in the food industry than Ontario. So in terms of North America, all jurisdictions, there was more investment in the food industry in this province than there was in any other jurisdiction except California.

While we hear about some of the high-profile closures of plants that have happened, in the main because of the Mulroney agenda that we've had to endure, business does come to Ontario. It has faith in the economy, in the well-trained workers, the education we have in this province, the health care programs we have. These are all attractive to investors in the food industry. I wanted the member to know that, and I'm sure he'd appreciate putting that into the next speech he gives when he talks about business investing here in Ontario.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Thank you for this short opportunity to address some of the comments that were made. I agree that it is a small step. I don't think that anybody in this place is deluding themselves into believing that somehow in doing this it is going to be a major breakthrough for business. But I would venture to say that it is a small step in a series of small steps, and some of them not so small, that have been taken by this government to assist business, because many here will recognize and know that free trade has put an unbelievable pressure on many of our businesses, quite frankly, and many of our businesses weren't fully prepared for the pressures that single act would bring to bear on their activities.

What this government has done in response to many of those pressures and to many of those needs is that we have lowered the small business tax rate. We did that. We did that several budgets ago, and I think that went a long way to assisting many businesses.

For many businesses in the Metropolitan Toronto area, where business has probably been hurt the worst, we removed the commercial concentration tax. For many people out there who do not know, that was a Liberal tax imposed on businesses, on business activities, to the tune of $1 for every square foot of space that they occupied. It was like a property tax. You occupy 10,000 square feet of space, you pay $10,000 in commercial concentration tax per year. That was unbearable, and we got rid of that, we removed that.

We have introduced basically a moratorium for businesses as it relates to the employer health tax for new hirees. That is a substantial step as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Any further questions or comments? The member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes.

Mr Tilson: There was a movie out several years ago where some character, I think it was Bill Murray, talked about baby steps. You all remember the baby steps. This is a baby step. The member for Downsview acknowledges that it's a baby step. I'm simply saying it should be a giant step.

We all acknowledge that the bureaucracy in this province has got out of hand, and yes, it probably got out of hand by a series of governments, and yes, I'm not going to heap the blame all on your government. I'm going to heap a lot of it, but I'm not going to heap all of it. All I'm saying is that you've got an opportunity. You are in government. I don't think you're going to be in much longer; you may think you're in for another term. But the fact of the matter is that you've been here four years. You've got an opportunity to do major things. I'm simply saying that baby steps are not enough.

With respect to the corporate filing fee, I think the member for St Catharines raised the issue of the corporate filing fee and even the minister couldn't resist talking about how it was needed in this province. I'm telling you it's not needed in this province. We all, members of this House from all sides, have received letters and telephone calls and petitions criticizing this unneeded and unwanted tax when the only justification that it has is because everybody else is doing it. Well, I'm saying if everybody else is doing it, why don't you be different, why don't you do something different in this country?

The bond raters are very concerned. They're very concerned about this province, and yes, they're very concerned about the federal government, and I'm sure you're going to talk about some previous government that caused problems there. The fact of the matter is the debt in this province has reached unbelievable stages. I think we're paying $1 billion a month on interest alone with respect to the debt in this province. So we have to look at lowering the taxes and we have to look at reducing the bureaucracy in this province, and this bill is not enough.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's a pleasure to join in this debate, and let me say at the outset that any move, as small as it may be, is welcomed by our party. Business itself has enough difficulties just riding out of a recession, a very serious recession; in fact, I'd call it a depression. Probably the only reason we weren't jumping out of windows as they did in the 1930s was that we were wise enough as Canadians to build in a social safety net that protected people.

But in reality Canada and Ontario have been slow to come out of it, basically because every time the US burps or the yen goes up or down, our foreign debt, so much of that foreign debt being out there, is in fact a burden on us. As I say, this party certainly welcomes the small steps that are being taken by the government with reference to this.

Having said that, perhaps I should let the other shoe drop. We have been into computers and electronic mailing and so on; it's become the order of the day. In fact, most of us will probably be very disturbed when we call somebody up and we get what they call "voice mail" at the other end. I've spoken some days to at least 25 voice mails and never talked to a human being. With this technology that we have, it's interesting that it's only at this stage of the game that this small step is taken by the NDP government. One has to say to oneself -- applaud them for it, yes, but wonder whether this is "clearing the path" for business, or is it "clearing the path" for an election?

1600

We've had untold numbers of bills that have come through this House. We've had untold comments from people out in the business community and also in the not-business community stating that some of the legislation -- much of the legislation -- that's been brought during the term of this government has in fact been an interferent or an irritant to business.

I have to applaud the business community and I have to applaud other citizens of this province that they've been able to survive even though they were carrying the weight of a depression on their backs, that they were able to survive despite the fact that this legislation interfered to a large degree with their life, their business, the way they could carry on their lives in this province, that they have successfully weathered the storm.

I tell them that they won't have to wait much longer, because I suspect that the plug will be pulled very shortly. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't just a throne speech in the spring, maybe a few days of trying to gussy up the facts in that throne speech, promising everything from soup to nuts, and then suddenly we will all disappear and we'll go out and nail up signs and this government will ask to be reinstated.

They will then try to use Bill 187 as one of the small indicia of how they have tried to clear the path for business. I would say that although, as I started, we applaud this small step, that small step will be recognized by business as the fact that it is a small step and that it's probably one of the first small steps that have been carried out by this government.

As an interesting sideline, I understand that this is just tinkering at the edges. They've really not gotten into the way that one could solve the difficulties that not just business but even the average Ontarian has in terms of dealing with his or her government.

Let's take for example the question of, even though computers are in existence, we must have either the worst computers in the world or the most outdated. If a person wants to pay a parking ticket, they pay the ticket at their local courthouse or whatever. Perhaps their licence has been suspended because they didn't pay it on time, and they figure that they can go and drive home. Well, they can't. There has to be 10 days before their licence is reinstated. That's even if they've paid cash. That, to me, is absolutely mind-boggling. I've always believed that if you pay cash for something, you don't have to wait for the cheque to clear the bank, and therefore you should be entitled to have your rights reinstated to you as a citizen of this province.

I remember the débâcle in my community over the use of technology and so-called clearing the path when people were going to renew their licence plates and found that they had all sorts of tickets that had not been paid that were on the computer, and yet these people had been renewing their licence plates for years before that under the same principle that when you renewed your licence plates, you paid up all your parking tickets or your speeding tickets or whatever else. Suddenly, these were coming out of nowhere. They were magical. They just appeared. People were being required to pay these extraordinary amounts, often believing that they had already paid them.

In fact, I can remember that in our courthouse in Peel, people were lined up at the counter, and I guess the government relented a bit, because they were giving them the opportunity to go and swear an oath before a justice of the peace that they'd paid these tickets. If they could show some proof, a cheque or whatever, they didn't have to pay them again. That to me is mind-boggling. That in this day and age of high tech you can have that type of interference, that type of inconvenience for the citizens of this province, is mind-boggling, absolutely mind-boggling.

The question of being able to file by fax or by electronic mail or by computer seems to be so obvious that it should have been the hallmark of this government. It should have been the first thing you did. It should have been the thing you did as you came into office. You should have said, "We're going to put everything on computer. We're going to try to eliminate the disabilities and the problems for business people and all those other people, the citizens of Ontario," but you didn't.

Why do you wait until the last hour? Is this a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus? It's a very small conversion. You probably weren't even knocked off the horse or blinded. I think you've been blinded since the day this government came into existence. You had a golden opportunity to take this province into the electronic age and here we are on November 23, with probably about two weeks to go in this session and then maybe just a trickle in the spring before an election, and we have this legislation being introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

I'm sure the people of this province would have greatly applauded the introduction of this type of legislation in a much larger fashion, rather than having the minister tinkering with the casino down in Windsor. The casino was not something that was going to help business people in this province; it wasn't going to help the average citizen of Ontario. It was in fact just an opportunity to gather large sums of money to fill the coffers to support that constantly growing deficit, which is probably now an accumulated deficit, if people understand it, in the amount of about $90 billion. By the time this government has taken its last gasping breath, it will probably be in the neighbourhood of $100 billion. The interest on that alone in order to pay that off is probably what constitutes our annual deficit.

There are things they could have done for business to try to streamline government, to try to streamline the way business can communicate with government, and perhaps more important is to get out of the back pockets of these people's businesses. Let them get on with business. If you spend the amount of time that I'm sure the businessmen watching this program and just small entrepreneurs spend in trying to fill out all the myriad of forms that have been created, not just by the existing government bureaucracy but also by all the bills that you've introduced over the course of your almost five years, then you really make it very difficult for these people to try to continue practising their business.

Just as an example, I understand that in Niagara -- you would understand this, Madam Speaker -- the wine growers had to obtain 44 separate approvals to hold a wine-tasting event.

That's absolutely amazing. I would have thought that would have triggered, and certainly should have triggered in the member from Niagara, a concern that this tinkering, this sort of clipping around the edges was not adequate, that there should be a full incursion into the question of trying to provide a streamlining of the bureaucracy, a reduction of the bureaucracy.

What we would promise, and we have promised it and will continue to promise it, is that we're going to take these regulations that you seem to have accumulated like marbles over the last five years and get rid of them, throw them out.

I find it interesting --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order.

Mr Callahan: Since I seem to have upset the bears over there, I'm going to turn my direction to the good and kind Conservative government that was in power for some 42 years. The member for Parry Sound had the audacity to stand up and to complain about the NDP's bill in a much stronger way than I am, I guess. He claimed that there was something like 43,164 forms that the province requires filed each year. He forgets to tell us that the Conservative government had 42 years to accumulate all those forms and the largest bunch of forms --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I'll stake our 42 years against your five any day, Bob.

Mr Callahan: Oh, I've frightened the bears over here too. The largest number of forms were accumulated during the Conservative regime.

Mr Harnick: How much did you spend? When you left office, 35 tax increases, concentration tax --

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Callahan: Mike Harris, who is the proponent of, what does he call it? Is it the funny -- no, no. What is it? What do they call it? Come on.

Interjection: Nonsensical Revolution.

Mr Callahan: Nonsensical Revolution. No, the Common Sense Revolution. Mr Harris goes around this province pleading this whole program that he's got and he has promised the Conservatives would reduce government red tape by 100%. Of course, the Conservatives made a similar promise --

Mr Harnick: Tell us where the Liberals stand on taxes and on spending. Tell everybody how your leader's going to cut 50% of the red tape.

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

1610

Mr Harnick: Tell us about cutting 50% of the red tape with a straight face, Mr Callahan.

Mr Callahan: I think, Madam Speaker, that I have gotten to the --

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat. Interjections are out of order. One person has the floor. Would you please continue.

Mr Callahan: I'm sorry. I don't want to get the member for Willowdale too exercised, but the Conservatives made a similar promise nearly 20 years ago and then continued to add to the mass of forms and regulations they had put in place since the time of George Drew. What was going on then? Why did they not start the process?

Perhaps the NDP, having been in opposition for so long, was so attracted by the way the Conservative government operated that they wanted to emulate them and go out of office the same way they went out of office, by overregulating this province.

I remember the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I was at an event in my riding where he was introducing the infrastructure money and he looked down at former Premier Bill Davis, who's a good friend of mine and a neighbour, and he said, "Mr Davis, I admired you when I was in opposition because I loved the way you were able to give an answer to a question that took so long that you limited the number of questions that could be asked of other ministers in the House."

Immediately that same day, when the Minister of Municipal Affairs came back from the good city of Brampton, he tried to do exactly that. He tried to spin out a question so that the time would disappear and other members would not have an opportunity to ask questions.

I suggest that this government watched very closely, while they were in opposition, the Conservative government and how they did this, and they've just emulated them, is what they've done.

I can remember in the days of the Conservative government as well that every time an election was about to roll around the Conservative government would suddenly come up with some catchy tune or phrase, or principle or policy, that they were going to take into the election. It was time to fool the people again.

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: That's precisely what the New Democratic Party government is doing by this simple piece of legislation whereby they're not really putting their shovel in the ground and digging deep to help business people out, to reduce the number of forms. They're cutting around the edges. They call it Clearing the Path, which I find incredible. Usually when you clear the path, you clear the path entirely; you don't just run a small line through.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): What's your policy, Bob?

Mr Callahan: Let me tell you.

Mr Duignan: What's the Liberal policy?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Halton North, come to order.

Mr Duignan: You've got 16 minutes to tell us.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Callahan: I'll give you a few examples of how you could save a lot of money in this government and how you could clear the path. I'm glad the Attorney General's here because I'm suggesting this to you, Madam Attorney: Every day of the year, day in and day out, other than Saturdays and Sundays, we have police services that are paid for by municipalities being required to transport prisoners from lockup to the court. I was up in Ottawa the other day and I've discovered that they're housing prisoners up there on remand who actually have their trials here in good old southern Ontari-ari-ario. It means they drive from Ottawa down to, say, Brampton, Whitby and so on, and that means they have to do that every eight days if the accused does not consent to a remand longer than that.

In fact, you've constantly got these vans on the highway. I'm surprised they haven't put photo-radar in them; they could collect a little of the money that it's costing them to transport the prisoners. What they're doing is they're just bringing them down, they're just bringing them from the Ottawa jail down to Brampton court or to Mississauga court or to a Toronto court. They're spending all that money, they're using all that valuable police manpower and they could solve the problem by one simple thing, and it would be clearing the path. If there were legislative changes made that would allow the criminal information, which is the initial document of a criminal prosecution --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The point I'm trying to raise is that using the words "clearing the path" is not making reference to the legislation. The member is completely off topic. He's been speaking about the judicial process, and by using the words "clearing the path" in his statements -- Clearing the Path is dealing with the legislation around the small business community. He has not made reference to that. I'd ask you to call the member to order and place his comments directly towards the legislation.

The Acting Speaker: I appreciate the member's comments. The member who is speaking does have the leeway to try to relate what he is saying to the bill.

Mr Callahan: They asked me how we would do things, and I'm giving them one small example. If the criminal information that initiates the proceeding was able to be faxed or electronically sent by computer to that court in Ottawa, the closest one to the lockup, you in fact would not have these vans on the road travelling and using valuable police resources and costing the taxpayers of this province significant money. In fact, the person could be remanded in Ottawa. They could even be remanded in the jail. Not one step has been taken along those lines by the Attorney General, and yet here you have a small effort to try to placate the business community.

I suggest that maybe what you should be looking at is a real incursion into the question of dealing with clearing the path, of in fact providing opportunities to reduce the red tape and also reduce the cost of doing business in government, because the people of this province are getting frightened by the constantly increasing deficits that you've had over the years in this place, the last five years, the fact that the accumulated deficit is fast approaching $100 billion; it's about $90 billion now. That's just one example of what I would say is a new way, an imaginative way.

Instead, what do you do? You create situations where -- and this is another example -- if I get a ticket now, under Bill 47, I can no longer pay it or set a trial date in my own courthouse unless I'm 100 kilometres away or disabled; I have to travel to that area. If that's telling the people of this province who from time to time get a parking ticket or perhaps a speeding ticket or whatever, "We want you to have the opportunity to be able to defend yourself" rather than, "We just want your money," it's a tough way of saying it.

The Acting Speaker: I would remind the member that we are debating Bill 187. Could you relate your remarks.

Mr Callahan: I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. I'm trying to relate it to that. I'm trying to relate it to the modern approach of this government. They could have gone much further. The final result is that this is all being done by regulation. That's an expeditious way to do it because that's a cabinet order, for the people who are watching. It's called a regulation, but it's really something the cabinet does, and nobody ever sees it except the cabinet. So we have to rely upon the cabinet looking at it in terms of trying to provide the best way of doing things and so on. It's really not done by anybody in this Legislature. I think that has some difficulty.

The other fact, as I understand it, is that this bill allows for future initiatives, which means it won't kick in until September 1995. I wonder if there is something sort of futuristic or prophetic about that. Does this mean that we're going to have an election in September 1995, or does it mean that they don't want to do it now because they haven't figured out how to do it? Why is it being delayed until September 1995?

One would have thought that with the four and a half years they've had to figure this out and finally bring this small piece of legislation forward they would have in fact known how to do it and everything would have been in place and it could kick right in tomorrow. That's what the business community wants. They don't want to wait. They can't wait until September 1995. That really boggles the imagination, as it's doing nothing for business today.

The government will also be able to make changes to the administration of any statute -- that's the purpose of it -- as it pertains to business registration or reporting requirements. That's good, but it's just not sufficient to satisfy anyone. All it does is whet the appetite of the business community out there and those other individuals who are perhaps not in the business community who are going to have the opportunity to deal in filings in a more expeditious way. It just whets their appetite. Why are you so slow in doing this? People have been using technology of this type for a long time.

Someone was talking today, in I think a question from the third party, or maybe it was a statement, about junk mail, the myriad of forms that are sent out. I would suspect that many businessmen, when they get these forms that are required by the government, probably consider them to be junk mail too. I'll bet you many of them never get sent in. I'll bet you the government, if the government follows up, and I suspect it may or may not follow up, but if it does it means that it has to spend extra time, extra resources to follow up on that. So it would have been very much more expeditious to have this brought in earlier, that's what I'm saying.

In the final analysis, I do say that our party will be supporting it because, obviously, any step taken by this government, whether it be minuscule or of great quantity, we will support if it's helping business and taking the red tape out of business. That's in fact the commitment of our leader, that's the commitment of our party, that we're going to take government off the backs of people, reduce the regulatory process to allow business to do what it best does in an environment where it's not handcuffed by the bureaucracy and handcuffed by the government.

1620

Mr Harnick: Phone your leader and ask her how she's going to do it.

Mr Callahan: The member from the third party is asking me questions about how my leader is going to do certain things. I certainly think the questions that are asked of Mr Harris in terms of being able to reduce the taxes to the point he says he's going to reduce them and not reduce any of the essential services to this province, actually require someone to take a great leap of faith. I suspect people will query that and will look at that very closely and determine that the Common Sense Revolution really has no common sense to it whatsoever. It's a dream. It's Mr Harris asking the people of this province to take a leap of faith that is significant.

Mr Duignan: What's your policy, Bob?

Mr Callahan: The New Democratic Party now is asking us what our policy is. Our policy is very clear. It's obvious that you're not listening. I can assure you it will not be An Agenda for People. I don't know if there's anybody in this Legislature who still has a copy of the Agenda for People, but I'm not sure what page we're at. I think we're at page 1, if we're at that. This may have been in there somewhere. But all of the promises that were made in the previous election by the now Premier and his party -- none of them have been kept. In fact, what you've done is disappointed all those people who supported you traditionally and you've not done one thing for them. I suspect that in the throne speech, if I'm right, in March -- yes, I will come back, Madam Speaker; I just want to demonstrate.

I think the throne speech in March, when we hear that throne speech, will promise everything from soup to nuts. It'll promise all of those good NDP supporters everything they ever wanted. It'll be like a wish list for Christmas. You know what'll happen? The Legislature will sit for probably about 10 or 15 days and suddenly the election will be called and they'll go out to the people with this already preprinted.

That's what amazes me. You people are very good in government in terms of preparing for an election, having your documents all ready for the election, and yet this bill is not going to kick in till September 1995. Maybe somebody can answer that. Maybe the minister will return to the House and tell us why it takes till September 1995 to try and give this small bit of opportunity to business people to get government off their backs.

Mr Jamison: Outline your wide-ranging policy in six minutes, go ahead.

The Acting Speaker: There will be time for comments and questions after the member is finished.

Mr Callahan: Actually, that's right. You get questions and comments, so just stay cool. You'll have your opportunity.

I think the opportunities the government had -- I gave a few examples of it and I think there are many more. For instance, the fact that you can now go to one of these centres that they're going to set up in order to establish an unincorporated business -- why was that not done before? Why was it all centralized? Why were there corporate taxes introduced which originally were on non-profit corporations as well as profit corporations?

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, you probably experienced this, and I'll bet you every member of this House has. Every one of us has had at least one constituent whose corporation went poof; it was gone. It was gone because they had failed to file this magic form. The net result was that they would have to go before the committee that's, I believe, chaired by the member for St Catharines-Brock -- regulations and private bills. They would have to spend a lot of money to hire a lawyer, they would have to pay the fees to the committee, and they would then have to come before that committee, because I chaired that committee, and they would have to have their corporations revived.

To the credit of the government, after it had heard enough complaints about this, and I guess most of their members had experienced this situation with people rapping on their door and saying, "Hello. My corporation is no longer in existence; can you do something about it?" the government had a change of heart. It changed its policy and thereby it gave these people the opportunity to have them revived without the necessity of going through this process. But, in fairness, the people who before they made that brilliant discovery that you shouldn't put these people through this unnecessary expense and through the unnecessary procedure of going before the regulations and private bills committee -- those people who complied in advance, I don't see anybody paying them back their legal fees or paying them back the fees they had to pay. Suddenly it was just cut off in midstream. So those people who didn't do it and were smart enough not to do it got a reprieve from the NDP government and the people who had already done it didn't get any money back. Now, if that's fair, there's something very wrong.

There was an opportunity for you to make real friends in the business community. There are a lot of businessmen out there who had corporations that had been in existence for a very long time. They were probably private corporations, very few changes of the directorships, no real necessity to file a document stating any changes, and yet you brought in this what I term a very ill-advised policy to try to collect additional funds.

There's a clear example of how this government, in an effort to try and bolster the amount of money they had to cover that massive deficit, took a step policywise which was very ill-conceived and it injured a lot of business people in this community, small business people who of course, as you know, constitute and create the majority of the jobs in this province. So, in fact, in one fell swoop they made a policy that had a very bad effect on business.

Here they are back at the gate again with, as I say, something we will support, but a very minuscule move towards trying to placate and to assist the business community. In fact, they're doing it almost on the eve of an election. Hopefully, they wouldn't be foolish enough to call it while the snow flows. I don't see anybody smiling over there, so I trust we can wait till the spring.

Ms Evelyn Gigantes (Ottawa Centre): This is a smile.

Mr Callahan: Oh, that's a smile, okay. The member from Ottawa tells me it's a smile. I should have noticed it.

In any event, if I had seen this legislation and my party had seen this bill the day after they formed the government, I think all the members of my party and perhaps even the Conservative Party would have thought to themselves: "This is going to be a wonderful term. These people are going to rule Ontario in an appropriate fashion."

Instead, what do we see? We see this at the last minute. We see things like Bill 40, which has a devastating effect, some sections of it, in terms of labour. We see the long-term care -- and we support the principle of having the information all in one location. But this government now is going to do away with Meals on Wheels, the Victorian Order of Nurses, the Red Cross and all these good and worthy causes and in fact what they're going to do is to create more bureaucracy.

I got a note across my desk the other day about assessors. I read it and I thought to myself, "What's an assessor?" Well, after you sign your power of attorney -- these are the people who sent forms out and it was a good idea to send forms out -- this assessor will come in and decide whether or not you're mentally capable of looking after your affairs. Even if you've got a power of attorney, the power of attorney person will have to come and tell the guardian that, "I have a right to look after the affairs of this person."

So think of all those jobs, all of those assessors who are going to have jobs. Think of all those people who are going to have jobs in other areas, the advocates. The bureaucracy that this government has created is going to give jobs to New Democratic Party supporters for time immemorial.

I suggest that as much as this may be a small step, it's kind of like a conversion where everything you've done before was so outrageous that even this one small step cannot possibly solve their problems in terms of being able to say to the business community and Ontarians all around this province, "We're sorry for what we did over the last four and a half years."

1630

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments to the member.

Mr Harnick: It's always interesting to listen to the member for Brampton South because what you hear is a 30-minute almost barrage of criticism, and never interwoven in that criticism is a suggestion as to what his party would do if it had the opportunity to govern. What we hear from the Liberal Party and from the member for Brampton South is platitudes like, "We're going to get rid of 50% of the red tape."

Can you imagine that being the goal, getting rid of 50% of the red tape? I would think a logically thinking person would say, "Why don't you get rid of all the red tape and why don't you tell us how you're going to do it?" Don't just tell us, "Fifty per cent of the red tape is going to be gone, so you better elect us." Tell us how you're going to get there. Tell us about 35 tax increases in a matter of five years and then turn around and say: "Oh, well, we want to clear the path. We want to clear the path and get rid of bureaucracy. We're only the ones who brought in the commercial concentration tax, the tire tax."

Can you imagine? I think the leaders of that party lay in bed at night thinking of taxes that they could impose. They didn't think of clearing the path. They didn't think of reducing bureaucracy. They didn't think of making it easier for business people to do business. During this whole period that they were the government, what happened? Well, there was prosperity because they took spending from $25 billion to $50 billion, left the province with a huge deficit and, to boot, during this so-called period of riches, the welfare rolls swelled. And now they want to come here and talk about clearing the path? Well, tell us, instead of criticizing, how you're going to get there.

Mr Jamison: As we're proceeding through debate on Bill 187, it's interesting to note that the opposition parties are obviously being as negative as they possibly can be towards this piece of legislation but, at the same time, giving their support. I think it is evident that their support is there for this bill, and this bill will accomplish some very good things.

The member from Brampton South indicated: "Well, here you are. You're in the fourth year of your term and you've brought forward a piece of legislation. Why didn't you do it earlier?" I simply turn to that member and say that I believe he served in the government that was here from 1985 through 1990. Computers were around, I believe, then. The technology was available then to accomplish the streamlining of the registration process and the information flow to governments.

When I hear him speak in that tone, I consider that to be very unfair. When we talk about red tape, and red tape as it pertains to small business, we have had governments here in Ontario for as long as Ontario has been a province, and this is the first time that legitimate steps have been taken to ensure that umbrella legislation is in place, enabling legislation is in place, to allow government to streamline its own operations and streamline at the same time the way in which small business does business with government.

However large or small the individual members may think this bill is, I can tell you that it means a great deal to the business community. It was one of their largest concerns when they talked to me, and I believe this bill is in fact a very good bill indeed.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I was taken with the comments from the member for Brampton South. It strikes me that he speaks fondly of his time as a Liberal backbencher in government, the five years that they spent governing this province, and all the good things and the wonderful things that they feel they accomplished over that period of time. But it does seem quite odd that in 1990 they got completely wiped out. So it makes you wonder. If things were so wonderful and they're fondly recalled, how was it that you lost the 1990 election running on the record that you were in fact fiscally responsible?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Peterson called the election too early.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the chirping from the member for Oriole with respect to the election was called too early. Maybe that's true. I also think it's true that probably $10 billion was added to the government debt during that period of time; 10,000 civil servants were hired; taxes went up 33 times and maybe one of the most fiscally irresponsible governments ever in good times was elected in this province, potentially this country.

To the member opposite from Brampton South, what I would think you would be saying today is: "We as Liberals have a plan. Here's our plan, and these are our ideas for creating small business, getting the red tape cut and so on and so forth." But every time I read a Liberal plan, it consists of -- for instance, education: "We believe in good education." Or crime: "We don't believe in crime." Or victims: "Victims are people too." It's almost to the point now where I'm expecting them to say, "Kids are people too, and I brake for cats." Beyond that, their plans are hollow, shallow and without content. The member for Brampton South I know as a backbencher with a lot of spirit, and a person who can affect public policy would certainly want to make that change very quickly.

Mr Perruzza: I just want to add some of my responses to the record as they relate to the Liberal member who just spoke, and I can't agree with my Conservative colleagues here today more as it relates to the Liberals and the Liberal record as it relates to small business.

From 1985 to 1990, they governed, the provincial Liberals, through probably one of the best times in the history of this province. There's no question about that. And what did they do back then? Well, I'll tell you what they did back then. As a government and as a party, they were just simply interested in photo opportunities. That's what they were interested in.

They left their offices and they went on a five-year photo opportunity junket. That's what they did. I remember the Minister of Health. You couldn't miss her at any event. You went to the event; she was there. Then you thought about it. You thought to yourself: "Well, who's minding the store? Who's down there watching what's happening in government?" Well, I'll tell you who was down there watching what was happening in government. There was nobody.

So the taxes came in. You know, they just racked them right up. The cash registers were going. They couldn't add up the money that was coming in fast enough, and it was going out the door just as fast -- in fact maybe even a little faster, because what ended up at the end of the day was they left us with a deficit. That's how they minded the store. They left us with a ballooned bureaucracy. They left us with antiquated programs. They left us with a government payroll that has been unprecedented. That's what they did for small business, and they taxed 32 times for it.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now the member for Brampton South has two minutes to respond.

Mr Callahan: I was really interested to listen to all that positive comment about my speech. I think I anticipated it would probably be along those lines.

I want to address just one point that the member for Downsview made, and I thought he was stuffing his Christmas envelope because I didn't realize he was rising to the occasion. But he talked about the Minister of Health being at all these events. Well, I got news for you. In my community and with my colleagues, we believe in representing our people and attending every event, and if you don't believe in that, then you don't belong in this Legislature, or in politics, for that matter.

Dealing with the question of taxes, and we seem to have gotten around to taxes, I guess maybe I brought that to the fore because this really involves a lot of this. It's interesting that with Bill 187, which is the bill we're debating, and the small amount it has done, on the other side of the coin they've introduced a Bill 178. It's called the Unclaimed Intangible Property Amendment Act, which means, "I get it if you don't claim it."

It's going to lead to more costly compliance for the private sector, and all the government's doing is looking for a $50-million hidden tax grab. That's the name of the game of this government. They never come forward, as most governments have done in the past, of whatever political stripe, and say: "We need dollars. We need these dollars to run your government, to provide the services you require."

The NDP government has been sneaky, I have to say, and I really don't want to say that but I have to. They're sneaky in terms of how they get the money: $25 to file a non-profit corporation's information change when there is no change; $50 to change a business corporation's status when there are no changes. Taxes for photo-radar: You don't get a chance to defend yourself in court; having to go to a court located maybe 90 kilometres away from you in order to file for a trial date. Now, if that is being fair, if that's not just a tax grab, then there's something very strange about this whole thing.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Any further debate on Bill 187? Seeing none, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Duignan: First of all, let me thank all the members of the House who have participated in this debate. There's been some very constructive criticism and some criticism living in fantasyland, such as from the member for Brampton South. He had 30 minutes to elaborate on what the Liberal policy was in relation to small business, indeed in relation to anything related to a Liberal platform, but obviously they don't have one.

Again, the purpose of this legislation and the key requirements and provisions of this legislation are that it will allow us to share information between various government departments and governments, whether it's municipal, federal or indeed other jurisdictions. It will allow us to combine registration forms, do electronic filing; it will also allow for a single business number, for united reporting requirements and standards and for payment by debit and credit cards.

Since September of this year, our government has done a number of things. We've opened up a number of small businesses offices where people can go in and register and self-help stations. We're increasing that number. We'll have 16 of these offices by January and we'll double the number by April of next year. We'll also, by January of this year, be able to pay by debit and credit card.

We are working with the federal government to adopt a single business information number for Ontario businesses so basically the businesses in Ontario will have one single number for both federal and municipal registration. By September of 1995 we'll move to a complete electronic registration process and introduce unified reporting. These services will eliminate paper forms and allow businesses to pay retail sales tax and employer health tax with a single cheque each month.

The goal of clearing the path in this particular legislation is to provide a complete single-window, one-stop master business service that will include all business registration and reporting process from the municipal, provincial and federal levels. Our government is leading the way when it comes to eliminating business registration and cutting red tape.

The other government, the third party, had 42 years to do it; they did nothing. The Liberal government had five years to do it; they did nothing. We are doing it because we believe the best way that small business can get ahead and create jobs is by eliminating red tape.

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? The bill is accordingly referred for third reading.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It is my understanding that according to the rules, especially when a vote is being taken, members can't vote unless they're in their own seats. I note several members are not in their own seats. So what are you going to do?

The Acting Speaker: I would ask members that they do be in their own seats.

House in committee of the whole.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND SERVICES), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX PRATIQUES DE GESTION ET AUX SERVICES DU GOUVERNEMENT

Consideration of Bill 175, An Act to amend the Statutes of Ontario with respect to the provision of services to the public, the administration of government programs and the management of government resources / Projet de loi 175, Loi modifiant les Lois de l'Ontario en ce qui a trait à la fourniture de services au public, à l'administration des programmes gouvernementaux et à la gestion des ressources gouvernementales.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): If I can move, Madam Chair, that staff be permitted on the floor to assist the parliamentary assistant, the member for London South.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Is it agreed that staff be allowed on to the floor? Agreed.

Are there any questions or comments or amendments to sections of this bill?

Mr David Winninger (London South): Yes, Madam Chairman, the government has a number of amendments to the bill. Perhaps I'll run through them to ensure they're all before the clerk: subsection 20(2), subsection 20(4), subsection 30(2), subsection 30(4), section 40, section 52, section 65, subsection 66(25), subsection 72(1), subsection 72(12), subsection 112(15), subsection 112(16), section 113 and, finally, subsection 137(2).

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments with regard to sections 1 through 19?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Chair: In the committee of the whole, do you still need a quorum?

The First Deputy Chair: Yes, we do.

Mr Stockwell: I think we should call one.

The First Deputy Chair: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is now present.

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

The First Deputy Chair ordered the bells rung.

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

The First Deputy Chair: We will resume dealing with sections 1 through 19. Are there any questions or comments on these sections?

Seeing none, shall sections 1 through 19 carry? Carried.

1650

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 20(2) of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments on this amendment? Seeing none, shall this amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that section 5.1 of the Farm Products Marketing Act, as set out in subsection 20(4) of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and constituting local boards to administer such plans."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments to this amendment? Seeing none, shall this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 20, as amended, carry? Carried.

We have no amendments in sections 21 through 29. Is it the pleasure of the committee that these sections carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 30(2) of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there questions or comments to this amendment? Seeing none, shall the amendment to subsection 30(2) carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that section 6.1 of the Milk Act, as set out in subsection 30(4) of the bill, be amended by adding at the end "and constituting marketing boards to administer such plans."

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions or comments? Shall this amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the amendment carried.

Shall section 30, as amended, carry? Carried.

There are no amendments to sections 31 through 39. Is it the pleasure of the committee that these sections carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 40(3.1) of the Assessment Act, as set out in section 40 of the bill, be amended by striking out "until the complaint is finally determined and disposed of" in the fourth, fifth and sixth lines and substituting "until the complaint and any appeals or proceedings concerning the complaint or assessment complained of are finally determined and disposed of."

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? Is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 49(3.3) of the Assessment Act, as set out in section 40 of the bill, be amended by inserting "section 81 of the District Municipality of Muskoka Act" after "Regional Municipalities Act" in the sixth line.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that section 40, as amended, carry? Carried.

We will deal with sections 41 through 51, inclusive. There are no amendments. Shall they carry? Carried.

I believe there is an amendment to section 52.

Mr Winninger: Yes, there is, and I believe that there is also unanimous consent in the House to deal with this amendment.

I move that section 52 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(2.1) Subsection 18.1.1(2) of the act, as enacted by the Statues of Ontario, 1993, chapter 31, section 1, is repealed and the following substituted:

"Subsections 18.1(1), (3) and (4) inapplicable

"(2) Subsections 18.1(1), (3) and (4) do not apply in a municipality in which this section applies.

"Subsections 17.1(5), (6) and (7) applicable

"(2.1) Subsections 17.1(5), (6) and (7) apply to a proceeding begun under this section."

The First Deputy Chair: This particular amendment is out of order, but Mr Winninger has indicated that there is consent of the House to deal with this amendment. Is it the consent of the House to deal with it? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 52, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 53 through 64 carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that section 65 of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: This one is indeed out of order as well. The normal procedure is to vote against it. All those in favour of this amendment? All those in favour of section 65, please indicate. All those opposed, please indicate. Section 65 of the bill is lost.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 66(25) of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions or comments? Is it the pleasure of the committee that this motion carry? Carried.

Shall section 66 of the bill, as amended, carry? Carried.

Sections 67 through 71: There are no amendments. Shall these sections carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 72(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) The definition of 'resident Canadian' in subsection 1(1) of the Business Corporations Act is amended by striking out clause (c) and substituting the following:

"(c) a permanent resident within the meaning of the Immigration Act (Canada) and ordinarily resident in Canada."

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments on this amendment? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 115(5) of the Business Corporations Act, as set out in subsection 72(12) of the bill, be amended by striking out "and" at the end of clause (c), by adding "or" at the end of clause (b) and by adding the following clause:

"(c) a trustee in bankruptcy, receiver, receiver-manager or secured creditor who participates in the management of the corporation or exercises control over its property solely for the purposes of enforcement of a security agreement or administration of a bankrupt's estate, in the case of a trustee in bankruptcy."

1700

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? Is it the pleasure of the committee that this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 72, as amended, carry? Carried.

We will deal with sections 73 through 111. Shall those sections carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 157(3) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, as set out in subsection 112(15) of the bill, be amended by striking out "1995" in the first line and substituting "1996."

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 159(2) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, as set out in subsection 112(16) of the bill, be amended by striking out "1995" in the second line and substituting "1996."

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 112, as amended, carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that section 113 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"113(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), this part comes into force on the day this act receives royal assent.

"(2) Section 110 comes into force on January 1, 1995.

"(3) The following provisions come into force on January 1, 1996:

"1. Subsections 109(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (8) and (9).

"2. Section 112."

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 113, as amended, carry? Carried.

Sections 114 through 136 have no amendments. Shall they carry? Carried.

Mr Winninger: I move that subsection 10(2.1) of the Coroners Act, as set out in subsection 137(2) of the bill, be amended by inserting "or the Charitable Institutions Act" before "applies" in the third line.

The First Deputy Chair: Questions or comments? Shall this amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 137, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall the remaining sections, sections 138 through 147, carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Carried.

Shall the committee rise and report?

Mr Winninger: I so move.

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Winninger has moved the committee rise and report. Is it agreed? Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill, with amendment, and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES VALEURS MOBILIÈRES

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

Bill 190, An Act to amend the Securities Act / Projet de loi 190, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This bill will provide the Ontario Securities Commission with the proper authority to protect investors and maintain confidence and integrity in Ontario's capital markets.

Traditionally, the Ontario Securities Commission, or OSC, has used policy statements to indicate the conduct expected of market participants and acceptable standards of market activity.

However, recent court decisions in Ontario and BC raise concerns about the use of policy statements by securities regulators. The Ainsley case in Ontario and the Pezim case in BC question the validity of some of the abilities of the commissions to make these statements and these decisions of the courts were upheld by the Supreme Court, and they also caution that securities commission policy statements do not have the force of law.

To address these concerns, on October 7 last year the honourable Minister of Finance, Floyd Laughren, appointed the Ontario Task Force on Securities Regulation. The task force had joint OSC-Ministry of Finance membership and was chaired by University of Toronto law professor Ron Daniels, to whom thanks are extended for a job well done.

The task force conducted a wide canvassing of input. In November 1993 a request for public comments was published in newspapers in the OSC bulletin. There were numerous consultations and 33 written submissions. An interim report for comment was published February 25, 1994, and this resulted in a further 27 written submissions. Subsequent revisions emphasized public involvement and setting clear parameters for the powers to be conferred on the OSC. The task force reported unanimously on June 30, 1994, and published its report complete with draft legislation on July 6, 1994. Since then there has been widespread support for action to implement the task force recommendations. I will note that articles in the Globe and Mail and an editorial in the Financial Post support this piece of legislation as well.

Besides the support here, other provinces facing a similar challenge in regulating their securities industries have announced they will introduce legislation similar to this, BC being a prime example. There are early indications of support in other provinces as well.

I'd like now to review the key elements of the bill. This bill will give the OSC the powers to make rules that will have the force of regulations. Other examples of agencies with these rule-making powers are the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, CRTC, and the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

This bill will allow the OSC to make rules in a large number of specific areas. The bill includes a mechanism for simultaneous repeal of conflicting provisions in existing regulations after appropriate public notice and comment and the minister's approval.

Rules are subject to a 90-day public notice and comment period. Ninety days is a minimum for notice and comment. If there are sufficient changes to warrant it, the proposed rule will be recirculated through the process.

The OSC will publish a fulsome supporting statement giving the reasons and background to the proposed rule. The bill requires that summaries of the public comments on the proposed rule and the commission's reply to these concerns be prepared. As well, government ministries and agencies may participate in the public notice and comment period.

Following the public notice and comment period, there will be a 60-day period for the Minister of Finance to review the proposed rule. The minister's responsibility is to approve the rule, disapprove it, or send it back with reasons. If there is no ministerial action within 60 days, the rule is approved automatically. A safeguard that balances the 60-day default approval provides that cabinet can make a regulation that prevails over a rule. The Minister of Finance also has the power to initiate the OSC to study a proposed rule.

1710

The bill also has provisions for emergencies. If there is risk of material harm to investors or the integrity of the capital market, the OSC can waive or abridge notice if it receives approval from the Minister of Finance. These interim rules are limited to nine months. During this time, the regular notice and comment and approval process will be able to take place to make the interim rule an appropriate permanent rule.

Putting in place interregulatory agreements and memorandums of understanding will follow the same process as for rules, including a 60-day period for review by the Minister of Finance.

The second main element of the bill deals with policy statements. Under this bill, policy statements are guidelines. This means they are general statements of principle or practice and not mandatory or comprehensive codes of conduct. Proposed policy statements would be subject to a 60-day public notice and comment period.

Again, 60 days is the minimum period required for public notice and comment. The requirement for a notice and comment period for policy statements was not in the task force interim report. Adding this provision reflects responses received to the recommendations of the interim report that the process be made more transparent.

There will be no government review of policy statements since they will only be guidelines. However, the government may participate in public notice and comment.

The third main element of the legislation is to further enhance public participation in developing policy on securities. To achieve this, the bill will require the OSC to prepare an annual statement of priority. This will be a published agenda for the forthcoming year. It will be developed by the OSC and presented to the Minister of Finance who will table it in the Legislature.

The bill also requires that the OSC issue an annual regulatory status report which will be a published overview of priorities already in process. It will be presented to the Minister of Finance and the minister will table it in the Legislature.

There will also be a review of legislative needs every five years.

A report on the Securities Act will be tabled in the Legislature by the Minister of Finance and will be discussed by a legislative committee. The Quebec Securities Act was a model for this provision and it is well regarded there.

As well, an ad hoc working group on financial regulation will coordinate formulating and delivering policy concerning the capital markets. The working group will be chaired by the deputy minister or someone the deputy designates. Membership will include heads of the commissions and agencies.

The bill also provides for a transition period. Blanket rulings and orders and related policy statements are given the status of rules for two years. There will be a two-year review by the OSC of its existing policy statements. Some policy statements will be redrafted as rules; others will remain as policy statements but will be redrafted following the definition of a policy statement in this legislation. All rules and policy statements developed during this review will be subject to the public notice and comment period required by the legislation.

Let me say that with this piece of legislation, as I've tried to outline, there has been extensive consultation. We are responding to an issue whereby the courts have called into question the ability of the securities commission to carry out its function in a way it has in the past. We are trying to respond to that. We've done extensive consultation through the Daniels task force. There's been a lot of opportunity for comment to be provided, a lot of input.

I believe for the most part this legislation fairly accurately reflects what the Daniels task force recommends. Not every specific item of the task force is in this legislation, but all the significant main points are here. My sense is that this piece of legislation has been very well received by everyone involved in the activities of the commission and those who have to deal with that.

I think in the long run we are ensuring that there will continue to be public trust and confidence in the regulatory authority for securities. I know members of the opposition have, as a general rule, indicated that they are supportive of the direction this legislation goes in and we appreciate that, but I know too they'll want to take some time to put some of their specific comments on the record.

I just want to say that I think we've had a very good process with this piece of legislation in terms of the consultations and then leading into the actual legislation, and the type of setup put in here in terms of allowing the securities commission to be fairly independent but also ensuring there is accountability for its actions back here through the legislative process, through the Minister of Finance.

With those opening comments, I think I'll look forward to hearing what the other participants have to say in this debate.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill 190. The only unfortunate thing is that rather than dealing with it at this late date in the session, it was my wish that we would have been dealing with it back in the latter part of September. But it is nice to be back here, and I'm sure we have lots of work to do between now and the end of the session. It's not my plan to use up all the valuable time of the House, but I would like to make a few comments.

The Ontario Task Force on Securities Regulation, as was mentioned, has released its final report, and the report has a number of recommendations, not the least of which is the intent to broaden the Ontario Securities Commission, or the OSC as it's known, and those powers to make binding rules that relate to the securities market.

The joint Ministry of Finance and OSC task force was, again as was mentioned, chaired by the University of Toronto law professor Ron Daniels and began its work in October 1993. The mandate of this task force was to review the OSC's policy-making powers to ensure that it has the legislative powers it needs to protect the investors and the integrity of Ontario's capital markets.

I think this goes to the crux of the problem, or at least the mandate, and that is, the intent above all, and it's what we agree with, is to always keep in mind that we want to protect the Ontario investor. The integrity of Ontario's capital markets is second to none, and of course we want to support any legislation that will continue that.

Professor Daniels said, on the release of the final report in July, that he felt the task force had balanced the needs for regulatory flexibility and accountability, "We have tried to present an innovative approach to developing securities legislation which will enhance public participation in the process," and the degree that the public will have the opportunity of that 90-day period to do so is another important part of the bill.

Of course the OSC, over its history, has regulated the sale and trading of stocks and bonds, options and derivative financial instruments through the Securities Act, the Deposits Regulation Act and certain provisions of the Ontario Business Corporations Act as well as the Commodity Futures Act. The commission's work is divided into two areas, that being the statutory tribunal and the administrative function.

The statutory tribunal, it may be interesting to know, comprises 11 members appointed by the government: a full-time chair, two full-time vice-chairs and eight part-time commissioners. This body makes policy, hears cases and appeals decisions made by the executive director. The office of the secretary, the other part of the commission, provides support to the commissioners, publishes weekly bulletins, and performs other administrative functions.

1720

The key recommendations, as we see them: The task force is recommending to the government that they confer a rule-making power on the OSC which provides flexibility to respond quickly to changing market conditions, to establish a prescribed public comment period and a cabinet review process for the proposed rules and to introduce a new section to the Securities Act outlining its purposes and the principles governing the OSC's exercise of power.

We think it's important too that it will confirm in the act the OSC's power to make policy statements, provided such policy statements are not mandatory or prohibitory in character. They'll also establish measures to deal with existing blanket rulings and orders, they will publish an annual statement of priorities from the chair of the Ontario Securities Commission and they will review the OSC's legislative needs every five years.

A very important part of this legislation, and in fact I think it should be an important part of all legislation, is that it is reviewed on a regular basis, often referred to as sunset clauses, when the legislation automatically comes up for review so that it can then be seen whether it's accomplishing its original intention. If not, why, the legislation can be revised. In some cases it might be preferable to withdraw legislation or to remove it from the books.

The OSC, as we see it, is one of the most important securities regulators in Canada, if not the most important. I would hope this legislation may be such that other jurisdictions would adopt it and use it as a model. In fact, there has been some suggestion that we have a Canadian securities commission. Again, that may be something that would be looked at in the future.

It has been proposed by the federal people that a national securities commission is one option for reducing the amount of regulation in the securities industry. However, any such body must be as effective and cost-effective as the Ontario Securities Commission. I only mention that so that members would appreciate the fact that this is of concern to the federal government as well as provincial governments.

Of course, two recent court decisions, one in May involving penny stock dealers and one in August involving misrepresentation by a Toronto investment dealer, have struck down most of the commission's rule-making powers. Currently, the commission cannot even ensure that stock sellers deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with their clients. Again, I emphasize that what we want and what I think we should want in the province of Ontario is that sellers always deal fairly, honestly and in good faith.

During the first six months of 1994, new government and corporate securities, you might be interested to know, were issued across Canada in a total amount of $48 billion, 11% higher than the same period in 1993. Most of the new-issue activity centres in Ontario and is regulated by the OSC.

The draft legislation is based largely on a report on the OSC's powers and was, as I mentioned, completed by Mr Daniels and his task force. The government argues that the OSC legislation is necessary because the commission currently cannot make its own rules, policy statements and other regulatory instruments. The recent court decisions ruled that since the commission did not have such power already in legislation, its regulations are no longer valid. The government's draft bill would give the OSC the ability to make its own rules in 46 different areas dealing with the securities industry.

There are some groups, namely, what is commonly known as the penny stock dealers, or those that deal in stocks that are less than $5, that have expressed concerns that such powers could be abused by the OSC. These security dealers were the target of a recent commission policy which would substantially increase the regulations they face. The penny dealers argue that recent OSC regulations have closed the market for small-dollar-value security offers, usually the type undertaken by fledgling resource concerns.

I have spoken to several people in the industry, particularly in the area of prospectors and developers. Their concern is that they too don't want to see any regulation that would limit investment in this area. As well, they have mentioned that it's not only the capital they are seeking in this area that may be restricted by whatever regulations may be in place, but their concern as well is that there are many other regulations, not the least of which are environmental regulations, land claims in the north, that are having some effect on the prospectors and developers. I'm sure these are issues that will be dealt with at a later time, but I just wanted to make you aware of the fact that there is concern that goes beyond the capital that's available.

I'm told, for example, that in the past year over $1 billion in capital was raised for investment in the north, particularly in the mining area, and that only 20% of it remained in Canada. I'm told the reason for this is that there are other jurisdictions, South America, for example, that have a less regulatory regime than we have here in Ontario, and consequently 80% of this $1 billion that was raised over the past year has left the country.

So I think we have to keep that in mind not only on the capital investment side, but we also have to look at regulations that affect the mining industry as a whole, and as I said, at some later date we may look at some of that.

I do, though, applaud the government, and I don't do that often, but then I haven't been here so long as to know that you shouldn't do that. I do commend the government for its effort to modernize what is a very important body, and that's the Ontario Securities Commission, an organization that is vital to the efficient functioning of our capital markets.

While we are quite pleased with the legislation that's being proposed and that the government did pursue a consultation process with the Daniels task force, we want to ensure that there will be some time allocated for public input, and that assurance was given to us today, that there would be one day where this would be put to the finance committee. That will give the securities dealers an opportunity to come in and express their own concerns with regard to the so-called penny stocks.

The OSC is an agency that operates with a minimum of ministerial direction. We would like to ensure that any of the changes to its legislative framework don't jeopardize the accountability to the Minister of Finance and ultimately to the people of Ontario.

1730

I'm pleased that we will get some time to discuss the act, and I think this is in keeping with our democratic process. It's necessary, of course, to have opposing viewpoints expressed, because I think that's the only way that any subject that's put on the table gets its appropriate review, and that is to give everybody an opportunity to speak to it. We in the opposition, again, are pleased that the opportunity will be given.

Just to inform the House, it's been brought to my attention that there are some concerns with regard to how the OSC deals with these groups, specifically those companies that deal with smaller, more highly speculative issues. I've met with members of these interest groups that are on both sides of the legislation, but I'm convinced that there does exist within the present regulatory framework a way in which all parties will come to work in harmony eventually with the OSC.

I would encourage the minister to offer his assistance in this regard, since in the end the more efficient and harmonious that capital markets are, the better off the province is as a whole, both in relation to competing jurisdictions that I've mentioned may in fact be out of the country and for the people and the businesses within the province.

I also want to impress upon the minister that the rules that govern this industry should not become so cumbersome that we begin to discourage the capital acquisition by smaller firms that, while risky in the traditional sense, may show great growth potential, because I think it's not only the smaller development areas of the province, northern development, but there are also many small firms, high-tech firms, that need the kind of capital that the major investment houses aren't in a position to underwrite. I'm thinking here of the knowledge-based, high-tech industries that I think are going to dominate the new economy that we're going to have in Ontario, and they often have trouble getting credit from the banks.

I heard a report recently, within the past few days, that somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80%-plus of the small businesses were satisfied with the funding that they were getting from their banks and with the cooperation they were getting from their banks. I think that may be to a great extent those businesses that already exist and may have some kind of a record, but I still have a concern that when it comes to speculative investment this is not totally satisfied and in fact may be less than satisfied by the credit they get from the major banks. They also might find that their capital requests are simply too small, as I mentioned, for the major investment houses to handle profitably.

I've talked to the major investment houses, and they agree that because of their particular structure, because of their overhead, they're not in a position to write these junior investments in the neighbourhood of $1 million or so. So we have to keep in mind that this legislation not being too burdensome allows for these junior investments to flourish.

To help alleviate these concerns, I would ask the minister to consider reviewing the rules and regulations which may discourage smaller capital requests, and if there are some of these barriers -- and we may hear them later this week -- that we not put any barriers in place and we streamline the process so there will exist adequate access to capital by all those seeking it in the market, regardless of size.

I would also like to say to the minister that it's our hope that when the OSC is called upon and there's an increase in the regulatory load, and I'm thinking of the current discussions that are going on with regard to mutual funds, that the OSC will have sufficient resources to carry out its mandate in this rather complex field. It is important to bear in mind as we discuss these regulatory changes that they have those resources at hand. At the present time, it's my understanding that the OSC contributes quite handsomely to the government's coffers in that its fees and the income to the OSC are considerably higher than the costs of operating the OSC. I hope there's some flexibility in there that allows the OSC to function with the appropriate staff that it would need.

Another point I'd like to indicate, as I mentioned before, and in conclusion, is that we wholeheartedly support the five-year review, because this then gives us an opportunity: If some of the things that we may not see at the present time pop up, as they sometimes do, we'll be able to again streamline the regulations so that these markets can efficiently operate.

Finally, I understand that speedy passage of this legislation is necessary for our capital markets to continue to function efficiently. However, I will reiterate that we take seriously the time we're allowing for the concerns to be brought forward, that we listen with an open mind when we have this day of hearings, so that everyone will feel when they go away from it at the end of the day that they have been heard. I think it's our duty as legislators to ensure that the powers that are granted to the OSC -- and these are significantly far-reaching powers, perhaps of a wider scope than any other board or commission has at the present time -- are granted with proper scrutiny and that such organizations which are more independent of government remain independent but accountable.

That will conclude my remarks. I trust that at the end of the day, as I said, this legislation will take into consideration the needs of all the capital markets in the province of Ontario and that then we're able to get on to some of the equally important business of this place.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted to share in this debate. I share some of the comments of the member for Essex South. The member indicated that this is a most important piece of legislation. This may be one of the driest debates that we have in this House.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Say it's not so.

Mr David Johnson: It's not so. Perhaps because of the two members involved, the three members involved, perhaps -- but I'm certainly not getting agreement from the government in that regard.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): How can you insult a speech? How can you do that?

Mr David Johnson: I thank the member for his contribution. I'm glad to see you're awake, the member for Downsview, I think, isn't it?

It is perhaps one of the most important topics that we will be dealing with, because it does affect the economic well-being of the province of Ontario. The capital market system is one that is of great importance to the people who live here in terms of job creation and economic well-being.

I believe that we're here today having this debate because a few years ago regulations were imposed by the Ontario Securities Commission in response to concerns with regard to the so-called penny dealers. Accusations had been made, allegations had been made by clients that perhaps they were not getting full information with regard to the purchases that they were making, that there were unfair sales tactics being used. The words "boiler room," I believe, have been used to describe some of the sales tactics of some of the firms. There have been over the years a number of complaints apparently registered with regard to the penny dealers.

Consequently, various policies have been implemented by the Ontario Securities Commission. One policy, for example, policy 5.2, has limited commissions to about 35% for the penny stocks. It had been, apparently, the practice that the commissions on the sales would run 50%, perhaps 40% to 50% or maybe even a bit higher, as high as 70% in some cases, and there were complaints about that. Policy 5.2 indicated that the maximum commission could be about 35%.

1740

Another policy that was introduced called policy 1.10 is a policy that required disclosure. In other words, if an individual or a firm were purchasing a stock, in most cases a stock dealing with the penny stocks, the person would have the right to information with regard to the sales so that they would know the product that they were purchasing. This would seem to be a desirable course of events when one is purchasing a stock, to know the general nature and the information pertaining to that particular stock.

However, I know that some involved in the penny stock industry were concerned that the disclosure procedures on them were more severe than the procedures that might have been applied to the rest of the industry, so there was a court challenge in March 1993, and a ruling came down last year. This ruling pertained to a number of penny stocks, but I believe a firm called Ainsley, in alphabetical order, was the first one on the list so it's called the Ainsley decision. The Ainsley decision indicated that the OSC did not have the power to make the kind of regulation that it did. I think this sent a shock wave through the industry and started the wheels turning.

Consequently, the government appointed, as we've heard earlier here today, a task force and that task force was headed up by Mr Daniels, from the University of Toronto. That task force consulted with many in the investment industry and came forward with a report that contained a number of recommendations that, in the view of the task force, would restore confidence, would ensure integrity within the capital market system.

That integrity and that confidence is extremely important, and I don't think there can be any dispute on that issue. My sense in talking to all parties associated with Bill 190 is that there's agreement on that one issue: that there needs to be confidence in our market system and we need to ensure that the integrity is there.

The individual purchaser of a stock, common stock or bond or a mutual fund has to be assured in their own mind that they are getting a legitimate product, that they have all the information, that there is no manipulation behind the scenes and that they have full disclosure of information pertaining to that purchase. Without that confidence, the capital inevitably will flow away from our market system in the province of Ontario. It will flow to where it does have the confidence and this would have disastrous consequences.

Mr Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While this may be a dry debate, I think it's an important and significant debate and I think a quorum should be present.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the table determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Donna Bryce): Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is now present.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Don Mills may resume his speech.

Mr David Johnson: I'm delighted that the members consider this debate not to be as dry as I thought it might be. It's most heartening. I might just say --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Well, you're doing your best.

Mr David Johnson: I'm doing my best. Thank you, member from Durham. I might say that the last court case that was involved with this general issue and again dictated that action be taken by the government was what they call the Haldenby case, which struck down the regulation that required investment advisers to deal fairly, honestly and in good faith with customers and clients: fairly, honestly and in good faith with customers and clients.

I would think the average person in Ontario would think, when one buys mutual funds or bonds or stocks, that the advisers one is dealing with would have to deal or should be required to deal, as a matter of course, fairly, honestly and in good faith. So perhaps it further highlights the need to restore the confidence and the regulation ability of the OSC, the ability to make rules and policies to govern the industry.

I might say, though, that it's not only the Ontario Securities Commission that has the ability to regulate, at least in an advisory capacity, because we have in the province of Ontario what is called a self-regulating organization, the Investment Dealers Association.

The Investment Dealers Association is composed of all of the dealers in the province of Ontario who give investment advice, and they have voluntarily formed their own association, called the Investment Dealers Association. However, this association does not include about seven firms, I believe it is today, that deal in the penny stocks. Those firms are not part of the Investment Dealers Association.

But the Investment Dealers Association acts as a self-regulating organization and imposes a discipline on the market, a discipline on the market that we should be very thankful for. They apparently, for example, are very involved in the licensing of the brokers and in terms of the education of the brokers. They are involved with the Canadian securities course and ensuring that the brokers are aware of the requirements.

The dealers, I might say, bring with them a practical experience from the market. Now, if the Ontario Securities Commission was to do the duties that it does today plus take on the day-to-day duties, the day-to-day regulation that what is called the SRO -- self-regulating organization -- does, then the duties and responsibilities of the Ontario Securities Commission would be extended even further and it would be more expensive. So I think we should be thankful to the Investment Dealers Association for taking on that obligation in a voluntary sense.

1750

I might also add that through the members of the SRO, there is what's called the Canadian investor protection fund, which offers a protection to the investors of $500,000, which means that if there is a default in a particular brokerage firm, the investor is protected to the tune of $500,000.

On the other side of the coin -- and the member for Essex South has mentioned that securities dealers are also interested in this particular issue -- the securities dealers represent the penny dealers. The penny dealers have concerns with regard to Bill 190. Some of the concerns I've alluded to already.

Primarily, policy 1.10 is of tantamount concern to the securities dealers. Policy 1.10, again, requires a disclosure of the securities dealers in terms of any transactions they do. Policy 1.10 applies to the securities dealers, it applies to the penny dealers but it does not apply to the other investment dealers in the rest of the industry. The securities dealers consider this to be unfair, that the playing field is not level.

The other side of that coin is that the investment dealers would say that, through the SRO, indeed they have a discipline in a regulatory structure that is not imposed on the securities dealers. When one considers the full amount of checks and balances that are in place, indeed the checks through the Ontario Securities Commission, through the SRO on the investment dealers, are even more severe than the current policies that are in place that apply to the securities dealers. So there are certainly two points of view on that matter. I might also add that the protection the securities dealers' fund has is limited to $5,000 per client, which is a much lower level of protection through the securities dealers than it is through the SRO members.

I think the main point is that there should be an opportunity to hear both sides of this debate. I am delighted that the government has allocated some time, only a day, but at least a day is some time and perhaps sufficient. I know that the securities dealers have already applied to make their views known.

I've requested that the Investment Dealers Association, the OSC and the Toronto Stock Exchange be added to the list so that their views might be known to the committee, but I think we know their views up front already. Their views are that Bill 190 should go through, that Bill 190 restores a regulatory power to the Ontario Securities Commission, a power that because of court challenges it has lost, a power that is required to maintain the confidence in the capital market system.

It also imposes, if "imposes" is the right word, on the Ontario Securities Commission a requirement that the commission come forward with an annual statement of priorities. I think this could be a healthy state of affairs. That annual statement of priorities would be presented to the minister and would be published in an OSC bulletin, so it would be open to public scrutiny.

I believe, by the way, that the purpose of the bill in that regard is to make this whole process transparent, and by "transparent" it means that there's nothing to hide, that the general public, anybody involved or interested in making any sort of transaction, investment, would have full knowledge of the whole process.

A further requirement would be that there be a review every five years of the legislation and the regulations around the Ontario Securities Commission. Again, that is a very healthy state of affairs, because as we have heard earlier today, I think from the government and from the opposition party, the Ontario Securities Commission needs to be nimble.

The state of affairs in the capital market system is constantly changing. The power that has been given through this bill will assist the Ontario Securities Commission. It will be able to make rules, it will be able to make policy statements: rules that are binding, policy statements that give guidance but are not binding. It will do so in a process of public scrutiny. It will do so in a process where the general public will have 90 days to comment on the rule and the policy, and the minister will have 60 days to deal with the policy.

Nevertheless, with the importance to our market system, the impact on our economy, the number of jobs that are at stake, not only in the industry itself but through investments that people make, then I think a five-year review is a very healthy state of affairs.

I see the clock is running out, but I just want to make one further comment. The member for Essex South mentioned the concern with regard to investment through penny stocks. Quite traditionally, we think of mining investments in northern Ontario. I mentioned earlier that policy 5.2 limited the commissions to 35%. This transpired in about 1990.

In the five years leading up to 1990, the average investment by small investors -- and I'm talking about $2 million or under, most of them about $1 million or perhaps a little bit less -- through those years was just under $10 million a year in investment, but the commissions equalled the investments, so that on an annual basis about $16 million or so was raised on average each year. Since 1990, since policy 5.2 went into effect, for those junior investments under $2 million virtually nothing has been raised. There's been virtually no money that's gone through that vehicle into exploration in the province of Ontario.

That doesn't mean to throw out Bill 190 or throw out the whole process, which is certainly a very valuable and necessary and required process, but it gives rise to analysing what can be done to ensure that we have the proper investment in mining and other industries in the province of Ontario because that tap apparently has been turned off.

Those commissions at 50% probably seemed obscene, but somehow through that process at least some money was being raised and now no money is being raised. There needs to be some other avenue and the government should give some attention to that fact that those moneys have been lost and investment opportunities are certainly not taking place.

With those comments, I will say that I intend to cooperate fully through this process. I look forward to the committee hearings next Thursday, a week tomorrow. I believe this is a bill that will have all-party support at the end of the day to put this through and ensure that there's integrity and security in our market system.

The Speaker: Any questions and/or comments?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I had hoped I'd have an opportunity to participate in this second reading debate. What I would like to briefly put on the record is that I think it is in the public interest to have an Ontario Securities Commission that instils confidence in those who wish to make investments.

I believe that the result of the court rulings which have effectively neutered the commission requires legislation. A constituent of mine, Mr Bruner, called and said he had concerns about this. I'm pleased to be able to tell him that the committee will be meeting and hearing representations next Thursday and I hope there will be an opportunity for him to be on the speakers' list to present his views.

I also told him that I believe the Ontario Securities Commission is one of the most important securities commissions in Canada. Many of their rulings have become policy statements and national standards. Although we have no national securities commission, I believe that, until such time as we do, the Ontario Securities Commission must be able to make the kinds of rulings to give investors confidence in the way the stocks are handled in this province.

I would like to point out one thing to the government, and that is that the rulings were last May and last August and this is now the end of November and the end of the session, and I think it's unfortunate that this kind of bill will not have a fuller debate.

But I agree with those who say it is important to have a regulatory scheme in place and that the Ontario Securities Commission must have the power. I would point out to those who have concerns that under the proposal, the securities commission can make its own rules but the minister must approve all of those rules, and so there is a bit of a check and balance against rules which might be seen to be unfair or unreasonable.

I look forward to debate at committee and seeing this bill through the legislative process.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Don Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr David Johnson: I apologize to the member for Oriole. I thought I would be finished a bit earlier but the previous speaker went on a bit further and I went on a bit further and she was rather limited in her time. I think she perhaps just did the two minutes to get a little bit on the record, and she's had that opportunity. I can only say that her comments are in agreement with mine, and this may be one of those cases when we have, as I said before, all-party agreement.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is saying "Sit down" at this point, and perhaps I'll take that opportunity and sit down after I just express, for the final time, that we certainly need to have that confidence and integrity in our capital market system in the province of Ontario. This could be one of the most important bills we deal with this fall.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: No further comments.

The Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 190. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It's carried.

By previous agreement of the House, this bill is referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. There is one day of hearings scheduled for December 1.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1804.

23 novembre 1994