ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE
Report continued from volume A.
1720
SUPERANNUATION ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS REPEAL ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 ABROGEANT LA LOI INTITULÉE SUPERANNUATION ADJUSTMENT BENEFITS ACT
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 107, An Act to repeal the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act and to provide for the transfer of assets and liabilities of the Superannuation Adjustment Fund Account to the Ryerson Retirement Pension Plan of Ryerson Polytechnical Institute / Loi abrogeant la loi intitulée Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act et prévoyant le transfert de l'actif et du passif du compte du Fonds d'indexation des pensions de retraite au Régime de retraite de Ryerson de l'Institut polytechnique Ryerson.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This bill is the result of an agreement negotiated between the Minister of Finance and the president of Ryerson Polytechnic University. The government and Ryerson worked together to achieve this agreement to end the partial funding of indexation benefits and achieve full funding of Ryerson's pension plan.
Bill 107 implements this agreement. It repeals the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act, which dates from 1975. Since 1990, this act has only applied to the indexation of pension benefits for members of Ryerson's pension plan.
In 1975, the government of the day decided to ease the funding requirements for inflation protection of pension benefits. It amended the Pension Benefits Act regulations to allow pension plan sponsors to establish separate indexation funds. These indexation funds were to be funded on a pay-as-you-go basis.
Under the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act the government offered to create separate superannuation adjustment funds as the indexation funds for each pension plan. This offer was accepted by members of the public service pension plan, the teachers' pension plan and the Ryerson pension plan.
In the late 1980s, it became evident that the cost to the government to cover the inadequate funding of these funds would lead to serious financial problems by the turn of the century. These problems would be magnified as the baby-boom generation began to retire.
In 1989, the basic pension funds of the teachers' plan and the public service plan were each combined with their superannuation adjustment funds. The government legislated measures to achieve full funding of pension benefits of both plans. It agreed to retire the deficits of both combined funds incurred up to 1989. Also, the matching contribution rates of each plan were increased to fully fund benefits earned after 1989.
The Ryerson superannuation adjustment fund was the only indexation fund whose financing was not addressed in 1989. It still provides partially funded automatic full inflation protection under the original act.
Under pay-as-you-go funding, the Ryerson superannuation adjustment fund would be exhausted by about the year 2013. The longer the Ryerson pension situation was left unchanged, the greater would be the cost to the government of fixing it. The agreement between the Minister of Finance and the president of Ryerson eliminates the government's potential liabilities and provides greater security for pension benefits. This agreement provides that:
-- Ryerson combines its basic pension fund, which is under its jurisdiction, with the indexation fund, which was previously under the government's jurisdiction.
-- Ryerson increases the contribution rate from 7% to 8% for its plan members to achieve full funding of future pension benefits.
-- The government pays the combined basic and indexation funds' deficit of $19.1 million. This will eliminate the government's potential liability at less cost than if it was held liable when the fund was exhausted.
-- The government also pays $2.3 million in temporary financial assistance to help Ryerson adjust to its higher employer contributions.
In addition to repealing the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act, Bill 107 allows conversion of Ryerson's deposit assets in the superannuation adjustment fund into debentures and transfers them, with Ryerson's indexation liabilities, to Ryerson. This enables Ryerson to fulfil its agreement to combine the basic and indexation funds of their plan.
Bill 107 will benefit the 1,600 members of the Ryerson pension plan by making their pension benefits more secure. Ontario taxpayers also benefit, as it will reduce future tax liabilities.
I think it's also important at this time to make some comment regarding this whole issue of funding of pensions. The reason is because we often hear about how well managed things were during the 42 years of Conservative government, how they managed everything and they kept their budgets under control and there wasn't extra spending. Well, of course, now what we find out after they're out of government is that in effect things weren't as well managed as they've been tried to be portrayed, because we find that with some of these things, the costs are coming due for future governments.
The previous government, much to its credit on this issue, in 1989 decided to make some changes to ensure that some of the pension plans were fully funded. I'm not sure why the Ryerson one wasn't dealt with at that time, but it wasn't. But clearly it becomes evident that we now see that things weren't as well managed as some people like to say for 42 years, because they weren't putting the money away, as we hear often from them, at the time to cover the full cost into the future of these pension plans and the indexation requirements. We saw that with the teachers' plan, and of course here another example with Ryerson.
I guess while I'm at it, it shows too, for those who say that during those 42 years life was wonderful and everything was well managed, we've seen other examples, of course, that that wasn't the case. I look at the Workers' Compensation Board, where in 1980 the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board was only $400 million. By 1985, what is the unfunded liability? It's up close to $6 billion. And then of course we know that by 1990 it was even up to $10 billion.
So this bill, while it has a lot of positive aspects, particularly for those people who are employed at Ryerson, and it does show a sense of good government by dealing with this concern and not deferring it to the future where it would cost the government more money, does show that for those who want to portray the 42 years of wonderful management under Conservative governments, we see examples that in effect the bills weren't paid then or the money wasn't put aside to pay the future bills. It was just deferred.
Of course, when we talk today of where governments are in terms of dealing with their finances and some of the issues, if the government of the day had set aside appropriate moneys, I'm sure that things would be even in a little better shape. We probably wouldn't have had to commit as much money in the last few years as we have to ensure the financial soundness of these pension plans, and of course that would mean reduced government expenditures, reduced deficits. We know we hear from the third party quite a bit about how concerned it is about those issues.
I do think in this debate it is important to bring that to everyone's attention, that things maybe weren't quite as well managed as the members of the third party like to portray on many occasions and that some of the bills that should've been paid or money set aside to ensure that they would be paid at the time were not.
With that, I will conclude my comments and look forward to the others who will be participating in this debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Maybe I'll just rise to the challenge, because the parliamentary assistant has indicated that things may not have been so properly managed back a number of years ago during Progressive Conservative years. I do know that there's a problem that has to be corrected with regard to this pension fund. We'll be speaking to that in a few minutes. But I might say that when the Progressive Conservative Party left office -- and at that point in time I was the mayor of the borough of East York; I wasn't a member of the caucus -- at that point in time, in 1985, the debt in the province of Ontario was $25 billion.
You can talk about one particular pension plan, and you can talk about $21 million that needs to be transferred to correct a situation in one particular pension plan, but if we're going to talk about management, let's look at the overall management of the province of Ontario.
The debt just nine years ago was $25 billion in the province of Ontario. When this government took office in 1990, the debt had risen through the Liberal regime to about $45 billion. In four short years, this government has increased the debt of the province of Ontario, has doubled the debt of the province of Ontario, from about $45 billion to $90 billion; a $90-billion debt hanging over our children, our grandchildren, that's going to be passed along to future generations.
If we're going to talk about management, I would be a little hesitant if I had that sort of a track record of doubling the debt, of having four successive years of deficits in excess of $10 billion. I think I would be a little bit ashamed to talk about good management in the province of Ontario if that was my track record.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Just briefly, I would like to commend my colleague the member for Oxford on his remarks. As always, he shows how well researched he is, how well he looks after these issues and how this government has in fact completed a thorough investigation of the pension issue for Ryerson and met a problem that's been existing with us for a long time.
My colleague opposite talks about debt and how it has accumulated. He says that during the Tory regime it didn't amount to as much as it did during the previous government, during the Liberal government here. However, he fails to mention that while his colleagues in Ottawa were in power they seem to have amassed an incredible amount of debt without deviating one iota from debt slashing, deficit slashing. Somehow, as they were doing that, they were able to accumulate immense amounts of debt. That's a tremendous paradox that my friend forgot to comment upon.
Again, I'd like to comment upon my colleague's excellent remarks and let him get on to his summary.
1730
Mr Sutherland: I thank the member for Durham Centre and the member for Don Mills for their comments.
Let's talk about the management, though. The Tories ruled during a time when they were getting 50-cent dollars from the federal government to cover the major expenditures of the time. This government is not getting 50-cent dollars. In many cases, we're down to 30-cent federal dollars. Who made that decision?
So for him to say, "Oh, yes, we had wonderful management," again I repeat: the pension funds, not enough money put in them at the time. That's costing us now. The Workers' Compensation Board's unfunded liability was $400 million in 1980 and up over $5 billion, $5.5 billion, close to $6 billion by 1985 when they went out of power. I didn't mention in my opening comments Ontario Hydro and how its debt grew tremendously, even though everyone knows in this province we've always had power at cost, at the real cost.
There are all kinds of other examples where we can clearly see that while the impression was left that everything was being run very effectively, very smoothly, good government for 42 years, the bills came due after the Tories were out of power. That was really the point I was trying to make here, because we hear from the members of the third party on a regular occasion: "Things were so wonderful for 42 years. Government ran smoothly. Everything was just terrific, and we managed it so effectively." Well, I would suggest that if they had managed it so effectively, we probably would not be here today debating this specific piece of legislation, which is to try and rectify a problem they did not address when they were in government.
The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): It is a pleasure for me this evening to speak to Bill 107. This bill, as we know, represents the completion of a reform of public sector pensions that was begun under the previous government. As such, the passage of the bill is important, and especially for Ryerson university, which can now bring its pension plan up to date.
For the record, I would like to read a letter that came from the office of the president and vice-chancellor of Ryerson, Terence W. Grier -- no coincidence, I should suspect. But this letter, addressed to our leader, Lyn McLeod, says:
"Ryerson requires passage of legislation in the coming session in order to complete the transfer to our custody of benefits under the Superannuation Adjustment Benefits Act. You will recall that Robert Nixon began the process of winding down the SABA when he was Treasurer. The teachers and the Ontario public service were also affected.
"Under the agreement we worked out in 1992 with the Ministry of Finance, the government undertook to introduce a bill which would provide for the repeal of the SABA fund with respect to Ryerson and formalize the financial arrangements. This bill was given first reading in December 1992, but has yet to be called for second reading," and this letter was dated September 18, 1994. "Until the legislation is passed, Ryerson remains unable to control or manage the assets in question or to apply the funds towards the indexation of its employees' pension benefits, as it is obliged to do."
He goes on to say: "I'm concerned that further delay will jeopardize our ability to maintain a fully indexed benefit. For these reasons, we have been urging the government to place the bill on the legislative agenda for this fall. However, I believe the chances of this happening would be greatly improved if there was prior agreement among the parties to deal with it expeditiously as an uncontroversial item. I'm writing in the hope that you and your party would be amenable to such a course of action. I will be in touch with your office in the near future to follow up and would be pleased to arrange whatever additional briefing you might require."
As I said, that's signed by Terence W. Grier, the president of Ryerson.
As requested in the letter, he had asked that we would be amenable to such a course of action, which we are.
The fact that it took the government so long to bring in such a non-controversial bill proves, we think, that the NDP is still a bit incompetent in managing its legislative agenda.
I would interject at this time that I don't know whether there's any party in this place that should take a holier-than-thou attitude when it comes to deficits when I constantly have to remind the House that the Provincial Auditor, for the year ended 1990, in his report of 1991 said, "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years." Of course, we all know that was a Liberal government that had that only surplus in 20 years. Some will say that this was done in good times. The fact is that at least the money was managed, notwithstanding the fact that it was in good times, and I wish we didn't have to constantly repeat that the only surplus in the last 20 years, and now 23 or 24 years, was with the previous Liberal government.
Even as this chapter in public sector pension reform is being written, the NDP is engaged in other policies that are harming the financial soundness of the province's public sector pension funds. Last year, the Provincial Auditor gave a qualified -- and I emphasize "qualified" -- approval of the 1992-93 public accounts. In other words, he refused to sign the books without any reservation. Why? It was because the NDP decided to delay $500 million worth of pension payments into the teachers' pension plan for that year. The government did this, and at the same time paid approximately $5 million of taxpayers' money for the privilege of doing it, in order to make the deficit look better. The auditor said this was wrong by giving a qualified statement, and he told the government so.
The pension fiddling under Bob Rae actually gets worse. Currently the government is taking a two-year holiday from its contribution to the teachers' pension plan and the public service pension plan. This move will add to the government's revenues and thus -- falsely, I feel -- reduce its deficit. How can the government afford this tax holiday? The government says that lower-than-expected inflation and lower-than-expected salary increases for public servants have left the plan temporarily overfunded according to the existing payment schedule.
The government could have used this money, could have used this actuarial good fortune, we might say, to reduce the unfunded liabilities of both plans faster than anticipated. That would have placed both plans, we feel, on a sounder financial footing for the future. Instead, the NDP took the money out of the plans and used it for its own programs, such as the failed Jobs Ontario Training --
Hon Stephen Owens (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): What do you mean, "failed"?
Mr Crozier: -- and to dress up its deficit, which the auditor now estimates at being $2 billion higher than the government's projections.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Essex South has the floor.
Mr Crozier: Essentially, this government is taking the pension surplus from these two public sector pension plans and wasting the money on the NDP's failed economic agenda. I don't hear the member across objecting to that suggestion, that they're taking this pension money and using it for other purposes.
Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): What are you talking about? Absolute nonsense.
Interjections.
Mr Crozier: Now I hear them objecting, so I feel as though I must have touched a tender point.
Hon Mr Owens: The only thing with a point is your head.
Mr Crozier: You aren't the first one to question my head, but I'll leave that up to the people in Essex South.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a period for questions and comments afterwards. Please take advantage of that.
Hon Mr Owens: I will.
Mr Crozier: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm ready to conclude and then I'll give him that opportunity.
When in opposition Premier Bob Rae -- and this is on the record -- used to yell at Conrad Black, if you will recall, for exactly the same kind of business practice; that is, taking what were considered at the time to be excess funds out of pension plans. The Premier made quite a point about that.
1740
In the late 1980s, the issue of who controlled the private pension plan surpluses -- was it management or the employees, the workers? -- was a big issue for this government, but today it doesn't seen to be that big an issue. The party argued that employees should benefit from better-than-expected performance and not the companies or, in this case, we say the government. I see a parallel between the two, but I see an opposite point of view by the government at this time. Now that Mr Rae is in government, he seems to have conveniently forgotten this.
As I said at the outset, we agree with Mr Grier that the passage of this legislation is long overdue. We are anxious to see it proceed and we only wish that the government would have acted as expeditiously on other issues.
The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?
Mr David Johnson: The member for Essex South raised a point which caused some consternation on the part of the government members. I wish to thank him for raising that point; I am just trying to recall the details. It involves the public pension plan for the OPSEU members. My recollection is that, because of the social contract process, the OPSEU members were mightily upset with the government. Certainly, restrictions were imposed on their salaries. As one way to curry favour with OPSEU -- and it had always been OPSEU's hope that somehow they could get control of their pension plan.
However, there are other members in this pension plan. The Ontario Provincial Police, for example, have members in the pension plan; there are management members, non-union members in this pension plan. So it was decided to split the pension plan apart so that OPSEU would have its own pension plan and would gain control over that pension plan -- that is something the union considered highly desirable -- and then everybody else would be in the other side of the pension plan.
The only problem was that the other members were not consulted. Not only were they not consulted, but the Ontario Provincial Police in particular had a clause in their agreement with the government that they would be consulted if ever it was to be considered that the pension plan would be split, and that clause is violated.
The problem was that, in the view of those who were separated away from the OPSEU side of the pension plan, they did not get their share of the assets of the plan; they were shortchanged. This was to the advantage of the government, because the government made an arrangement to reduce payments, which reflected in the operating budget, and this was of benefit to OPSEU, but obviously the other members of the plan suffered.
The member for Essex South has raised this and I thank him for it.
Mr Sutherland: To respond to a couple of the comments of the member for Essex South, first of all, he mentioned the "failed" Jobs Ontario Training program, and that simply isn't the case. Over 60,000 people have jobs because of the Jobs Ontario Training program. Hundreds, thousands of small businesses out there which would not be able to access training in any other way have been able to do it through this program. The challenge I would pose to the member from Essex is, if you don't like the Jobs Ontario Training program, what is your training program? What program are you going to put forward?
When you were in government, you put forward OTAB as a model, and now your caucus doesn't support OTAB any more. We really need to know what type of training alternatives you would be proposing, if not supporting this. It just shows that the Liberal opposition in many cases has been very critical of things this government has been doing, very effective things, things that have been working. I know in my own riding I get very good responses from small business people on the Jobs Ontario Training program, because it's not costly, there isn't a lot of paperwork and it's specifically focused to their individual needs. Yet do we hear what the Liberal training platform is?
Like so many other issues, we don't know what their platform is, we don't know what the policies are, we don't know what their direction is other than some vague vision statement that yes, we need to have more effective training. That's great, we all want more effective training, but let's put something tangible on the table. This government has done that. During the worst recession since the 1930s and now into the recovery period, we've put together an actual training program -- over 60,000 people have jobs -- the most successful one in the history of this province.
Hon Irene Mathyssen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): It's been a while since I've had the opportunity to speak in the House, and it's a pleasure to address just a couple of comments. I would like to reiterate what my colleague the member for Oxford has indicated, and that is that 64,000 good-paying, permanent jobs have been created in Ontario because of Jobs Ontario Training.
One of the biggest problems in this province for years and years was the lack of response to the need for training. I used to teach in the secondary system in this province, and consistently, all through those years of teaching, the problem that I was hearing over and over again from the community was that we are not training our young people for the future, for the trades, for the technological jobs that we will need in order to continue to grow.
So Jobs Ontario Training, in the wake of a desperate recession that was brought on by Tory federal government free trade and Liberal federal government NAFTA policies, policies that literally cost 500,000 jobs in this province, had to respond. That's what Jobs Ontario Training does: It gives people technological skills that will take us into the 21st century with confidence.
When I hear the member talking about a bankrupt economic policy, I have to talk about my riding, where Jobs Ontario Training helped Liffey Custom Coating and helped Diamond Aircraft to train people so that the people in London, Ontario, will have space-age jobs, 21st-century jobs. In my riding, we saved 500 jobs at Tender Tootsies in Mount Brydges and Glencoe and we helped Conference Cup to expand to meet market needs. I'd like them to tell all these people we've helped that this is a failed --
The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Questions and comments?
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): The member opposite has whetted my appetite about Jobs Ontario. I have to tell you about a constituent who came into my office --
Hon Mrs Mathyssen: A constituent.
Mr Callahan: Well, that constituent is as important as any of the others.
The Deputy Speaker: Please keep your comments on Ryerson.
Mr Callahan: Okay, on Ryerson, she spoke of the question of Ryerson in terms of the Jobs Ontario creation. I had a constituent come into my riding who had learned to be a master welder. He told me: "Mr Callahan, I was offered this job through Jobs Ontario. I went down to this firm, and they had me sweeping the floor." He said, "I was really concerned because I thought I was going to lose my skills as a master welder."
He stayed there for about eight months and then decided he had to leave the place because it just was not helping his ability to be a welder. I said to him: "What did this employer appear to have? What kind of products was he selling?" This fellow, who I consider to be a credible constituent of mine, said that there was nothing on the shelves at all. In fact, what he had done, I suggest, was to have accepted the opportunity of up to $10,000 by way of contribution through Jobs Ontario.
I know this government was feverish about trying to boost the number of jobs that it could applaud and cry about, but in fact what it was doing in many cases perhaps was creating situations where employers -- sure, you know, you offer them $10,000, they'll take it. Some of them, not all of them but a few, had an opportunity to use Jobs Ontario in terms of being able to traffic in jobs of Ontario. You get $10,000. I find it passing strange that in fact the situation would be put forward. The other thing was that they had to apply for welfare before they could get Jobs Ontario.
1750
Mr Crozier: It's interesting to note that the only comment they took out of the context of my remarks to speak about was Jobs Ontario, which leads me to believe that they don't deny they're taking these pension holidays contrary to the position they took when they were on this side of the Legislature.
I think the important thing here is that we're finally bringing to a conclusion another chapter in the pension adjustment, one that should have not taken this long, an initiative that was started by the Liberal government and has obviously taken them almost five years to complete.
When it comes to our jobs plan --
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Why did you call the election earlier, then, after three years?
Mr Crozier: Thank you very much, because when it comes to our jobs plan -- in response to the member across and this one as well -- it's very simple: You want to see our jobs plan, you call an election.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Middlesex, the member for Port Arthur, order.
Further debate, the member for Don Mills.
Mr David Johnson: That's a hard act to follow, but I will say, now that we've got fighting between the other two parties --
Interjections.
Mr David Johnson: Mr Speaker, can you get a little order?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the members from the government side to refrain from heckling. That applies to you, the member for Middlesex, the member for Port Arthur and the minister.
Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to say up front that you won't have to wait until the election to see the Progressive Conservative Party with regard to creating jobs. We have The Common Sense Revolution, it's been out for several months and it is a job creation plan.
I don't know how this debate got into Jobs Ontario and job creation, but since the topic has been raised by both of the other parties, I want the government to know and the people of Ontario to know that we are very serious about job creation and that we have a plan that involves attacking the very impediments to job creation in the province of Ontario.
It is not a plan that attempts, by artificial means, to buy jobs in the province of Ontario with taxpayers' money. You can't do that. There isn't enough money in kingdom come, there isn't enough money that this government can get its hands on, no matter how hard it tries, to buy all the jobs that are required in the province of Ontario.
If the member for Middlesex wants to know what is a good job creation plan, she's right, she won't get it from the Liberal Party. You'll have to wait till the election to get it from the Liberal Party. Maybe you'll get it then, I don't know, but I'll tell you what our plan is right now, today. The Common Sense Revolution plan is to cut the personal income tax by 30%. The Common Sense Revolution plan is --
The Deputy Speaker: I don't have to remind you that the bill is on the pension plan, Ryerson institute, and that's what we have to debate.
Mr David Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I certainly will debate that because that's a very important issue, but you did allow latitude with regard to the other two parties in terms of their job creation plans, so just to quickly finish it off: Cut personal income tax, cut the employer health tax, cut the workers' compensation premiums --
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to debate the bill.
Mr David Johnson: All right, back to the bill. I too have the letter from Terence Grier, the president and vice-chancellor of Ryerson, with regard to this particular issue that's before us, the pension plan, and it is a most serious issue. The letter was addressed to Michael Harris, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party in Ontario, and it's similar to the letter that was read out by the previous speaker.
I might say that the reason we're here today is because back before 1990, back in the 1980s, the Liberals, under the Treasurer, as I believe he was termed at that point, Robert Nixon, began the consolidation of the indexation plans and the basic pension plans for many public civil servants. Now, this was accomplished for several of the sectors, most notably for the teachers' superannuation fund, for example. Their two plans, their indexation plan and their basic plan, were combined together. It also happened for the public service pension plan. Again, the two plans, the one plan to fund the indexation of the pension plan and the other plan to fund the basic component of the pension plan, were combined together.
However, when Mr Nixon, back pre-1990, attempted to do this, he forgot, for some reason or another, or didn't get around to addressing the pension plan for the people at Ryerson. I don't know if this was an oversight or just exactly why this happened, but it didn't happen.
Consequently, this particular government back two years ago attempted to correct this situation. I don't know why it has taken two years to bring this to us tonight. The parliamentary assistant has indicated we wouldn't be here today if the Progressive Conservative Party back in 1984 had done something or other. I forget exactly what it was he said that we didn't do, but I can tell you, if the Liberal government had correctly addressed this problem in 1988, I think it was, or if this government hadn't taken two years to deal with this problem from 1992, then we wouldn't be here tonight and this problem would be dealt with.
Now what we have is that the assets from the indexed plan are not available to the Ryerson plan, and consequently the Ryerson pension fund is in danger of slipping into a deficit situation. What will happen is that either operating funds will have to be used from Ryerson to pay for the shortfall or else an increased payment will have to be made by the members of the plan. Now the members of the plan got into the plan on a certain basis. They were given certain promises, certain rules were set out, and those rules and promises are in danger of being broken unless the plan is fixed as soon as possible.
In fairness to those in the Ryerson plan, to extend to them the same working arrangement that the teachers have received and that the public service has received, this is obviously a situation that needs to be supported this evening, and certainly I will be supporting it and the Progressive Conservative Party will be supporting it. It's something that should have been corrected over five years ago and it's something that again was addressed two years ago and should have been completed at that point in time.
During this debate other points have been raised with regard to pension plans and it certainly does raise one's suspicions about the way the government handles pension plans. I've looked at this and my party's looked at this and we think this needs to be done, and we support the government in this particular one and we support President Terence Grier in pushing this one through. But I must say that the track record of this particular government in terms of handling pensions is not one that's unblemished.
In particular, the teachers' pension plan was manipulated such that payments which should have been incurred in one particular year were carried over to another particular year. This was pointed out by the auditor of the province of Ontario, and I might say that during Progressive Conservative rule, which the member from Oxford has referred to, the auditor was prepared to sign the books. But for the first time ever, a year ago we had the prospect that the auditor would not sign the books for the province of Ontario.
1800
There were certain reasons, but I suspect that one of the problems on the mind of the auditor at that point in time was the fact that the payments for the pension fund were being shifted to another year. They were being shifted to another year to try to improve the operating balance of the province of Ontario. This was an artificial move to make the actual payments look better. That's one case in point where there is every room for suspicion in the way that this government handles pension schemes.
The second situation was raised by the member for Essex South when he indicated the "sweetheart deal" that arose between the government and OPSEU. OPSEU was very annoyed, and probably still remains annoyed, with this particular government because of the social contract. OPSEU has always wanted to get its fingers on the pension plan. They wanted to have control of their pension plan. I suppose most unions would like to have control over their pension plan; that's probably only natural.
As a carrot, the government agreed to separate out OPSEU from the pension plan, separate it from the other members of the pension plan, including the Ontario Provincial Police, including a group called AMAPCEO, the Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario, which is composed of non-union members, and give the Ontario public service union its own pension plan.
That did, I'm sure, curry favour with the union, but it left the other members of the pension plan, in their estimation, shortchanged because, as I guess I indicated in my previous comments, the Ontario Provincial Police had a direct undertaking with this government that they would be consulted before any change was made to their pension plan, and they were not consulted.
Furthermore, according to the Ontario Provincial Police and according to AMAPCEO, the non-union members, they were not given the proper allocation of assets on their half of the pension plan; they were shortchanged. As a matter of fact, they were so enraged with the action that was taken that they initiated court action against the government because they felt that they were shortchanged.
What could be more important to the members -- the OPP, the management members who have worked for the province of Ontario for years and years, decades in many cases, who depend on their pension plan in their latter years -- than to have this government unilaterally, without their consent, put them into a new pension plan and diminish the assets, the assets that they count on to have payments made when they're eligible? That is the second case in point where this government has given reason for us to be somewhat suspicious of any moves with regard to pension plans.
However, there's $21 million of assets involved, $21 million in assets that rightly belong to the members of the Ryerson plan. That $21 million is sitting out there in limbo right now. That $21 million -- $21.7 million I think to be exact -- is rightfully for the members of the Ryerson pension plan to avoid having to use operating funds or to avoid having to make the members make a higher contribution then they should be required to make.
Certainly we will support this bill tonight and have Bill 107 approved. I guess that will complete my portion of the debate on this bill, but I do want to say again that there has been some lack of credibility in the way that this government, other than in this particular bill, has dealt with pensions simply over the past year. We're not going back into ancient history. Over the past year there have been at least two instances where the government has dealt in a fashion that the auditor of the province of Ontario, for one, has not found satisfactory, and that worries me.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments? Further debate?
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I understand that my colleague from the third party would have the opportunity to go first. I understand he has a pressing engagement and I'm content that that happen. But I would like to revert back, if that's possible.
The Acting Speaker: Oh, this is Bill 107, the Ryerson pension debate.
Mr Callahan: I've already spoken on that, so I'm not entitled to speak again.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, would you like to wind up? It appears that there are no other participants.
Mr Sutherland: Sure. I appreciate the participants in the debate, the member for Essex South and the member for Don Mills.
Let me just repeat again that what we're doing here is rectifying a problem that wasn't addressed before. I understand I didn't address this in my opening remarks. One of the reasons it was not probably addressed at the same time as the teachers' plan was that because at that time it was Ryerson Polytechnical Institute and, actually, the government wasn't directly responsible for contributions into the pension plan in the same way it was for the teachers' pension plan, so there were some very specific issues that had to be negotiated with Ryerson regarding this agreement and how it would be worked out. That probably explains why it wasn't done at the same time as the teachers' pension plan.
I just want to respond to a couple of comments. The member for Essex South tried to compare this government to Conrad Black in its dealings with pensions. I'd just like to remind him that Conrad Black did not sit down and negotiate with anybody about what type of a pension holiday he was going to take out of the Dominion pension. It was decided arbitrarily that that was going to be the case, and of course this government has negotiated with the other parties responsible for the pension plan for whatever savings may have occurred.
We also heard a comment from the member for Don Mills about the auditor always signing the books of the Tories. I just want to remind him that if we were operating under the new accounting standards, of course, we know that all those years of allegedly balanced budgets and low deficits would not be the case; those deficit figures would have been much higher over those years.
I just wanted to make that point and I appreciate everyone's contribution to the debate.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.
1810
CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for concurrence in supply for the following ministries and offices:
Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Transportation
Ministry of Community and Social Services
Ministry of Northern Development and Mines
Management Board Secretariat
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Ministry of Housing
Ministry of Environment and Energy
Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation
Ministry of Economic Development and Trade
Ministry of Natural Resources.
Hon Mike Farnan (Minister of Transportation): I have read Hansard from this past Monday's debate and I'm very, very concerned about comments made by the member for York Mills. As usual, he seems to reflect back to the good old 1950s and obviously remembers those days very fondly.
He is on record as saying his party would "restore the tendering process that the Conservative government put in place in this province in 1952." Let me remind the member that under the 1952 Conservative method, Highway 407 would have cost taxpayers an additional $300 million, taken 22 years longer to complete, stifled engineering innovation, eliminated any possible economies of scale and cost the workers of Ontario 20,000 jobs over the next three years. While the Conservatives want to take us back in time, I think they should remember that the rest of the world is moving forward.
Using our method of constructing Highway 407, we will create 20,000 jobs now, when they are most needed, save the taxpayers $300 million, encourage private sector partnerships and encourage innovation and competition. We will build a much-needed highway 22 years faster. Lastly, but most importantly, we will help Ontario's design and construction industry catch up with the rest of the world to build large-scale products like Highway 407 in an innovative and effective manner.
This international model is used everywhere -- in Germany, the USA and many other parts of the world. By allowing partnerships with the private sector and changing the way we build highways, we are positioning our industries to be the world leaders and at the same time we are getting the job done faster and we are saving the taxpayers a lot of money. I cannot understand why the member for York Mills insists that sending Ontario back in time by 40 years can be a good thing, but maybe that's the Conservative way.
Another point that the member for York Mills continued to hammer away at is, did we get the lowest bid? The simple answer is yes, we got the best bid for the taxpayers' money. But the member must respect that we are not simply asking for a pavement contract. We requested proposals that called for design options, construction options and operating plans. It is not the simplistic, archaic method that the Tories promote; it is a process that encourages partnership, encourages innovation, encourages competition and encourages efficiency.
The Tories want it both ways. They released their ridiculous Common Sense document that says they will cut, slash, burn and eliminate everything but health care. But then they go around and tell people, "We won't cut in your backyard," or they tell farmers they will not cut transfer payments to agriculture or they say they won't cut transfers to municipalities. When there are people speaking directly to sectors and stakeholders, when they're talking to farmers they say, "No, we won't cut," and when they're talking to municipalities, they say "No, we won't cut." But in The Common Sense Revolution they say they will indeed cut. This is duplicity that will not be accepted by the people of Ontario and will be very clearly exposed. Their math simply just doesn't add up, as usual.
They want to enjoy the 1990s, but they play under the rules that have long been outdated in the rest of the world.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): They had 42 years to learn them.
Hon Mr Farnan: I can tell you, and I can tell the member, that the Tory days were not that glorious. We saw deficits, we saw spiralling health care costs and we saw a sporadic method of building Ontario's infrastructure. The NDP government's approach uses effective management, controlled spending, better planning and an infrastructure program that makes sense by helping the environment and creating jobs, and that makes Ontario an attractive place to do business.
Let's remember, it was this government, the government of Bob Rae, that first recognized the value of an infrastructure program to create jobs. The federal government was dragged to the table kicking and screaming after it saw it was working. And let's not forget the provincial Liberals were extremely critical of infrastructure spending to combat the recession until their federal cousins swallowed their pride and admitted that indeed the Bob Rae approach was the right approach.
The Tories of course don't believe that good roads, sewers, water treatment plants and safe bridges have anything to do with economic prosperity. They simply say, "Tax cuts will create jobs." They don't think companies need roads to get their goods to market. They don't believe that a strong infrastructure is just as important as tax rates and skilled labour.
But tax cuts don't build bridges. Tax cuts don't guarantee Ontarians safe drinking water. Tax cuts won't maintain our high level of health care regardless of what Mike Harris says or how many times he says it. He says he will maintain spending on health care, but he doesn't consider the impact on the health care system of our preventive programs, of our support for people living on low incomes. Mike Harris doesn't see a correlation between people being able to feed themselves and health care. He doesn't see that the support for children in their home prevents malnutrition and eventual hospitalization. The consequences of his cuts are simply not factored in to his nonsense revolution.
I might add that his approach would indeed help in achieving the goal of the member for York Mills setting Ontario back 40 years. In fact, it would exceed his goal by many, many more years and probably take us back to the 1850s.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Farnan: Clearly, the message is having an impact on the two members of the third party who are present in the House to hear this point, but nothing could be further from --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Farnan: Another point I want to clarify for the record is with regard to the member's accusations that the winning consortium was chosen because of a labour agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want to state clearly and for the record that the government does not, and did not, participate in the labour negotiations of either of the consortia.
The rules on this are very clear. We do require that a fair wage policy be used. We do require that the employer abide by the existing labour laws, but for the member to criticize, because the employer and the union negotiated in good faith an agreement that was mutually satisfying to both of them, is totally ridiculous.
The member also raised a topic of reduced concrete mixtures and life-cycle analysis of the pavement. Again, let me make it clear for the member, Ontario has construction standards. The ministry will ensure that these standards are met, and to imply that the builder would use lesser standards is both misleading and insulting.
On the second point regarding the life-cycle analysis, I ask the member: Would he buy a car or a house or a shirt based solely on price or would he look at the quality and determine how long it will last you? Does value for money mean anything to the member? Of course we use life-cycle analysis as one part of our criteria, but only as one part. To not use it at all would be foolish and irresponsible.
Another area that I must raise is the member's insistence on using phrases such as, "I have been told," or "I have heard allegations." I must ask the member if he approves of rumourmongering. Allegations are just that: allegations. Insinuation is just that: insinuation. If the member has actual information that he is truly concerned about, he should share it with me, he should share it with the House, he should share it with the public and together we can find answers. But what we have is the lowest-basis approach to politics. It is absolutely crass. It is based on allegation and insinuation and I believe the member should be indeed ashamed.
1820
To imply that the deal was not aboveboard is wrong. All possible safeguards were put in place before the requests for proposals were sent out. Price Waterhouse oversaw the whole process and reported back that everything was followed. They have certified that claim in writing and the member who makes these allegations and insinuations knows that.
The team of deputies responsible did a fine job. They did a fine job because they are professionals. But we have a member of the House insulting the bureaucracy, and this is a very cheap political shot for selfish purposes because the bureaucrats don't have the opportunity to answer to him. So he gets up here, immune from response, and makes any kind of allegation and insinuation. This indeed, I am sure, will be evaluated by the good people of York Mills when they look at their member who, in his very pompous arrogance, makes these kinds of accusations. The public, I believe, are not prepared to accept that kind of cheap politicking.
In closing, I want to say that this government can be proud of Highway 407. We can be proud of the fact that we moved Ontario forward from the 1952 rut that the Conservatives would keep us in and brought it into the 1990s with the rest of the world. We did it. The Bob Rae government did it. The NDP government did it. We did it and the Tories and the Liberals are jealous. It's very, very simple; and, might I add, they have a right to be jealous. We have done so much in this term.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments, the honourable member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: I have to say that the member opposite --
The Acting Speaker: Sorry, I've just been advised by the Clerk that on time allocation we do not have questions or comments. I apologize to my colleagues. Further debate, the member for Simcoe East.
Mr Callahan: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent that I am allowing the member from Simcoe to speak first -- he has an important engagement -- but that the rotation will come back to our party, the official opposition.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement? Agreed.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I thank my colleague from Brampton for allowing me to proceed.
I want to comment briefly with regard to the debate on concurrence in supply. There are several ministries that we're dealing with here. I wanted to try to make some remarks with regard to them as they are in order here.
The Solicitor General's ministry is the first one that I would like to deal with. It was mentioned today about the RIDE program in this province of Ontario. I think it's been one of the best programs that the OPP and many other police organizations have put on in order to stop and to control drunk driving.
As I've said before, there's one area of concern that a lot of people are not aware of. The fact is that if you're picked up once and lose your licence, your insurance rates increase dramatically. Not only that, but you lose the use of your vehicle for a certain period of time. It's tough on your family. There are a lot of repercussions that happen when you drink and drive. I just want to say, as I mentioned earlier on today, it could cost up to $20,000 by the time you lose your licence and increase your insurance and pay your fines.
I think the program is working and I would urge the government to continue on with the funding of that program as they have in the past. I know that the police are preventing a lot of accidents on our highways. It costs the health care system some $100 million annually for drinking and driving. As I said before, there are about 12,000 hospital admissions; about 568 people die in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents; there are 31,000 O-class drivers charged with impaired driving in Ontario. Any way we can cut that down, I think, is a step in the right direction and I think the RIDE program has worked well.
The money that the government is putting into the new headquarters in the city of Orillia to have all the units in one facility I think has been a plus for the city of Orillia. It's been a great thing to see the different sections amalgamated and I think that, in the long run, it will cut down on the cost of policing.
We look at the costs of studies that are being done at the request of some municipalities. Some municipalities like the OPP to come in and do a cost study to determine whether their town police or city police are on budget or if it's within budget. I know of some cases: The town of Tecumseth amalgamated the OPP with the town police and it has been to their benefit. I know that the city of Orillia has had a study done and that study has not been released yet, but it certainly concerns me when we get the OPP in looking at studying a city's police force.
There can be so many complications around all of that, I'm not so sure, and I would hate to see the OPP taking over city police. I don't think it's probably appropriate, although I think when the cost analysis is all done in the end that it will probably determine that the city police are probably doing well.
When the Ministry of the Solicitor General's office is looking at these things across the province -- and I've talked to Gordie Hampson on it, who is in charge of that program -- I believe the studies they have done have worked in many cases, but there are some forces that could be amalgamated that are not in large cities. I personally don't think the city of Orillia should come under the jurisdiction of the OPP. I think the city force there has done a good job and I think it's cost-efficient which I'm sure the study will determine it is.
I'd like to speak briefly with regard to the Correctional Services ministry. The minister and I have had an ongoing debate with regard to Camp Hillsdale, the closure that took place there, a facility that accommodated about 72 residents from the Barrie Jail, which was a minimum-security facility. At this facility they had cattle, they grew vegetable gardens, they had turkeys, they had chickens for eggs. It was in the report of the institutions' panel from the corrections ministry that indicated it was one of the most efficient operations in Ontario; one of the most efficient out of the 51 that they have.
There were a lot of people who were disturbed when that facility was announced to be closed. The inmates there did community work: They did work at the hospital -- flower-beds, horticulture -- they did work in many communities. Even the Ministry of Natural Resources sent a letter indicating that what they had done with regard to tree cutting in the Bass Lake area was really a plus.
When you see this type of facility being closed down, where the inmates are out -- in a facility like that I believe is where they're being rehabilitated. I don't think you rehabilitate people behind bars. When you have them for minor offences, I do believe that the facility they had there, out of the 51, the lowest one in Ontario, should not have been closed. As a matter of fact, the committee has met as of November 7. They have brought in a report that recommends to the minister that the facility should be looked at again. It was learned that the recent closure of Camp Hillsdale has only added to the burden at the Barrie Jail, a facility which can only be described as obsolete; that's the Barrie Jail.
1830
The panel really questions the reasons behind the Camp Hillsdale decision, not only because of the extra burden passed on to the jail but the function which Camp Hillsdale provided, both from the rehabilitation aspect and the economic benefit which was derived.
Decisions such as this within the ministry, which was made by one individual to me, are not acceptable. I believe it came to cabinet on July 6. There was a news announcement made on July 7 that the facility was closing, a facility that we should be expanding within the Ministry of Correctional Services and not closing down.
So I do hope, as in the question I asked this week with regard to it, that the minister will have an opportunity to have another look at that, because I believe the decision to close was a mistake and I would hope the ministry and the cabinet would perhaps have a second look to determine what mistake was made there.
Just this Wednesday I got a letter from an individual in which he said he was deeply offended by Mr Christopherson's remarks "since, as the former assistant manager of Camp Hillsdale, a major portion of my time was spent in the implementation and monitoring of control and security practices, including all inmate movement. At no time was I ever questioned or criticized in regard to security until the Solicitor General made these ridiculous, unsubstantiated comments."
I guess the comments were that when the closure of Camp Hillsdale was first announced, "...the Ministry of Correctional Services stated that this was simply a 'cost-saving measure' which would save the government $1.1 million. The ministry's figures were immediately shown to be false by Simcoe East MPP Al McLean and Simcoe county warden, Robert Drury.
"I am now left with the impression that the Solicitor General is making another attempt to try and justify the closure of Camp Hillsdale by impugning the integrity of the former Camp Hillsdale staff. Wrong again, Dave!
"Of course Camp Hillsdale was 'an absolute minimum-security facility. I mean, there were no fences, there was nothing at all.' What a revelation. Does the Solicitor General understand that if a fence had been erected around the facility, its security classification would have been changed to medium security?"
He says, "Are there fences around Burtch Correctional Centre or Monteith Correctional Centre, which were the other institutions that were designated to accept Simcoe county inmates?" He thinks not.
He goes on in his letter and he certainly has some criticism of the minister because of how he proclaimed and looked at Camp Hillsdale: "...the staff of Camp Hillsdale worked hard to make it 'a model of efficiency'....Camp Hillsdale did have its share of problems since we are not always dealing with the paragons of society. However, I would be quite prepared to compare our security/safety record with any other minimum security...."
I want to put those remarks on the record with regard to Camp Hillsdale when we're talking about your budgetary policies and we're talking about the concurrences within the Ministry of Correctional Services.
I believe the panel's decision is right. I believe the panel that looked at this indicated that the reopening would be feasible. The bottom line is that the other day, as the Treasurer was saying to me, "Spend, spend, spend," when you've got a facility of the lowest cost in the province of $51 and you close it down, that's talking about spending money? I'll tell you, if you close the one at the top down, some of them cost $130 a day per inmate. This one was less than $80 a day. It doesn't take long to make up the difference when you close the one at the bottom and leave the ones at the top open.
Not only that, but the Attorney General, in the paper not long ago, was talking about the overcrowding in the jails. I talked to the assistant superintendent at the Barrie Jail the other day and they indicate to me that they just let people go. They can't keep them in there because they're overcrowded. There are several of them in a cell.
I wanted to put those on the table so that the minister knows where we come from.
I want to move on to the estimates in the Ministry of Health. I want to say that on Bill 173, which is now final, we're still getting petitions and still getting letters. We get petitions and letters for it; we get petitions and letters against it. I just hope that in the end this will work out, because it's a major step. A lot of people feel perhaps the seniors will not be well looked after, but I guess the bottom line that a lot of people are telling me is that if you're in the union you're fine, and if you're not, you may be without a job or you'll have to join the union.
The Barrie regional hospital has been a facility that has gone on for many years, and I'm glad to see that they've got the shovel in the ground and that the regional hospital in Barrie will be proceeding. I would hope that some time in the future it will be a regional hospital for that whole area so that people will not have to come to Toronto for cancer treatment, that Barrie regional hospital will be able to do that; not only that, but for the expansion of the dialysis that people need now.
In the Midland-Penetang area, the two hospitals there are amalgamating on their own. They have taken the direction from the Plummer Memorial and the McKellar hospitals in the north where they have amalgamated. There are savings to be made within health care and a lot of our administrators are looking at it and doing it. I think there are savings there and our people in the field are certainly the ones that I see are committed to health care.
I had the opportunity some time ago to travel northern Ontario and that was one of the major issues that we got from people in the north. The major issue was the emergencies, doctors being on call -- you may get one call in an evening or you are on call and you don't get any -- and the payment of the physicians in the north. They tell me that in some of the hospitals the specialists who were once there are not there any longer and they will have a tough time to get another specialist.
The people in the north -- and I can talk about the people in Atikokan, Fort Frances, Kenora, in that area -- relate more to Winnipeg than they relate to the rest of Ontario. They do their shopping, they do their banking there. The people in Red Lake were telling me that they go to Thunder Bay hardly at all; they all go to Winnipeg. When you get in the north, dealing with people in the north, you certainly get a different perspective of what's taking place here in Ontario, and health care is the number one priority that's on their mind. Number two is the problem with the distances.
Many of the people tell us that an 80-kilometre speed limit is too low. They indicate that 90 would be more appropriate for the long distances that you travel in the north. When I was travelling, many of them were doing well over the speed limit on straight stretches of highway that had hardly any traffic at all. So I see their point and I agree with them because I know that when we look at the photo-radar that's now in place, I don't think there are any members from the north who are going to stop photo-radar from being up there. I have that feeling.
The photo health cards: I haven't seen movement from the ministry with regard to providing these. I've often wondered what the holdup is. I think they would be a way that the government could save some money.
Transportation and radar has been one of the issues that has affected people and I want to say that I had an occasion the other day when an individual was questioning me about photo-radar. They were very unhappy about it and wanted to know if we were going to withdraw the bill. I said: "Well, you know, it's something that has surprised me, really. When I see how the traffic has slowed down on our major highways, it gives me some concern to perhaps reconsider what we have said in the past." I think the reason that a lot of people were against it was because of the fact of people's rights. Taking photos when you're not knowing it --
Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Never taken my photograph.
Mr McLean: Mr Mills says that he has never been photoed yet. I think he's lucky if he hasn't, because he lives in Durham. But I do believe there are people's rights and there still are problems with photo-radar. I certainly wouldn't change it unless -- the bottom line is, is it going to save lives? I guess that's the question that needs to be asked and that's what we want to look at when we get into looking at some jurisdictional accounts that have been kept.
On the licences that are being renewed for seven years, the government is taking in a pile of money. I had a young lady not long ago who wanted to renew her licence and they told her she had to renew it for seven years. At $10 a year, that was $70. That seemed to be a lot of money to her and she wasn't very happy with that. Her dad had written me a letter indicating that really what the government is trying to do is to get all the cash that it can get to make its deficit look as little as it can get it. However, I think that will be a real problem.
Briefly on Community and Social Services, I read in the Hansard that the minister says he is in no way in agreement with workfare. It wasn't very many days ago that the Premier of New Brunswick brought in a program and part of that program is workfare. My leader, Mike Harris, is talking about the very same issue: workfare. The Common Sense Revolution spells it out very clearly, how we want to revive and to bring Comsoc back into place, whereby able-bodied people who are able to work will either take some education, take some workfare courses and be put back to work.
1840
Northern Development and Mines: When we were on the northern tour, we had the opportunity to tour a gold mine in Red Lake and to talk to the workers in that community. The taxation that the government has on mining is substantial and they told me that the smaller mines and the people who are trying to get mines open are where the major problem is. So when we look at the mining aspect, there are problems there and I do hope that they will be looked at.
Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs: Mr Speaker, your favourite ministry. There's quite a debate here with regard to Bill 91. Yesterday the minister said that nobody had unionized in the agricultural industry yet. I'm not so sure that I would take that at face value, because I feel that there are some who have started to organize in the seed industry and in the agricultural industry.
Mr Speaker, ethanol, something that you have been pushing for for years, is something that this government has come forward and taken the tax off of. We agree with that, because I think ethanol is the future. It's good for the environment. But the problem we have with getting a plant in Chatham and getting it proceeding is that the federal government will not make its commitment. That's where the problem is. If they would commit to reducing their taxes, then we would be able to proceed and expand our ethanol plants here in Ontario. I think that's something that will help farmers, it will help the agricultural industry and it will also help the environment.
Briefly, on Housing, I had the occasion to speak this morning with regard to a bill from Mr Henderson, the member for Etobicoke-Humber. We supported that bill because it was An Act to protect certain rent-geared-to-income Tenants in publicly funded rental units. That bill was aimed at senior citizens. People over 65 would be able to have their rents not increase any more than what their salary or their income is increasing. I think that bill was good.
I think in our program with regard to subsidizing people we talk about $114 helping people out, which is what it would average per household for a shelter allowance, compared to the current average of nearly $1,000 a month to subsidize a household in non-profit housing. It's quite a difference.
But it was interesting; it wasn't long ago that my friend down here, Mr Curling, a former Liberal Housing minister, in committee said there is a glut of housing on the market and that subsidizing the individual is a much more human way to help an individual to live where he or she wants to live. I agree with him. I think that's exactly what we are saying in The Common Sense Revolution. By spending money on people instead of bricks and mortar, we could end the public housing boondoggle we're in that profits only the large property developers and we can return to a shelter subsidy program for all Ontarians who need help in finding decent, affordable housing. I'm glad to see that the Liberals are coming on side with us on that housing program and thereby saving the people of this province a lot of money. So we thank you, Mr Curling, for your position on that.
The Ministry of Environment and Energy: I wanted to speak briefly on that. There have been some concerns, and it was last March, in a little place called Hillsdale where they were wanting to draw water in a major way for bottling. At that time, the Minister of Environment -- and I checked that letter today -- indicated that there would be no approval given unless the municipality had approved, and they would be able to proceed. However, they didn't get the approval from the municipality and there was no application to draw water.
Today I sent a letter to the Minister of Environment. He wasn't in the House. I wanted to hand-deliver it to him, but I sent it to his office, and I said:
"I'm writing to you today about a matter of great concern to the more than 200 Oro-Medonte township residents who attended a meeting last night related to the extraction of water in their municipality.
"It is my understanding that your ministry granted approval for Golden Springs Water to extract approximately 909 litres per minute, or 192,000 gallons per day, from the ground to be sold commercially until the year 2005. My constituents and I would like to know under what circumstances was the permit granted, what criteria were used and what regulations or restrictions must Golden Springs follow during the extraction of this precious natural resource."
It's a great amount of water. The permit was issued from the district office in Sudbury, and the residents, some 200 who attended that meeting last night, certainly want to know what will happen with their area that they live in and are involved in. The drawing of water is something there's really no legislation for, but I think the Ministry of Environment should be thinking very seriously about doing that.
Tourism, snowmobile trails, northern focus: It's all part of what we need in Ontario, an emphasis on tourism. Tourism has been, in my estimation, a forgotten part of the government, though the snowmobile trails, with some $14 million of expansion and infusion of money -- and not only that, but the snowmobiles have more than doubled in two years.
The Economic Development ministry, with regard to railway lines in this province, certainly gives some concern about what Bill 40 is all about. The minister has indicated very clearly that it's not Bill 40 that's the problem, that the unions are willing to negotiate one single contract. We have not seen that happen yet, although I understand that the Exeter line is now unionized with one contract. I say that CN is putting a great pressure on this province with regard to the railway lines it is closing and I think the ministry and the Economic Development ministry have got to have a greater emphasis with regard to the railway lines.
The Ministry of Natural Resources' taxes on land and with regard to some of their policies has not kept many conservation officers very happy. There have been a great number of people within the ministry who are so unhappy with regard to the conservation.
What we need in this province is crime control and not so much gun control, and I would predict that the federal government in the end will probably say that rifles and shotguns will not be part of its bill that it is anticipating bringing in some time next year. I'll put that on the record and see how far out I am on that.
The northern focus will soon be out in print. It's something I'm looking forward to seeing because of the input that we had into it. I think it's important that the people in southern Ontario realize what's happening in the north, and I enjoyed my time in the north talking to people, because there is a different perspective coming out of that part of Ontario. At one time, when a new government was elected, it had a plane and took the people to the north to let them know there is northern Ontario. Moosonee is halfway across Ontario. It is a big province.
I wanted to put some of the concerns that I had with regard to the concurrences in supply that we're dealing with, because it's so important that the economy will pick up. It's picking up despite this administration.
Interjections: Oh, oh.
Mr McLean: It really is. It's picking up despite this administration. And I'll tell you, when we get dealing with the rural economic development, when we get dealing with The Common Sense Revolution, when we get dealing with the crime control book, when we get dealing with the health policies of what we want to bring in, I say to you, Mr Speaker, the province will be in good hands once again.
1850
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on concurrence.
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It's always a pleasure. I hope it's prime time because I hope people will be listening, because the things we've all said --
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): -- watch the Polka Dot Door.
Mr Callahan: We've got a few jokers in the audience, I think.
Let me start off by saying this is a time when we have an opportunity to speak -- probably the only time we get to speak -- for our constituents. I think you'd agree with that, Mr Speaker, having been around here for a long time.
I did a cable show last night for a group called Fair Share for Peel Task Force, and before I get the hoots and hollers from the government, let me tell you who supports this, because I think it's very important.
They're supported by the Big Brothers of Peel Region and Big Sisters of Peel, very worthy causes; Boys and Girls Clubs of Peel; Brampton Neighbourhood Resource Centre; Brampton Caledon Community Living; Caledon Parent-Child Centre; Caledon Information Centre; Canadian Mental Health Association, Peel; Catholic Family Services of Peel-Dufferin; Charlestown Residential School; Child Poverty Action Group of Peel; Church of St Hilary's, Mississauga; Community Living, Mississauga; Council for Adolescent Suicide Prevention; Credit Valley Hospital; Distress Line of Peel; Dixie-Bloor Neighbourhood Centre; Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board; Elizabeth Fry Society of Peel, a real favourite of mine; Erinoak; Family Education Centre; Family Services of Peel; Fieldgate Nursery and Child Care Centre; Homestead Mississauga Independent Living Centres; Hospice of Peel; John Howard Society of Peel; Malton Neighbourhood Services; Mississauga Community Legal Services; Nexus Youth Services; Ontario Family Guidance Centre Inc; Options, Mississauga; Our Place, Peel; Parents for Quality Education in Peel; Peel Alternative Lifestyles; Peel Children's Aid Society; Peel Children's Centre; Peel collaborative child and adolescent sexual abuse treatment program; Peel Board of Education; Peel Educators Association; Peel Memorial Hospital; Peel Multicultural Council.
Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Northern Development and Mines and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): We get the drift. Can't you prepare a speech?
Mr Callahan: If the Minister of Mines is impatient, he can go home now.
Peel Regional Police; Rapport Youth and Family Counselling; regional municipality of Peel; Salvation Army Family Life Resource Centre; Social Planning Council of Peel; St Hilary's Day Care Centre; the Mississauga Hospital; the YMCA, Mississauga; United Achievers; United Way of Peel Region; and supported, I might add, by all the representatives, all the MPPs in Peel, of both parties. This is not a partisan issue. Unfortunately, there's not a member of the New Democratic Party representing Peel, and we applaud that. That may be the cause of our whole problem.
I speak on behalf of a group that is supported by almost every worthy cause within the Peel region. I've read to you all sorts. The Minister of Mines objected to that. He felt that was inappropriate; we should just cut it short. Well, the people in my community, Minister, don't believe in that. They believe we have spoken since 1990 --
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Before.
Mr Callahan: No, no. No, no.
Mr Hope: Get the facts straight.
Mr Callahan: No, no, no.
Mr Hope: When you were the government, they did the same thing.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Callahan: No, I regret to say that it was --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Greed got you.
Mr Callahan: All I can tell you is that last night I did a cable program in which I did not have the time to read all those out, but since we've got free time telecast here and I'm told I can speak forever, subject to getting the hook from whomever tries to give me the hook -- I couldn't mention all those people, but I'm going to mention them because they're very good people. They are the backbone of our community. They represent every possible group that exists in our community that does good things for people. I find it objectionable that the Minister of Mines would feel it was too much time to read these out. I think it's very important.
Perhaps that tells us how important the present NDP government considers it to speak on behalf of groups like Homestead Mississauga Independent Living Centres, Hospice of Peel. They deal with AIDS patients. We're all wearing --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Where's your ribbon?
Mr Callahan: Or I was; it's gone someplace, but we were wearing a red ribbon and today was an important day for AIDS in this province. Yet the Minister of Mines has the audacity to say, "Don't mention their name." I find that incredible. When we talk about groups like the John Howard Society of Peel, we talk about the Elizabeth Fry Society, we talk about some of these other groups, all these good groups, Canadian Mental Health Association, Peel, I find that offensive, that this government does not feel sufficient concern for what I always thought the NDP policy believed in: people, caring about people.
Let me tell you the facts about this. The task force was started in 1990. It has tried constantly -- constantly -- to try and get the Minister of Community and Social Services to give Peel its fair share.
Mr Hope: What's that equal to?
Mr Callahan: Well, I'll tell you right now, we get about a quarter of what Metro Toronto gets. We get one half of what the province of Ontario gets.
Mr Hope: Do you know what we get?
Mr Callahan: The member from wherever, Randy, says, "What do we get?" He's a government member. I'm sorry. If you can't get your government, like Mr Mammoliti, who I watched tonight saying, "I fought my government to get all these things I got" -- he's an effective member. If you're not getting it, that's your problem. But I'm speaking on behalf of my constituency. I'm speaking for my people, the people who elected me, the people who live in my community.
It's unfortunate that for some reason, once you become a member of the government, unless you're a radical like Mr Mammoliti, of York Mills or whatever, you don't get any say in what happens to the people in your community. I find that really offensive. If I were watching this program, I would say to myself: "I'm paying those people good bucks. I elected them for five years in a secure job, and are they doing the job for me? Are they looking after the mentally disabled? Are they looking at the young people who are physically challenged?" I suggest they're not.
I got diverted, Mr Speaker, but I get very passionate when I speak about this, because we have talked to the Minister of Community and Social Services -- not just Mr Silipo, but they talked to the previous minister -- and, you know, the interesting thing about it is, and maybe this is a hallmark of the New Democratic Party society's new attitude, they listened to my people. They listened to the executive director of the children's aid society from my community. They listened to a whole host of other people who were involved with the task force, and they said: "You know, we agree with you. You're not getting your fair share." There were smiles. These people went away on at least five or six occasions, I guess, and thought, "Well, we're going to get it." Well, they didn't, and the tragedy is --
Mr Wiseman: The tragedy is that you could have done it when you were getting $4 billion more --
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Please, the member has the floor legitimately. Other members can stand in their place and be recognized when this member is done. The member for Brampton South.
Mr Callahan: Let me answer that comment. John Sweeney, who was one of the finest parliamentarians who has ever been in this House, a man of great integrity -- in fact, when he was in the House, ministers of the opposition, and I think if they were being honest they would say it, couldn't even question John because he was such an honest guy.
1900
John Sweeney brought in the whole program of dealing with the poor. He got the support of our party for it. We started it. It wasn't started by the Tories with their 42 years of "Let the poor pay" and it wasn't a time for "Let the rich pay," which the NDP said they were going to do, which they haven't. But I say to you that I have to defend John Sweeney because John Sweeney, as any member in this House who would speak honestly and who knew him would know, was a man of great integrity and still is. He's involved with a program now where they build homes for people who can't afford their homes, kind of like the barn-building process. I can't remember the name of it.
Mr Wiseman: Not like your counterparts from Ottawa. If you have --
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Durham West, please come to order.
Mr Callahan: The member for Durham West is still smarting from the fact that he's got a garbage dump in his riding and he can't get rid of it and he can't convince his colleagues that it should be gotten rid of. He's tried to deal with the Minister of Environment and Energy and he tells him to take a hike. So you're an ineffective member, let me tell you.
You should take a lesson from George Mammoliti. George Mammoliti is fighting for his constituents.
In any event, let me go on by saying --
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Thanks, Bob.
Mr Callahan: I'll give you some examples and I'll give some examples for the people of Peel who are watching this program, hopefully. If I had opened my cable program last night by saying to the people of Peel, "I'm going to increase your taxes by 50%," you can bet your bottom dollar that the telephones would have lit up like Christmas, because I don't think they quite understand yet, and I'm trying to tell them what's happening with their tax dollar, that they're not getting their fair share. I'll just give you an example.
This was all done and, as I say, the minister met with these good people from the Peel task force and he agreed -- he agreed -- "You're not getting your fair share." I'll give you an example. In Peel, the population or the per capita rate for services to people with developmental challenges is $32.80, while in Ontario it's $63.67. I went into law because I'm not a mathematical wizard, but that tells me it's about half, okay? Those are for people who can't help themselves, people the NDP espoused they would help. Well, you're not helping them, or at least your minister's not. He's saying: "We think you're right. You're getting shafted, Peel, but we don't care."
Let me talk about Peel children. You know, child care is based on a very low expenditure in terms of the moneys they get -- fair share. I have to comment that we have one of the largest communities in probably North America. We are growing. Not only that, but we are a highly multicultural community which causes more cost because you need to have interpreters, you need to understand the cultural differences of people and even that has not been recognized.
Children's services -- for God's sake, there can't be anything less partisan than children. I would fall over, quite frankly, I would sit down -- maybe some people would applaud that -- if people could not be in accord with children's services. Let me give you an example.
In Peel, a child receives services in the amount of $96.52 per capita, while the Ontario per capita expenditure is $261.68. I think anyone watching or anybody over there who's listening, you have to understand we're not getting our fair share. You know what we've got? We've got kids who are lined up, kids who need immediate help who are told that there is no help, "You've got to wait in line." Well, I've spent 30 years in the courts with kids and I can tell you that if you don't deal with them immediately, you've lost them.
Maybe the government doesn't care about that. I hope that's not the case. I know a lot of people over on the government side and I think they're caring people. I can't believe that they would put up with this, that they would allow children to suffer their lack of fair share.
I could go on with this. I noticed today in question period and I noticed on the television last night that the Attorney General has got a big budget for talking about wife abuse, child abuse, and I endorse that, as did my colleague in his question --
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Not again. Not a Liberal.
Mr Callahan: Mr Drummond whatever-his-name-is has a comment to say about that, but I happen to believe that's money well spent. The point is, if you don't spend it at the entry level, if you're not prepared to give a community the size of my community of Peel, of my colleagues' community on the Conservative as well as Liberal side, its fair share, if you put kids on waiting lists, what can you expect? All the advertising in the world will not help these kids. You've got to get to them when the problem's there.
I thought the NDP was sensitive to that, but apparently they're not. There's something about the seats on that side of the House. Once you get the smell of --
Mr Wiseman: Maybe you ought to tell your federal counterparts to uncap.
Mr Callahan: Well, here we're hearing from the dump again --
Mr Wiseman: Uncap.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Callahan: You're still smarting about the fact that you can't get the dump out of your riding, and it's because you've got no effect in your government. You have no effect in your government and you'll be long gone.
To get back to what I'm saying, if we don't deal with those kids effectively now, all the advertisements in the world won't mean anything. The Attorney General of this government, the next government, the government after that can spend all sorts of money and all they're doing is padding the advertising people. What you've done is you've taken these kids and you've denied them the opportunity to have the benefits of intervention at an early stage, which is the most important thing.
I talked to the executive director of my children's aid society and he endorsed that; I talked to educators in my community and they say that, and yet we don't see any movement on it. We see the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr Silipo, who's a fine gentleman. Apparently he has no weight in cabinet, because when he says to my community, "You're right, you're not getting your fair share," and then has done nothing about it since 1990, I have to say to myself that man's a lightweight in cabinet, with all due respect to him.
I'm speaking on behalf of Peel region, which pays taxes equivalent to those of Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Bob Mackenzie (Hamilton East): Talk about arrogance.
Mr Callahan: The former Minister of Labour, who's now on a vacation and probably on a healthy pension, has the arrogance to speak up when I'm talking about children. That shows the arrogance of this government. That shows why, when I walk around my community, I hear people saying: "God, we've got to have an election. When can we have an election? When can we get rid of those people?"
I don't say that. What I say to you is that there's something about getting over in those seats, and the chauffeur-driven limousines even though we've got a deficit, which suddenly gives them swelled heads, of whatever party. I'm not being partisan. Unfortunately, those seats are seats that perhaps should be occupied by humble people, people who care about their constituents, people who got elected to this place and after the election didn't say: "Well, I'm elected now, I've got five years because it's a majority government and it's better than heavy lifting or working in the rain. I'll be here for five years. There's no recall; there's no opportunity to get rid of me. It doesn't matter what I do, you can't get rid of me."
I hope that's not the case. I hope that this chamber and the importance of being in this chamber and the importance of having the trust of your electorate are more important than just simply the levers of power. I know there are people over there, I've talked to people in the government, who say to me the typical things, and not just the NDP when they were in power: "You know, Bob, we'd like to do something. I'd like to get something done in my community. I'd like to get rid of the dump or I'd like to do this or that, but you know, they don't listen to me. It's all done on the second floor."
That's part of our problem in the system. It's part of the parliamentary system. It's all done by the Premier of the day, four cabinet ministers, 10 non-elected people who are the spin doctors down on the second floor reading polls that cost us almost $1 million which are never revealed to anybody, looking at the sexy issues, "How can we get re-elected?" and not, "What's good for the people of this province?"
1910
I've spent 10 years in this place. I don't know about the rest of these people and I don't want to sound like some sort of a bleeding heart, but I came here to accomplish things. Hopefully, I've tried, and I suppose the proof of the pudding is that I've never gotten into cabinet because I'm not prepared to lie down and play dead for the Premier. Many of these people are. It's the whole problem of our system. You get extra money for being a parliamentary assistant or extra money for being a --
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): You've got to be a team player.
Mr Callahan: There's the member for Oxford. I can tell you, Mr Member from Oxford, the fellow who took that seat before was a noble individual and I hope you are equally noble --
Mr Sutherland: He's extremely noble.
Mr Callahan: -- but some of the things I've heard you espouse in this House at times give me cause for concern.
In any event, I don't want to completely talk about Peel, but I want to read you a story, a true-life human experience -- hopefully I've got it here -- which maybe underscores exactly what we're suffering in terms of our fair share. I may have lied to you, because I may not have it here, but if I do I will certainly read it to you.
Okay, here's one. I would hope that the members would listen without catcalls and all the rest of it. The names in this are obviously changed to protect the innocent, as they say in the programs. These are true stories.
"Paolo is a very disturbed, out-of-control, 14-year-old with poor coping and behaviour management skills and a tendency to become impulsive and extremely aggressive when upset. He has also demonstrated a significant level of self-harm, especially when he's emotionally needy.
"Paolo will punch his face with his own fist to the point of drawing large amounts of blood in order to defocus from behavioural issues. His aggression and hyperactivity necessitate constant attention and supervision. Paolo presently resides at a highly structured, staff-operated residential treatment centre setting in Ontario away from his home community. The home is able to provide the intensive staffing, the clinical supports at the on-site school of vocational-recreational programs that Paolo requires.
"He was initially placed at the home by probation services in November 1992, as a result of a young offender's disposition. Peel children's aid society's involvement commenced on September 11, 1993. Upon the expiration of his order to reside prior to placement at the home, Paolo had several short-term placements at other facilities and crisis intervention in various hospitals.
"The residential treatment centre's consulting psychiatrist has diagnosed Paolo as having severe emotional and behavioural difficulties. His prognosis for Paulo is very guarded and he cautions that Paolo is at high risk of harm to himself and others.
"Paolo receives little support from his family. His father's deceased, having hung himself in the family home when Paolo was two years old. Following numerous moves and common-law partners, Paolo's mother has resided with the same partner for the past three years and has three children at home between the ages of nine and four. She's overwhelmed by her son's needs and is able to offer little physical or emotional support to him.
"Kids like Paolo should be able to receive the services they need in their home community. The current reality is that many of Peel's kids must go out of the area to get help. In 1993, the Peel children's aid society had an average of 312 kids in its care in any given month. Of these kids, approximately 65 required placements outside of Peel."
Does that tell you anything about --
Interjection.
Mr Callahan: The Minister of Environment and Energy has just come in and maybe he can solve the dump problem for one of his members, if he's got time.
But that's just one story. That's just one true human-interest story.
Let me tell you, the public accounts committee, which I am very proud of in this Legislature because it's one of the few committees that remains relatively non-partisan, delivered a report to the Legislature, to the Attorney General and to the corrections minister that told us that 80% of the children in young offender lockup are learning-disabled. Now, what does that tell you? That tells you that we have failed the kids of this province totally.
Some people will say, "Who cares about the young offenders?" People out there watching tonight might say, "Well, they got in trouble; they deserve what they got," and "Who cares about the young offenders?" On a personal topic, as I told you, I practised criminal law for 30 years, young kids usually. I've had parents who've said that to me. When I've been at a party or whatever they'd say: "How can you defend them? They're scum of the earth."
Let me tell you something, a true story. After a party like that, the parent who was most incensed about the young offenders, in terms of how dastardly they were, his kid got in trouble. I had him in my office. He was crying, "Help my son." So it's the old adage, there but for the grace of God go I. We can all be vindictive, we can all be assertive, we can all condemn people until it happens to us or our family, and then we realize that it's important.
Since there are others who want to speak, I would like to end on -- not my favourite topic; my favourite topic is kids: learning-disabled kids, schizophrenic kids, kids who are not being helped through the political system, are left believing that we as legislators are looking after their best interests. I have to say, 10 years in this place, and this will perhaps be my final hour. I've had it. I'd rather go back to the courts, where I can deal with real people, care for them, understand them, deal with them and go home at night feeling as though I've done something appropriate. I come to this place, I find that it's such an anachronism, with all due respect. This place is so phoney it's absolutely incredible.
If any person were to come to this place and realize what goes on in this place, they would withdraw tax support to us tomorrow morning. When they realized that half of the people in this place don't even read the legislation or understand it when they vote for it, they'd be appalled. Yet it's amazing that the people you talk to on the street say to me, "When are you going to get rid of Bob Rae?" I say: "Well, look, he's got five years. That's part of the parliamentary system. They won a majority government. They have the right to govern."
When the people of Ontario don't understand that fundamental issue of a majority government, that is very frightening to me, and it should be frightening to everybody. If they don't understand that, what do they understand about this place? Do they understand that the person they've elected as their representative has probably not done a number of things? He or she has not read the legislation, has absolutely no idea what they're voting on, stands up because the Premier or the House whip or the House leader or whoever is in charge says, "You've got to stand up and vote for that," and it may be totally opposed to their whole issue in their home riding.
What we've done -- if I can use the word; I don't know whether it's parliamentary, and maybe people out there will turn off their sets or it'll be bleeped out -- we have bastardized, and I'm told that's not a bad word, the whole political parliamentary system.
My good friend the member for Durham East will be able to tell you that in the Parliament of England, because he comes from there, the whip's function is not to make sure you've got whatever number of warm bodies you need to vote for an issue in there, the whip's purpose is to make sure that the backbencher of the government is satisfied that what the minister of the crown is going to bring into legislation is in accord with what their riding and their people want.
Now, how did we get so far? How did we come from a person who's a whip in Westminster who does that, which I think is a very democratic process, to the House-marm or the Housemaster whose only job -- Freddy's job -- is to make sure that you're all here to vote, to support the government on every issue, on issues which you have not -- it's not a criticism of you; it's a criticism of the system that nobody in this House, or very few, have bothered to even read the legislation and understand it.
1920
Hon Mr Pouliot: What about you?
Mr Callahan: Let me tell you, I read a hell of a lot more legislation than you do.
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, that's not true. I don't have a law practice on the side.
Mr Callahan: The former Minister of Transportation, now the Minister of Northern Development and Mines -- he's been put in the cave -- has made a comment that I haven't read the legislation. Well, let me tell you, Mr Minister, I make it my practice to read the legislation because, as you said, I practise law, and it will help me when I get out, but it also helps me to understand what the devil I'm voting for.
I went to Sheridan College a couple of weeks ago, and my opening comment to the kids was, "Do you think you live in a democracy?" There was dead silence. Of course we live in a democracy. I said to the kids at Sheridan College, "Let me tell you, you don't." I went through all this stuff about how the legislators don't understand the legislation and how all the decisions are made by the polls and the sexy decisions and not what's good for you but what's good in the polls. They were aghast, absolutely aghast. I think if I'd marched that group out of Sheridan College, we could have probably marched on Queen's Park and taken over the place.
Enough about that. I talk about that all the time, and for some reason the people who talk to me still ask the same questions, so they don't believe me, I guess. Over the years I've been a politician I've always tried to be honest.
The final thing, and others want to speak, is the justice system. I will end with that. I have filed a notice of motion with the auditor of this province asking him to look at the delays in our court system throughout this province, provincially and federally, in order to give us exact figures on just how many cases are just a hair's breadth away from being stayed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We've heard from the Attorney General. She's an honourable member, just like every member of this House, and she has told us that everything is tried within eight months at the provincial level. She can't tell us about the federal level. Well, I can tell you, I've talked to senior crown attorneys, I've talked to judges, and the Attorney General -- I respect her as an honourable member and what she says -- is totally misinformed.
What I want to happen, and I would hope that we can get this through, because it's been sort of delayed, is that we have the auditor look at that. It's a simple matter: He sends a letter out to every senior judge of every court and asks the things I've asked in my notice of motion. Let's get the facts straight, because if we don't know the facts and if we haven't got the facts straight, what we'll do is wait until the entire system explodes, civilly and criminally, more importantly criminally I guess, and then we as politicians will run for political cover. What we'll do is traditional: We'll run for cover; we'll throw money at it, taxpayer's money, deficit money; we will make decisions that are not based on a reasoned, planned platform of how to deal with the justice system. But we'll deal with it in a very imperfect and inappropriate fashion. I hope, even to the members who are reading the newspaper --
Hon Mr Pouliot: I'm looking for a house in Durham.
Mr Callahan: I see, you're looking for a house in Durham. You're planning on running against the member.
I hope and pray that this province will be safe from that explosion and the fallout for my children, for my grandchildren, for my great-grandchildren, God allow me to live that long.
But one thing about politicians is that they don't understand the justice system. They don't understand what the police force goes through. They don't understand what the lawyers go through, the judges and the whole system, even the jury members. I had a jury member who had their car towed away out in Peel. They don't get paid for the first 10 days, and they had their car towed away, if you can believe it.
Hon Mr Pouliot: They don't set lawyers' fees.
Mr Callahan: We're here at 8:24 on December 1, 1994. I predict that by March of next year there will be some very serious cases where the accused will walk on the basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, very dangerous offenders. If you think that the problems you had in terms of protecting the public from Budreo and the others were serious, the Attorney General would be spinning in her chair -- or whoever is the Attorney General.
What I'm trying to say is, let's start looking at the justice system. It's not a politically sexy issue. It involves a lot of people who are committed -- police officers, lawyers, judges -- who believe in the system and are concerned about it. Let's give them the support, let's give them the financial support and all the rest of it, and let's make justice an important issue for this government, the next government and any succeeding government.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation.
Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): And Culture, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: And Culture.
Hon Ms Swarbrick: I'm delighted to have this opportunity to speak to the issue of the approval of the expenditures of my ministry, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, and I'm especially delighted to be able to be flanked tonight by my associate minister, the MPP for Middlesex, Irene Mathyssen.
Like many families and many people around this province, I grew up actually in a very low-income family. One of the things that my family often chuckles about is remembering one of my mother's many talents: her ability to be able to take a nickel and stretch it to make it last like a dollar. As somebody who grew up with that kind of experience, I want to say how tremendously proud I am of my government for the fact that I know my government would make my mother tremendously proud today.
If there's one criticism of our government that I will very much agree with, it's that we have bad timing. We have such bad timing that the first time we ever had the opportunity to take over the government of this province, we took it over just in time for the beginning of the worst depression since the 1930s. We took over at a time when, contrary to the statements and commitments and promises of the Liberal government before us in Ontario, we did not inherit a zero-deficit budget. We in fact very soon after taking over government were informed by the auditors that we inherited a $3-billion deficit, and in fact what we've learned since that time is that if you were to apply the new rules that the Auditor General has asked us to follow, in fact we inherited a $5-billion deficit.
There's a steep learning curve involved when one first takes over managing a government the size of the government of Ontario. We learned pretty quickly, I'd say, on our feet and by the seat of our pants. We got thrown into it, and we learned very quickly, through adversity, the ability to be able to find how to squeeze the costs of government, how to squeeze the costs of the operations of government. In fact, I'm tremendously proud to say that we are the first government in this province in over 50 years to have been able to reduce the operating costs of government from one year to the next. We haven't done that just once; we've done it twice, and in fact we're now coming up for our threepeat.
While we've squeezed the costs of operating the government of Ontario, on the other hand I believe we developed a tremendous talent -- and one that I'm still looking to see our federal Liberal counterparts yet learn to do -- of being able to move a lot of those costs into building the infrastructure of this province and into learning to run programs with incredible creativity that frees up greater efficiencies to allow us to continue to in fact have programs operate on a tremendously effective, efficient basis while in fact doing more with less.
I'd like to say that I'm tremendously proud of the staff of my Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. I'm tremendously proud of the stakeholders and the industries that I work with on a regular basis in the fields of culture, tourism, recreation, libraries and heritage around this province. I'm tremendously proud of the leadership of my Premier, Bob Rae, our cabinet and our caucus in helping in fact to learn how increasingly to squeeze the costs of government and build the infrastructure and build the quality of life and renew the economy of this province to reposition us for the kind of growth that this province needs, not only now but for the new millennium upon which we'll soon be entering.
1930
I want to address the different areas of my ministry, and I'm going to start with the area of tourism. People may not yet realize it, but tourism is an incredibly powerful force in the economy of this province. Tourism puts $17 billion per year into the economy of this province. To get a sense of what that means, that means more than the fields of agriculture, forestry and mining combined. You're talking about the jobs and the livelihoods of incredible numbers of people around this province being involved in the tourism industry. And it's a growth industry, an industry of the future.
Globally, tourism is growing at tremendous rates. But coast to coast across Canada, the tourism industry has been on the decline since the mid-1980s. The government of Ontario, led by Premier Bob Rae, is bent and determined to turn that around and to make tourism one of our leading industries of the future of this province.
As with many of the other industries that we've been working to renew, there is one area that we have been working to implement so hard that I think the word is one we've said so much that people are probably becoming tired of hearing it. On the other hand, it's a relationship that I hope people have been feeling so much that they're tremendously delighted to feel the kind of partnership that in fact we've been trying to build with the people and the industries and the stakeholders of this province, because partnership is what is turning around the economy of this province and it's partnership that will cause us in this government, with our stakeholders, with our partners, to be able to continue to renew our economy as we're seeing it finally turning around and becoming renewed.
It's a solid renewal. It's a renewal that's not built on shell games; it's a renewal that's not built on phoney stock certificates or pieces of paper. It's a renewal that's built on tremendously strong infrastructure, on communities that are becoming stronger and stronger, industries that are becoming stronger and stronger across this province.
One of the members who spoke earlier tonight, the member for Simcoe East, referred to thinking that somehow tourism was a forgotten industry in this province. He referred to some successes being despite this administration. I think it's quite interesting that he then, of course, sang the praises of the Sno-TRAC program, for instance. This government, in spite of the recession -- the depression -- that we inherited, in spite of the deficit that we inherited, has made such a priority out of tourism that let me count the ways of the kinds of turnaround and the kinds of solid programs we've been building.
First of all, in terms of partnership, I want to say we've organized the tourism sector for the first time in a way that has never been done before. We've done that through the use of our sectoral partnership strategy. Our government looked across all of the industries of this province and decided that if we were going to renew the economy of this province, we had to identify, recognize and select those industries that we feel are key to the future of the growth of this province. Tourism was one of those industries we selected.
We therefore approached a number of strong industry leaders in the private sector of the tourism industry and asked them if they would work with us on developing a sectoral strategy to renew tourism in this province. We had them thrilled to be able to participate with the government that way. I'm delighted to say we had an incredibly talented group of people who led the advisory committee on tourism industry sector strategy, led by the chief executive officer of Commonwealth Hospitality in Ontario, Michael Beckley.
Michael Beckley led a group of people who went out and consulted across this province with over 500 different people involved in all kinds of different ways in the tourism industry of this province and developed a report that they presented to me in February of this year, a report that outlines the kind of strategy not only that our government will follow but that our government has been following.
In fact, even while we had this advisory committee doing its work, we did not do what many governments before us have done and allow that to be our excuse for inaction. Even while the committee was out working and consulting with communities and consulting throughout the industries, we took strong action, the kind of action that it turns out, coincidentally enough, since we were working hand in hand with this industry-led committee, is exactly what the industry has called for in the tourism sector strategy report, which any viewers, if they're interested, can write for and obtain from my ministry or from our field offices around this province.
What are those kinds of investments we've made that other governments before us, whether they be Conservative, whether they be Liberal, had the opportunities to make not only while they were in government but while they were in government in times that were far healthier economically, when they had far greater resources at their disposal than this government has had, and yet we're the ones who identified the weaknesses, who have worked with the industry and worked with the leaders in the industry to implement these initiatives?
First of all, I'll refer to the fact that when we took over the government, amazingly enough, there was no tourism traineeship program in this province. Service is key to the tourism industry. When you go and enjoy a resort, when you go and enjoy a hotel, a restaurant, an attraction, any kind of tourism feature, one of the things that makes a total difference as to whether you go away telling other people that you're going back when you get a chance and you think they should too is service. That's part of what's key to the enjoyment: to keep people wanting to come back, to keep people wanting to stay longer, which of course is a secret ingredient -- a not-so-secret ingredient, in fact -- in what makes the tourism industry work.
We recognized that lack, we heard the industry and we acted. We provided the funding to work with the industry to establish the Ontario Tourism Education Council. We provided the operating dollars needed throughout their first four years of activity for them to be able to do the work in establishing a pilot tourism traineeship program. The result of that pilot tourism traineeship program was so successful that OTAB, another one of the initiatives of our government, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, has now incorporated that tourism traineeship program into its regular feature of training offered to the people of Ontario, offered to the industries of Ontario.
That is a major change. Other governments before us had the opportunity to provide tourism traineeship programs in this province. This government established a council in conjunction with the industry. This government provided startup funds to the council. This government provided the startup funds for piloting the traineeship programs. This government has now provided the funds to make sure that tourism traineeship program is now an integral part of Ontario's training and adjustment program.
I want to say in that a very special thanks and congratulations to all those people in the industry as well as my ministry who have helped to set this up. In the industry the effort has been led by the chair of the Ontario Tourism Education Council, John Wiens, who is the owner-operator of the Prince of Wales Hotel in Niagara-on-the-Lake, and it's been led, in terms of the staff, by the executive director, Susan Dowler: two incredibly fine people who have led the work of an incredibly devoted group of volunteers from the tourism industry who have contributed, I think, much wisdom to this government, to their industry and to the partnership agreement that's resulted in this tremendous initiative.
Another one of the deficits that we inherited when we came into government, apart from the deficit of training in the tourism industry, was the deficit of information technology being used to the advantage of the tourism industry. A year or two before I became the minister of tourism in this province, I took a holiday down in Nova Scotia. When I was in Nova Scotia, I could use their Check In program to phone and find out information about tourism attractions and accommodations in the Nova Scotia area and I could close the deal and make the booking as to where I wanted to stay at the same time.
When I became minister of tourism, I was very interested to find that in spite of the greater resources this province has long enjoyed than Nova Scotia, no past government in this province had invested in putting Ontario tourism on the information highway so that people could phone 1-800-Ontario and not only get information about tourism in Ontario but be able to do what you can do in Nova Scotia, and that is close the deal and make your booking for your accommodation at the same time.
1940
In spite, again, of the lack of resources, of the depression that we walked into in this province -- actually, despite and because of -- we decided this was an investment whose time had come. We invested in a pilot project known as the central reservation and information system that we piloted in eastern Ontario, eastern Ontario being one of the jewels within tourism features available in this province and one of the parts of this province in greatest economic need. Still to this day the pilot is going and improving in eastern Ontario.
We decided this year to expand it throughout the Golden Horseshoe area so that tourists who now want to stay in the Niagara Peninsula, Niagara Falls, the greater Toronto area can find that more and more hotels and resorts are on line with 1-800-Ontario or with our travel centres, so you can go in or phone up and not only get information, but close the deal and at the same time book where you're going to stay for that holiday.
Because this government, Bob Rae's government, believes so strongly in partnerships and in the private sector doing what the private sector knows best to do and the public sector doing what the public sector knows best to do, our government recognized that the public sector's role should be to help pilot and to help test and to help evaluate this kind of program, but that this is the kind of program that would make most sense to be delivered by the private sector.
For that reason, our government earlier this year launched a request-for-information process for companies in the computing field, the telecommunications field, those companies that know best information highway technology, information systems, to express to us whether they would be interested possibly in taking over the option of being able to build a province-wide information and reservation system to help put Ontario tourism on the information highway.
We had a very successful request-for-information process which resulted in a number of tremendously sound companies bidding for that opportunity. I'm delighted to say that as of yesterday, I made the announcement to move on and to offer the four most successful companies who bid the opportunity to put in a final, solid proposal through a request-for-proposals stage.
I look forward in this spring to being able to announce the successful proponent of who in fact is going to build what Ontario's tourism industry desperately needs: the ability to launch the tourism industry on the information highway in Ontario, in Canada and around the world. Because that's part of what we're speaking of. We're talking about building the foundation also so that one day tourists around the world, tourists in Japan, can access through their computer systems information about tourism in Ontario and close the deal and make the booking of where they want to stay at the same time. Another first delivered by Bob Rae's New Democrat government in the province of Ontario.
There's another deficit this government has inherited. That's the fact that Ontario is incredibly fortunate that we have one of the wonders of the world here in Ontario: Niagara Falls. Every year, 10 million to 12 million people go to view Niagara Falls. That's as many people as go to visit Disney World in Florida each and every year. There's a big difference. When they go to visit Niagara Falls in Ontario, they spend an average of anywhere between $6 and $70, depending on whether they're going to stay a full night or not. When they go to Disney World, they spend an average of $2,000. That's money in Ontario's economy, that's jobs in Ontario's economy, that is overcoming the incredibly high unemployment throughout the Niagara region that the Liberal government before us and the Conservative government before us did nothing about.
When I go down to the Niagara Peninsula these days and when I talk to my colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula who have worked very hard to make sure this government understood and acted on their need for action in the Niagara Peninsula, I have political leaders, community leaders, industry leaders, who didn't used to be New Democrats, tell me that no government before us has paid them the attention, the recognition, nor taken the action that this government is doing.
What have we done? This past year, first of all, we built the Niagara Gateway festival park and welcome pavilion so that we could begin to showcase centrally to those 10 million to 12 million people per year who go to Niagara Falls just what is available to them to visit throughout the Niagara region.
They can get a taste there of what's offered by the Shaw Festival, by the other theatre companies in the area, the other cultural organizations in the area, so they can decide if they'd like to consider that a teaser to then go on and visit the real thing, to spend their dollars at the attractions of the cultural agencies, the cultural organizations, the tourist attractions, the wine industry etc, available in the Niagara area.
The Niagara Gateway festival park and welcome pavilion gives them absolutely the best view of Niagara Falls that they can have. They can go there and eat, spend the day, learn about the area, learn about the province, enjoy entertainment in that area.
But that was just a start and in fact, to be honest, that was just to show the Niagara area how serious we are about knowing that they need action, and not tomorrow, but today and yesterday.
In addition, we know the difference between what makes sense for the public sector to do and what makes sense for the private sector to do, so earlier this year we launched a request-for-information process, again to identify private sector organizations' consortia that would be interested in building the kind of tourism attraction, in addition to Niagara Falls and the other smaller wonderful features available throughout the Niagara area, that we could be offering in Niagara Falls, something that would be a tremendous attraction to bring tourists in from around the world who already come there but don't stay long and don't spend enough money.
I'm delighted to also say we had a very successful request-for-information process that resulted in a number of strong, healthy, wonderful private sector consortia expressing their interest in potentially building a major tourism attraction to help people stay longer in the Niagara area when they go there.
I expect and look forward to in the near future being able to launch the next stage of that process, the request-for-proposals process, to then again have those consortia express very seriously exactly what their vision is and how they plan to make it work for us to, hopefully this coming spring, be able to announce the successful proponent of who is going to help work with this government from the private sector, work with this government in seriously building the tourism opportunities and the community features and the health of the economy of the Niagara Peninsula: another first, another deficit left by past governments that this government, in spite of the economic time we walked into, has grabbed hold of and is delivering on.
Another deficit in this province was the fact that large conventions wanting to come from the United States, from around the world, to take place here in Toronto, because Toronto is renowned internationally as being a marvellous tourism attraction city, the large organizations wanting to offer large conventions here in Toronto because of the many attractions we have to offer, because of the safety of Toronto as a city, as a community, have had to be sent away to cities like Chicago because the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, our provincial facility, was not large enough to accommodate them.
This government turned hell and high water, if I have to say so, totally, legally and in partnership with organizations like our heritage community, with the private sector, with Marathon Realty, to develop the land arrangements, to develop the rezoning approvals, to work with the city of Toronto in doing so, with Metro Toronto, to be able to announce the expansion of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre by doubling its size.
By doing so, the Premier and I and Rosario Marchese, the MPP for Fort York, the area in which the convention centre is located, and other cabinet ministers, Frances Lankin, the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, who's responsible for helping to develop some of the overall development in the west Toronto downtown lands, went down the other day, along with the construction unions, along with many people, looking forward to the ability to celebrate the backhoe going into the ground to begin the construction of the double-sized, expanded new Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre, giving birth to thousands of construction jobs immediately in this city now at work, giving birth to, once that convention centre is up and operating, what will mean in fact 8,000 new permanent jobs each and every year from the new stimulus added to the retail sector, the restaurant sector, the hotel sector in this province.
1950
This is again a tremendous success, efficiently run, meaning incredible numbers of jobs and health in the Toronto economy, but not just the Toronto economy, because when I've stayed at resorts over the years around this province in northern Ontario, in other parts of this province, I've run into people there from Switzerland, from other parts of the world, who have told me that they came to Toronto for a convention but because they knew this was their chance to visit Ontario, they decided while they're here for their business convention in Toronto to at the same time add on a holiday to some other part of Ontario. The doubling of the size of the Metro Toronto Convention Centre is good for the economy of all of Ontario.
One of the recommendations of the tourism industry sectoral strategy has been the development of a blockbuster strategy for blockbuster events to attract people to Toronto, to Ontario. That's another initiative that our government has acted on very soundly. One of the early things we did was to help put our money where our mouth is and put our mouths of support into a bid to bring the Breeders' Cup, a major, major draw in the horse racing tourism community, to Toronto in 1997.
The Breeders' Cup will be here and, as Bill Duron, the wonderful, wonderful man who has helped to inject incredible developments in tourism within Metro Toronto, has said, that has just generated so much optimism within the tourism industry of this city, to know that we won that victory. But we've gone on to win others.
This government worked hand in hand with the leadership of the Art Gallery of Ontario, with Joe Rotman, a phenomenal chair of the Art Gallery of Ontario, with Glenn Lowry, a phenomenal executive director, president of the Art Gallery of Ontario, to invest $3.75 million to bring the Barnes Collection to Toronto. As you know right now, people from around the world are coming to visit the Barnes Collection in Toronto because Toronto is one of only six cities around the entire world where you can come and have the never-before and never-again opportunity to view the Barnes Collection.
That collection is bringing $35 million in tourism spending into the Metro Toronto economy; it's creating 1,000 jobs; it's in fact raising the impression of Toronto and of Ontario within the international arts world; it's raising the status and attraction of Toronto and Ontario within international tourism.
Toronto is known around the world as one of the top three centres for theatre in the English-speaking community. The Barnes Collection is part of what helps raise profile and attention to that, but in terms of the theatre community I want to mention some of the initiatives again of our government in helping to build the theatre community and the theatre attractiveness of Toronto to people around the world.
When I'm saying we're the third within the top three cities to attract people to theatre in the world, I'm putting us right up there with New York and London. People come flocking from the United States for theatre in Toronto because they know they can not only get top-quality theatre, they can get it in a safe environment, one that offers them the opportunity to --
Hon Mr Pouliot: From the CN Tower to the SkyDome.
Hon Ms Swarbrick: One that offers them an opportunity, as my colleague the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and minister responsible for francophone affairs is mentioning, to see all kinds of incredible other facilities, like the SkyDome, the CN Tower etc.
I want to say a special thank you to a few of the people who have helped to put Toronto on the map in international theatre, and that is to David and Ed Mirvish, to Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb, to the Toronto Theatre Alliance, to the leaders of the non-profit theatre community. But of course the people who have helped to deliver the panache and the vision, the spectacular, have in fact been Drabinsky, Gottlieb and the Mirvishes.
They've also been able to do that because of the help of this government. This government allowed an exemption to tax on commercial theatres with seats of less than 3,200 to help build that industry, an industry which has created incredible numbers of jobs in this community.
In terms of tourism, again a real deficit that I've heard consistently from the tourism industry since becoming minister and that our government heard before that, is that past governments had done nothing to make sure that the highway signs around this province operate in consideration of the tourism industry.
We quickly began working with the private sector tourism industry in this province, and I'm delighted to say were able to announce, in conjunction with my colleague sitting in front of me, Gilles Pouliot, the former Minister of Transportation, the Ontario tourism highway signs pilot project, which we launched earlier this year.
The Ontario tourism highway signs pilot project now has signs up that for the first time ever the tourism industry feels are working to their benefit along Highways 169 and 118, on Highway 401 between Brockville and Cornwall, and in the St Jacobs community.
Those signs will be evaluated by government. Government has taken the responsibility in this province, the New Democratic government under Bob Rae's leadership, to test that new signage the way the tourism industry has said they want it. We'll evaluate that signage and, again, we know when to step back and let the private sector do its job.
I expect early next year to be able to offer to the private sector a request-for-proposals opportunity for hopefully a major sign company to end up becoming declared to be the successor in being able to offer a new highway signage program to all the tourism industry to all of Ontario's tourists around this province.
There are so many things that this government has done in the tourism area, but I need to move on to make some reference to what we've done in the area of culture, in the area of recreation.
Mr Mills: Mention my name. My wife doesn't believe I'm here.
Hon Ms Swarbrick: The member for Durham East is asking that his name, Gord Mills, be mentioned here. I know he has done tremendous work for tourism, for culture, for recreation in the community that he represents in Durham East. Besides that, he also gives us a lot of laughs and leadership.
Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): He's a heritage site in himself.
Hon Ms Swarbrick: The member for Sault Ste Marie says, "He's a heritage site in himself," and he certainly is one that attracts many of us to be proud of that heritage site as well.
In the area of culture in this province, there are people who believe that culture is a frill. I want to say that this is a government that knows that culture is no frill. As Franklyn Griffiths, a tremendously insightful professor at the University of Toronto, recently wrote:
"At a time when peace is fortunately breaking out more and more around the world, at a time when global barriers and global borders are coming down," in Mr Griffiths's perspective, which I have to wholeheartedly agree with, "it's time that we're able to reduce the spending on the armed forces. However, if we're going to protect our sovereignty, our distinctiveness as Canadians, as a people in control of ourselves, we need to be able to move some of those dollars into the area of culture."
When I say that, what I mean is none of us wants our children or ourselves to be limited to watching television that offers us simply American television with the kind of violence and crime that we see offered there. None of us wants to have our Canadian stars continue to have to go to Los Angeles, to California, to Hollywood to be able to make it big. We want to be able to see our stars develop here at home. We want to be able to see our values being reflected in the TV, the movies, the music that we hear.
Culture also gives us the opportunity as people, young and old alike, to develop our imagination. It gives us the opportunity to express ourselves as a people and, through that expression of ourselves as a people, to develop our self-confidence as individuals and as a people, as Ontarians and as Canadians who believe in ourselves and our ability to travel the world and to negotiate on a world level as world leaders, to negotiate as peacekeepers around the world, to be able to do business with the best of them, to be recognized as elder statespeople along with the best of them. Because here in Canada, among our people, we have some of the best of them.
2000
I also have to mention that culture means jobs too. We launched a sector partnership advisory council earlier, last year, that this year reported back to me with its recommendations in a report entitled The Business of Culture. The Business of Culture, for all those viewers who would like to call and obtain a copy of it, helps to show the kind of significance culture has in job creation and economic wealth creation throughout Ontario's communities and in this economy. In fact, in Ontario we represent 58% of Canada's cultural jobs, cultural industries.
This government has grabbed hold and launched a number of initiatives, even before getting the report from the cultural industry sectoral strategy group, known as ACCISS.
First of all, with the timing we walked into in the economy of this province, we found ourselves faced with a situation where Ontario publishing companies, who are the people who publish Ontario authors -- 85% of Ontario's authors who are published are published by Ontario publishing companies, not by American ones. We recognized, when we saw a tide happening of publishing industries going bankrupt, that we needed to step in and to do something.
So in 1991 we established the Ontario Publishing Centre. With the help of the $12.2 million in grants and loan guarantees that have been tremendously effectively and efficiently targeted, I can tell you that since that time not one publishing company in Ontario has gone bankrupt. I can tell you that, as a consequence, the publishing companies of Ontario have been able to grow and expand. While doing so, we've therefore not only fully protected the 1,500 jobs existing at the time, but we've been able to create an additional 200 to 300 jobs and reposition that sector for continuing strong growth.
We found the same kind of economic strength in the film and television industry. Toronto is known as Hollywood North. Toronto has so much film and TV production going on that it is a tremendously significant job creator here. I was tremendously delighted to notice in this last year, thanks to some of the incredible work done by the television and film industry in partnership with the support we've helped to provide through the Ontario film investment program, that the Ontario Film Development Corp has been able to ensure that we've continued to boost jobs in film and television production in Ontario and to make sure we are offering television and film productions that show our values as Canadians, that develop our writers, that develop our acting talent. I'm delighted at the fact that my government, again in spite of the economic times we walked into, has renewed the $14-million-per-year Ontario film investment program each year so far that we've been in government.
For all the reasons I've mentioned already, culture is tremendously important to this province, yet Ontario's cultural workers, our artists, are among Ontario's most vulnerable workers. They're some of the workers who work for the least pay, workers who have the least, in many cases non-existent, pay and benefits. They are workers deserving of tremendous support, and for that reason and for the reason that we haven't been able to do everything we've wanted to be able to do in providing support for status of the artist initiatives, in 1991 we increased the funding to the Ontario Arts Council by 26%.
That's totally contrary to what every other government across this country has done, the federal government and every other provincial government, but it's of tremendous value. It's not only meant the health of the arts community, which means the health of all our communities from Ottawa right across to Windsor, from the far north, to aboriginal Canadians, to us here in Toronto, to every corner of Ontario; it's meant jobs for arts and culture workers, it's meant building our self-esteem, our health, our values as a people, and it's meant protecting some of Ontario's most vulnerable workers. It's also meant being able to offer the services and the programs of the Ontario Arts Council to groups that had never been able to access it before.
I mentioned the theatre community earlier when I was speaking about tourism, and certainly when we speak about the theatre community, tourism is a tremendous byproduct. But the theatre world is also tremendously important in terms of trying to develop Canadian productions to not only be successful in non-profit theatre but to be launched to success in the commercial, private, profit-making theatre community as well.
That's how we're going to be able to make sure one day that stars of the quality of, for instance, those presently starring in the Nothing Sacred production at the Elgin-Winter Garden Theatre, like George Fox, like Sonya Smits, like Randy Hughson, like Eric Peterson, like R.H. Thomson, who stars in many other productions, that those people become household names one day, that George Walker, the tremendous Ontario playwright who has written Nothing Sacred, also becomes a household name in Ontario and Canada like Neil Simon has become in the United States and in Canada.
Another initiative of this government has been to finally pilot the use of the theatre development fund to support mounting a production that used to be able to operate only in the non-profit theatre, to support it being piloted and tried out for commercial theatre purposes. People who have gone to the Elgin-Winter Garden Theatre any time might like to know that 50 cents of their ticket has gone to establish that theatre development fund, but up until recently it was simply left to sit.
It's this government that's had the guts, the chutzpah, the nerve, to decide to use the theatre development fund to pilot its investment in the production of Nothing Sacred at the Elgin-Winter Garden Theatre. It's there until December 31. I urge every Torontonian, every Ontarian, to take advantage of the opportunity to go to see a production that they'll find is uniquely Canadian, that causes us to think, that stimulates our imagination, our creativity, that helps to develop our sense of power about ourselves, our self-esteem as Ontarians and as Canadians.
Libraries are tremendously important to the culture, to the education, to the communities of Ontario. This government, in spite of the economic times we walked into, has entirely protected provincial funding of public libraries. This government has been working to initiate and launch the first-ever aboriginal library service to help provide library service the way that first nations communities in Ontario need it delivered to meet their needs. I look forward to being able to announce in the near future that the work a tremendous group of people from first nations communities around this province has led up, in conjunction with the staff of my ministry, can result in a first-ever first nations aboriginal library service.
In addition, this government recognized that Ontario's libraries need to be launched on the information highway. Again, in spite of economically challenged times and because of economically challenged times that have meant people have needed more than ever before to rely on their public libraries, this government invested money into putting Ontario's libraries on the information highway, to electronically link Ontario's public libraries, to develop a province-wide database to allow Ontario's libraries to share resources -- the kind of efficiency needed, as well as ensuring that the public is able to increasingly have access to a number of different information sources through their local library whether or not they can afford a computer.
2010
I was delighted earlier this year, along with my colleague the Minister of Environment and Energy, Bud Wildman, to announce and open the electronic registry for the Environmental Bill of Rights. Every Ontarian now can go to their public library and through their computer system access information and be empowered as Ontarians to take control of the kind of environmental controls that operate in this province, to have more ready access in the development of environmental policy in this province, and to be able to act to help police the protection of the environment in their province. They can do that now through their Ontario public library.
The heritage of this province and this province's people is incredibly important. My ministry is responsible for working with communities around this province to help protect the heritage of Ontario's communities. At a time when Ontarians are faced with change and instability and insecurities like never before since the 1930s, our government has been delighted to help work, to help the protection and development of the heritage of this province as a way of making sure we can feel all the more soundly our roots, know about our roots as Ontarians, to enjoy those roots and use that sense of our roots as a sense of security during very challenging and changing times.
For that reason, I'm delighted with a number of our initiatives, things like using Jobs Ontario Community Action to help develop, renovate, expand Ontario's community museums, our historical buildings, our archaeology, our architecture; to help develop knowledge and enjoyment of heritage trail systems, from the underground railway in the Niagara area and the Windsor area; to help learn more and more about workplace heritage.
In fact, the heritage of the working people of this province has been too ill-documented in the history of this province. When we read and learn about history in the schools in Ontario, it's history created by a few people who have had the opportunity to be the leaders at the top in a number of organizations.
The reality is that when we look at this building, Queen's Park, when we walk outside its door and look down University Avenue, when we go to community after community throughout Ontario, the people who built the buildings, the people who built the roads, the people who built the libraries, the people who manufacture product, the people who provide service, the people who do all of those many things that make Ontario happen, are Ontario's working people.
We've been losing plant after plant. As federal policies on free trade, as federal policies on high dollar rates and high industry rates under the Mulroney years, as policies on NAFTA, the GST, as all those policies served to deindustrialize Ontario, we were losing plant after plant and, along with those, we were losing the history of the people who work there.
I'm delighted to say that my government earlier this year announced an initiative never done before in this province, a workplace heritage program, a workplace heritage fund administered through the Ontario Heritage Foundation in conjunction with people who represent working people through Ontario's unions. Each year we will now be able to support at least three or four heritage projects to research, to document, to recognize and to protect the contributions made by Ontario's working people in the development of their province.
The last thing I'm going to make reference to -- and there are all kinds of things, believe it or not, that I'm leaving out -- in what this government has done to help build the culture of this province and help create the jobs of this province, as well as to be able to take advantage of the synergy that exists between culture and tourism, is to have used Jobs Ontario Capital not only for the building and construction of new travel centres, but also to use Jobs Ontario Community Action to help develop and protect the culture, tourism, recreation sector's heritage library resources around this province.
In the cultural area, some of those initiatives have included the restoration of incredibly historic theatre facilities in communities like Shelburne, Gravenhurst, Perth, Windsor, Guelph, Ottawa, Oakville, the town of Campbellford -- I'm leaving out all kinds all around this province. But believe me, as the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, I have the incredible fortune when I travel communities around this province to be able to see the kinds of things where the Ontario government has worked in conjunction with municipal governments and with other organizations and wonderful people within communities around this province to restore, to build, to help showcase and make those communities more and more attractive as part of the tourist infrastructure that is developing those communities' ability to diversify their local economies, but also to develop the kind of quality of life that builds the quality and the order of life and the humanity of life in our communities around this province.
We've used Jobs Ontario Community Action to help develop the culture and tourism attractions of festivals around this province, a new theatre company in Orangeville, the opening of a new Canadian heritage floor at the Royal Ontario Museum -- so many things that it's no wonder the United Nations declares Canada as being the number one country in this world in which to live, Toronto the number one city and, if they looked to provinces I know they would conclude, especially today, after the things this government has helped to build over the last four years -- not through a paltry $600 million per year that the federal government is investing in infrastructure, but through $4 billion to $5 billion each and every year since we've been in government that we've been able to put aside by finding ways to contract the costs of operating government programs in this province and move it over to building community infrastructure in all of our interests.
I can't stop without making reference to the fields of recreation and sport in this province. Again, people often think of recreation as a frill. The investment in recreation and sports is of tremendous value, again, partly as tourism attraction, tremendously in terms of helping to build our health as Ontarians and helping to promote good health and hopefully help to save health dollars on trying to make people well again when they become ill. Active living is good for people's health.
Recreation and sport helps build self-esteem. We're becoming increasingly aware that when kids get into trouble, often it's because they have low self-esteem; often it's because they haven't had opportunities to be involved in recreation and sports and to be able to build positive outlets for their energy and self-esteem. If we would only invest -- when we hear time and time again of people and families getting concerned because of growth in crime, the automatic reaction is to think we should throw more money at police and enforcement and penal institutions and finding ways to punish people.
2020
Studies are beginning to show, experience shows, that putting money into recreation and sports opportunities for our youth is in fact far more cost-effective in preventing crime, far more cost-effective in developing self-esteem, self-esteem that translates not only into good citizenship but self-esteem that translates into an ability to know how to work in teams in workplaces, an ability to learn self-discipline, an ability to learn about volunteerism in communities. There is nothing that attracts more volunteers to be active in their communities than recreation and sports, and that in fact attracts those people to then get involved in the political life of their community at all levels thereafter.
What I've learned in working with schools on sports and recreation, and all kinds of organizations in this province, is that the kids who do best in school in fact are those who are involved in recreation and sports.
Finally, again in terms of job creation, the recreation and sports field is very significant in the health of our economy. The manufacture of sports equipment and sportswear is tremendously significant in the manufacturing industries of this province. The services provided in recreation and sports are part of what's tremendously significant in the economy of this province. This is an area that is being supported by this government through our Ministry of Finance.
My colleague the Minister of Finance earlier worked with a number of ministers to established venture capital funds including, for instance, labour-sponsored funds that can be accessed to help boost a number of businesses. I was delighted to notice about three weeks ago the announcement of a new venture capital fund known as sport fund that exists because of the Ontario tax credits that had been established by Floyd Laughren, the Minister of Finance in this province, as a venture capital fund to be accessed through sport fund for the purpose of investing in companies that are involved in sports-related manufacturing, distribution and retailing, and in the development and production of products involving fitness, medicine, sports injury therapy and safety.
For a whole lot of reasons, recreation and sports means good economics as well as good fun, good work habits, health promotion, crime prevention -- a whole lot of things incredibly important and of priority to the families and working people and children of this province.
In terms of the accomplishments of this government in the area of sports and recreation, first of all, this government helped us to work, again in partnership, with the Parks and Recreation Federation of Ontario and its many wonderful people who work with it to document the economic and social benefits of parks and recreation, and to therefore launch both a catalogue and a video that show very clearly the many benefits of parks and recreation.
Safety in sports and recreation is crucial and so in terms of safety, again we've launched a number of initiatives in this province. We've established at the Ontario sport and recreation centre a new recreation safety resource centre which is helping to reduce the number of fatalities in sports industries in this province. One of the concrete examples I'd like to point out is that led by this government, with the support of this government in partnership with organizations like the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs, led by a tremendous leading citizen of Sudbury, Don Lumley, and other colleagues of his, we in Ontario have supported being at the leading edge of the reduction of fatalities in the snowmobile industry.
Through the Ride Safe, Ride Sober campaign, through the Ontario Snowmobile Safety Committee, a wonderful group of individuals from a number of sectors supported through the ministries of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, Transportation, and the Attorney General, a number of ministries in this government, in one year we were able to reduce the number of snowmobile fatalities in this province by 41%, a tremendous achievement, the kind of achievement again that this government, led by Bob Rae, the New Democrat government, has been able to achieve in spite of the kind of economic constraints under which we've worked.
I mentioned in my opening comments on recreation and sports the benefit to health and health maintenance and health promotion and illness prevention through sports and recreation, and so for this reason I'm also tremendously proud of the pioneering, leadership, partnership that my ministry and the Ministry of Health in this province achieved in announcing in 1991 a new Ontario community active living program; a program that has resulted in the training of over 6,000 community leaders in over 400 communities across Ontario and more than 1,000 community active living events being initiated and sponsored in building the health of communities around this province since 1991.
I mentioned the area of youth crime prevention. Our government has been tremendously proud of the youth at risk leadership training programs that we've been offering each and every year for the last number of years to try to help use recreation and sports in preventing crime among Ontario's youth.
Other initiatives included the first-ever franco-Ontarian high school games being held in Orleans near Ottawa in 1994.
In sports and recreation there's been a tremendous challenge to find ways to increase the involvement of women and girls in sports and recreation opportunities around this province and to find ways, when women and girls participate in sports and recreation, to ensure that they feel welcome, to ensure that behaviour towards them does not include sexual harassment, or harassment or intimidation for other reasons.
Since the early 1980s, from the Sopinka report onwards, there has been a demand for the government of Ontario to act, to introduce a policy on gender equity in the field of sport and physical activity. As said recently by former Olympic athlete, Bruce Kidd, past governments have promised this kind of initiative, but this government led by Bob Rae, this New Democratic government, is the one that's finally announced earlier this year a policy on full and fair access for women and girls in sports and physical activity in this province.
It's this kind of initiative and this kind of partnership along with the partners who are actively at work in communities and provincial organizations and provincial sport and recreation organizations around this province that is resulting in increased sports and recreation opportunities for women and girls, and a change of behaviour towards women and girls in sport and recreation activity.
One of my colleagues on the other side of the House, earlier this evening, made reference to the success of the Sno-TRAC program in communities around this province. Again, in spite of the economic challenges my government faced, it wasn't the Liberals before us, it wasn't the Conservatives before us, it was Ontario's NDP government that invested $14 million into developing a province-wide snowmobile trail system that has already made much more, double, triple the return on that investment in what it's contributed to job creation and the economic development of communities. Snowmobiling is big tourism. Snowmobiling puts money into tourism accommodations, restaurants, communities all around this province.
Interjection: Communities like High Park.
Hon Ms Swarbrick: Communities like High Park, my colleague says. Communities all around this province. Never before has there been a province-wide snowmobile trail system that not only functions to benefit tourism and economic development, but that also is operated to protect the environmental sustainability of Ontario's wildlife, of Ontario's wilderness areas, in the way the Sno-TRAC program this government has supported with $14 million in investment in addition to the almost $7 million of private sector partnership dollars and private sector work, hard work done in conjunction with us by the Ontario Federation of Snowmobile Clubs and the many membership clubs that belong to it.
2030
I mentioned earlier blockbuster strategies. Blockbuster strategies are part of what this government has invested in all around this province, from investing in ensuring that the World Nordic Ski Championships, which will take place in March 1995 in Thunder Bay, in the Lakehead region of our province, will be a tremendous success.
We took over government at a time when a commitment had been made by the Ontario government to put $5 million into helping to bring the World Nordic Ski Championships into the Thunder Bay and Lakehead area.
The federal Liberal government was asked for the same $5-million contribution. The World Nordic Ski Championships in Thunder Bay were in great jeopardy for a number of months earlier this year because the federal government would not honour the request for $5 million that this government in Ontario had honoured.
As a result, this government again had to pick up the bag from the federal government, whether it's been a federal government under the Liberals or a federal government under the Tories. Consequently, we invested an additional $3 million, for a total of an $8-million investment to make those games happen.
Is that an economically important investment? It sure is. It's that investment that in fact is going to result in a tremendous number of jobs -- 1,563 person-years of jobs -- in the Lakehead region of this province, that is going to result in 300 million television viewers around the world seeing highlighted the kind of nordic skiing facilities that are now going to be the number one nordic ski facilities available around this world.
That investment made by the Ontario government, and increasingly honoured and supported by the Ontario government, to bring those games and make sure those games will stay, because they were in jeopardy of being lost, in the Lakehead and Thunder Bay region will happen because of this government, will mean not only temporary jobs and temporary wonderful role models being created in recreation and sports for Ontario's youth, but will mean the continuing diversification and development of the northwestern Ontario region of this province.
This government has worked with many partners to attract those kinds of blockbuster recreation events to Ontario. I'll name a few: the World Basketball Championships, held earlier this year; the World Wrestling Championships; the World Indoor Track and Field Championships; the Special Olympics, announced by our Premier just a few weeks ago; the International Children's Games; the World Camping Congress; the International Marine Heritage Festival; the Canadian Scout Jamboree '97; the Girl Guides '93 International -- I could go on and on.
I apologize to those communities that I leave out as I mention those blockbuster events that they've worked in partnership with us to attract and bring to this province. I also apologize to all those many communities that I leave out on what we've done in the areas of culture, tourism, recreation, heritage and libraries to build the community infrastructure of this province through Jobs Ontario Community Action.
Of course, I think of the kind of waterfront developments being built all around this province. I think of, for instance, in the riding of my colleague the MPP for Niagara South, the marina waterfront development, and heritage developments in Port Colborne-Fort Erie. I think of those I've visited from the north to the east to the west and centrally around this province.
The concept that I started out with -- and I can't believe how long I've gone on -- was to show that in spite of the economy, Bob Rae's NDP government and my colleagues, as new, inexperienced members originally, in 1990, inherited an economy --
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): So many accomplishments in so little time.
Hon Ms Swarbrick: So many accomplishments in so little time, as my colleague from Algoma says. In spite of the deficits that we inherited, of not only the supposedly zero deficit that turned out to be a $3-billion deficit, that turned out, if you apply the auditor general's current auditing requirements, to be in fact a $5-billion deficit that we walked into inheriting, this government learned quickly. This government acted on incredible initiatives to make my mother proud -- my mother, who could make a nickel stretch to a dollar. This government has learned so well to make a nickel stretch to a dollar and to do so in building permanent infrastructure to reposition communities and industries around this province towards the solid economic renewal that Ontario needs for its future.
I'm so proud of Bob Rae, our Premier; I'm so proud of the Ontario cabinet of the New Democratic government; I'm so proud of my colleagues in caucus who have worked in their communities around this province to help reposition Ontario's economy in a way that we're now seeing bearing results. Ontario's economy is turning around, and I believe the man who's led its turning around is my Premier, Bob Rae.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Further debate?
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My colleague the minister just stated that she can't understand how long she's been on. I presume that it was the intention of the minister of course to speak as long as she could, maybe in a desperate attempt to convince not only us but her backbenchers that the government has done something good. In all that speech, I haven't heard anything good. I didn't want to start on any kind of negative term, but I couldn't believe the length of time that she has done on the backbenchers.
I wanted to have heard from the lips of those backbenchers, who have sat for four years under some of this jurisdiction of their government: "I too would like to support and have concurrence to this estimate. Let me tell you how it has affected my constituency." But, oh no, the dominance of the ministers over there is saying: "The backbenchers, you stay there and just clap your hands and vote yes when we say yes and vote no when we say no." Oh, it's a shame, that New Democratic Party. Now I'm understanding what new democracy is all about.
In addressing this very important part of the afternoon, when we're looking at concurrence to these estimates, one of the things that I've realized is that the people of Ontario do not believe that they're getting good government, that they're getting good service for the kind of tax money that has been collected from them. The people of Ontario feel that they're not getting value for their money for this large corporation, this $50-million corporation that is in place that's supposed to collect taxes and deliver services in an effective way. They don't feel that they're getting that kind of service for the money that's being collected.
As a matter of fact, they feel that a lot has been wrong. They feel that the corporation, to begin with, is too large and keeps on growing, that even the minister's staff and the Premier's staff have grown even further than previous governments, although they promised to reduce all that large staffing within their own bureaucracy. That hasn't happened. This bureaucracy has grown so complex that not even the bureaucrats themselves understand it, much less the people whom they serve. So, again, they feel that service for their money is not worth it.
They also believe that the continuous, long delay to get services is another impediment and sort of frustration on behalf of this government. Sometimes they almost believe it's deliberate on the part of the government to frustrate the people so that they could almost get fed up. You have people today who should, more or less, get unemployment insurance or welfare or housing who don't even line up for it. There are people who have cases in court who give up, people who want to go to the Ontario Human Rights Commission who give up -- three to four years' wait -- and decide that this bureaucracy that's supposed to deliver service for the tax moneys that they receive, this large, $50-million bureaucracy cannot deliver just, fair service to the people. Frustration, of course, builds in.
2040
Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): Better check your figures.
Mr Curling: The Minister of Citizenship said I should check my figures. I should ask her to check her ministry. I give up in this House. I am the critic for that. I have given up even asking her questions. I can't even get answers for very simple questions from the ministry that has an enormous backlog and the inefficiency of employment equity that cannot get even on the books properly. The Anti-Racism Secretariat is not even delivering. We have evidence daily; Humberside school is swarming with racism. In order for them to put in place a good process -- they have sat back and I haven't heard a peep out of them, not a peep out of the minister in the area to come out and say: "We are concerned. We're going to deliver services because we've set up this large bureaucracy."
They walk in here today and say: "We want concurrence on all these things. Please, let us go out and spend some more money." Of course, no matter what we say here for hours or so, no matter how we appeal to the government, they will vote and it will go through normally. Again, at least they have left a little bit of hope of democracy where they can't stop us from expressing in our time, although they have shut down the place.
They even want to close us up from even speaking properly. They have four bills that they have closure on us not to speak, large omnibus bills, bills that are extremely complex even for politicians who deal with this thing daily. Even lawyers who try to understand the legislation would say we need time to debate it, to understand it. But no, this very New Democratic -- meaning, undemocratic -- Party decided that: "No, we shall not speak any more. We're tired of hearing from the people. We will now proceed and all that you think that you have said or should have said or written has been heard. So that's it, let us proceed."
The same government that put closure on bills, that had more amendments to their bills -- on one of the bills, the Planning Act, there were 240 amendments. I would give you a guess to say how many of those were government amendments. Do you know? Of those 240, 140 were government amendments. Even they couldn't get it right. But what they did was they shut it down and decided that there should be no more speaking on this. They come in and call themselves the New Democratic -- or the undemocratic -- Party.
The people of Ontario feel that they are not getting good service for their money. They say, "As they grow bigger and they tax us more and as they become more arrogant, we're not getting good service for our money." No matter what we do, red tape is thrown in people's faces. People can't even get through the process of understanding forms. Businesses are saying to them, "Please, for God's sake, for Allah's sake, whatever gods there are, please stop this red tape, allow us to just do business. Continue please. Allow us to get on with the business of creating jobs."
This government has taken it upon themselves, "We are here to create jobs." Governments shouldn't create jobs. They must put the stimulus in the economy in order for the private sector to create jobs. If you want people to be educated, you give money to institutions so that they can go out and train and be productive. If they want, they come here, and if Bob Rae takes a taxi and gives a $2 tip, you know what he says? "Jobs Ontario." If he walks down the road and buys something, every time the government spends money, an expense account or anything, he says, "Jobs Ontario."
Hon Mr Wildman: That's a silly comment.
Mr Curling: It might be a silly comment, the man would say, but it is not, because every little line is: "That's jobs. We have created so many jobs." We have lost more jobs than we have created. As my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has pointed out to you over and over, when you come and brag about your economy in here you have not been progressing at all.
It took them two years to get the sense in their head that you can't spend more than you get. They were going to pay off everything they could in order to arrest this economy that was running away from them. As the Minister for Culture, Tourism and Recreation stated, it took them some time to understand that they are the government.
Thank God for democracy. Thank God for the process. Within a short time their mandate not only will run out, but the people will make sure that this incompetent government does not take place and continues to do its mismanagement of this economy. The record increase of taxes will stop, as Lyn McLeod has stated. In putting a proper plan in place, that will stop. That's very efficient government. High unemployment shall cease. They are comfortable, of course, with 9% unemployment. We in the Liberal Party feel that not until we have about 6% unemployment can we decide to say, "Well, things are happening."
Thousands of people out there still, while you're bragging inside here about statistics, are out of jobs and are fed up. And you know what the Treasurer has stated? He said, "Of course, as soon as things turn up, people are coming on stream now" -- those who have given up, given up under this New Democratic Party government, have put their hands in the air and said: "Alas, it's over. I will not look for any more jobs because these people have turned off all the businesses in this province."
They have shut down the trade offices around the world and said: "Listen, we don't need trade offices. We don't need that. We don't need to expand our economy. We need to, of course, pay off everything we have and pay off those we want to pay off," beside the fact that no jobs were created.
They are fed up and now, as things turn around -- Mr Speaker, you must have seen that. I know that you read the paper every day. I've watched you carefully reading the news and I've observed you paying keen attention to what's happening to the economy and how the Premier behaves.
In China the Premier, Bob Rae, smiling so nicely with the Prime Minister as he tried to get more jobs --
Hon Mr Wildman: Are you opposed to that?
Mr Curling: I'm not opposed. I was so happy to see the Premier there saying, "I am here." As the camera flashed, the Bob Rae smile was there. I was so happy and I said to myself this is a very intelligent man, intelligent, and when he comes back I want to see him stating openly that the Liberal Party of Canada, which has led one of the largest delegations of trade to a country that is growing, where the possibilities are there -- of course we have signed many contracts. He did. He came in, and as an honourable man he stood in the House and he commented on the progress and the attitude and the demeanour of this wonderful Prime Minister of our country who decided to expand the economy and realizes that the way for us to grow, the way for our trade to expand is to reach out beyond the borders. He also agreed that we always --
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): With free trade.
Mr Curling: The member from S-D-G says we agreed with free trade too. Definitely, the Liberal Party always agreed with free trade.
Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, really? John Turner agreed with free trade?
Mr Curling: The Prime Minister says it's an efficient way in which we should do it and the way we do it we shall not sell our souls to the United States.
We shall not sell our souls to anyone because, as we expand our market, as the Prime Minister decided we should reach beyond the shores of North America, we could go on in Asia and make sure that we can trade with many more and have businesses. I saw the Premier right there with all the photo ops, and I'm glad he did so, that same Premier who was shutting down trade offices around and felt it was not necessary for us to trade with other countries. If he believes that we should trade by fax machine and telephone from here, the fact is that it doesn't work that way. Fax machines of course are modern technology, but I will tell you that you can't do that.
The type of hypocrisy that we see here is that as we close the trade offices down, which one did we not close down? The one in Japan, where he had his little lackey down there, his political appointment to continue his service there. Of course, I am the first one to say that it was our Premier, a Liberal Premier, who appointed him to Japan. The fact is that if you're closing down those trade offices, then you should close down the one where that NDP individual is.
I am happy, I am so happy to see somehow that they are coming on side and the reality of how we do trade in the greater world. Of course --
Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): You might learn something new.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. There's so much noise that I can hardly hear the gentleman, the member for Scarborough North, so I would ask you please to refrain from heckling.
2050
Mr Curling: I also know it's rather tempting to speak the truth and rub it very hard like salt in a sore so that they would say, "Ha, it hurts," just like the Tories across here. "It hurts so badly." I could get into a lot of patronization -- we patronize things and talk about how they themselves did a lot of patronizing but I don't have time in which to deal with the Tories.
I want to deal with the concurrence of these estimates. This government stands in its place, the minister was standing there for over an hour trying to convince me about the things this government has done, and I tell you she has not done a good job at all. As a matter of fact, she has convinced me that she felt that if I shuts her colleagues out, they will say something like: "How come it has not benefited my territory? How come?" They would have said oh, no, that they sent her with a message to speak as long as possible so that those backbenchers will sit there like obedient servants and they shall not in any way have an opportunity to express themselves. That she has achieved.
Mr Villeneuve: She had to convince them.
Mr Curling: I'm not quite sure she has convinced them. They grumble every day and say: "Oh my golly, isn't this a bad thing that is happening? We want to speak. How come this is the Parliament of debate, the Parliament of free expression, the Parliament of protection, that I can say what I want without being incriminated in any way?" And they say, "You just keep your little mouth shut on the back bench there and just follow what we do."
Let me just go on. As a matter of fact, what comes to mind is that if this government wants to do something efficiently, sometimes the only way to get things done is to put forward a private member's bill. The fact is that sometimes when we do put other bills, complex omnibus bills in, we don't get our opportunity to debate them. So the private members would put forward bills that make so much sense that everyone agrees with them, that all three parties will agree and say, "That makes sense." But the fact is that we are so caught up with our own selves and our importance as ministers that we don't have the time to introduce those little bills. In the meantime, private members will say for themselves, "This is important because it affects hundreds, thousands of people in our province, and do you agree?" So we get that agreement from all three sides.
One that comes to mind readily, and you may be familiar with that one, is Bill 154. Let me just remind the members here -- and I know that the Minister of Environment and Energy is listening attentively because he's an honourable man and he would say maybe we should continue Bill 154 -- it states it's An Act to prohibit the Charging of Fees for the Cashing of Government Cheques. As a matter of fact, look at the coincidence, Mr Speaker. It was your bill in 1985. This was first introduced through the Liberal government, through the Tories. It's almost 10 years now. It's a bill to say to you, and the NDP agreed, that this bill will be passed.
Hon Mr Wildman: You mean it didn't get passed when the Liberals were in power. How come this bill didn't get passed when the Liberals were in power?
Mr Curling: Of course, the Minister of Environment said that while the Liberals were in power they did not pass it. Well, that is so. When you were there, you said that if you were there you would have passed that resolution.
Hon Mr Wildman: We did?
Mr Curling: Yes, and now you are the government, not for one year, not for two years, not for three, not for four. As a matter of fact, they're going to go the full gamut. They're going to go right until five. You still have chances to pass this Bill 154. The member for Carleton would say, "I just hope they will see within themselves before the adjournment of the House," or the House prorogues or we have a recess or whatever we do, just before December 8, because it is in third reading that you would pass that bill. I tell you that if the government is so committed to these things it says yes to, a simple nod in third reading would have made many, many people happy.
You know, in Quebec this type of legislation, this type of thing could not happen. There's no charging of fees for the cashing of government cheques. All that is out. Ontario, this very, very progressive province, does not see fit, although we have legislation that is on the books here to just pass it, to just give it a nod. It is third reading now and I would appeal to you, all the honourable men and women who sit across there, because we are committed on this side to bow to all of that, to say, "Yes, let's get on with it." I've seen you bring bills in here that in two, three, four days they're right through. Just do that. You will let people know you are committed. People will have more confidence in the fact that the government lives up to its word, that government is not a large bureaucracy that strips them of taxes and doesn't give them good service.
They're asking today for concurrence in supply for about 12 ministries. I look at the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. I have visited, with my colleague Bob Callahan, the member for Brampton South, many of the correctional institutes and found many areas wanting. I find that the treatment of inmates at times is questionable, especially in the young offenders. He spoke about one aspect of it, that in many of them who are there, even across in the adult institutions, there's a high rate of functional illiteracy. I think that if we want to put people back or rehabilitate them in there, at least they should be trained or we find out what some of the rationale -- we're not saying that because they are lacking in literacy they're in jail, but we say it contributes, somehow it shows a high rate of functional illiteracy there. There is also too high a rate of functional illiteracy within the young offenders.
The fact is that we are asking of this government in some respect that all these young people who are going into these institutions could be assessed before, that as soon as they are apprehended some tests should be given. Now the federal government has decided to do some psychological tests in certain conditions. I think they all should.
More so, the workers in those institutions, the morale is very low.
Mr Mills: No, no.
Mr Curling: The morale in those institutions which I have visited, and I've gotten many letters on my desk and people have come to me, have stated to me and I've seen situations that somehow the fact is that they have been treated badly about promotions; there's racism that exists in that institution. I can tell my honourable colleague the member for Durham East to go to some of those institutions with me any time and ask the workers and ask the inmates what is the morale there.
The other aspect of it is policing. Of course, we have seen a great tug of war that goes on with policing here and the debate that is almost irrelevant to some of the issues and the bureaucratic fights and struggles in administration. But we have a wonderful police force here, regardless of what people say. I have no doubt and I have no hesitation to stand in this House at any time and say we have an excellent police force.
2100
Like any other force or any other institution, there are bad eggs. As I speak to many of the police, the chief and other people within the police force, they say they are working very hard to clean that up. Sometimes I feel they're not working hard enough, but again there are bad eggs there. They are hampered by the fact of the commitment, I feel, by this government in how it deals with the police force, and I hope that will change.
As a matter of fact, I have great respect for the Solicitor General. I think he handles himself very well here. I think the task he has ahead of him is enormous, but I still feel there's a lot to be done because we need very strongly, in this great, wonderful country and this great, wonderful province of ours, the fact that we can walk safely in our cities, wherever, out in the rural areas. Wherever they are, we must feel comfortable in our homes, that if we even go to bed at night, we are being secured by this police force, that they are properly armed and properly enforced and properly trained.
Because the challenge that we have before us is a society that has grown so diverse, with many cultures and many interests and many interpretations of how they should live, and laws must be enforced in a proper way so we can have a civil way of living and a safe way of living.
The Ministry of Health: Let me just touch on that quickly. A constituent of mine came to me and sent me documents in the sense that this individual applied to McGill University and the letter stated that McGill refused to accept their application because there was an agreement between the Ontario government and the Quebec government not to accept any Ontario residents to McGill University. Shame.
I think any agreement like that just prohibits them to demonstrate their ability to educate themselves wherever they want across this wonderful, beautiful country of ours, Canada. If I want to study medicine in Newfoundland or law in Nova Scotia or medicine at McGill, I should not be restricted by governments cutting deals to say, "Don't accept our students who want to apply," in this instance, to the faculty of medicine. I think it was wrong for them to do that and I hope the Premier will look at this very seriously and find out what type of agreement was signed in refusing residents of Ontario to apply to the faculty of medicine in McGill.
Of course, maybe they are fearful that with a flood of doctors coming into our province, we are not able to give them jobs. But how dare they tell them that they want to work in Ontario? Maybe the student would like to do medicine and go and work in Australia or go and work somewhere else, another country in the world, in India, the Caribbean. But oh no, this government has cut a deal, an agreement with the Quebec government not to accept Ontario residents. I can share that document with any member any time and find out what's wrong.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Would you repeat that?
Mr Curling: My dear colleague from Fort York said I must repeat that. I would ask you to read the Hansard and I will send you a document on that matter itself.
Ministry of Transportation: Let me just comment quickly on that one. Photo-radar: We heard that photo-radar is there to sort of make the place safer and cut down accidents.
Mr Mills: Nine billion dollars a year it costs.
Mr Curling: There is no evidence that it reduces accidents.
Mr Mills: Nine billion dollars a year in accidents.
Mr Curling: My colleague from Durham West said it's nine --
Mr Mills: Durham East. Nine billion dollars a year --
Mr Curling: You see, it's all about money.
Mr Mills: -- in traffic accidents. That's what they cost.
Mr Curling: Again, I see that this itself will not reduce any kind of accidents between. There's no evidence of any reducing of accidents.
I know I could go on longer, maybe for a day or two on these matters of concurrence. My colleague would like to speak, but I want to make sure that I put certain things on record here.
We saw lately that the day care people came to see the government. We'd give them an F for effort in what we have done in regard to day care, and I hope the minister, who is here today, will start taking them rather seriously.
Food banks are growing and evidence exists that in our great city, our great country, if people are lining up for food more and more, people can't afford to buy even food and some restructuring of our policy has got to take place. This same NDP government promised to wipe out food banks.
Of course, what they have done, they yanked Ms Akande, my dear minister at the time, from that position and said: "No, no, no. Don't say that. That was then when we were trying to get elected, but now, no, no, we cannot do that." But the fact remains that people are lining up at food banks daily in order to feed themselves and their families.
Let me touch quickly on Management Board of Cabinet. I had hoped that one day the minister responsible would brief me on this because I am getting a lot of complaints from individuals there that they are bumped out of jobs, they are bought off. People who are 45, 49, are offered to leave the civil service for a year and a half's pay and find later on that their jobs are filled by other people.
Many of these people who are being subjected to this are people in minorities who are telling me that their jobs are gone. People from the Ministry of Transportation have come to me, people from all over the ministries are saying to me, "They are buying me out. They're transferring me here and then my job is gone." All of a sudden someone else gets the job and they're out of a job at age 49 or so.
The Ministry of Housing, one of my favourites: This ministry has come to a point that --
Mr Mammoliti: Weren't you the minister once?
Mr Curling: -- some serious reformation must take place. The member for Downsview shouts, was I the minister once?
Mr Mammoliti: Yorkview.
Mr Curling: From Yorkview. My apologies to the member for Downsview. He's talking about I was the minister once, and that itself should explain the utter incompetence of how this government has handled the Ministry of Housing.
We, as you know -- and I've stated this many times in the House -- are the second-largest landlord in North America.
Mr Mammoliti: Third-largest.
Mr Curling: The second-largest landlord in North America. He doesn't know what he's talking about. There's New York City, and this government is the second-largest landlord in North America. Slum landlords. I will tell you, I will take you to some of those homes and then ask you if you would live there.
Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): You were the minister.
Mr Curling: The Premier said I was the minister. Five years ago, I was the minister, five years ago in office, and this Premier has not corrected -- as a matter of fact, the place has become more corrupted than it has ever been. He himself had to yank his minister out and talk about incompetence and interference into the system so badly, and he says that it's an explanation because I was the minister in 1985, years ago. But it is all my fault in two and a half years --
Mr Mammoliti: You were the best.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order.
Mr Curling: -- all my fault for 1985 to 1987. But you there, who have all the answers to this ministry, have made it a worse place to live. You are a slum landlord. I ask the Premier -- maybe he's too busy these days -- to go and visit some of those places --
Hon Mr Rae: I've been to a lot of them.
Mr Curling: -- and see where these people are living. I wasn't proud either of some of the places I had been to when I was the minister, but of course we put in place a process of correction to make sure things are better off.
Mr Mammoliti: Madam Speaker, he didn't do anything.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Yorkview come to order.
Hon Mr Wildman: The car was in neutral when you were in it.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Curling: If we measure, if I myself have not done anything, they have done less.
Mr Mammoliti: There was no experience.
Mr Curling: They have done less.
Rent control is in chaos. People are getting 30% increases in rent now, and I'd ask the Minister of Housing to check into those things. I can show you facts where rents have gone up dramatically and are driving people out of the place.
2110
I'm going to end very quickly because one of my colleagues here would like to speak.
I want to say that a little issue that I have in place is that I had hoped that even the new Minister of Labour, although the concurrence is not there, if they want to do something, if they want to concur in something, this government here had promised a long time ago in regard to employment agencies that are in place that were discriminating, that were practising discrimination outright, that it will put laws in place so that employment agencies do not discriminate on the way they interview people, whether or not they should state in there that employers who are looking at people and saying, "We don't want anyone weighing over so much weight" or "We don't want any blacks" or "We don't want any women" -- that this will be against the law. The former Minister of Labour had promised, and I'm going to ask the present Minister of Labour, will she proceed and do the things that the former minister did not do, as they had promised?
So I say to you, to concur on these estimates they have put before us, it is sad, because the people feel that they are not getting value for their money. They feel that this government has swollen so large, it has taxed them so heavily, they themselves feel that the only thing they could do is to throw the whole lot of them out in the next election so that they could get a bit more efficient government.
I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to express my views. I know somehow it will not change any of the members' views over there, but the people of Ontario who may happen to turn their TVs on will say, "I didn't know all this was happening." I will then ask each of the members there to be accountable for the inefficiency that goes on. Thank you again for allowing me this privilege to speak.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Villeneuve: I also am very pleased to have the honour and privilege of addressing this concurrence in supply --
M. Marchese : En français.
M. Villeneuve : En français, un petit peu tout à l'heure -- particularly as it involves the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, but also as it will touch any other ministries.
I think I'll start off with possibly replying to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, as she went on with all of the great prosperity we're having here in this province recently. Certainly I made note of the Minister of Finance when he announced this week that we had an almost 5% increase in economic activity, and that's certainly very important.
I was watching Canada AM, as I sometimes do when the political pundits and what have you are on on Thursday mornings, and the economic analysis was, "Thank goodness for free trade, because indeed we are trading" --
Hon Mr Wildman: The Liberals were always in favour of it.
Mr Villeneuve: I'm not sure. I recall a former Premier here by the name of Peterson. A lot of people have forgotten him, but somehow or other in his 1987 campaign -- and I recall it well because he was out in rural Ontario -- he was going to stop the free trade deal. It was going to destroy the family farms, it was going to totally destroy our economy.
Amazingly, we had a Liberal member who was part of the cabinet at that time who fully endorsed his Premier, but there's been a bit of a flip-flop in the reasoning of the Liberal Party. It happens at all levels within the Liberal Party, because I think the leader of the Liberal Party in Ontario does that from time to time when it suits the occasion. It quite often suits the occasion recently.
However, I will simply address to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation that in the riding I very proudly represent we have some parks, the parks of the St Lawrence, which have been closed down now for a number of years. Actually we had them to be investigated on the agencies, boards and commissions committee and we're told that because of successor rights this government is not prepared to reopen any of these parks. They're looking at it, looking very seriously, but the parks remain closed, and it's to the detriment of tourism and of the entire economy in the area that I represent. I could name you the parks, but time really doesn't allow it this evening.
Bill 40 is part of the problem. Bill 40 is keeping some of the short-line railways in rural Ontario, in Wellington and in the Simcoes -- probably we'll have these railways eventually removed, and again successor rights are directly involved in really bringing down the economy of rural Ontario. I must tell you, Speaker, that some people say the car industry is the most important in Ontario. That's arguable, very arguable, because the food production processing industry, in my humble opinion, is by far the most important in the province of Ontario.
I'm glad to see the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation back. I want to remind her that, as you come into the great province that is slowly recovering from this very deep recession, on the western 401 in my riding at Lancaster there is a tourist information building. A beautiful building, it was built less than 10 years ago. It's very different. Some people say it's not beautiful at all but, as far as I'm concerned, it attracts your attention as you drive in from the province of Quebec, from the eastern seaboard states and from the Maritimes, and that building is now closed.
There is no one there to take bookings for people who want to come to Cornwall, Ottawa, Brockville, Kingston, Belleville, Toronto, Niagara Falls, and I think that's a travesty. The building is there. We should have at least a minimum staff in that building to advise our tourists who need some information, who may need some help, who may want to do some bookings.
Minister, I enjoyed your presentation. It was lengthy, but you covered all of the good things. Well, we have some negatives, and I'm bringing those to your attention because it's very important that the very first tourist information office that we run into coming from anywhere in eastern Canada or the eastern United States is closed down for six months of the year. The building is there. All we need is one or two people to man it, and I don't think that's asking too much.
I would very respectfully ask you to reconsider that, as also to reconsider successor rights on the parks. We have to get those open next year, one way or the other. It is very detrimental to the tourist industry, which is a clean industry. It brings in dollars at no environmental cost. So we must look at that. It's most important.
The parks of the St Lawrence are very positive. We've had some allegations made, but, by and large, it's 98% positive. Allegations were made and they're being investigated now, and I thank you for that. I thank Mr Shaw, the general manager of the parks, for having the inquiries done so that we can clear the air. There's too much positive there to have those small negatives.
That's basically all I'm going to say about the parks. Let's get them open come springtime and let's keep the tourist information bureau at Lancaster, coming into our great province of 11 million people, open for bookings and for information.
Highway 16 is a very interesting phenomenon. I will have been a member of this Legislature, on the 15th of this month, for 11 years and I recall well in my other incarnation, which was doing some real estate appraisal work, doing expropriation work so that the right of way could be purchased by the Ministry of Transportation so that we could twin and four-lane Highway 16.
We've had way more casualties and deaths on that highway than we should. It's a very heavily travelled road. It's the main road from the international bridge at Johnstown to the nation's capital. Pretty well any time I travel on Highway 16, and it's a two-lane road right now, we see situations time and again when there are three vehicles wide. Thank goodness that seldom are there accidents when there are three vehicles wide, amazing as that may seem, but it's a heavily travelled road, a dangerous road.
2120
The Tories, in the early 1980s, purchased 95%-plus of the land. The land is all purchased and paid for, and the design of the road, the preliminary design was there. In 1985 we had a change of government. A Liberal government came in and they kept telling us that they were going to finish the road. I recall well going to Kemptville one morning for breakfast and the Minister of Transportation for the Liberal government at that time -- 1989, they were getting ready for an election -- told us that they had a target date.
What no one seems to understand is that they had a target date but never funded what had to be funded. Yes, they are building overpasses and they are building some of the service roads now, but the funding was never in place. At this particular point in time, with a new Minister of Transportation, we're not sure where we're going and when we'll have the twinning of Highway 16 in its entirety, from the international bridge right through to the nation's capital. I think it's a big priority.
Hon Mr Pouliot: I spent it all.
Mr Villeneuve: The former Minister of Transportation said he spent it all. Well, you certainly didn't spend it in my riding, Mr Minister, and I wish you would have given it some thought.
I go back to Bill 40 just for a moment, with the successor rights for railways and the parks of the St Lawrence. I sometimes listen to Metro Morning, that people's network here in Toronto. Something I heard this morning that kind of shook me is that in the spring, if there is no agreement in major league baseball, the Blue Jays are the only team that will not be able to field a team --
Hon Mr Pouliot: No. Montreal Expos.
Mr Villeneuve: Apparently there's been a decision that Montreal Expos have a similar bill to Bill 40, but they will be able to field a team. The Blue Jays, it's my understanding, will have to go without replacement players. Why? Because of Bill 40. Is the people's network wrong?
Mr Martin: We're not willing to allow scabs in workplaces in this province.
Mr Villeneuve: Well, million-dollar scabs, my friend, is what you're promoting. You're talking about the common, ordinary person. You're talking about million-dollar scabs here.
Bill 40 will prevent replacement ball players, according to the people's network, as I heard it this morning. "Let's make the public pay" is what you're saying. "Let the poor little guy who takes his son or his daughter or his family to the ball game pay. We have no sympathy for him." I think that's wrong.
I see the Minister of Environment sitting here tonight and I appreciate that because the man from Algoma and I have been around here for a long time and we were both on this side of the House for quite some time. He has now graduated to the affluent group, and I give him credit for that.
Hon Mr Wildman: Did you say effluent or affluent?
Mr Villeneuve: I said affluent, but effluent is what this man looks after.
Mr Wiseman: And I want to compost it.
Mr Villeneuve: We in agriculture deal with that too, and that grows you a good crop if you know how to handle it.
It was always interesting that the livestock industry, particularly those who are in dairy cattle, for lack of a better word, those cattle that ruminate tend to, from time to time, flatulate and they have been accused of creating a major methane problem when indeed we have garbage dumps on some of the best farm land in Ontario, spewing out methane in untold quantities. We have wetlands spewing methane in untold quantities and those emissions from our ruminating cattle are minuscule when we compare it to the entire picture.
I want to just make sure that the record is straight. We have Ontario Hydro apparently doing a study.
Hon Mr Wildman: No, they're not.
Mr Villeneuve: Well, the papers are wrong then.
Hon Mr Wildman: That's right. They're wrong.
Mr Villeneuve: Maybe it's not the first time the papers are wrong, but it was reported and when it's reported we tend -- the great masses out there say: "I read it in the paper. It has to be accurate."
Hon Mr Wildman: Don't believe everything you read. Some of it is a lot of hot air.
Mr Villeneuve: The sad thing is that this government with its ideology has eliminated all other possibilities than landfill sites, and we have going on in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry right now, as I'm sure the member for Durham West will understand, a search for landfill sites.
Now, out in the area that I come from there's a lot of wetlands and a lot of good farm land. Well, we can't bring it to a wetland of course, and they have designated a number of sites and the interesting thing is I had the opportunity of having our new Environmental Commissioner visit eastern Ontario with me and I brought her to a site that to me makes the most sense of all. It's at the corner of Highways 138 and 417, a very large area of organic soil over an impervious clay base, a perfect situation.
That site is not even considered as a potential site, but we have all sorts of people giving me phone calls: "Well, you can't have a garbage landfill site in this area because it borders on a wetland", or, "It's gravelly soil," a number of very good reasons but yet these are potential sites. I'm glad the Minister of Environment is here. Due to very sad circumstances last fall he was unable to come to my riding, but the invitation is still there, and I want him to see what, in my opinion, are the most logical sites for recycling, reusing and those areas that make common sense, just as the Mike Harris common sense approach --
Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh my God, no. You were doing so well. This is serious.
Hon Mr Wildman: Noble, I was going to say I would look into it until you said that.
Mr Villeneuve: This is serious. The former Minister of Transportation, now Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines, is right. This is serious, and the people in my area are up in arms, primarily because the most logical spot of all -- and it's not that far from where I live. It's only about five kilometres from where I live, and I agree that it's probably the most logical site of all. But we have the Minister of Natural Resources saying it's partly wetlands but they're not sure because it's farm land, but it has the natural impervious clay base and an organic soil on top which can be mixed in with composted materials and recycled materials. It's as good as you'll find anywhere, and I suggest to the government that this must be looked at.
As far as agriculture and food is concerned, Premier, you realize that your Minister of Agriculture, Food and now Rural Affairs somehow or other doesn't have the hammer he's supposed to have. First of all, his ministry has been cut down by some 15% funding in the last two years, and you know, Premier, if every ministry had been cut by that much, we wouldn't have a deficit problem.
We have a major deficit problem now. However, had all ministries, and we have quite a few cabinet ministers here tonight, had all ministers had to tighten their belts as did Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, the expanded ministry, we would not have -- reduce your spending by 15% as the Minister of Ag, Food and Rural Affairs did and we would have no major problem.
Recently there have been stories in the press -- and I go back to the labour bill, Bill 91, as it will very negatively affect agriculture -- on the fact that there have been abuses. As a matter of fact, charges have been made that a union refused to give examples of names, which has justifiably angered a number of farmers. These accusations, if indeed they are true, why have no charges been laid? If they are false, why has the government not condemned the unions for making false statements?
These statements were made in the farm newspaper Farm and Country. Farm and Country reported that the United Food and Commercial Workers held an organizing meeting on a farm in southwestern Ontario this summer without asking permission or making the owner aware that a meeting was being held. In fact, when the farmer inquired what was taking place, he was actually lied to and told that it was a church meeting, which is always a good excuse.
2130
Participants at that meeting took photographs and left some behind, allowing union organizers to be recognized. It turns out one of them was Ralph Ortlieb, a union rep chosen by this government to put together Bill 91. The government has done nothing to investigate this or lay charges against this union.
During this session, which has 20 days of sitting -- and indeed the last five, the first of which is tonight, we can and will go till midnight; at least it looks that way -- because the government claims to have no business to do, and yet we're going to midnight tonight, where are the amendments to the Ontario Food Terminal Act that the committee reviewing agencies, boards and commissions has recommended?
More importantly, where is the agricultural diversification act that will give the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs the mandate to take the lead in promoting an expansion of agricultural activities? Why has the government not made Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs the lead ministry for agriculture, food and those areas of rural Ontario? That's what it's supposed to be, the lead ministry. But we find out that Municipal Affairs takes priority, the environmental ministry takes priority. We have numerous ministries taking priority over what should be the lead ministry: Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Has any work been done to draft amendments strengthening the Farm Practices Protection Act, better known to farmers as the right to farm? Recently there was a report, again in Farm and Country, that in Russell township, just north of where I reside, the municipality passed a bylaw banning the piling of straw or hay within 50 metres of a highway and within 100 metres of a neighbour's building. That's pushing it a little bit far.
Ontario's wine industry has improved tremendously, part of it due to free trade because they indeed had to improve the quality, they did it quicker, and we now have a wine industry that we can stand up and be very proud of. It has been a success story, but it continues to face very high taxes and very difficult competition from other wine-producing areas. Given the expanded mandate of the ministry, why has Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs not addressed this problem? They are farmers as well.
The issue related to rural affairs is a very important one, because it was interesting that the government announced with a great deal of fanfare that Agriculture and Food would be expanded to include Rural Affairs, but instead of additional funds, it got less, which is not quite the normal way of doing things if you're going to give more responsibility, or is it simply political correctness?
The minister says he's had a mandate to comment more on what other ministries are doing, but he is never the lead minister. If Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is now supposed to comment on government actions which affect rural Ontario, well, what comments has that same ministry made on the wetlands policy, for instance, the loss of the managed forest tax rebate, firearms legislation, Bill 162 and numerous others, Bill 163?
On a more positive side, the minister was right to criticize the federal Liberal refusal to act on ethanol, and this is where I give the Bob Rae government a great deal of credit, because they have been the lead ministry and they've actually put their money where their mouth was on the ethanol industry.
I do know that at the federal level we have many backbenchers, many of whom are Liberals in Ontario, who were very vocal about reducing the road tax on the ethanol portion of that litre of gas. They have somehow been silenced. Imagine: 98 out of 99 in Ontario, Jean Chrétien Liberals who have openly supported ethanol production here in Ontario, are not hitting the headlines very publicly these days. I must again give credit to the Bob Rae government for acting the way it said it would.
Review of regulations and legislation: During a brief to cabinet last February, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Mr Roger George, made reference to regulations which made no sense but which resulted in lost time and money to the agricultural community, not to mention tax dollars regarding administration costs. The Premier seemed to give a fairly strong commitment to reviewing and scrapping frivolous and unnecessary regulations.
We have yet to see anything concrete from Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to show that other ministries have a reduced influence in what should be the lead ministry to Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Municipal Affairs, Environment and Energy, whatever, Rural Affairs covers all of rural Ontario, and the name "Agriculture, Food" and expanded into "Rural Affairs" should indeed be that, covering rural matters and rural affairs.
There is evidence to show that we may not need the Artificial Insemination of Livestock Act. This again touches rural affairs, agriculture and food production. These days, do we really need a system to license technicians and to ensure adequate training? Farmers are doing that themselves these days, many of them.
I've touched on railway successor rights and minimum wages. The minimum wage for rural Ontario could well put a lot of people out of business or totally and thoroughly mechanize rural Ontario, where indeed farm labour would be reduced and reduced again. I realize that to some people the minimum wage is a very low wage, and indeed it is. However, when people are in the food production business and have no say in what they get for their product, an increase in minimum wage can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The minister has not been all that supportive in protecting agriculture in that particular area.
I notice that my colleagues would like me to stop. I think I'm covering the way things should be. However, it's always interesting, particularly when the Premier and a number of his ministers are here --
Hon Mr Wildman: We came because we knew you were speaking.
Mr Villeneuve: Quite obviously. It's hard to be humble when you're from the farm. It's not too often we get a chance to speak here, because we are limited in time quite often.
Has the ministry monitored and measured the degree to which farmers have been spending money on conservation equipment since the land stewardship program, which was an excellent program and I know was supported by the now government when in opposition? The land stewardship program now no longer has funding. I think that's a travesty.
Finally, I want to simply state that if we continue to dismantle and reduce the importance of agriculture, food production and rural matters in this Legislature, we -- we're all consumers -- will be the ones to suffer.
I am finishing, but I do want the Premier, and I thank him for being here, to give his Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs a bigger hammer in order to get the attention of the rest of his cabinet, because that is the most important ministry and yet it deals with less than 1% of the budget.
2140
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Hon Mr Rae: It's a great pleasure for me to participate in the debate and to follow two good friends of mine in the House whom I've known for a long time: the member for Scarborough North, who spoke at some length, and I want to respond to some of his comments and then to respond to the remarks made by my good friend from Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. I must say his riding has one of the longest names, which I think is fitting for one of the finest parts of the province.
Let me just say in response to the member for Scarborough North, and I'm sorry he's left the chamber having delivered himself of his oration, that as I understand it, basically as I heard it, he was complaining about a couple of things. The first one had to do with a situation involving medical students across the country, and the second one had to do with the ministry with which he was associated for many, many, many, many years, the Ministry of Housing.
Hon Mr Wildman: He also said the Liberals were in favour of free trade.
Hon Mr Rae: I understand he also delivered himself of the stunning perception that the Liberal Party had in fact always been in favour of free trade. The trouble with that is that some of us have a very long memory. I've been in this House for 12 years and some of my colleagues have been here for even longer, and we have some memory, in the musical chairs which we've played in the Legislature since 1985, of where different members of us have sat and things that have been said in different times.
On that subject, I can recall vividly the 1987 general election campaign, when the Liberal Party radio ads were a direct assault on the free trade agreement and where David Peterson promised the people of the province that if the following things were not there, "There will be no deal."
Hon Mr Pouliot: No, not on that night.
Hon Mr Rae: My colleague from Nipigon with whom I've been friends for longer than either of us care to remember has the same memory, the same vivid recollection. No doubt he was driving probably on a distant highway from Schreiber to Marathon, hearing these radio ads late at night as he was struggling to canvass, and heard this clarion call of opposition to free trade.
Now I hear from the member for Scarborough North that in fact the Liberal Party has always been in favour of free trade. What was that in 1987? Was that an aberration? Was that an apparition? Was that a figment of our imagination? Was the member from Nipigon, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, hallucinating as he travelled on that northern highway late at night and heard across the crystal airwaves that clear and clarion voice -- and I can remember it; it was a deep voice -- "If...there will be no deal"?
That was the campaign that David Peterson ran in 1987. The fact that he was unable to do any of the things he said he was going to be able to do and that he abjectly failed to protect the interests of this province at that time was what helped to contribute to the major recession which we started to suffer in 1989.
The fact that we started to suffer from that recession in 1989 is why his leader, some two years and 10 months into a mandate in which he'd received the largest majority in Ontario history, decided even that was not strong enough a base of security for him. Even a 70-seat majority in the Legislature was not a big enough cushion for Mr Peterson, so he had the wisdom and good sense and foresight to call an election some two years and 10 months into the largest mandate ever received by a government in this province and proceeded to squander it and throw it away.
So I can quite understand why the member for Scarborough North would be trying not only to rewrite history but to literally re-create it in his own mind and then to inflict that apparition on a Legislature at 9:30 or 10 o'clock in the evening. But I could not let that comment pass without a response.
The second point I heard from the member had to do with the question of medical school enrolment. There are Liberal governments in many provinces, and I understand that the Premier of Nova Scotia, who is a Liberal and someone I know quite well and have worked with very closely, Dr Savage, a medical doctor himself, even spoke at the nomination meeting for the Leader of the Opposition, or a fund-raiser of some kind, in Thunder Bay on the weekend. He is so close a colleague of the Leader of the Opposition that he attended in Thunder Bay.
The reason I know that is not because of any extraordinary intelligence on my part; it's because he had the courtesy to phone me and say, "By the way, I'm going to be speaking at your opponent's meeting and I hope you don't mind," to which I said, "No, of course I don't mind." I've spoken at many meetings on behalf of Alexa McDonough, who is a very fine person who is now retiring from public life and has made a tremendous contribution to the public life of the province. Since I've done that on a number of occasions, I could hardly object when Dr Savage comes to Ontario.
But the reason I raise his name, and the name of Frank McKenna -- does that name ring a bell at all? -- Catherine Callbeck, Clyde Wells: These are all leaders of governments in Atlantic Canada. In western Canada we have Conservative governments in some cases and New Democrat governments in some cases.
My colleague from the Beaches riding, who is now the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, was the Minister of Health, and she's very well acquainted with the fact that there was a general agreement among all governments -- not one government, not two governments, not five governments, not a PQ government and an NDP government, not the government of Ontario and the government of Quebec, but among all governments, including Liberal administrations -- which took place under the leadership of the Conservative government originally in Ottawa and has been fully and totally endorsed by the federal Minister of Health, who is the member of Parliament for Sudbury. There was a general agreement that the number of people in medical school and the size of medical schools had overall to be controlled, because we came up with a very basic discovery.
The member opposite, after he was no longer in the cabinet, was the parliamentary assistant to the Premier, was part of the Premier's Council on Health Strategy, and he knows perfectly well that when the Premier's council on health was established, one of the first things it was asked to do was to say what are the causes of good health and bad health, and what it is that contributes to the expansion of the cost of the health care system.
This is something which, if the member opposite ever happens to get over on this side again -- and I have no idea whether the vagaries of history or the changes in public opinion or indeed a change in mind on the part of the honourable member will cause that kind of geographical change to take place. I don't know that; none of us knows that. But what I do know is that if that honourable member were the Minister of Health representing the government of the people of Ontario, he would be placed in precisely the same position of having to come up with some decisions. Have we reduced the number of students going to medical school at the University of Toronto? Yes, we have.
We have had to do that, not because there's some ideological mission being pursued by members of this government or of this party but because there's a general understanding among ministers of health and among governments in Canada, at the federal level and at the provincial level, shared by every single provincial government regardless of stripe, that it's one of the most important things that affects the cost of your medical care system, and we've all agreed it's something we've got to do something about.
When you're in opposition you promise an MRI machine on every street corner, and when you're in opposition you promise unlimited access to everything that's ever available, and we saw the implications of that when you were in government. That was the roller-coaster you had us on which we had to do something about when we took office in 1990. When we had 11% increases in a budget of $15 billion that was mounting at the pace of $1.5 billion to $2 billion every single year, and we were heading into the most serious recession we've faced since the 1930s, any administration in its right senses would have to deal with the problem of health care. You can't deal with the problem of government expenditure if you're not prepared to deal with the biggest expenditure item in the budget.
2150
For every single administration in this country, whether it's a New Democratic Party administration, as it is in British Columbia and Saskatchewan, whether it's a Liberal administration, as it is in the four Atlantic provinces and at the federal level, whether it's a Tory administration, as it is in the other provinces, or the PQ or the Liberals in Quebec, it doesn't matter: The fundamental fact is that these are costs which have to be managed and managed effectively.
You can deal in all the demagoguery you want, as the Leader of the Opposition specializes in with the questions she asks in this House; she can deal with all the negativity she wants, which is so out of keeping with the mood of the country and so out of keeping with the growing mood in this province; she can indulge in that kind of negative rhetoric and constant carping and complaining and always looking at the darkest side of every issue, never looking even for the silver lining but always looking for the cloud that's there and raining on the parade every step of the way.
Mr Ruprecht: You have a short memory. She didn't say that.
Hon Mr Rae: She may choose to do that and the leader of the member for Scarborough North may choose to do that, and the member for Parkdale, who is heckling so vociferously, may choose to do that as well. I do not think that's a view that's shared. I think the people of this province want efficient and fair and effective administration.
Finally, the member from Scarborough raised the issues of housing. We take these issues very seriously. We have tackled the question of the administration of MTHA in a way you never did. The only way you tackled the issue of MTHA was to fire John Sewell. That was your contribution. That was your contribution because he identified a problem and he was preparing to do something about it, and you said: "No, let's get rid of that. That's going to cause too many problems." That was your contribution.
I want to say to my colleague for S-D-G & East Grenville that I take his comments very seriously. I made three visits to his riding when he was running in a by-election in 1983. I remember it vividly because I visited the riding three times and I think we ended up with 3% of the vote. If only I'd gone in 15 times, we might have gotten our deposit back -- or, alternatively, it would have had a negative result; I'm not sure which. But it was one of the darker moments of my early political career in the province and I survived that, and I suspect that helped to build my character, the night I got that election result and had to face the media.
The comments the honourable member makes on two issues are of particular concern to me personally and of concern to the government, and I want to respond to both of them. The first has to do with the question of Highway 417.
Mr Villeneuve: It's 416.
Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that we have made more progress in the construction of a completed Highway 416 than any other administration in the history of the province. Other governments promised and said they would do certain things and promised they would do this. Our approach, I admit, has been gradualist. We've started from the north, we've come steadily down, we're four-laning it, we're building it steadily kilometre after kilometre and we're making enormous progress. We've already spent substantial sums of money.
The federal government said, "Let's build the highway, and we'll contribute to it," and I said: "That'd be great. We'd be more than happy to receive it. Liberal cheques? We'll take them." This province hasn't had very many Liberal cheques. We didn't have very many Tory cheques. We've faced more discrimination in this area than any other part of the country, and that discrimination has continued despite the fact that there are now, as I count it, 97 members of the red army chorus in Ottawa from the province of Ontario.
I've said all along to those people, to the ministers responsible, and our ministers have communicated: "If you have a plan that will provide for the cofunding, or you're prepared to come in with us for the cofunding of Highway 416 from the south, then let us know. We're ready to go." We've got the plans. Much of the environmental work has been done. We're doing the pre-grading work and all the other planning work that's necessary. Most of the expropriations required are well under way. I see the former minister is nodding very effectively, and the current minister is nodding. Neither of them is asleep at this point; I want to say that for the record.
I can tell the honourable member that this is a highway that is of great interest to me personally. I think eastern Ontario does require a focus from any government in this province. It certainly has it from this government, and we are very determined to work in cooperation with the federal government. I say to them that there are lots of examples where they have entered into co-agreements: In New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in the province of Quebec they have entered into agreements for the construction of four-lane highways, and we are more than prepared to enter into such an agreement for the construction of Highway 416.
For the Liberal Party, it was something they announced they wanted to do during an election campaign, and it was something they announced they wanted to do in going after this government and even in going after, personally, this Premier. Can you imagine the Liberal Party doing that? After all we've done for the Liberal Party over the years, I find it hard to countenance.
But I would say I'm prepared, and I say this publicly and I say this to the member -- we are still looking at how this can be done. We've talked about the possibility of proposals for tolling, seeing whether that's a possibility. We know there are conflicting views within various communities on that subject. But we don't have an ideological view on this, we have a practical view. We want to get the highway built.
Much talk has been made about what the Liberals and Tories would do for jobs. We are completing Highway 407 17 years ahead of schedule. There are 20,000 jobs being created over the next five years because of our determination to find a practical solution, and we have done it in a way that we think is going to make a major difference.
I just want to say to the honourable member that I'm listening to what he's saying about Highway 416 very, very carefully, and I continue to want to have a dialogue with local leaders as well as with the federal government on how we can make progress not just coming down from the north, as we have been, but coming up from the St Lawrence as well, because I think that's extremely important.
The second thing the member was talking about was the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. I wanted to take this opportunity to say to this group of distinguished individuals what I had the opportunity to say the other night in Marmora and what I had the opportunity to say the other night during the debate I had with the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition in front of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.
I've had leaders of the farm community I've known for many years, in opposition and in government, come up to me -- and they're not New Democrats; the member for S-D-G & East Grenville knows who they are -- come up to me and say, "Elmer Buchanan is the best Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs we have ever, ever had, bar none."
Mr Villeneuve: They say the best minister we've ever had was Bill Stewart.
Hon Mr Rae: It's interesting. A fellow said to me, "We used to say he was the best minister since Bill Stewart." All of us who know of the reputation of Bill Stewart and what he did for agriculture, what he did for supply and management, what he did to get the province's farmers clearly in a modern context, know how much the whole structure of modern agriculture owes to Bill Stewart. The interesting thing is that they used to say, ""He's the best minister since Bill Stewart"; now they just say, "He's the best minister we've ever had, bar none." I mean to take nothing away from any other minister, but I do want to say that.
The honourable member has been repeating the canard propounded by the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition the other day in the debate: "We all know Elmer's a great guy, but we've got to get at some other ministries, so we'll attack the Ministry of Environment or we'll attack the Ministry of Natural Resources or we'll attack some other ministry that's taking away from the power and influence of the Minister of Agriculture." I mean to take away nothing from any of my colleagues, many of whom are faithfully here this evening and listening to this debate. I mean to take nothing away from any of them except to say that when the Minister of Agriculture speaks to me, as he does almost every day, I listen and the government listens and the cabinet listens. There is no minister who has more influence on this government and on the direction of this caucus than my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. He is an outstanding minister.
2200
Then the other argument they make is, "Oh, but the budget of the ministry has been cut." Well, this is from the party that is telling the people of the province that government is spending too much money and they're going to cut the budgets of the government by 20%.
Interjection: Slash and burn.
Hon Mr Rae: And slash and burn. They're going to cut everything by 20%. The $6-billion disappearing budget is going to come forward from the Tory party. When we cut, over a period of three or four years, not by cutting programs, the support for --
Mr Villeneuve: Oh, yes.
Hon Mr Rae: No, it hasn't. The need for some programs has declined because the number of bankruptcies has declined, because the amount of farm support required has gone down because prices are up and because price supports are firmer. But when it comes to support for the average farmer, I would say to the honourable member, our support over the last three years has matched and bettered that provided by any other government in the history of the province.
Where we have cut -- and I make no apologies for this, and if the member for S-D-G & East Grenville were consistent and if he really wanted to be fairminded and if he really wanted to practise the conservatism which his leader occasionally preaches, he would be the first to say that it's the costs of administration that have to reduced. Instead of which, what do we hear from these Conservatives? What do they say? Well, the member for Nipissing, the member from North Bay, goes to the farmers and he says: "You will not be cut. Agriculture won't be cut. No, it won't be cut." No, no, but let's listen to this consistency. Then he goes to the doctors -- he's having another health care meeting in Ottawa tomorrow -- and he's not talking about cuts; he's talking about levies. "Take my Chevy to the levy." There's going to be another $500- or $600-million tax imposed by the Taxfighter, another tax imposed, only he says: "No, it's not a tax. Oh, no, no, no. It's a levy."
Well, forgive me. I don't know. Where have I erred? It's not a tax; it's a levy. So the Taxfighter is the levy builder. Let me tell you, it won't work. It won't wash. The people of the province can see through it, and they'll see through it as soon as they hear more and more clearly about what these options are.
Yes, we've reduced health care, we restrict health care budgets in a very fairminded way. And now we've done such a good job of doing that that we've been able to put more money into cancer. Thanks to leadership from people like the member for Durham East and the Minister of Health, we're putting more money into bone marrow transplants, more money into dialysis, more money into community health, more money into mental health, and we're controlling the costs of the health care system. Now we've found that we've finally got enough room to manoeuvre that we can do what we wanted to do four years ago, and that is to have a plan for those people who were affected by the high cost of drugs, and that plan will be in place in 1995.
How have we managed to do that? Under the Liberals, the cost of government and the cost of public administration grew by 35%. Under the New Democratic Party, they've come down by 25%. We've cut all aspects of the administration of government. We've reduced the civil service by nearly 5,000 positions. We've kept a handle and a lid on public expenditures at the same time as we have refused to engage in the kind of slash and burn that's been advocated by the Republican Party on the opposite side.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): What a load of drivel. Do you remember this tripe, this lot that you gave in the last election?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Hon Mr Rae: The dulcet tones from the member for York Mills -- I know the member for York Mills. He's the fellow who attacks housing programs every day of the week, yet every time we open a Jobs Ontario Homes project in his riding he is right up there on the platform saying what a wonderful day it is and what a fine occasion it is, what a great moment it is, what a great time it is.
Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The Premier will be well aware that I welcome the constituents in the York Mills riding. I don't welcome the Premier's silly Jobs Ontario programs.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Premier may resume his comments.
Hon Mr Rae: If the member for York Mills gets re-elected, he will understand that if you're going to dish it out, you've got to be able to take it. That's one of the prices of admission to this place.
I say to my colleagues opposite, you cannot suck and blow at the same time. You can't do it. I say the same thing to my friends in the Liberal Party, because they do it as well. Every single proposal that's been put forward by this government which calls for a reduction in expenditure is resisted by the opposition parties. Every time we reduce expenditure -- if, for example, we follow the advice of the business community, we follow the advice of the Canadian Exporters' Association, we follow the advice of the chamber of commerce, we follow the advice of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and we say, "Okay, we're going to cut out our foreign offices and we're going to cooperate more with the federal government, we're going to cooperate more with the accounting firms and with the law firms and we're going to create an investor service" -- who were the first to criticize us and say, "As soon as we're elected we're going to build more flags, have more limousines and make sure that we've got more bricks and mortar in Germany and France and everywhere else"? It's the Liberals and the Tories who say that's the kind of approach they're going to take.
I say with pride to the constituents, the people of the province of Ontario, we're not going to do that. We're not going to give into these silly edifice complexes which affect the members opposite. We're not going to concede to these things. We're going to keep on a steady and sensible and balanced path. This is the balanced path that's going to be taken by the New Democratic Party government.
Mr Turnbull: Well, they're still not going to elect you no matter what the rhetoric is, because they remember all of the tripe you said.
The Acting Speaker: Order, the member for York Mills.
Hon Mr Rae: I want to say in all seriousness to the honourable member, I think there are issues that he's raised with respect to regulation, I think there are issues that he's raised with respect to what the impact of government is in many cases on working people and on working businesses, and I think we have to deal with these issues and deal with them in an effective and constructive way. We're doing it. We're clearing the path. We're working closely with ministries, with businesses and with farmers to see how we can do it. We're setting up task forces that are having that effect. We're bringing in regulatory and administrative change which is simplifying government and making it clearer and making it better.
I know the members opposite are so enraptured by their own negativity and so cocooned by their own sense of doom and gloom that they are incapable of seeing the sun has risen, the recovery is here, the future is bright, and that's the message we have for the people of Canada and for the people of Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: I thank the Premier for his remarks. Further debate?
Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would request that the Premier would stay around. He's good at dishing it out but he doesn't like to take the answers when we get a chance to speak.
The Acting Speaker: That's certainly not a point of order. Would the member take his seat.
Mr Turnbull: Is he going to stick around for the response to the utter drivel that he's just issued?
The Acting Speaker: Order. We would like to proceed with further debate on this concurrence motion. I now recognize the member for Parkdale.
Mr Ruprecht: I have just come from the Parkdale riding, where we erected a Christmas tree, and indeed Santa Claus came by and gave some kids some presents. So we want to be somewhat charitable today, and especially as the Premier is here.
But it really surprises me when the Premier speaks in very sanctimonious tones about sucking and blowing at the same time. I think that if there is an expert at doing that, not only when he was in opposition but even now when he's in government, there is today from the Premier's own voice coming a lot of hot air that has escaped there. One can only shake one's head when one considers what's taking place here.
2210
Let's look at some of the facts. One of the basic statements, I guess, that one has to make in this Legislature is -- and that's obviously going to be the major criticism of the NDP -- has this Premier and has this government produced the kind of atmosphere and climate for growth in Ontario? Essentially, that has to be the basic question. Has this Premier provided enough leadership and this government provided enough leadership so that this province can continue as it has previously in terms of creating jobs and certainly employment and to maintain the good life that all of us have become accustomed to? The answer to the question of whether the government has created a climate for growth is obvious. The answer to that is obvious, and that is, it has not.
One of the realities is that the current government will pass a debt of $90 billion to whichever party forms the next government. When the Premier says, "Well, just in case the roles will be reversed, then of course we'll find out what the opposition is going to be doing," we must remember that the debt is going to be $90 billion, and that obviously will place such a limitation on the next government that it will be very hard to make the necessary changes that will be required to produce new policies and to bring this economy back on track.
Ninety billion dollars, Madam Speaker. That is an incredible sum. So when the Premier gets up -- and God bless him, he didn't do everything wrong. But essentially to produce and provide $90 billion to the next government, whoever that's going to be, and hopefully it will be us, is something that's almost unconscionable because it will put concrete on our feet and the next people who will be in government will not be able to walk.
Ninety billion dollars. I mean, think about it. That would mean that every woman, man and child is weighed down with enough debt to not only make this generation shake its head, but to think of what we will do to our kids and the next generation that's going to follow us.
It is true that there has been a recession. It is also true that we cannot blame everything on this government; we can't blame the recession on this government. But when the Premier talks about making the tough decisions, which he likes to talk about all the time -- he says, "We have made the tough decisions, the NDP government, and if it wouldn't have been for us who are making these tough decisions, the other guys would have made the wrong decisions." Well, Mr Premier, it is exactly the opposite. When the Premier says, "We make the tough decisions," what's the truth? The truth is he's made the wrong decisions. All of you who are part of this government, who are making some of these decisions or helping to make these decisions, were not tough enough and strong enough to stop him from making the wrong decisions.
Now, what were some of these wrong decisions? Let's look at some of them. Today in this province there are half a million workers unemployed. Again, when we look at Metro specifically, we find that here in Toronto alone -- do you know what the unemployment statistics are now? Do you know what they are?
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: We would like to be able to hear the member who has the floor and is speaking.
Mr Ruprecht: In Toronto alone, there are over 200,000 people unemployed. Can you imagine that? Two hundred thousand people. That number alone is larger than many of our cities in Ontario. Two hundred thousand people unemployed.
Of course, what has the NDP created to counter that and to try to create new employment? They've said, "Well, we've got to have Jobs Ontario." The facts speak for themselves, and what is the fact? The fact is that the climate of growth that needs to be created by Ontarians today to ensure that industry is coming in and not leaving obviously has not been accomplished. So if we blame this NDP government for anything, we cannot blame it for specific decisions, although there may be many. Essentially, the crux of the failure of this government has been to fail us in creating an economic climate that will bring back those industries and those corporations that have left for one reason only, and what is that? Because of this NDP government.
Yes, you talk to the financial community, you speak to business people, and what do they come up with? They come up with one overriding fact, and what's that? "We're leaving, we're not creating employment, we're not expanding," and why? Because this NDP government has been a job killer and has not been beneficial to our community. That is one of the reasons.
Interjections.
Mr Ruprecht: Some of you who are sitting here today are saying, "Well, cut this crap," I must tell you that you are out of touch with those people who are making financial decisions in Ontario. If you were talking to them directly, you would find out --
Hon Mr Rae: I talk to them every day.
Mr Ruprecht: If you talk to them, you'll find out that the confidence they have in you is not the best.
Hon Mr Rae: You don't know what you're talking about.
Mr Ruprecht: I don't know what I'm talking about? Sure, I don't. Bob, I mean Mr Premier --
The Acting Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.
Mr Ruprecht: All of Ontario is shouting out that what we need to do is to have a change of government, and that is obvious. While I agree, while I want to be charitable -- and I have heard the Premier speak on very many occasions. He's very eloquent, and the Premier thinks today that he is going to change a lot of people's minds because of his eloquence, but the Premier's not going to change a lot of people's minds because of his eloquence. The fact is that he's one of the most eloquent people we know. When he speaks, people listen. There's no doubt about that.
But the point essentially is -- and this is nothing to do with gloom and doom, this is nothing to do with negativity. People are saying today, "We need a change because we need a different economic climate." The confidence is not there. You can do many different things right now in the last few months before the next election comes up. You've got to do it. The Premier in all his eloquence has got to do something else. The past, the last four years, has created such a climate that it's going to be very tough to make economic changes.
I remind you that there are right now more than 1.3 million people on welfare, hundreds of thousands in our community. That's another enormous amount of persons who obviously have to do some suffering.
It is true that Bob Rae and his NDP policies did not cause the global recession. We've said that, but look at the enormous damage they've caused this province. In Ontario and in Metro, the recession has hit even harder than in the rest of the country. You see that there is economic recovery taking place in many different places, but I must tell you that the recession here has hit a lot harder, it cut a lot deeper and now we know with this government that it lasted a lot longer than in any part of Canada, from coast to coast.
Yes, right here in Metro Toronto, what's been accomplished? What's the accomplishment been? The NDP is killing the golden goose, and we all know that business is downsizing and relocating and even many of the companies are simply disappearing.
Over the past four years, Ontario has built the highest per capita deficit of any province in this country. Can you imagine that? From coast to coast, of any of the provinces, this deficit is the highest in the country that the NDP government has produced.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): What have you done?
Mr Ruprecht: What have we done? We know what the facts are, my friend, and what are the facts? The facts were we had a balanced budget in our last year of this government. We had a balanced budget, and you know what? In the first year --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Ruprecht: In the first year, I remind you, what did you accomplish? Do you know what you accomplished? You dumped this province into an economic recession that is even worse than it normally would have been by creating a $10-billion shortfall, a debt of $10 billion. That's unheard of.
No government in the history of this country has created in one year -- thinking about our population base -- a debt of $10 billion. When are you going to pay that off? The next year? What has the NDP then done in the next year of its budgetary affairs? What has it done?
Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It seems to me when we're talking about these important dispositions of the province that we should have a quorum and that the government should have its members here to hear what the opposition has to say about its misdeeds.
2220
The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Parkdale may resume his remarks.
Mr Ruprecht: I was just about to say that in the past four years, Ontario has built the highest per capita deficit of any province in this country. Now we have the dubious distinction of being the largest non-sovereign borrower in the world. Can you imagine that? We are the largest non-sovereign borrower in the world, in the whole globe. We're not talking here simply about comparing our province of Ontario with Manitoba or with Newfoundland or with British Columbia or Quebec or any other part of this country. No. We've become the largest non-sovereign borrower in the world.
You should ask yourself, what is the Premier going to say about that, that we have in this province become the largest non-sovereign borrower in the whole world? I would really be happy to find out what the answer here would be.
In the first year there was a $10-billion debt. Think about it. These numbers are so vast and so large that it's very hard even to comprehend what that means for your debt, for my debt and the debt for the next generation. What would that mean in terms of $90 billion now? What would that mean in terms of weighing down the next government that's going to take over here and limiting, obviously, that aspect of it?
Premier Bob Rae likes to look back and say -- I have said this to him earlier -- "My friends, we have made the tough decisions," but let's face it, these tough decisions were in many cases the wrong decisions. What were they? The NDP spent its way to a $10-billion deficit in the first year in office and then tried to fix it with a $4-billion tax grab.
That wasn't a tough decision, was it, Mr Premier? That was a wrong decision. When they passed the job-killing amendments to the Labour Relations Act, that wasn't a tough decision, that was a wrong decision. When they shut down all of Ontario's international trade offices -- I know he mentioned that earlier -- in the midst of the toughest global competition the world has ever seen, was that a tough decision? It was a wrong decision.
In a world right now where business investments and corporations we know can shift from country to country -- is this true? They can virtually go anywhere. Money transgresses borders within seconds, companies move from one state to another state to another country within days, so it can go anywhere and it can go quickly, and this government has given those corporations too many reasons to go anywhere but here in Ontario. We want them to be here.
While others are experiencing a boom, it forces us to go cap in hand. I know the Premier went to China and I know the Prime Minister organized the trip, but isn't it galling to think that we've got to go to China and to other places, the four tigers of the east or the one tiger of the south? If we go to Latin America and other places, there is an economic boom. Why is there an economic boom? It's simple. Because the government in those places has produced and was able to envelop the business community to such a degree that there was movement, there was confidence and there was no negativity.
It is galling for me and I know for every one of you to think that our Premier and our Prime Minister have to go cap in hand to those places in the world that experience a boom to try to make a deal with them. Sure, there's international trade, and we would certainly welcome that. We've always done that. Canada has been a trading nation, especially when we look at the north-south relationship, there's no doubt about that, but now we've got to go abroad when what was the fact before? Previously we had an economic boom, they came to us; now we've got to go to them.
That obviously has to be countered by what we would think are governmental policies which could rectify our economic spiral downward, and that's what we're expecting here today. We have the schools and we have the people; we have the infrastructure services; we have the intelligence, but what we need is a government to create confidence so we in Ontario as well can experience an economic boom. That is necessary and that is what this Premier unfortunately fails to understand.
Let me simply say something about the comments that were made by the member from East Grenville. He said: "Oh yes, the Conservative Leader, Mr Harris, believes of course he can do better than our colleagues across the aisle," and we'll find all of these things in The Common Sense Revolution. The Premier alluded to this earlier and of course that is where we are in agreement with him when he says that Mr Harris's program says: "We predict a 25% slower growth rate than the NDP." Wow, here is a common sense revolutionary document that promises a 25% lower growth rate.
When someone tells us that he can deliver even less in terms of economic growth than the NDP, by golly that's a record; that's unbelievable. That is so different for me to understand that I can't quite fathom it. I have to look at this economic revolutionary document for a long time to try to understand how 25% slower growth rate can be established than even the NDP can produce. The strangest thing is that Mr Harris's numbers simply don't add up. He claims that even with 25% slower growth rate, he can produce -- guess what -- 25% more jobs. How in the heck is he going to do that? With a growth rate of 25% less than the NDP, he's going to produce 25% higher growth rate in jobs. Wow. That takes some professor to figure that out. Some eggheads have sat down together to work out that incongruous document.
It is unbelievably contradictory that even the member for Etobicoke West can't understand it. It is really unbelievable how that document can see the light of day and how he can sit there and try to argue that this is going to cause a 25% increase in jobs. I really find this quite surprising and I know, looking across the aisle, many of you are going like this with your heads thinking that you agree with that fact.
The question is, how can he do that 25% increase in jobs? Well, let's make some quotes. According to the chief economic forecast at DRI, the leader in the forecasting field, he says: "That's quite impossible."
The Conservative Leader says he can cut personal income taxes by 30%. Wow. He's going to cut income taxes by 30%. Did you hear that? A 30% cut in income taxes without touching 60% of the budget. How can he do that? Can you imagine that, cutting 30% without touching 60% of the budget? That is another astonishing fact that I cannot fathom, that any school kid can't figure out, but apparently he can.
On top of that guess what he says? He says he still has enough money to eliminate the deficit. How is he going to do that? I can't fathom that either. How are you going to eliminate the deficit when you cut taxes by 30%, do not touch 60% of the budget, and still have enough money left to cut the deficit? I mean, that's just impossible. That's just unbelievable. I'm not surprised that when we look at people who understand this, who make a living at looking at these figures -- for instance, Leo de Bever is Canada's foremost economist and he says it cannot be done -- as you say, sleight of hand -- cannot be accomplished. "That shell game cannot be accomplished," he says. You have this quote. You check it with him and you can see what the facts are, and the facts are that it cannot be done.
2230
Just listen. Mr de Bever said: "It makes great sense as a political statement" -- this is straight from his mouth -- "but I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of economic sense." In short, this great revolutionary document does not make a lot of economic sense. But what does make sense? It makes political sense, and that's why you too shall one day stand accused of playing tricks with those documents, while you're playing tricks right now with these figures.
I think that the Ontario public will one day wake up and look at these documents in detail and see that this simply cannot be done. You might fool them, you might fool our citizens for a month or even for six months, until they look at the documents and then, obviously, the rude awakening will come for this party that produces these figures. These promises cannot be done, and we're smart enough to figure out before the election that they can't be done. I think the Ontario people are going to be smart enough to figure out that those promises simply cannot be held up. We need economic forecasts, we need economic stimulus and we need some ideas that will create jobs. It is obvious.
The good news, of course, is that in terms of the Ontario economy and the way we live in Ontario all the ingredients are still here that made Ontario an economic powerhouse and that give us still a lot of pride, and that of course is our standard of living, our quality of life --
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We do have a quorum here, and it's a shame considering the Liberal member who's speaking, so I won't call quorum this time.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is a quorum present? The member for Parkdale.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, what was that all about?
I want to ask you a question: Is this part of the economic revolution?
Mr Stockwell: Yes, it is a kind of revolution.
Mr Ruprecht: Is this part of the document that he's producing? Is this what this revolution is all about? Did that make sense? It makes no sense. The revolution makes no sense.
Interjection: He can't count.
Mr Ruprecht: He made a good point: You can't count, just like this document can't count. But I said we were trying to be charitable today because it is the beginning of the Christmas season and the trees are going up and kids are getting presents, so we want to be looking at this in a bit more of a charitable light.
I said, interestingly enough, that we have the ingredients of pride in this country, and certainly we are proud to be Ontarians. We still have probably the best-educated population. We still have the sound infrastructure services. We have the communities. One of the interesting facts, and I think the future will bear this out, is that we are next to the economic giant of the United States, and that of course will help us out because we have good transportation links to that country and to the rest of the world.
To get us out of this economic malaise and to get us out from these problems that have beset us in the last few years, it will take some leadership and it will take some imagination. Of course, you realize there is a person and there is a party that have the imagination and the leadership. I'm not going to tell you all the good things that we're proposing, but we have confidence --
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Tell us a couple.
Mr Ruprecht: I will tell you a couple. We have confidence in Lyn McLeod, who is producing a document that is realistic and that makes a great deal of sense. That's why we trust her. We trust Lyn McLeod. She will be a great Premier because she's got the realistic solutions, and the team that's going to be in place to ensure that the economy is going to be bouncing back and that our people will again have hope is going to happen no matter what you're going to do.
What is important also to realize is that this government made some wrong decisions in terms of hospital funding. We know, as an example, that the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital is now forced to cut back on 100 beds for those who need services, and there are closures right across Ontario in terms of hospital care. Beds are being closed. I'm not going to blame you for all the beds that are being closed, but certainly you have to take some blame. In communities like mine, Parkdale, we know what the consequences are.
Reductions in hospital funding are going to affect all psychiatric centres as well as hospitals, and that would mean that the revolving-door policies that we've seen in places that have psychiatric hospitals will continue. On the one hand, you have people entering these psychiatric hospitals who need help. They're not ready to leave those centres. You're pushing them out into a community and then an unconscionable thing happens, because what you're doing is you're not supplying the services, once you've pushed them out of the hospitals, that are necessary for them to lead normal lives or for them to learn some basic skills again to re-enter a normalized existence.
There are literally thousands of people who are leaving psychiatric hospitals to be found on the streets of Toronto. I mean, we can speak from personal experience. There are many, many incidents that we know of, simply because there are no after-care services in place. Do people in Ontario, once they leave psychiatric centres, deserve after-care services? Of course they do.
There is no mechanism in place that creates a coordinated structure or a framework for them to lead a normalized lifestyle, because just pushing them out and giving them drugs to take on a daily basis is not solving the problem. You know, we're suffering a great deal in the west end of Toronto from such revolving-door policies. I would only hope that the Minister of Health, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the Minister of Correctional Services, the Minister of the Attorney General, the Minister of Housing -- I would hope that there would be a combination of service provided, or it should be provided, that will look after and produce the desired effects for those policies that have been in place. It didn't start as the member said previously.
The Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, I just wanted to say thank you very much for permitting me to ponder upon some of these issues.
The Speaker: The time allotted for the debate on concurrence in supply has expired.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Health be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Transportation be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Management Board Secretariat be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Housing be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Environment and Energy be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade be concurred in? Agreed.
Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Natural Resources be concurred in? Agreed.
2240
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second 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 Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member have an opening statement?
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I do. This bill will permit the Minister of Finance to enact a regulation that will apportion the total assessment of certain shopping malls in Metropolitan Toronto in a different way than presently required by the Assessment Act. Bill 197 will allow the apportionments for mall tenants to be based on a settlement negotiated between the anchor tenants and the smaller tenants. This agreement transfers $8 million in taxes on to the anchor tenants from the smaller tenants.
Apportionment is the method of dividing among tenants the total assessment for property taxes of a multitenanted property such as a shopping centre. Prior to 1974, apportionment was based on a store's floor area. Under this method, the smaller stores paid less realty and business taxes. In 1974, the Assessment Act was amended to require that taxes on multitenanted properties be apportioned based on rent. This meant that a tenant's share of the mall's property taxes is based on the tenant's portion of the total rent paid by all the mall's tenants.
Generally, the Ministry of Finance introduced this apportionment method to a municipality at the same time as a reassessment took place there. This usually lessened the impact of the change. The ministry was waiting for reassessment to take place in Metro Toronto before implementing apportionment based on rent in Metro malls. On three occasions, in 1982, 1987 and 1992, reassessment tax impact studies were presented to Metro council. However, reassessment has not been introduced in Metro.
In a March 1990 decision involving the Woodbine Centre, the Assessment Review Board directed the ministry's assessor to apportion the assessments of the anchor tenants based on rent, as required by the Assessment Act. Assessment appeals by anchor tenants in the Woodbine Centre and Fairview Mall for 1991, 1992 and 1993 were settled based on this Assessment Review Board decision. The anchor tenants also agreed to withdraw their appeals on assessments in other Metro malls for 1991 and 1992 and to wait for reassessment to be implemented in Metro.
In 1993, when reassessment did not occur in Metro Toronto, the ministry's assessment commissioners in Metro, except in the city of Toronto, reapportioned 1994 property taxes in all 32 malls in their areas. It was not necessary to reapportion the shopping malls in the city of Toronto, since most of its malls are part of office complexes and had already been appealed and reapportioned through the appeal process.
The reapportionment in the 32 malls shifted approximately $14 million in taxes from the anchor tenants to the smaller tenants. Increases for smaller tenants ranged from 18% to more than 800%. It threatened the survival of the smaller retailers and thousands of jobs that they provide.
Beginning in February 1994, the government worked hard to bring together representatives of the smaller retailers and the anchor tenants. We spent nine months building bridges between people in order to save jobs -- retail jobs that Metro needs. A temporary agreement was worked out for 1994. The anchor tenants agreed to assume $8 million of the $14-million reduction they had gained from apportionment.
The government continued to work with representatives of the anchor tenants and the Fair Assessment Coalition Toronto, which represents the smaller stores, to reach an agreement for 1995 and beyond. With all sides committed to solving this problem, the government was able to broker a fair deal.
This agreement will give immediate and continuing tax relief to the smaller tenants by transferring $8 million in realty and business taxes from the smaller tenants to the anchors. It will retain the same taxes for each mall. The amount of taxes transferred from the smaller tenants will equal the amount of taxes transferred to the anchors in each mall. It will also continue to generate the same amount of taxes for each municipality and school board.
Bill 197 will amend the Assessment Act to allow the Minister of Finance to file a regulation to provide for an apportionment on the assessment roll among the occupants of a property on a basis other than that described in the act.
The regulations will provide the formula for calculating the new apportionment in each of the 32 malls. This formula will result in the agreed-upon tax transfer between the smaller tenants and the anchors. As we know, there's quite a long history to this issue and of course the whole issue of reassessment in the Metro Toronto area, and that kind of helped to complicate this matter. It was a real concern to many small tenants in these malls, but the government took the role of an honest broker to try and work out and negotiate an agreement.
We were criticized for not having legislation come in quickly, but these things do take time, to work out all the agreements and then work out the specific details of how the taxes would be allocated, both for the smaller stores and for the anchor tenants. But the government was committed to a process of providing relief to the smaller tenants and working out a deal that was in the best interests of everyone. By the government playing that honest broker role, there was able to be a compromise and a deal was worked out.
I want to comment on what did occur regarding some comments and actions by the member for Oriole. It's interesting. The member for Oriole got up in this House and made a statement that if the government didn't bring in the legislation, she was going to bring in her own private legislation to ensure that the deal went forward. Needless to say, many people in this House were quite surprised when her legislation happened to be exactly the same as draft legislation that the Ministry of Finance had provided to members who were interested in this issue to let them know in advance. The Ministry of Finance has been keeping members informed on a regular basis throughout this process and, needless to say, also trying to help facilitate the process of getting this through by providing the draft legislation.
Many people were surprised. The member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell, noted in the House that he wanted to thank the Treasurer for keeping them informed of the negotiations and the ongoing letter-writing that took place, that he was pleased that the Ministry of Finance was continuing to offer all kinds of information. He also noted his surprise at the private legislation the member for Oriole brought in, that it looked very, very similar to the draft legislation that had been put forward. Some people were questioning why the member for Oriole had decided to do that when it was very clear that -- everyone knows the Minister of Finance is a person of integrity, he's well respected by all sides of the House, and if he makes a commitment to do something, he's going to follow up on that commitment.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Chris was blunter than that, though.
Mr Sutherland: Well, the member for Etobicoke West might have used, in his normal way, different terms than I'm using today. Yes, he probably was quite a lot more descriptive.
At any rate, we have made a commitment to work with the small businesses, to work with the anchor tenants. The government and the ministry provided the role of being an honest broker, and today we see the results of that commitment by the government to work with all the tenants to solve a real problem for everybody.
I look forward to the comments from the other speakers and look forward to all members of the House supporting this important legislation to resolve an ongoing and outstanding problem.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oxford for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I find it at least passing strange that a government that campaigned on the fact that it was going to restore 60% funding from the province on education, that it was going to help the problems of excessive property taxation, has done nothing in its four and a half years in power. This was an absolute commitment. Remember this document, the Agenda for People? They talked about 60% funding. There's been nothing done on that.
One of the most serious problems we have with property tax is the excessive amount of property tax, particularly in the Metro area, that is borne by the property taxpayer. In fact, in the Metro area, the Liberals removed all support for education during their term in power, and the NDP, if I remember correctly, reviled them thoroughly for it, and yet in four and a half years they have done nothing to reverse that, which of course clearly speaks to the problem we have today with property taxes that are excessive.
Indeed, a lot of the commercial properties in Toronto are bearing a property tax which is out of all relationship to their ability to pay and out of all relationship to property taxes existent across Ontario, and yet the member who has carriage of this bill fails to mention the commitment that was made in that famous document, Agenda for People, which has been christened by my friend the member for Etobicoke West the agenda for suckers. There was no mention of it in his comments whatsoever.
2250
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Oxford has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the comments from the member for York Mills. Let me just repeat, on this specific piece of legislation, that it was solving an ongoing problem. The government played a leading role to try to resolve it and has done that.
With regard to the issue he brought up, I think the people of Ontario are very smart people and understand the realities of what has occurred in this province over the last four years. They understand the very difficult recession we've gone through. They understand the fact that government revenues went down three years in a row. I guess my answer in response to the concerns raised by him is that, yes, we haven't been able to fulfil that commitment, that's quite right, and no one's trying to hide that, but we have to look at the fiscal realities, as I say, the difficult recession, government revenues went down three years in a row.
I would say to the member that if his former federal colleagues had lived up to their commitments to treat Ontario equally and Ontario was getting 50-cent dollars in all the programs, which other provinces are getting and which those programs were based on, I think we would have been able to achieve that 60-40 commitment.
But those things did not occur in the last four years, and I think those are some of the reasons. All of us would have liked to have fulfilled that commitment, but that was not going to be an easy task given the very difficult fiscal challenges that we have gone through.
Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do believe this will be a fairly controversial debate, and for that reason I think it's most important that the government have a quorum in this House to hear what is added to this debate by the opposition.
The Speaker: Is there a quorum present in the House?
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Speaker: Call in the members; a five-minute bell.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker: Is there further debate on this bill? The honourable member for Oriole.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Bill 197 is called An Act to amend the Assessment Act, but for people who are watching this debate on second reading tonight, they probably have no idea what An Act to amend the Assessment Act, Bill 197, is all about. Frankly, there are probably very few people who would consider this a big, major issue.
I listened very carefully to the parliamentary assistant and I agree with almost all of what he had to say. The only place where I would really take issue is the role the government played, and I say that in all sincerity. The agreement this bill implements and enables was actually arrived at by the people who had the problem: the anchor tenants, the owners of the malls, and the retailers, the small businesses, that were being hurt, very badly hurt, and they were all being hurt, not just any one of them.
What had hurt them were two events that took place simultaneously, as the parliamentary assistant pointed out. Those events were what is called a reapportionment, which took place as a result of a decision made by the Assessment Review Board, that moved around the taxes payable in the large malls, particularly in Metropolitan Toronto; not so much in the city of Toronto but in the other members of the Metropolitan federation. In North York, for example, Fairview Mall was seriously affected, and the other large malls in Metropolitan Toronto were seriously affected by this reapportionment as a result of the decision of the Assessment Review Board.
The other event that occurred at the same time, which exacerbated the problems of the reapportionment, was a reassessment that took place which actually raised the amount of tax payable based on a new assessment base that was imposed on the malls at the same time.
I don't think it would come as a big surprise to anyone who remembers the devastating recession of the last four years, but that was the third R: We had reassessment, we had reapportionment and we had a recession. The combination of those three Rs, if you will, meant that jobs were going to be lost, businesses were going to go bankrupt, and that would affect not only the owners of those malls but the anchor tenants and the independent smaller businessmen and women, the retailers, in those malls. They really need each other. No owner of a mall wants to have his mall with large bankruptcy and vacancy signs and signs To Let. We saw a lot of that in the last four years during the recession, and that not only hurt the communities through the jobs that were lost, it seriously impacted on the owners of those malls.
The anchor tenants, who are frequently the attraction for the smaller retailers, also depend on those smaller retailers because they bring people to the mall. There's a symbiotic relationship between the anchor tenants and the smaller retail businesses in the malls around Metropolitan Toronto. I see it when I'm at Fairview Mall. Not only do you see people who are shopping and buying and going into the Bay or Sears, but you also see people who are engaging in all kinds of shopping activities, both buying and looking. Those smaller retailers attract people and the big anchor tenants attract people and the malls become a place of important economic activity to our community. Certainly Fairview Mall is very important to the people of Oriole riding, but it attracts people from Scarborough, from Markham, from other parts of Metropolitan Toronto, who come for the activity, the economic activity, the opportunity to purchase goods and services at Fairview Mall.
So those three Rs -- reassessment, reapportionment and the recession -- all contributed to a very serious problem that these owners, these large anchor tenants and small retailers were facing. What happened was something that I think was very important. They got together, and what the government did do was say to them, "If you can come up with a deal, we will bring in enabling legislation to allow your deal to go forward." They did not act as the facilitator or "the honest broker," as the parliamentary assistant said. I've spoken to the anchors and to some of the retailers, and they really felt that during this process they were very much on their own.
So I would like to stand in my place today and congratulate the leadership of the coalition who organized the small retailers, and I'd like to congratulate the anchors, particularly the Bay, that showed enormous leadership in coming forward and working with the anchor tenants; Sears also. I've spoken to a senior employee from Sears. I understood their frustration, because none of them wanted to have to enter into a process to make a deal. Not everybody unanimously agrees that this is a wonderful situation. Many of the small retailers are still going to experience significant tax increases, and the anchors feel they're already paying too much.
2300
I don't think there's any individual or business person in this province today who doesn't feel the weight of a heavy tax burden. While we're all feeling this need for tax relief, here you had a situation in Metropolitan Toronto where people came together, recognized the reality, recognized the symbiotic relationship and worked out a compromise. As I said, that compromise is not unanimously accepted, but there is a consensus that was achieved.
Because it was not unanimous, many of them feared that this government would in fact not table the enabling legislation in time. They knew this was a very short session, they saw the end of the session rapidly approaching, and so what I did was take the government's draft legislation and table it so that the government would be able to say that something had been tabled in time. I said that if they brought in their own legislation I would happily withdraw mine. But as the end of the session approached, I said it was important to these people that their agreement, their negotiations and their deal be recognized. They were the ones who showed the leadership, they were the ones who brokered this deal and they are the ones who deserve the credit. But they were concerned that they would be left to hang out to dry because there was opposition building to this deal.
If I persuaded the government to strengthen its resolve, I am pleased, but I suspect that it recognized the importance of dealing in good faith with those parties. I'm pleased that the government tabled its legislation, but I can tell you that I was getting very nervous, because it tabled it one day short of the last day that it could table legislation in this session.
So my criticism of the government is that in fact it waited too long. They created unnecessary anxiety among those people who had worked so hard to bring this deal forward. The draft legislation had been circulating for over a week. People were expecting to see it come forward. They were anxious because the timing for tabling of legislation was coming to a close and they frankly didn't trust the government to move this forward, because they knew that there were those who were opposed to the deal who were actively lobbying.
I can tell you my phone rang, and I heard from those who were opposed. In fact, today they are waiting impatiently for this piece of legislation to be completed and go through the legislative process before this House rises. We know that today is second reading. The House is scheduled to prorogue one week from today. So there is some urgency for this legislation to complete second reading and have third reading.
When I attended a meeting in North York, actually at Bayview Village mall, the discussion was very specific as to what the legislative process is going to be and if we are going to have time to have this legislation put through.
At that meeting, I said that it is very normal in our legislative process that following second reading there's an opportunity for public hearings for those who might have a dissenting view or feel that the legislation could be improved in some way or for those supporting the legislation to just come forward and say, "We support this, and these are the reasons why." Public hearings are a very important part of our democratic process.
I am sad to say that there is not going to be enough time to have any public hearings on this legislation. That's because the government waited too long to table its legislation and call it for second reading. That's too bad.
I have said that because I want to see this legislation expedited 12 members of our caucus will not stand and demand public hearings, as would be our right. We will cooperate to see this legislation move forward, but I want to say on the record that if the government had tabled this legislation a few days before it did, it could have had at least a day of public hearings, which would have allowed these people who negotiated the deal to come forward at public hearings and have their say.
I will be supporting this in second reading and third reading, but I do say that it is unfortunate that we cannot have a day of public hearings so we could have heard from those merchants how they are suffering, how they are anxious for this deal to go forward, what it will mean to them. But also, as I speak for them today on the floor of this House, we would have heard from them that this is not a panacea, this does not fix their problem, their taxes are still too high. Many of them are still going to be facing tax increases that will be difficult for them to pay. While this legislation will save some jobs and it will save some merchants from going bankrupt, I fear that some jobs may still be lost and some businesses may still not be able to hang on, notwithstanding this deal.
It's my hope that as the economy grows -- and we know that it is growing and things are turning around. Unfortunately, much of the recovery has been a jobless recovery. Particularly in Metropolitan Toronto we have seen fewer jobs created during this period of recovery than in other parts of the province.
So we must look at measures that will assist businesses in Metropolitan Toronto so that they can not go bankrupt, so that they can create jobs, so that they can prosper, because if businesses in the malls of Metropolitan Toronto prosper, that will be good for not only the people of Oriole, not only the people of Metropolitan Toronto, not only the people who are directly using those malls but all of the people of Ontario, because Metropolitan Toronto traditionally has been the engine of economic growth in this province, and as Metropolitan Toronto suffers, that does not bode well for the province of Ontario. As Metropolitan Toronto's recovery is sluggish or slow or without the kind of economic activity and job creation that we're seeing in other parts of this province, it does not bode well.
We should all have an interest, and I have an interest, in seeing strong economic growth and a strong recovery and jobs created and businesses that are viable and earning a profit, not only in Metropolitan Toronto, not just in Fairview Mall, but I know that if Fairview Mall and Yorkdale and the other malls in Metropolitan Toronto do well and prosper, then Ontario will benefit because of that economic activity. Bill 197 is a very important but a very small part of my hope that we will start to see a few more jobs saved, a few more businesses that do not go bankrupt.
I would again like to congratulate some of the other people who played a very important role. At the meeting that I attended at Bayview Village mall, the meeting was chaired by David Shiner, who is the councillor for ward 13 in the city of North York. David played a very important facilitative role. He gave advice, he supported this and spoke very loudly at the city of North York council. I would say to all of the members of this House that David Shiner showed tremendous leadership and assistance to those malls in North York and also brought this issue to North York council, and so I congratulate him.
2310
At that very same meeting was the councillor for ward 14, Paul Sutherland. Paul shares the same boundaries. Ward 14 and ward 13 together make up Oriole riding. I have a working relationship with both David Shiner and Paul Sutherland, and it was important that they were both there at that meeting and that they have both been there in support of the deal that was brought forward by the anchor tenants and the small retailers.
The leadership that was shown by the coalition was outstanding, and what it showed me is that local solutions to local problems are possible, that the people in the local communities who know their community know what's possible, and if you have faith and confidence in them, they can find the solutions that, while not perfect, will achieve the kind of consensus to allow us to move forward.
You've heard me stand in this House before and speak about my confidence that people in the communities across the province, if they are given the opportunity, will rise to the challenge and help us meet the challenges and solve the problems and find the solutions to the many issues that are facing Ontario today and that Ontario will be facing in the future.
When I took this bill to my caucus, there were some who said, "Well, how does this affect my area?" They were from outside of Metropolitan Toronto. It is important to discuss the answer to that question in this House because this legislation in fact has no impact on anyone outside of Metropolitan Toronto. This is Metropolitan Toronto-specific. I would say to those who are outside of Metropolitan Toronto who want to look at this that if they have a problem this is a very good model for sitting down with and finding a solution to their problem.
This may not work for them. I do not believe that one-size-fits-all solutions are right for Ontario. I've resisted time and again the NDP approach, which is: central planning, cookie cutter, everybody across the province is required to meet the same objective and do it the same way. We've seen that with the multiservice agencies in long-term care and we've seen it in a number of other approaches that the government has brought forward.
People want to know what the difference is between them, the NDP, and me, a Liberal: It's my conviction that we must bring forward the kinds of legislation that are flexible, that allow for different solutions and that allow for local communities to come forward and help find solutions to their problems.
Bill 197 is an example of a problem in a local community where it was the community leadership who found that solution, who found what is considered reasonable by a consensus of those people affected by those three Rs -- reassessment, reapportionment and recession -- and they have brought this forward to solve their problem. It doesn't solve anybody else's problem outside of Metropolitan Toronto, and some would say it doesn't solve the whole problem in Metro, but they would also tell you, if you asked them, that it's better than nothing, and it's better than what it would have been without this legislation going forward.
So as I take my seat, I will repeat that I will be supporting this on second reading, as will my caucus, that we will accept the fact that there is not going to be an opportunity for any of these parties to come before a committee of the Legislature and have their views heard. We understand that is not possible because of the short session. We had only 20 days in this session, and the government chose not to table this bill in time to allow public hearings. While we don't like that, we are not prepared to see the bill delayed beyond the end of this session because, as I said, there is urgency. Timeliness is extremely important. If this is not passed before the end of December, it will not take effect in time for the 1995 tax rolls to be amended, and that's important.
So this legislation is enabling legislation and it will allow the Treasurer of the province of Ontario to implement a deal that was agreed upon by the merchants and mall owners, primarily the merchants, the large anchor tenants and the small retailers, who came together and solved the problem in the very best way that they could in the time frame that was facing them, and I applaud their efforts. I say to the government, you took too long to bring this forward, but it is here now, and let's see it pass before this House rises one week from today.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oriole for her contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to respond to a few of the comments the member said. First of all, it's my understanding, as the member said, that this is a solution for Toronto, that the conditions that brought about this problem in the first place don't exist in many other areas, if any.
The member used the terminology "the three Rs," and much of this was done when full reassessments have occurred in many of these other municipalities, so the apportionment was changed at that time. My understanding is that there aren't other places in the province where this would have an impact.
I want to deal again with this issue of bringing in the draft legislation and tabling it. It's fair enough for the member for Oriole to put forward her own legislation. I guess the concern people had was that she was putting forward government draft legislation as her own and had not really clarified to anybody that this wasn't her own piece of legislation, but she was kind of borrowing the government draft legislation. I think that's where the concern was.
Let me say just again, though, about the concern that somehow the government wasn't going to move on this, that the member for Oriole surely knows that the Minister of Finance, who is the senior member is this House, is well respected by all the members on all sides, very clearly knows that he is a man of great integrity, and if he gives a commitment to do something and follow up on something, he's very clearly going to do that and make sure that he does it. He has, as I'm sure everyone knows, the greatest respect of all his fellow caucus members under his guidance and leadership who deal with the different issues, and if he makes a commitment, he's doing that knowing the caucus is going to be supporting him on that.
So there was never any plan to delay this or not get it forward. When the commitment was made, I think all members would know that it was going to be followed through by the Minister of Finance.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I wasn't going to say anything on that account, but the member for Oxford has sort of prompted me.
I discussed this matter with the Minister of Finance, a man of great integrity. I mean, we're all people of great integrity, I assume, in this House. This was only, I would say, about two to three weeks ago, and at that point in time, this bill had not found its way on to the legislative agenda. It was no priority of this government. When our caucus met and looked at the priorities that were given to our House leader, this was nowhere to be found whatsoever. At that time, the minister informed me that whatever bill came forward, if indeed one did come forward, because it wasn't a priority at that particular point in time, it would apply to all of the province of Ontario and could not be Metro-specific; that would cause too much of a problem. That was just two to three weeks ago.
So I must say that even though we're all people of great integrity and even though the Finance minister is a person of great integrity, there was really serious doubt that there was going to be a solution, and I can tell you that I received letters from many retailers in the province of Ontario and they had great doubt that this was going to come forward.
Having said that, though, the private member's bill, I assumed, was just sort of politicking. That's kind of what goes on around here, that private members' bills never get through except on very rare occasions, and indeed if the government intended to move, they'd bring their own bill forward and the private member's bill would not be pursued.
So I have to agree with the Liberals on the one hand that there didn't seem to be any movement out of the Finance ministry, but I have to agree with the government on the other hand that it was really a bit of politicking to bring forward a private member's bill that had no hope of going. So I think you're both right and you're both wrong.
2320
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I have to say to both the member for Oriole and the member for Don Mills that one of the reasons the Finance minister two or three weeks ago was talking about a provincial solution or a provincial bill and the inability to have a Metro-specific bill is because there wasn't yet an agreement that had been arrived at between the anchor tenants and the small tenants. The member for Oriole took great pains to say that this was an agreement arrived at between the parties and suggested that the government had very little to do with it. I'd like to correct the record on that part.
I applaud the parties for the work they did in coming to an agreement on this, and I think that if you check with the parties you'll find that the Finance minister and the Ministry of Finance staff in fact played a tremendous facilitation role in helping that agreement come to fruition. I followed this with some interest, and there were many calls back and forward and moments of impasse where if it hadn't been for the intervention and the role of the Minister of Finance and his staff, there wouldn't be an agreement today.
I say to the members opposite that while you can attempt to make political points in saying that you didn't know if a bill was coming, and that's the reason why you took a draft bill and submitted it in under your own name, the Minister of Finance was quite clear that he was looking for a solution that would meet the needs of the parties and would have the agreement of the parties and would have support from the members opposite to bring that in. And of course it wasn't prioritized on the legislative agenda when there was no solution that had been arrived at.
So I think the Minister of Finance and his staff worked with great diligence and brought about with the obvious participation of the parties a partnership solution to a very serious problem, one that had a tremendous impact here particularly in Metro Toronto. The resolution is one that all parties obviously out there in the constituency involved and here in the Legislature find themselves in a position to be able to support. I would say he should have kudos for that effort.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Oriole has up to two minutes for her reply.
Mrs Caplan: I want to remind members of the House and any of those watching what the role of the member of the opposition is. I see my role as a critic of the government, someone who holds the government accountable. I see the role to push the government to act, to offer alternatives and to attempt to influence public policy in a positive way.
On a number of occasions in this House when the government cobbled together omnibus legislation that included, for example, the repealing of taxes like the tire tax and the corporate concentration tax, both of which I supported, I in fact tabled the government's own legislation in a separate bill so that I could show that I would like to have the opportunity to vote separately on that legislation. So I was very consistent when I pushed the government by tabling their own legislation which they had to that point in time refused to table and pushed them to bring it forward before the House adjourned, because with only a few days left to table legislation in this session, I was concerned and many were concerned that they would not act in time, and if the legislation was here and on the books, they would have no excuse not to act.
I want to thank the member for Don Mills for a very accurate portrayal of the situation as it was. In fact, all members of this House do from time to time play political games. But I will tell you that I take my role as a member of the official opposition very, very seriously, and if in any way the actions that I have taken in the past in this House have pushed the government, then I feel I have been an effective member of the opposition.
When it comes to Bill 197, it is deserving and worthy of support. We can quibble as to what the government's role is. The fact is that it was those parties who brought a deal and I congratulate them.
The Speaker: Is there further debate? The honourable member for Don Mills.
Mr David Johnson: I'm going to be guided by the comments of the Premier earlier this evening. The Premier has informed us that the situation in the province of Ontario is a rosy one.
Applause.
Mr David Johnson: Yes, well -- and far from me to be a naysayer.
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): He's an honourable man.
Mr David Johnson: He's an honourable man. The Finance minister is an honourable man. The member for Durham Centre is an honourable man. We're all honourable people in this Legislature. None of us are naysayers and none of us wish to be enraptured by negativity and none of us wish to be in a cocoon of negativity, and far be it from me.
If I was to be a naysayer, I might read the Toronto Star tonight, but not wishing to be naysayer, I couldn't read the Toronto Star. I couldn't bring to you the information that there's a tax revolt in Metropolitan Toronto. I couldn't bring that information as a naysayer, could I? Because that wouldn't be too rosy.
Mr White: Is the Toronto Star a Liberal paper?
Mr David Johnson: The Toronto Star is -- well, it's an organization that probably doesn't support either one of us too often, to tell you the truth.
At any rate, there is an article here which I wish I could read because it has some factual information in it, but that would be naysaying. If I could read it, it would say that in Metropolitan Toronto, 100,000 property owners have launched a tax appeal, 100,000 people this year. That, by the way, is half of the appeals of the whole province of Ontario. Why did these people launch a tax appeal? I guess if I was a naysayer I would say it's because, under the burden of taxes, they are getting creamed and they can't afford it. That's homeowners; that's business people. But that would be not painting a rosy picture of the wonderful condition in the province of Ontario, so I won't talk about that.
If I was a naysayer, I might talk about the city of Toronto: in 1990, 38,000 properties paying taxes; today only 34,000, some 4,000 fewer properties paying taxes in the city of Toronto in the last four years. What's happening? Businesses going out of business; can't afford the taxes. Unfortunately, that's what this whole issue is about, but it's an issue that has a little bit of negativity to it so it's a little bit difficult for me to deal with it because I know the picture in the province of Ontario is rosy, and surely there must be something wrong. We couldn't have 4,000 fewer properties in the city of Toronto paying taxes in Bob Rae's Ontario, which is so rosy.
If I was a naysayer talking about the management of this province, I would talk about the debt being $90 billion, up from about $45 billion when this government took office four years ago. That would be negative, though, so I won't talk about that. Besides, there is a positive side to that. Think of all those foreign lenders in Japan and Europe. Think how happy they are lending to us and the interest rates that they get. So there is a positive, rosy side to that. That is a very bright picture.
If I was a naysayer, I'd talk about the deficit, I suppose, how over four years in the province of Ontario it's exceeded $10 billion each and every year.
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): But you wouldn't say that.
Mr David Johnson: No, I wouldn't say that. The Minister of Environment and Energy is absolutely right. I wouldn't say that. I'll slide off that topic.
If I was a naysayer I'd talk about the interest rate and the budget of the province of Ontario: $4 billion when this government took office; $8 billion in the budget just to pay this interest this year in the province of Ontario. But that wouldn't be a rosy picture.
I certainly wouldn't talk about the fact that in Metropolitan Toronto there are 200,000 fewer jobs today than five years ago, 200,000 fewer people at work. That wouldn't be a very rosy picture.
I wouldn't talk about the board of trade, the publication. They must be naysayers in the board of trade because they talk about 200,000 fewer jobs in the province of Ontario. They talk about plants being closed, buildings being empty.
2330
Hon Mr Wildman: What about the ones that are being opened?
Mr David Johnson: They talk about the problems, Mr Minister, of the tax system, which is the topic of this debate tonight. They talk about the need to reform not only the property tax system, not only the assessment of shopping malls in metropolitan Ontario, but the board of trade, naysayers that they are, talk about the whole assessment system in Metropolitan Toronto, and they don't paint a very rosy picture of the assessment system in Metropolitan Toronto. It's difficult for me to talk about that, because that isn't a very rosy picture.
They talk about the school taxes that they have to pay, the burden of school taxes on businesses, and I might say on residential property taxpayers as well, but they talk about the burden on the businesses in --
Hon Mr Wildman: This is put out by an organization that promotes Toronto.
Mr David Johnson: This is put out by an organization, Mr Minister, yes, that promotes Toronto --
Interjection.
Mr David Johnson: You know, Mr Minister, it promotes Toronto. It has to be realistic too. And to have a successful and vibrant economy in Metropolitan Toronto, we have to be realistic. We have to recognize the problems that we have. We have to be prepared to deal with those problems.
The Agenda for People that is being flashed about through our caucus had some hope for the board of trade when it was put out, I guess on August 18, 1990, because the Agenda for People said that the "New Democrats propose raising the provincial share of education costs to 60% over five years," in other words, taking some of the burden of the education off the property taxpayer, the residential taxpayer and the business taxpayer of Metropolitan Toronto and indeed across the rest of the province of Ontario -- taking the burden off.
Hon Mr Wildman: And put it on the income taxpayer.
Mr David Johnson: So, Mr Minister, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto would agree with some aspects of the Agenda for People, if only it got implemented, because they say that one of the three main burdens in Metropolitan Toronto in terms of the property tax is the burden of the school taxes on the property tax, second being the assessment system itself, which is antiquated, which is 50 years old and needs overhaul, and I might say not only in Metropolitan Toronto, but certainly there have been complaints from many sectors across the province of Ontario that the assessment system is simply not working, and the third point that these naysayers, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto, made was that the welfare burden on the property tax is out of whack. It's too severe and it's causing hardships.
When you put all those components together, and the real estate taxes in Metropolitan Toronto, it's causing businesses to leave Metropolitan Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto is no longer competitive from a property tax point of view. In the city of Mississauga, just across the border, a hotel will pay at least a half and perhaps less in property taxes than a similar hotel in Etobicoke in Metropolitan Toronto. So how can business compete?
We have 1.4 million people on welfare in the province of Ontario, every year since this government took office more people on welfare, including this year. We have a rate of job growth slower this year than we had last year, according to the government's own forecast that was just put forward within the last week. We have young people today, in this very same newspaper, in today's newspaper, being advised, "If you want a job, leave Metropolitan Toronto; go somewhere else," because the rate of unemployment in young people in Metropolitan Toronto is very severe and it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy that we're going to have to deal with in the years ahead.
I said I wasn't going to be a naysayer, but that's not a rosy picture I'm painting, and I apologize. I didn't mean to do that, because I've been directed by the Premier of the province that we have a rosy future. Notwithstanding this unemployment, these high taxes, we have a rosy future, and I believe the Premier. He certainly wouldn't lead us astray, would he?
Mrs Caplan: Want to take a vote on that?
Mr David Johnson: The member for Oriole says, "Do we want to take a vote on that?" Well --
Mrs Caplan: Drop the writ. Let's go to the polls.
Mr David Johnson: Drop the writ. All right. Well, I'm sure the writ will be dropped soon enough.
In terms of the property tax issue with regard to shopping malls, I guess what I'm trying to convey is, we are dealing, yes, with Bill 197. We are dealing with one specific aspect of assessment in Metropolitan Toronto, one that needs to be addressed, one that needed to be addressed a year ago.
I can't help but note the pats on the back the government is giving itself for solving this problem, for being an honest broker, for taking an extreme interest in this whole issue when in fact the government knew this issue was coming well over a year ago because of appeals that had been made by anchors of which this government would be fully aware, and probably the only entity in the province of Ontario that would be fully aware of what was going to happen. This government was aware that some $14 million was being shifted from anchor stores on to small retailers. That was over a year ago, because the assessment rolls went out last year -- I'm talking December 1993 -- and the shock waves hit.
Where were the honest brokers a year ago? Where were the honest brokers? Where were the government officials with integrity who were so concerned about small business people a year ago when the shock waves hit and the tax bills went out? The tax bills went out at 200%, 300%, 400% increases, double, triple, quadruple what the small business people had paid in taxes the previous year. There were horror stories of people saying they would go out of business. In fact, some people did go out of business. They closed down their shop, because when their property taxes went up by 300%, they simply couldn't pay it. So there were meetings and there were articles in the newspaper and there was a flurry of activity.
Would a good, honest broker have waited till all that broke loose? All hell broke loose, frankly. Wouldn't an honest broker and somebody who was really concerned about the small business people have stepped in over a year ago and tried to broker a solution so that all that anguish, all that hurt and pain wasn't caused one year ago when the assessment bills went out and the property taxes went out shortly thereafter? There was no leadership. There was nothing to be seen.
What happened was then the small business people out of necessity had to get together. They were being swamped. They were drowning, and they got together and they formed an organization called Fair Assessment Coalition Toronto, FACT, and they did it to put pressure and to arrive at some sort of solution.
Then the honest brokers came in while the -- I guess I was going to say the damage has been done or had been done. People were scared out of their wits. The shopping mall that's just up the road from me -- I have some of their letters here -- the Don Mills shopping centre, sent me a petition very early this year and it indicated that:
"We, the undersigned, call upon Premier Bob Rae to implement a rollback of the 1994 reassessment and reapportionment of the Don Mills Centre to the 1992 assessment rolls." This was way back earlier this year, and this was for the assessment that had changed in 1993. "For 1994 the small retailer's share of the tax burden has jumped to 80% from 45%" -- in other words, their share of the taxes in the mall had almost doubled -- "at the same time that the total mall property and business taxes have increased by 24%." So the shopping mall itself had experienced an increase in assessment of 24%. "The net result was a 119% average tax increase." Some were more and some were less, but the average tax increase of one year ago was 119%.
2340
Now, can you imagine a 119% tax increase? If you were to open the mailbox and get your tax bill and open it up -- and this is the average; some were considerably more -- and see that your taxes had more than doubled from the previous year, you'd have a heart attack. This is what happened to the average person in the Don Mills shopping centre, and that was a year ago. That was before the era of the honest broker.
So they formed the organization called FACT and they descended upon the government and said: "Something has to be done. We've got to roll this back." But the government said, "Sorry, we're going to play honest broker; now the fight can begin," and they left it to the small merchants on the one hand, who were experiencing an average 119% increase in the Don Mills shopping centre, and the anchor stores on the other hand, who were the beneficiaries and whose taxes were actually going down, because what had happened was that there was a shift in the definition of the assessment from being based on square footage, as it had been previously, which favours the small merchants because they don't have that much square footage, to being based on market rent, which favours the large merchants because their market rent by square foot is less.
The negotiations began this year, and to the credit of the anchors, the anchors recognized that average increases of 119% would put many of the small stores out of business. They were hanging on. They weren't aware at that time that we had such a rosy condition in the province of Ontario. They were barely struggling. They were laying off staff. They were doing everything they could to survive, and they could not survive a 119% tax increase, and the government was not going to do anything about it, that became clear, so the anchors said: "Well, we've got two situations: We can watch the small stores go under, and then we'll have anchors at either end of a shopping plaza and no small stores in between, or we have to do something. We'll have to give back some of the tax decrease that we experienced through this change."
So the anchors, of their own free will, gave back 100% of the decrease that they had experienced through this calculation, and as a result, the smaller stores experienced no increase in taxes for 1994. There was a lot of gnashing of teeth and grinding of teeth, but the anchor stores realized it was not to their benefit for the small stores to go under.
I don't know how much of the credit the government wishes to take for that. I ascribe just about zero credit, and that's where it all started. I didn't hear the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, talk about that aspect. That really started over a year ago, because the government knew about it. For the member for Beaches-Woodbine to say that the government has been working on this and working on this when this issue arose over a year ago, and here we are right up to the last moment with no solution for 1995 -- it's not even on the agenda, and we've had this issue before us for over a year -- I think that's a bit of a stretch, myself. Perhaps that will be explained to me, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.
But what happened as time went on is that there were various solutions that were thrown back and forth between the anchors and the small retailers. I think at one point there was a 50-50 proposal to split the difference, but the small retailers didn't feel they could survive with that sort of solution.
So now we have the solution before us whereby $8 million of the $14 million that should be shifted will not be shifted on to the small stores and the remaining just about $6 million will be shifted on to the small stores. So they do have to split up an extra $6 million to pay in taxes, which is going to be very difficult for them, but nevertheless they feel they can survive that sort of situation.
Again, as has been expressed earlier, I give credit here frankly to the members of Fair Assessment Coalition Toronto and the members representing the anchors, led by the Hudson's Bay Co. I think between the two of them they've hammered this out. I don't really know what part the Ministry of Finance played behind the scenes. I know the Ministry of Finance was there but came in very late in the game and played a very passive role.
This issue rolled on all the way from last year, through the spring, through the summer and there was no progress to report. There were no suggestions that were put out, certainly, that I'm aware of. I was keeping in touch with the main proponents on either side and there was nothing but consternation that the clock was ticking by and frankly there was no leadership from the government.
At this point, the bill that we're dealing with tonight, Bill 197, will allow the government to set the assessment roll along the lines, we've been told -- I must say there are some of the actors in this whole piece who are a little bit leery of this because the $8-million shift that won't take place and the $6-million shift that will take place, as I mentioned earlier, are not defined in the bill. We have to take the word of the government that it's what will happen.
I can tell you that I have been contacted by some of the people who are involved who are very concerned that the regulations actually reflect that situation. They don't trust governments -- in this day and age it's not uncommon for people not to trust governments -- and it's not stated in the bill that's precisely what's going to happen. But we have to take it on faith that the regulations will reflect that situation.
The reapportionment will take place over 32 malls in Metropolitan Toronto, and there's one other issue that I promised I would raise tonight from one of the actors. Reapportionment simply takes the total taxes that a shopping mall will have to pay and divides it up among the various stores, but at the same time that's happening, a reassessment has occurred of the shopping malls in Metropolitan Toronto.
As you all know, Metropolitan Toronto has not been reassessed. Metropolitan Toronto is not on a 1988 market value assessment with the exception of the shopping malls, and particularly some of the anchors, and I might say some of the smaller stores as well, are wondering why the shopping malls were reassessed. The reassessment to 1988 market values, and then they're factored back, but still 1988 market values, means that in total the shopping malls will pay almost $4 million more in Metropolitan Toronto.
Why did that happen? Why were the shopping malls reassessed? The government did not go out and reassess homeowners, to my knowledge; the government has not gone out and reassessed other businesses, to my knowledge. Certainly other people have appealed their assessments. Tens of thousands of homeowners appealed their assessment and were told that if their assessment was to go down, they would get the benefit of that decrease, but if their assessment was to go up, then they would have the right to withdraw their appeal and their assessment would remain at the level that it previously held. But the shopping plazas didn't get that right.
2350
I ask perhaps the parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, if he chooses to respond, if he would speak to that issue as to why the shopping malls were reassessed in Metropolitan Toronto. Why were they put on 1988 market value figures, which led to a $3.5- to $4-million increase in total taxes paid, not because of the reapportionment but simply because of the reassessment in Metropolitan Toronto?
Just to give you one other example, the Fairview Mall in 1993 paid $5.6 million in property taxes. In 1994, because of the reassessment last year, and the reassessment took place for last year, the property taxes had increased to $6.792 million, an increase of almost $1.2 million because of reassessment. Everyone is puzzled as to why this has happened, and it's certainly exacerbated a difficult situation. So when you pile the reassessment on top of the reapportionment, in many cases that's what's led to the huge tax increases.
I think, with the hour as late as it is -- it's later than I thought -- I will limit my comments to that. We will be supporting this bill. We'll be supporting it in the knowledge that it deals with a most difficult situation, a difficult situation that's been in place for well over a year, a situation that begs to be addressed. But it's a minute part of a huge situation, an assessment situation in Metropolitan Toronto that needs to be addressed, that's needed to be addressed ever since this government took power, and indeed I must say from before this government took power, back for several years. But it hasn't been sorted out.
Indeed, the problem goes beyond Metropolitan Toronto to really the whole province of Ontario, and I think if the government really wanted to show leadership on this issue, then it would tackle the whole issue of property assessment in Metropolitan Toronto and in the province of Ontario. That's what's really required.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Don Mills for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.
Hon Ms Lankin: You know, there are some people who travel through life and wear rosy glasses and see everything in the best possible light. Sometimes those people can be kind of annoying because you know in the real world there are ups and downs and there are tough things to deal with and it can't all be rosy, it can't all be terrific, it can't be really Pollyannish. I'll tell you, after four years of government through the worst recession since the Great Depression, I don't think there are any Pollyannas on this side of the House.
But on the other hand, there are those people who go through life and they're like that cartoon character with the little cloud and everywhere they go the cloud goes. They turn this way and the cloud goes; they turn that way and the cloud goes, and it's raining and they see life through the gloom and the obscure veil of rain. The member opposite kind of reminds me of that. He goes to great lengths to talk about the rosy picture that the Premier painted, but I have to say that to listen to him, you would think we're not coming out of the recession, that things aren't turning around.
Yes, it's been tough. Yes, there are very severe tax problems and challenges facing us, particularly in the Metropolitan Toronto area and the differences between the city and the rest of Metro, between Metro and the rest of the GTA, heavy property tax burdens. There's a lot for us still to work on correcting, but I have to point out to the member the second-quarter finances: annualized growth at 8.4%; annualized growth looking out to next year in the medium term at 4%-plus; unemployment down below 9% now here in Ontario -- it's 10% Canadawide. All the stats show that Canada in fact is coming out of the recession and Ontario is leading now in terms of economic growth: 137,000 jobs created in the last nine months.
Today in the paper I read all the projections for next year in terms of growth of jobs and the rosiest picture -- rosy; I'll use your word -- was painted by employers in Toronto, in Ottawa, in Vancouver and Montreal. Things are turning around. I'd say shake off that cloud. You can do better.
Hon Irene Mathyssen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'll be very brief. I was very interested in the comments made by the member for Don Mills in regard to municipal taxpayers in Metro. He failed, though, in his comments to mention his Non-Sense Revolution and he failed to tell the people of Ontario that according to the Non-Sense Revolution, the Mike Harris government is going to reduce expenditures by 20%. If they do indeed reduce expenditures by 20%, that means they will also have to reduce what they transfer to municipalities by 20%. My guess would be that this would send municipal taxes skyrocketing and that those taxpayers, those concerned citizens who are in a tax revolt, would be absolutely apoplectic when they saw their tax bills under a Mike Harris government.
I also noted that he failed to mention that the problems in Ontario were largely caused by his federal friends in Ottawa, the Tories, in the late 1980s. He failed to mention how Ontario did not receive transfers that were at all in keeping with what other provinces received. He did not mention that while other provinces were getting 50-cent dollars from Ottawa for social services, Ontario was and still is only receiving 28-cent dollars. He also failed to mention that while 55% of all immigrants settle in Ontario, we receive only 34% of federal settlement dollars.
Another thing that he failed to talk about was what this NDP government has done for small business. He failed to mention that we removed the commercial concentration tax and that we have reduced taxes to small business by 1%. But I'm sure that just slipped his mind.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I really believed that no one had pierced the veil of the lack of reason in the third party's election campaign platform, but I'm convinced that now, having heard from government members that they understand it, all the people of Ontario will probably be able to understand it too.
The Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Don Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.
Mr David Johnson: I thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine. His name was Joe Bfstplk in Li'l Abner. He had that little black cloud. That little black cloud was high taxes.
I thank the member for Middlesex and the member for Brampton South for bringing my attention to the Common Sense Revolution --
Mr Turnbull: Hear, hear.
Mr David Johnson: -- and the member for York Mills for giving applause, because this is a plan for creating jobs.
I must say that the Premier of the province of Ontario mentioned the Common Sense Revolution as well. I know the Premier is a very busy person and he obviously hasn't read the plan, because he doesn't recognize where the cuts will be coming from. He doesn't recognize that the cuts will be coming from the welfare system, he doesn't recognize that the cuts will be coming from Jobs Ontario, that the cuts will be coming from reforming housing and the cost of non-profit housing, which we can't afford in the province of Ontario. The Premier doesn't recognize that the cuts will be coming from the legal aid system. The cuts are all detailed in this document, how we can cut the spending in the province of Ontario by $6 billion, from $55 billion down to $49.
Mr Callahan: Just look at the index. It says "slash and burn."
Mr David Johnson: The member for Brampton South doesn't think $49 billion is enough spending in the province of Ontario in one year. I can tell you that the people in the province of Ontario will think it's enough spending. It will put money back into the hands of the taxpayer through the personal income tax, through cutting the employer health tax, through cutting the workers' compensation premium. What will the people of the province of Ontario do with that money? They will spend it wisely. They will create jobs, they will create 725,000 new jobs, and we'll balance the budget in the province of Ontario.
The Speaker: Is there further debate?
Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased to rise to speak to this mall tax bill, Bill 197. I intend to support it, as do my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party.
I want to comment a little bit on the circumstances leading up to this particular bill. Some three years ago, I believe it was, the government brought forward a bill which would have enabled Metropolitan Toronto to enact market value assessment. The then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Cooke, brought this forward. I was greatly impressed by this member at this time. Until that point I had been somewhat underwhelmed by him, but I was impressed by the fact that he was capable of listening to all the presentations that were made at that time from the various presenters who came to the committee. I personally believe I was the prime moving force to force that out to committee. The minister of industry and technology is putting up her hand. Indeed, I recognize her as probably being the prime mover within the government for recognizing that market value was a wrongheaded notion.
The minister at the time listened very carefully, I believe more carefully than any other minister we have seen in terms of listening to the input of the public with respect -- and I see the Speaker is getting rather restless in the chair. This being 12 of the clock, I would suggest that I would like to adjourn the debate for tonight, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: It being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.
Interjection.
The Speaker: My apologies. The business statement.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for Monday, December 5.
On Monday, December 5, we will give third reading consideration to Bill 165, the WCB reform bill. Following that, we will give second reading to Bill 198, dealing with amendments to the Liquor Licence Act and various regional municipal acts relating to after-hours clubs. Following that, we will give second reading consideration to Bill 185, amendments to the Power Corporation Act, and then continue second reading debate on Bill 197, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.
Business for the remainder of the week is under discussion between the three parties in the House and will be announced each evening for the following day.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.
The House adjourned at 2403.