MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ÉLECTIONS MUNICIPALES
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE
SUPPLY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1994
Report continued from volume A.
1807
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT (FIREFIGHTERS), 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LE CODE DE LA ROUTE (POMPIERS)
Mr Arnott moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 192, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters / Projet de loi 192, Loi modifiant le Code de la route en ce qui a trait aux pompiers.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to move second reading of this private member's bill. It's a very simple and straightforward bill. It fits on actually one page, both sides. What it does is that it allows volunteer firefighters to use flashing green lights on their personal vehicles when they're responding to an emergency call.
It's very, very simple and straightforward, and I'm very pleased to say that I've received an indication from the government House leader, the Liberal House leader, as well as our Conservative House leader, that it's the will of the House that this bill will pass into law. Hopefully tomorrow it will receive third reading and will pass, and I'm very excited about that.
I want to thank many of my colleagues who have supported my efforts in this regard for the last two years actually, bringing this issue forward, Mr Runciman, Mr Eves, Mr Murdoch, Mr McLean, Mr Villeneuve, Mr Wilson, Mr Jordan and Mr Hodgson particularly. I also want to thank the Liberal Transportation critic for his indication to me that he will support this bill, and I want to particularly thank the present Minister of Transportation, as well as his immediate predecessor, who I also know were supportive of this bill.
Many of the municipal councils in Wellington county have endorsed this idea in principle and have supported my efforts in this regard. The Firefighters Association of Ontario, the organization which represents all volunteer firefighters in the province, has also been very supportive of this for quite some time, and I want to thank them for their efforts in this regard.
While I'm thanking everybody, I think I'd like to say thank you to all our volunteer firefighters, especially in Wellington county but as well across the province. We really can't adequately and fully thank them for what they do to serve our communities. I think this is an important safety issue efforts, but it's also an important measure of recognition for all of their efforts.
I look forward to hearing the debate on this bill. But as I indicated earlier, I understand that there is all-party support for this bill and I look forward to its passage before Christmas.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any further debate?
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I too am pleased to stand today on behalf of myself, and I think a lot of colleagues in the House, to throw my support behind this bill.
I've been approached too by the firefighters and fire chiefs in Huron county. They feel this is another tool that they can use for a safety reason for the firefighters, that they can use, if they wish, to put on their vehicle when going to a fire. I think those of us who live in rural Ontario realize that they do travel through small hamlets and throughout rural areas.
It doesn't mean that they can speed or do things that are illegal, but it does help to show that there's a person who's going to a fire. It will help people like me, when I'm sitting at a corner and a vehicle's going up the road with a green flasher on. I will know this person is in a bit of a hurry and I should allow him the right of way.
We're spread out in rural Ontario, as you know, and the volunteer firefighters do get to fires surprisingly quickly, but this will help them just get to the fire that much quicker. This will probably have the potential to save lives, to save livestock or whatever industry is out in the community, in a hamlet or out in a township.
I commend the member for taking the initiative. I'd like to thank the fire chiefs in Huron county for taking the time to tell me about the bill. I said I would support the bill and do all I can to get it forward. At this time, I will adjourn debate as far as I'm concerned so that we can move this bill and get it through for the firefighters in all of rural Ontario.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'd just like to lend my support to this bill. I spoke about it first thing this afternoon when we did our statements, that I wished the government would bring this forward. I'm very pleased that they have brought it forward this afternoon so that we can give it second reading.
The green lights are really needed in rural Ontario. We do have quite a number of volunteer firefighters, especially in my area, because there aren't a lot of full-time firefighters. They've wanted this for some time, and my friend Ted Arnott has worked on it for a long time to have this House pass this bill.
I'm very pleased to stand here today and support my friend the member for Wellington on his bid to have this bill passed. I just hope that tomorrow we will get third reading and that my volunteer fire departments will be able to use these green lights and save many lives and help them out with their daily duties.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Nepean, I apologize for not recognizing you first.
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Further debate, I guess.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I won't debate it too long. I don't know what it is with the Transportation bills, either at this time of the year or generally with Transportation bills, because they seem to be all very non-controversial. This is another one of the changes to the Highway Traffic Act that I certainly, on behalf of my party, am pleased to support, as I did just a few minutes earlier with regard to the member for Lincoln and his bill.
The Speaker certainly will remember, but for the other members of the House I must perhaps recall that a little bit more than a year ago the member for Northumberland, who would have liked to be here but unfortunately has another commitment, was also successful in getting an amendment, a change, through the House that allows volunteer firefighters to have a sign at the licence plate indicating that they are -- oh, there's the member for Northumberland; she did make it and she probably will want to speak herself to what she was able to put forward in the House.
I just wanted to use that example as evidence to indicate that in my party we do support the efforts of volunteers, certainly volunteer firefighters and volunteers across the province. We did have another bill that unfortunately we feel very strongly about that works against volunteers, and that's the long-term-care reform bill that was just forced through the House this afternoon which, in our opinion, does not support volunteers.
But this measure here, even though it's a small measure in itself, is still significant for those who do that great service to us. If we can assist them in doing their work, we certainly want to indicate our support and say to the member for Wellington that he's done well, again as I said earlier, to be persistent.
It took him a while as well to reach this stage. I know he came to me about a week ago and made sure that he had my support, and I appreciated that. He did his homework, and I'm glad that he also convinced the House leaders to bring his bill forward still in time for the Christmas season. In that sense, I do wish to leave a little bit of time for the member for Northumberland because this whole question of identifying and helping the volunteer firefighters is very dear to her heart. I just wanted to say on behalf of my party, as the Transportation critic, that we certainly will support this private member's Bill 192.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise in support of my colleague's private member's Bill 192, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters. It's not often that private members' bills get the attention we are seeing here tonight, but I'm pleased to see that my colleague the member for Wellington's bill is getting special attention.
What the member for Wellington really wants to do is repeal subsection 62(16) of the Highway Traffic Act that allows volunteer firefighters to operate a white-and-amber flashing light on the side of a motor vehicle that is proceeding to a fire or other emergency. Private member's Bill 192 would allow both full-time and volunteer firefighters to have a flashing green light on or in their motor vehicles when proceeding to a fire or other emergency.
Citizens in rural Ontario and the rural municipalities rely on volunteer firefighters for the provision of fire protection services that are supplied in this province. These volunteers are usually on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and they give up their evenings and weekends to take courses necessary for upgrading their skills and knowledge of firefighting practices and procedures.
I'm in complete support of private member's Bill 192 because it will undoubtedly result in a quicker response to the scene of a blaze or other emergency, because they would be clearly identified as emergency full-time or volunteer firefighting personnel. We have over 16,000 volunteer firefighters in this province.
I remember speaking in support of private member's Bill 87 on May 16, 1991, which would have authorized the issuance of special licence plates to motor vehicle owners or lessees who are volunteer firefighters. This special plate would clearly identify the vehicle as being operated by a volunteer firefighter. My support for firefighters, both full-time and volunteer, goes back a long way and it is strong. In our municipality we had some 88 firefighters who were volunteers.
I think it is essentially important for us to be considering this private member's bill here tonight, at this particular time of the year. As you know, this is the time of year for all of us to reflect upon the past and pin new hopes on the future. It is a time for family and friends to gather together to share the joys and the traditions of the season, a time to extend the spirit of peace and goodwill. Individuals give generously to ensure a quality of life for others around them.
Interjection.
Mr McLean: The member for Kingston and The Islands is talking about Christmas cards. Being of Scottish background, I'm not sending members Christmas cards this year. I've already wished everyone in the House a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
The corporate sector donates financial support to programs in the volunteer sector, the arts and recreation. We should be especially thankful for the work of our service clubs, our charitable organizations, our church groups and volunteer firefighters who give so much of their time and energy to make life bearable for those less fortunate. These groups are the foundations of society and are fine examples of people who derive personal satisfaction and a sense of wellbeing, putting aside their own interests to do something that will benefit others.
While we may have our own problems, each of us has the responsibility to find the answers. Each of us in our own way can help improve the quality of life for others. We must not forget that we all share the same fundamental values that are the true meaning of this season of fellowship and peace: the basic message of love, the rebirth of hope and optimism and the sharing of our store of affection and material goods with the less fortunate. These are common to all people.
Let us combine the knowledge and the spirit of the season and work together to ensure the coming year is happier and healthier for those in need. I believe that in this Legislature we can all work together to ensure that the coming year is happier and healthier for the people of Ontario who rely on our firefighting services by supporting the member for Wellington's private member's Bill 192, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters.
It has been tremendous to see this bill come forward and it's a compliment to how the member has worked in his riding and how he has brought this bill to the House today. I don't want to see those flashing green lights, but at least when we see them, we'll know who they are. They are those volunteers out there and those firefighters, some 16,000 of them across this province, who are volunteers who are working for the community, putting their lives on the line for the community and are those people we can't do without. I commend the member for Wellington for bringing this bill forward and I thank the government for looking at this bill as something very positive for all the people of Ontario.
1820
Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I just want to compliment the member from Wellington county for bringing this forward. I know that he's been an advocate for this for quite a while and I'm certainly supportive of him in that.
Coming from a rural riding, we all know what it's like when all of a sudden you hear the siren going and the firefighters are coming up every alley and out of parking lots or running out of the stores and wherever they might be working, at the Co-op, and racing to the firehall. This I think is going to be an important safety measure that's going to support the firefighters in our rural ridings where we have a huge amount of fire service; we have to depend on the volunteer firefighters. So with that, I just wanted to say that I compliment the member from Wellington county and I appreciate him bringing it forward, and certainly, the cooperation of all of the members of the House, to see this through today.
Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I too am very, very pleased to have a chance to put a few words on the record in reference to Bill 192, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters. I know that at the time when we were debating my bill, Bill 87, which allowed all firefighters to put the stickers on their licence plates, the member for Wellington was very, very helpful and certainly supported my bill. I do want to extend that same cooperation because I know that the firefighters across the province will be very, very happy to have this bill go forward.
I think we all know the service that all firefighters in the province provide to us. Very often we don't realize that when the siren goes off or the bells go off that bring the firefighters to attention, knowing that they may have to reply to any kind of a disaster or a need, that they're there, they're ready to put their very lives on the line and we are truly grateful. I think anything that we can do to facilitate them, anything we can do to make their job easier and more safe, is something that we in this Legislature should always try to do.
We know that the dedication of all firefighters -- I guess the ones who I am more familiar with are the volunteer firefighters. We know that they are truly an inspiration to us all. They are willing to give up evenings or weekends to make sure that they have all of the up-to-date knowledge and methods in which to be trained fully so that they can respond in the best possible manner. We also know that with the rapid changes of today and the technology that's out there and the different kinds of fires and disasters that can happen, they must be fully knowledgeable.
I want to really commend the member for Wellington for bringing this forward because I know that when I was having a lot of discussions with the firefighting associations and the men across this province, they were at that time looking towards the day when they would be able to have the flashing light on their vehicles that would enable them to get to either the disaster scene or to the firehall more easily and be able to be recognized so that they could get there and do their jobs that much better.
I too am grateful that the government is bringing forward this legislation very quickly. I know I had a little more trouble getting mine finally there, but I was very, very happy when it did happen.
Just two months ago, I had the pleasure of helping some of the firefighters in my riding put the stickers on their licence plates, and I know they're going to be very happy now to have the option of the flashing light, because I think that is certainly going to be even better.
I want to compliment the member. I know he's very interested in this and will continue, hopefully, to help the firefighters right across the province do their job safer and do the job they want to do. So compliments to the member.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate. The member for Renfrew -- Lanark-Renfrew.
Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The member for Renfrew North is on recess right now, but he can afford to do that. He does a very good job and he can do it in much less time than I can.
It's my pleasure to take a few minutes to support our member for Wellington; not only to support him on a private member's bill such as this that he's brought forward, but this bill indicates his thoughtfulness and his sincerity in representing his riding. He understands the people in his riding, he understands the needs. I have witnessed our member for Wellington on different occasions, and even though he displays a youthful appearance, he has quite a mature and experienced mind, and there are many reasons for that.
I was talking with the previous member for Wellington a short time ago and he brought to my attention, as the present member has, how they had great communication and understanding and one learned from the other. We in this Legislature and especially the people from Wellington are here now not only to experience the legislation that a member such as the present member for Wellington will bring forward but also in that legislation will be the experience behind him of the previous member, whom many of you know much better than I do.
Relative to the bill and to the previous speakers, the bill is quite clear and I know it's something that's been needed for some time. As reeve of the township of Montague, I used to get communications, verbal and in writing, complaining about people speeding down side roads and so on and even going through red lights. We didn't have that many in the township of Montague, but when it did happen, I was surprised for a while at the number of calls coming in.
The fire chief I had at that time is recently elected to council in the township of Montague. He's going to be an excellent addition to that council because he knows the township and he understands it. He has been a fireman and he understands that whole department very well as a former fire chief.
At different times, he would explain to me that some of his people were in the more urban areas of Montague township and much closer to the firehall, but the firemen who were farther out, and certainly very valuable members of the fire department, had a distance to travel. Of course, they took their job very seriously, they wanted to be there on time, and I know they did take chances in going through crossroad intersections and so on.
This is going to be a great safety device for them, to identify their vehicle with the flashing green light that they are in fact on their way to serve their community and to serve the people as volunteer firemen or full-time firemen. In the township of Montague, we didn't have any full-time firemen; we had all volunteer people, including the chief. I think we were very fortunate in that.
1830
I know across the province of Ontario, I believe it's 80% -- I could be corrected on that; 76% or something like that -- that are volunteer firemen. There's a very small percentage that are full-time salaried people. We who live in our communities tend to take it for granted.
It's really a very moving time here tonight, if you will, that we have one of our younger members, representing the riding of Wellington, who understands all of this and has taken the time to put together a bill and bring it forward that will offer protection to those people and will offer protection to the general public in allowing the road to be cleared while they perform their duty.
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I'm pleased to join in the discussion on this bill this evening as the minister responsible for firefighters, the fire code in the province and the fire marshal's office. I too want to acknowledge the efforts of the member for Wellington, to congratulate him and to acknowledge his contribution to fire safety in the province. Also to again acknowledge the contribution of the member for Northumberland and her efforts with the stickers. I think it points to a number of things that are true and can be said about firefighting and public safety, in general about this place.
Number one is that when it comes the issue of public safety, time and time again, this particular Parliament I think can feel very proud about the fact that we have set aside partisan politics over and over again to do the right thing. We can speak on a number of issues and I suspect it's probably been done more in this Parliament than in any other in the past, certainly as it relates to initiatives coming from members who are not from the governing party, whose bills are allowed to become law because it's a good thing and it contributes positively to public safety -- in this case, firefighting.
I know in my work with the volunteer firefighters of Ontario, they make a contribution that just cannot be measured by dollars alone. Literally hundreds of millions of dollars of value in terms of the contribution that they give of themselves, for their community, are received by the people of Ontario. If we ever attempted to compensate for that by directly funding, either through the province or municipal governments, we couldn't do it. We would bankrupt ourselves trying to offset the money and the contribution that they make. Like the police and other emergency response entities in Ontario, we have I think the finest group of professionals, whether they are volunteer or full-time, to be seen anywhere.
I'm so very proud of my opportunity to be a part of that community. I think very much both the members for Wellington and Northumberland join with me in being a part of that and that you should both feel very proud of the contribution you've made. I'm pleased that we've done it in partnership and that once again we've shown collectively, as politicians, representatives of our communities that when public safety is at risk, when there's a measure that needs to be taken and we can't afford as people of Ontario to play politics, we're prepared to set that aside and do the right thing. This evening's bill is another example of that.
Again, because it cannot be said enough: I want to compliment both of the members for their efforts and your contribution to public safety. My experience has been in municipal government and, where no matter what happens in one's political career in the future, this is one of those things that you walk away from and say, "I made a difference; I made a contribution." For both of you, that will be there every time you see volunteer firefighters responding or hear that they've responded, that they've saved a life, that they've been there when it mattered, and you made a difference in helping them to do that. For that, all of us are very grateful for your initiative and I'm pleased that our government was comfortable enough with the idea that it would be an opposition member's bill because perhaps, without that, it might not have gotten on the agenda and it needed to.
I close by again acknowledging your contribution. Thank you for your efforts. I know that I speak on behalf of everyone involved in firefighting in Ontario when we say thank you for your efforts; you have made a difference with these initiatives.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I wasn't going to speak on this bill, but I'm going to speak on every bill tonight now and I do think this is an important bill to have before the Legislative Assembly. I want to commend the member for taking the initiative. There was an initiative, as has been mentioned previously, by Mrs Fawcett, the member for Northumberland, which was I think extremely helpful. This will be helpful once again to those who have a very difficult responsibility out there. Anybody who is at all familiar with firefighting and other emergency cases that are dealt with by firefighters in this province would recognize that it's important that they be able to get to the firehall in a rapid fashion, that they are able to get there in a safe fashion. The assistance that is rendered to them through this Legislative Assembly by the agreement to the bill by Mrs Fawcett, by Mr Arnott, by these two bills, will certainly help them.
Very often, we take for granted in our province, and perhaps in all jurisdictions, the difficulty faced by people who are fighting fires, people who are involved in emergency circumstances, and I think we try to recognize them as often as possible and as much as we can in a practical sense. This legislation is a practical piece of legislation. It will be of assistance. I know there are always people who will express some concerns about some problems that can arise trafficwise and so on. I don't think that should be a problem. I think that the flashing green light is extremely important to these individuals. There is a problem, according to Mr Arnott, who helped me out with some of the details of his bill, not simply in leaving their homes and on their way to the firehall, but particularly, as one gets closer to the firehall there is a great concern that there may be some safety hazards, that they may not be able to get to the firefighting equipment as rapidly as possible.
For this reason, I think it's appropriate that this bill move forward. It is a straightforward initiative. It's not one that's complicated. It's not one that requires a lot of comment by those in the bureaucracy. It's the kind of very practical piece of legislation which is needed and I think most particularly in the rural and smaller town and midsize town areas, as opposed to the huge urban areas. Nevertheless, I think it can be beneficial to all.
Many of us have seen the injuries that have been incurred by members of fire departments who have been involved in acts of heroism, in some cases involving fires, in other cases involving potential drownings or other disasters that are out there. I believe that it's important for us to move forward with this bill. I am pleased that the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has advanced this as one of the pieces of legislation that he would like to see passed. The member for Wellington has in fact appropriately informed individual members of the Legislature, by means of a direct letter and by means of his discussion of the bill this afternoon, of its importance, of the fact that it's very practical. Certainly, as we get closer to a provincial election, it's a time of less charity very often, in terms of the compliments that are passed out. I think there are occasions where those partisan considerations are put to the side. There's nothing partisan about this bill at all. It's a most appropriate piece of legislation and I want to indicate my personal support and the support of the Liberal caucus for this piece of legislation.
Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): It's an honour and a pleasure today to rise to state my support for Bill 192, a private member's bill to amend the Highway Traffic Act. I too want to share in this House's congratulations to my colleague the member for Wellington. I believe that he's addressed a problem that has arisen throughout rural Ontario. I know this summer, as I attended functions, I was often talking with firefighters in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, members from the Oakwood fire department, the Woodville fire department, as well as the Haliburton and Minden detachments. They had heard that there might be changes to allow for flashing green lights on volunteer firemen's vehicles and they wanted to know what was happening. In that vein, I wrote a letter to the Minister of Transportation asking for clarification on this and I was pleased to be informed by my colleague the member for Wellington that his private member's bill would clear up this uncertainty and allow this commonsense approach to put into law this fall.
1840
The bill repeals subsection 62(16) of the Highway Traffic Act that allows volunteer firefighters to operate a white and amber flashing light on the side of their motor vehicle; that is, proceeding to a fire or other emergency. Private member's Bill 192 would allow both full-time and volunteer firefighters to have a flashing green light on or in their motor vehicle while proceeding to a fire or other emergency.
Citizens in Victoria-Haliburton's rural municipalities rely almost entirely on volunteer firefighters for the provision of fire protection services. These volunteers are usually on call 24 hours a day, if any emergency happens, seven days a week. They give up their evenings and their weekends to take courses necessary for the upgrading of their skills and the knowledge of firefighting practices and procedures.
I'm in complete support of private member's Bill 192 because it will undoubtedly result in a quicker response and a safer response to the scene of a blaze or other emergency because they would be clearly identified as emergency full-time or volunteer firefighting personnel. With the passage of this bill, the public will also become accustomed to realizing what a flashing green light means and respond appropriately.
I want to again thank the member and to thank all the volunteer firefighters, especially in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton, for their dedicated service to their communities to make life in our rural communities a little easier and a little better place to live.
Mr Arnott has moved second reading of Bill 192, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon Mr Christopherson: Mr Speaker, refer the bill to committee of the whole.
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ÉLECTIONS MUNICIPALES
Mr Runciman moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 191, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act / Projet de loi 191, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les élections municipales.
Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to pose a question to whomever is in charge of the House for the government. Perhaps they were looking to me to move into committee of the whole. I'm not sure what their procedure was. I know there was an agreement and I have an amendment to move in committee of the whole. Whether there's been some change in that direction or not, I'm not sure, Mr Speaker, so I'm looking for some guidance from the acting House leader for the government.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We move to committee of the whole after second reading, after the bill has been debated. Only at that time can you move to committee of the whole.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They ask the question after we consent.
Mr Runciman: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker.
This bill was tabled in the House following the recent municipal elections, based on feedback received by a number of members of the Legislature, specifically those representing the more populated regions of the province; certainly a significant number of comments made in the Metropolitan Toronto area in respect to people who were unable, for a variety of reasons, to make it to the polling stations prior to the closing time of 8 pm. The late opening time of 10 am prohibited significant numbers from attending the polling stations prior to their requirement to be in their workplace.
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): What's the number of the bill?
Mr Runciman: Bill 191.
There have been a number of concerns raised. When the legislation was tabled, I did talk to officials within the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Their primary concern seemed to be that it's been a tradition to review the Municipal Act following municipal elections and to present a package of changes, if you will, at some future date dealing with perhaps a number of weaknesses, flaws, what have you, that have become evident as a result of the latest municipal elections across the province.
I appreciate that concern as indicated by ministry officials, but I think in this instance we're dealing with a relatively modest change which could have a significant impact on turnout in municipal elections. This is a change that has been undertaken by a significant number of jurisdictions in the United States. Many of them have moved to a 6 am polling opening time and the results have been positive.
I know there's some question about impact, but we believe what this bill is doing is simply making it easier, nothing more and nothing less than making it easier, for people to exercise their democratic duty.
Again, in looking at the heavily urbanized areas like Metropolitan Toronto, this can only aid commuters or those who feel they're too busy or too far from home to take time out of their working day to go home and vote. A recent study showed it takes an average of 59 minutes to get to work, and this bill just gives people time in the morning before they start their busy day. Who knows how many voters, tired from a long day, shrug their shoulders because they can't be bothered to make it to the polls before they close?
One of the other concerns that has been expressed about this initiative is the cost. Polling stations are historically and traditionally in schools, in churches, that are either offered free of charge or for a very nominal fee for the entire day. So the extension of two hours of additional polling time is not going to result in any burdensome increase in cost to a municipality.
Workers at polling stations are paid by the day, not by the hour, so again, we do not see any increase in cost forthcoming as a result of this change in respect to the payment for workers.
I simply have to point out to the people in this assembly and the people who work for the provincial government that we have all faced in some way, shape or form the results of the social contract, where people were and are continuing to be asked to work for free for several days out of the year. I don't see many, if any, people quitting as a result of those changes occurring. So to suggest seriously that the extension of voting hours for two hours earlier in the day is going to have any significant impact on the morale of employees or their willingness to work in polling stations in municipal elections simply is difficult to swallow.
I think again this is a very modest change which is simply going to make the ability to vote that much easier for many, many people in this province. Certainly we want to encourage a much more significant turnout in municipal elections than we've experienced in many instances across this province for the past 30, 40, 50 years.
1850
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As the member just pointed out, it is a modest change. I will support second reading of this bill. I'd like to see more study done on it. In fact, this afternoon I was talking to the clerks and treasurers' association, and they're aware of the bill, but no consultation has taken place.
What was pointed out to me by the association was the possibility of extra cost. As you know, deputy returning officers and municipal election workers are paid by the day and not by the hour. Also, to my surprise, I was told that most of the workers in a municipal election are senior citizens, retired people, and by extending by only two hours the voting hours they were asking themselves, "Is this a good move?" This is why they would like to be consulted and look at the possibility of improving the opportunities for people to vote at the municipal level.
I agree with the member that there seems to be not a great interest in municipal elections. We must remember that people are given four different opportunities to vote at the municipal level. We have three advance polls. Also, you can vote by proxy and from 10 to 8 o'clock in the evening. I think people have ample time to go and vote. Also, your employer is supposed to give you three hours to cast your vote.
Mr Perruzza: They never do, though.
Mr Grandmaître: They never do, but I think we have to find a way. I think the ministry has a responsibility to find a way to educate people. I think AMO and the clerks and treasurers association of Ontario have a responsibility to promote municipal elections in the province and to invite people to take part in municipal elections because, as you know, municipal government is supposed to be the government closest to the people. It affects your life every day.
When you talk about municipal services, you're talking about policing, you're talking about firefighters, you're talking about public works, waterworks, sewer people, you name it, transportation. Your whole life is affected by municipal services and we would like to see, and I suppose the member would like to see, more people go out and cast their vote.
I will support second reading, but I hope the member is not expecting to have reading this evening.
Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much for the opportunity to put a couple of very brief comments on the record. I'm going to support this bill because what this bill would do, and everybody's really clear on it, it would change the time that you would vote during a municipal election from 10 in the morning to 8 at night and it would allow polls to open a little earlier.
I've always found it to be a really big problem when the polls open at 10 o'clock because what it does, it really sort of filters out and filters away a lot of the people who would otherwise to be able to vote in a municipal election, and I understand why that's so. Sometimes we don't want a whole lot of people voting in elections. You want very specific groups of people to be able to vote.
I think that what this does, it allows for more involvement in the municipal election process by more people, and in that regard anything we can do to facilitate more involvement by more of our citizenry in the election and electoral process, I believe, is a very good thing because when very small minorities of citizens actually get out and vote, you know, when you get 26%, 27%, 28% of the people eligible to vote out to vote, it's a very select group. A lot of the times you end up with representatives nobody really wants. They hang around for years and they're not essentially turfed out or voted out, or retired would be a much more polite word to use.
In that regard, I support the member for Leeds-Grenville in this very noble and worthwhile initiative. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that not a day passes in this Legislature when I am not surprised by some of the things that are brought forward by some of the members, and for a Conservative member to bring forward such a leading-edge, democratic-type bill is indeed surprising and a credit to the member for Leeds-Grenville.
Mr Bradley: I want to indicate my personal support for this bill presented this evening by the member for Leeds-Grenville. All of us would like to encourage more people to vote in all elections. The real problem in our country has been municipal elections.
It's interesting to note that our record of participation in elections is far greater than that of the United States. People think of the United States as being the great democracy. They have a presidential election where you actually can choose the one person who has the most power. They have senators, governors, members of Congress, members of their state assembly, often the people who are running for various local offices all at once. One would think that, with that much emphasis, they would get a good turnout. I believe the last election in the United States, the congressional elections, drew 37% of the people, because in the United States, one has to register to vote, as opposed to here, where one is enumerated.
What this bill does, or is designed to do, is to make it even more accommodating to the potential voter to exercise a franchise. The way we work today, with the various times that people go into work and the various times that people come home from work, not the routine 9-to-5 or 8-to-4 or 7-to-3 shifts that we're into, it is more difficult for people to vote. Often, by the time they are coming home from work, they have other obligations to meet, obligations that may have arisen during the day and prevent them from voting. That is why it is useful to have more time for those people to be able to vote.
Whenever you deal with these matters, however, what you find out is one of the sets of people you have to deal with are the people who are operating the elections, the people who are staying there as poll clerks, as deputy returning officers, as other officers of the municipality. We will have to accommodate them, of course, and I think the municipalities will do that in terms of lunches that are available and other necessary breaks that might be taken.
So it will be a bit more onerous in that regard. There will be somewhat of an increase in cost, but a modest increase that I don't think is the kind of increase which is going to break the bank. Although I know that there are many out campaigning today who want to cut a lot of expenditures --
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: -- this would in fact, the member for Chatham-Kent tells me, increase the provincial budget by $2 million, which is interesting to hear in itself.
Now, as a person who is consistently wanting to accommodate the electorate out there, to make it easier for people to vote, to participate in our democratic system, I am supportive of this. I am supportive of it fully in the knowledge that the cost will be an additional $2 million. I am prepared to put that on the table and say that I still am in favour of this piece of legislation, despite the fact that it will mean an additional expenditure by government of $2 million at a time when there's a lot of discussion of cutting back in various areas from various people in the province.
I do indicate my support. I think it's going to be useful to people who are the electorate. The member for Chatham-Kent may want to help us out a little in this debate by telling us what some of the consequences are. He has indicated that, but at this time I think that, despite some of the drawbacks we may have, that becomes a problem.
Anyway, we are here to support it. I am hopeful that this bill will be able to proceed through all of its stages this evening and of course tomorrow. I am quite willing, I might add, to sit all next week in case this bill doesn't make it. I know the member for Leeds-Grenville is probably willing to sit next week, if it took next week to pass this bill. And I'd be delighted to come back in January, if it took into January to pass this legislation. But I'm afraid we are limited to a 20-day session and so perhaps the very extensive and comprehensive debate that's required with legislation of this kind will not take place, as a result.
1900
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Is there a cost associated with it?
Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent tells me the cost is $2 million, and he may be rising to speak briefly to that because he's a person who likes to take into account those kinds of expenditures, the additional expenditures that are out there.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion and indicate my support for the bill.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Just a few remarks. I know the member opposite was trying to get me to get up, and I believe I will.
I have a problem with this in expanding the hours. Currently, we have advance polls where people can vote and we have on the day of the election significant hours. Why I reflect on this is because when we establish elections for offices and do it by democratic processes in our workplaces for elections of union officials, we conduct those elections right in the workplace and still the percentage of turnout is very low.
The member has put a very token piece which says it will want to expand the hours to allow more people to participate, but I have to ask, are they going to participate? Those who believe in participating in municipal elections take advantage of the advance polls and take advantage of the polling on that day.
One of the things I must indicate is to the people who will have to get up earlier now, to set the polls in place for the day of the event when the election is to take place. They'll have to get up probably about 6 o'clock in the morning, start their day earlier and run it later, and it is an excruciating day.
If you take a look at what is being proposed here -- and remember, you're talking about a lot of municipalities which are going to absorb extra costs -- you're looking at a substantial amount of money -- and I use rough figures, I'm no mathematical genius -- about two million bucks when you start adding every municipality in this province.
So the member who is raising this -- and I had always believed that he came from the Conservatives --
Mr Bradley: He's part of the revolution.
Mr Hope: Yes, that's part of the revolution where it says, "Don't start it without me" in the Mike Harris toy.
I would just raise some very serious concerns. I believe more discussion has to take place with the municipalities, because we know how municipalities are. They yell and scream at us when we offload. This is a provincial piece of legislation and we're being asked by the Conservative Party to offload on to the municipalities and put an additional cost to these individuals. I'm quite sure the municipalities, the way they've been telling us, are going to take exception to this.
I would just say to the member opposite, it's nice. If you want to allow more people opportunity to vote, what about more advance polls? You're talking about spending two million bucks or more. Why don't you divert that changeover to another day to allow more flexibility for people to have access to voting? Currently, you only have two advance polls. Why not three or four advance polls to allow them the opportunity to participate?
To the member opposite, as one who has experienced this in our workplaces, we have held it right at the door when they walk into the workplace, the chance to vote, and they still walk by the voting booth. I don't know if this change that you're asking for is going to allow more people to actually cast that ballot and take a more proactive approach in municipal elections.
That is my contribution, Mr Speaker. I know the member opposite will consider this legislation. I also wonder if he's done a preliminary cost of what this will be to our municipalities, which are fundamentally opposed to offloading any regulations on to them.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr Runciman has moved second reading of Bill 191, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Mr Speaker, refer the bill to committee of the whole.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'ÉVALUATION FONCIÈRE
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading on the following bill:
Bill 197, An Act to amend the Assessment Act / Projet de loi 197, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'évaluation foncière.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I won't take too long with my comments because I think the second reading debate really addressed what is going on here. I think most people understand the history of the concern regarding assessment for anchor tenants versus smaller tenants, the changes between being assessed on square footage versus being assessed on rent and the fact that, because Metropolitan Toronto has not gone through a market value assessment, change had not occurred.
Then there were appeals of the actual assessments and this was going to create a great burden for the smaller tenants, including some who would have to pay up to 800% more in their property taxes, obviously an overwhelming increase and I don't think any business would want to absorb, in a difficult time or in a good economic time, such a large increase at once.
As a result of the concerns and the sense that many of the small tenants in the malls would go under, the Ministry of Finance became involved and acted as a facilitator to bring the parties together and continue dialogue. There was a spirit of goodwill by both sides. I give credit to the large anchors and to the smaller anchors. A compromise deal was worked out for the next couple of years.
This bill is really to legislate that deal, as the parties had asked for that to be done and the ministry and the government have seen fit to bring forward this bill to do that. I know there has been, in the second reading debate, support expressed by the opposition parties. We greatly appreciate that support and their cooperation in having this bill go through, because I know they're concerned about it. I'm sure they'll want to make a couple of comments about some of the issues related to this bill.
Let me just say too that throughout some of this discussion there was some concern raised as to whether, while we are doing this bill specifically for Metropolitan Toronto, it may have ramifications for other parts of the province where a similar situation may come up. I just want to put on the record again -- and I believe it was the member for Oriole who said that three Rs were in existence in this case having to do with -- and I forget what the three Rs were. One was reassessment; recession, I think, was one of the other ones and there was a third one.
Market value assessments or reassessments have been done in most of the other areas across the province and the changes have occurred and have been implemented. Our understanding is that you will not see similar circumstances come together to require legislation in other parts of the province.
There still may be other issues related to assessment in other parts of the province that people may be concerned about -- fair enough. This specific type of situation that we're rectifying regarding several malls in the Metropolitan Toronto area -- there are not circumstances similar to this across the province.
Again, I want to just congratulate all the parties involved for helping to bring this about, for their good intention and goodwill to seek a compromise agreement.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? Any further debate?
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I wanted to begin the discussion on the bill by saying I think all of us here probably should appreciate, and I guess we do, that this is a symptom of a much bigger problem in Metropolitan Toronto. If anyone here -- and there's no one in the Legislature who believes this but there may be some people out there who think this is kind of the solution to a tax problem. It's a worthwhile Band-Aid on it.
Our party is supportive of this but I wanted to spend just a moment to put it into a broader context because it's an issue that, without doubt -- I hope I'm not exaggerating -- is reaching in Metropolitan Toronto, I think, close to a crisis. The crisis has to do with the property tax, the way property taxes are allocated in Metropolitan Toronto and the impact of that.
The most startling impact is on the job situation in Metropolitan Toronto. I have been truly struck by the constant job loss in Metropolitan Toronto. When we talk Metropolitan Toronto we are talking the area that is the legal boundary of Metro Toronto: Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough, East York, York and the city of Toronto.
1910
At one time, clearly, the lowest unemployment rate in the country was here in Metropolitan Toronto. Jobs were being created at a very significant rate, but we've seen in the last five years a very, very dramatic decrease in the number of jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. We've lost approximately 15% of the jobs in Metro Toronto. Just to perhaps dramatize it slightly more, Metro Toronto has lost almost 200,000 jobs in the last five years. At the same time, by the way, the rest of Ontario has gained approximately 100,000 jobs. So when we look at our employment problem in Ontario, it is very, very heavily weighted to Metropolitan Toronto. Just think about that: 15% of the jobs, 200,000 fewer jobs.
Strangely enough, tragically enough, even when we're seeing quite good job growth in Ontario right now, in the first 11 months of 1994 -- we're almost through the year -- Metro Toronto has lost another 36,000 jobs. We now have in Metro Toronto 1,124,000 jobs approximately and in 1989 we had 1,312,000 jobs approximately. We've lost almost 200,000 jobs and even right now, in the first 11 months -- we're almost through the calendar year -- we've lost another 36,000 jobs. At the same time, outside of Metro Toronto in the first 11 months of this year we've seen job growth of 100,000 jobs. There can be no doubt, zero doubt, that Metro Toronto is really struggling on the job front, and there are several reasons for that.
Clearly, in talking to the business community and talking to our politicians here in Metro Toronto and talking to the economists in Metro Toronto, they will tell you the single most important reason is the property tax that businesses are paying in Metro Toronto. The board of trade did, I thought, a very responsible piece of research. They called it Killing the Golden Goose. Obviously, the theme of that was that Metro Toronto, historically, I think it's fair to say, the golden goose in Ontario, is clearly suffering and struggling very badly right now. They point out there that one only has to cross the geographic boundaries out of Metropolitan Toronto to Mississauga, to Peel, to Durham to find that your tax rate in many cases can be literally half of what businesses are paying in Metropolitan Toronto.
What we saw here in this particular situation was that in our major malls, our shopping malls in Metropolitan Toronto, the major tenants there -- they're called anchor tenants, the large stores there -- appealed the way they were being allocated the property tax. The property tax for the shopping mall was allocated and then these large stores appealed their share of it, and they won that. They got quite a dramatic reduction in the level of taxation. Clearly, the mall owners had then one recourse, because legally they pass on all of the property tax to the tenants. The large tenants got their taxes reduced dramatically; it was passed on to all the small tenants and these are the lifeblood of shopping malls. The result was that many of them were on the verge of bankruptcy, no question of that.
So the agreement that's been reached is useful. It was negotiated between the major tenants, the anchors, and the smaller tenants. It's a negotiated settlement and this legislation is required to implement that negotiated settlement. Therefore, certainly from our party's point of view, we will be supporting it, but it would be a mistake, I think, to not point out that behind this situation is a very serious, growing and -- as I said earlier, it's reaching a crisis, and the most obvious part of that crisis is the job loss in Metropolitan Toronto. Believe me, Metro Toronto can't sustain that level of job loss. It impacts virtually everything. It impacts, for example, the TTC. If you've lost 15% of the jobs, the Toronto Transit Commission clearly is impacted by that, so we're seeing that even in spite of the upturn in the economy around the province, the TTC ridership is still well below what they had projected it would be.
It isn't just the TTC that's impacted. As businesses don't grow in Metro Toronto, the tax base gets further eroded. I might say that it isn't just the mall tenants that have appealed their taxes in Metro Toronto, there are literally tens of thousands of appeals going on right now of homeowners, of business owners who are appealing their taxes in Metro Toronto. If you talk to the politicians in Metro Toronto, they will confirm that the assessment base is being slowly but surely eroded. It becomes clearly a vicious circle where if the assessment base is eroded, taxes, unfortunately, end up going up or services down. There's no other alternative; you cut services or you increase taxes, and we do run the risk of Metro Toronto slowly eroding. It will not be obvious. There will not be one simple event that will determine that. It's like any other trend, it occurs over time. It occurs on a daily basis and trends are difficult to dramatize because they are trends. The continuing drop in employment in Metro Toronto is obvious and should be a huge signal to us. The continued erosion of the tax base in Metro Toronto is a signal and should be clearly recognized.
The board of trade, as I said -- a very responsible piece of work they've done on analyzing the situation. They go on to point out, for example -- I think most of us know that in Metro Toronto 100% of the cost of public education is borne by the property taxpayers. There is zero money from the province. 100% metropolitan public education is borne off Metro property taxes and, if I remember the amount of money, I think it's well over $2 billion.
The allocation of provincial funds for education is based on "ability to pay" and so it's a principle I think all of us here in the Legislature support, that the quality of your education in Ontario should not be determined by the property tax base. There should be an opportunity for equality of opportunity around the province regardless of where you live. The board of trade do point out that when we are dealing with inconsistencies of valuation of property around the province, and it is the valuation of property that the province uses to allocate its education dollars, some school boards may get 60% or 70% of their revenue from the province and 30% or 40% from property tax, others less than that, and in the case of Metro Toronto, 100% off property tax, zero off the province.
The point is this: If the basis on which that is allocated no longer is comparable; in other words, there's a completely different base in Metro Toronto than other jurisdictions, the board of trade pointed out, and I think they've got a point, that we may be using the methods of allocating our funds incorrectly, and that may very well be adding to our problems.
You often hear, which is true, one of the amazing strengths we've got here in Ontario is the quality of life in our major urban areas. I don't think there's any doubt that the quality of life in Metro Toronto, for a city of over two million people, is unparalleled in North America. I don't think you will find another urban area of two million people with the quality of life, the levels of service we have here, the quality of our infrastructure, the quality of our business community, the safe communities we have. One doesn't want to be alarmist and say we are drifting to becoming like many of the major US cities that have their problems, but I think we would make a huge mistake if we simply pass this bill and not recognize that it is another signpost along this road saying there's some growing trouble ahead.
1920
You can see the enormous battles going on out there right now by businesses attempting to get their property taxes adjusted. I have one in my own constituency. It is, to use the term, a state-of-the-art printing operation, called Webcom. They are well known in the printing industry. They are investing in technology. They're the kind of model company you'd like to see in Ontario: They can compete around North America, they invest in technology. But they have a problem. They want to expand in the area I represent, Scarborough-Agincourt; they have the space there, they have a good building, there is an opportunity for them to expand, but they are truly faced with a major problem. The property taxes they're paying there are dramatically higher than they would pay in other jurisdictions in Ontario, so much so that it's very difficult for them to justify expanding. They are trying to find a way to get a reassessment done on that property. They've been unsuccessful.
The mayor of Scarborough and myself have appealed to the ministry to at least take a look at it. I think the ministry staff have at least looked at it, but I guess their hands are tied, because so many appeals are going on and so many businesses are desperate to somehow or other find a way to get their property taxes on a competitive basis that Webcom simply can't get the reassessment done. That may very well be the right decision, but it is symptomatic, as I said, of a much bigger problem, that is, that businesses in Metro Toronto are finding it more and more difficult to stay here with the level of taxation.
I didn't want this bill to simply go through without those comments. I might say in closing that the solutions are not going to be easy. As I said earlier, the way you reduce property taxes is you cut expenditures or you reallocate them. Neither of those is painless. If you reallocate, everybody wants their property taxes to go down and somebody else to pay more. There are two or three things that really touch a button in Ontario and one of them is property taxes. The solution is not going to be easy, but there is zero doubt that we're heading towards a wall at a fairly high rate of speed here in Metropolitan Toronto, and all of us are going to have to work with the levels of government in Metropolitan Toronto and work together to find a solution.
We've dealing with a Band-Aid tonight that we're applying to a specific situation. I'm supportive of it; I'm very supportive of our small outlets in our shopping malls. Had this bill not been presented, they would have been in a terrible spot, many of them unable to carry on, and this is going to be helpful to them -- not perfect, but helpful. So I'll be supporting it but hoping we're listening carefully, that this is simply another cry for help from the business community in Metropolitan Toronto on the property tax front.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt is absolutely right. While I'm on my feet, maybe I should ask the member for Oxford, the parliamentary assistant, who is the mover of this bill, is this the end of the Fair Tax Commission? Is this the result of the Fair Tax Commission? The Fair Tax Commission people couldn't find a solution so they're introducing Bill 197. If that's their thought, I don't think this bill will resolve the serious situation in Metro.
As pointed out by the previous speaker, I think residential taxpayers in Metro will certainly take a second look at that being done with this bill. I congratulate the government for bringing out somewhat a partial solution; it's not a total solution. I can understand why the small retailers are satisfied with this bill, but I'd like to remind the government that this is only the tip of the iceberg and people in Metro will continue to appeal their municipal taxes because they think they're being taxed unfairly.
I hope this is only part of their total solution, because now I can see that the Fair Tax Commission report will be put aside, accumulate dust -- forget about farms in the area and also residential taxes. I just want to remind the government this is not the end, the total solution, to reassessment or assessment in Metro. It's only the beginning.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to take just a couple of minutes to express some concerns I have with regard to this bill. Number one is the fact that it's really Metro-oriented, dealing with Metro. What about the malls in other parts of this province that have the same problem? What did the Fair Tax Commission bring forward dealing with this very issue? I don't believe they brought anything forward.
The issue that has come before this Legislature through Bill 197 is really the issue of what they call unfair assessment. You go to a mall and you have some of the smaller businesses in the mall paying so much on a square-footage basis; you have the large businesses in the mall paying a different rate on the square-footage basis. So what is this bill doing? Really, it is saying to the people that there is a difference.
When I read in the paper about market value assessment, that has not yet been introduced in Metro, and the concerns people have raised about market value assessment, and when I see councillors who have run for Metro council out there saying to people, "You must appeal your assessment because we're going to get you a break" -- there's a whole big area here of property assessment. I've always believed that market value assessment was a fair way to deal with everyone. It was based on the value of what you owned. Today, we see many different avenues used when they appeal those assessments.
There is room for debate here, and when I look at what Bill 197 is dealing with, the Assessment Amendment Act, it certainly leaves it open for a lot of people to bring their ideas forward.
1930
The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comments of both colleagues because they both focused on what's called the Fair Tax Commission. I will just remind people out there what that was. We never called it the Fair Tax Commission; we always called it the NDP tax commission. But it was the tax commission set up shortly after the last provincial election, and its mandate was to --
Mr McLean: It's Bob's tax commission now.
Mr Phillips: Bob's tax commission or whatever. But its mandate was to come forward with some fairly fundamental changes in the tax system.
I remember very clearly in the last election, because many of my colleagues got defeated in Metro Toronto on this, that the NDP promised they would dramatically increase the funding for education in Metropolitan Toronto; they made a whole bunch of promises to the Metro school board.
None of that has happened, and every time the question of how we're going to deal with all the taxation problems in Metro Toronto was raised, the Fair Tax Commission was the solution; that was what was always used to put everybody off. As a matter of fact, if you remember the debate here at the Legislature, when Metro council had a proposal, right down to the very end -- the Legislature was scheduled to pass it and 24 hours, at the most, before we were going to vote on it, the government withdrew support for it and said, "The Fair Tax Commission is going to propose the solutions for us."
Now the Fair Tax Commission has had its report out for well over a year and there's nothing happening. So I thank my colleagues for pointing out that the Fair Tax Commission is supposed to have been the solution -- zero, nothing has happened on that. And here we have a growing problem: The mall problem is merely a symptom of a huge property tax problem in Metro Toronto, and the government has done nothing on it.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for his contribution to the debate. Is there further debate?
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make some remarks with respect to Bill 197, the Assessment Amendment Act. I admit that speaking on this bill which deals with a Metro Toronto problem, as someone from a riding which is some hour-and-a-half to two-hour ride from Metro, is a bit unusual. Having been born in Toronto and having been educated in Toronto, I suppose I speak because I do know some of the issues in Toronto.
There's no question that people in my riding still look at Toronto as the hub of activity, as a place where we have baseball, hockey --
Mr Sutherland: Not right now.
Mr Tilson: -- theatre, pretty well everything. Well, you're right: It's not true right now. That's a concern I will get to, the strikes that seem to be causing a problem with the system.
But there's no question that how Toronto goes, how Ontario goes. Although many of us do not represent ridings in Metro Toronto, I think it's an obligation for us to at least look at that issue. I think the member for Oxford is right, that all members of the House will be supporting this legislation, as piecemeal as it is.
I do look at the attractions Toronto has, the attractions for business, why people come here. I guess we're still, for the third year running, the baseball champs of the world, and we have the Toronto Maple Leafs. Both those leagues, of course, are on strike, and that problem has caused a great deal of job loss, whether they be vendors or people in retail business, not to mention the loss of jobs with respect to the Dome or Maple Leaf Gardens. The spinoff loss is rather difficult and has an effect on not only the large chain stores, the large malls, but the small people in this province, so they have those things to contend with.
Yes, we still have theatre, we still have restaurants. We have some of the finest restaurants in the world, and we have some of the finest theatre in the world. Not taking away from the other great cities of this province, Toronto is certainly the hub of activity, and we're most concerned when we hear of the 200,000 job loss that has been referred to throughout some of the debate.
I must confess, the Fair Tax Commission has been looked at by some of the previous speakers. This was set up with a great fanfare; I think it had a budget of -- what? -- $7 million. I have yet to figure out what the Fair Tax Commission is doing or what it has done.
But we do get concerned about Toronto, the effect of competition, the effect of encouraging people to come to our province, so looking at tax structures, looking at how business is operating is most important to all of us and should be monitored at all times.
This bill was introduced several weeks ago, on November 23, by the Finance minister and has proceeded to where we are now. I must confess I think I'm as cynical as some of the other members of the opposition. It was as if the Finance minister got together and he was the broker between the small people and the big people in coming together to this arrangement.
Interjection.
Mr Tilson: Well, he's taking credit for that. I'm afraid we're not quite as charitable with respect to that.
The passage of this bill provides the Minister of Finance with the authority to alter the apportionment of taxes in Metro shopping malls. That is certainly needed, because businesses are leaving in droves from this city. There's a great concern about vacancies, as to what's going on. People are moving out into the suburbs because they simply can't afford to pay the overhead that they have to run their businesses. It may get to the stage, if something isn't done, that all we'll have are the large anchor stores.
Someone in the Ministry of Finance I believe has put forward a summary which I think would be useful to study, some of the history of this bill and how it arrived to where we are now. I must confess that this isn't something that just happened overnight; this is a serious problem that's been festering for years, and I must confess it's still only a partial solution.
As I understand it, a provision was added to the Assessment Act way back in 1974 which required total assessment of property to be divided among the tenants based on a fair market rent. I have no intention of getting into a contribution at this stage about market value assessment. That's something the government has not dealt with and should be dealing with. The whole issue of taxation is something the province should be dealing with and, for some reason, it has not had the courage to deal with it. Smaller stores have been paying a higher square-foot rent than the larger stores and their assessment and taxes, then, would be higher using this method.
Then, in 1990, following an appeal by the anchor tenants, the Assessment Review Board ruled that the mall taxes would be apportioned on the basis of a fair market rent. By 1993, the anchor tenants were no longer willing to wait for the implementation of this provision, so the provisions of subsection 14(3) of the Assessment Act were then reflected, as a result of that, in the 1994 assessment notices.
The result of this, as I'm sure the member for Oxford will point out, was a shift of $14 million in realty and business taxes from the anchor stores to the allied tenants. It was agreed by all parties to develop a solution that would lower the tax burden on allied tenants. Negotiations during this time took place and the anchor stores, they say, overpaid $8 million in taxes in 1994 as an interim solution to protect the smaller tenants. This negotiated solution would therefore see the anchors continue to forgo $8 million of their tax assessment to assist the allied tenants, pending reassessment.
I gather this is the position of the government and I accept that, and I think this is why we all accept the proposed amendment to this legislation, that unless the legislative amendment is passed, the 1995 tax roll would be released by mid-December, reflecting a $14-million shift to allied tenants. I think we all know that what would happen if that took place is that there would be an even greater series of vacancies to the suburbs, particularly from the small businesses.
1940
This bill, then, allows the minister to vary by regulation the application of subsection 14(3) of the Assessment Act in the apportion of property tax assessments in 33 shopping malls in Metropolitan Toronto. The legislation, as I understand it, and I don't profess to be an expert in assessment or taxes, does appear to prevent a major shift in the property tax burden from the anchor stores to the smaller retailers in the malls. This would have flowed from the application of the 1974 amendment to the Assessment Act which I referred to, which moved the tax base from square footage to fair market rent.
So in Metro Toronto the implementation of this policy was postponed, pending reassessment, and when reassessment didn't occur to the anchor tenants, the anchor tenants appealed the apportionment in 1990 and the Assessment Review Board ruled that mall taxes be apportioned on the basis of fair market rent.
By 1993, the NDP government scuttled another Metro reassessment plan and the anchors ran out of patience, and the 1994 assessments were based on subsection 14(3). This, as I have already stated, resulted in a shift of $14 million in property and business taxes from the anchors to the small stores, and this is the concern. This shift represented increases ranging from 18% to 800% for small retailers, all of which is totally unacceptable; in fact, rather alarming. So something had to be done and I think this is why we are all agreeing.
Certainly we in the opposition in the Conservative Party say there's much more that could be done. I don't think quite frankly that you've had the courage to delve into many of the issues that you've been obliged to do. Simply calling something the Fair Tax Commission to review something hasn't been enough. In fact, when was the last time we heard about the Fair Tax Commission? Where are they? Where are they having lunch? What are they doing?
The anchors in 1994, as I indicated, voluntarily paid $8 million in additional taxes to help mitigate the impact on small stores. This bill, Bill 197, will, as I understand it, implement a consensus agreement among the anchors and the fair assessment committee of Toronto, which, representing the small stores under the anchors, will continue to forgo $8 million in lower taxes to assist the smaller stores, pending reassessment.
So that, as I understand it, is the purpose of what this legislation is about and why the urgency of it. We simply don't accept the Finance minister's taking credit that he was the broker with respect to this agreement between the small stores and the anchors. If something hadn't happened, there would be an absolute financial disaster to the city of Toronto. We have to keep looking at that, and I'm afraid that's one of the problems that this government hasn't been doing. It's been procrastinating, ignoring. Obviously they haven't done what they were supposed to do.
The legislation really has done nothing to relieve the major problem facing both the anchors and the small stores. They simply pay too much in taxes. Everybody pays too much in taxes. Whether we're looking at commercial taxes or whether we're looking at residential taxes or whether we're looking at education taxes, the city of Metropolitan Toronto, and in fact all across this province, has got a great deal of concern.
Groups that want to come and use Toronto for conventions or other such purposes look at such things as the cost of alcohol, they look at such things as the cost of gas. When we look at what this government has done with respect to those taxes, added on to the slipping away of commercial activity in this city, we've certainly got a problem.
There has been reference to the Metro board of trade study which cited the fact that there are 200,000 fewer jobs today in Metro than there were five years ago. The board of trade's claim is based on high property taxes and an antiquated assessment system, issues which this government simply refuses to address. So if this bill isn't passed, we clearly have a problem. But there's much more to do, which you haven't done. It's as if you're reacting. You're waiting until there's an unbelievable crisis, for example, that's occurred in Toronto before you come forward with this type of legislation. People have had enough with respect to taxes, whether it be property taxes, whether it be gas taxes, whether it retail sales tax, all the various taxes that we have in this province.
Of course, there's no secret as to why we in the Progressive Conservative Party are looking at that overall issue of taxes, the issue of the spending in this province, the issue of the debt. If you don't have taxes, the debt continues to increase. If you don't have grants from the province to the various municipalities, you're going to have an increasing number of fiscal problems. So we have indicated that what we intend to do is to make major cuts in taxes, major cuts in expenditures. All this government appears to do is this piecemeal attempt of Bill 197.
There have been many debates which have gone on, not only in Metro but around this province on the whole issue of taxes. I know the member for Oxford will take great delight in standing up and trying to criticize the former federal government, and he may be justified on that. The fact of the matter is that this province and, yes, this country have reached a debt load that is causing great concern among, particularly, the bond raters. When you think of the number of downgradings that this province has had since your government has come into office, eventually, the fear that is out there is that the bond raters are simply going to come in and say, "Listen" --
Mr David Winninger (London South): Business confidence is the highest in 15 years.
Mr Tilson: I'm telling you that the hints are out there. The economists are saying that the bond raters are going to come in eventually and say you're not going to get any more credit, and it's going to be the bond raters who are going to be dictating the political and economic policies of this province.
This piecemeal attempt may alleviate a serious disaster as far as large stores and small stores, but the fact of the matter is, it still doesn't deal with that issue that there are too many taxes for both and neither of them is satisfied.
So you've got a lot of work to do. I don't know how long you're going to sit in office. I have no idea when you're going to call the election, but you've had over four years to do something with respect to the whole tax structure. Yes, you've had the Fair Tax Commission, but, really, nothing's come out of that and there has been no other plan. You've put this province into a debt that has never been seen in this province before or in this country with respect to the debt of this province, the deficit of this province, the tax burden on this province when you look at the history of tax increases. I'll tell you, there are many woeful people who are worrying about your economic policy and the effect that it's having on businesses.
All of this is important with respect to trying to encourage businesses, whether in Ontario or specifically Metro Toronto. If they look at these businesses that are leaving Toronto, particularly if you're a small business and you can't operate because of this type of tax structure we have -- and yes, the Minister of Finance is going to have jurisdiction now by regulation to apportion these taxes, but it still isn't getting at the real problem, and that is the unbelievable tax burden that we've had.
We have a lot of things we've got to pay for. There's the whole reform of education financing that's needed in Metro. No grants come from this place, Queen's Park, the provincial government; it all comes from local taxation. So there is a need for financing in that place as well.
1950
There have been a number of articles written talking about the tax reform debate. I don't know whether the government's read any of them. I don't think they have. Certainly the Metro board of trade has put out a report which talks about this problem to some extent.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail of November 22 by John Barber. I'm sure the member for Oxford has looked at it. Mr Barber says, "The Metro board of trade deserves much of the credit for pushing tax reform back to the top of the political agenda." I think we do have to give them credit for that. "It has succeeded because," as Mr Barber says, "in this case at least, what ails its members also threatens the body politic."
He goes on and talks about the fear of Toronto "going the way of the big US cities." Look at what has happened in some of them. New York City has gone bankrupt at least once that I can think of. Is that liable to happen in Toronto?
Mr Sutherland: Orange county, California.
Mr Tilson: Yes, you can refer to all kinds of American cities. I think this provincial government, this place, has some responsibility in setting forth assessment laws and other tax reform that are going to assist specifically the city of Toronto.
Mr Barber continued by saying, "There is some dispute among experts about whether the tax gap actually is hollowing out Metro." Mr Barber says -- I don't know it, but I have to accept it -- that there are no studies to prove what is being alleged with respect to the comments made by the Metro board of trade. I'm not criticizing the Metro board of trade, but he's referring to the fact that there are no studies to prove what it is saying other than what our own common sense tells us: We look at empty buildings, we look at businesses that are going out of business because they can't afford to pay the taxes. So we have a lot of serious concerns with respect to this.
Mr Barber says, "For most businesses scouting a new location," and many of them are, for different reasons, "the only difference between North York and Vaughan is that property tax more than doubles as soon as you venture south across Steeles Avenue." That's how serious it is. Once you get above Steeles Avenue you can have legitimate reasons for moving about, but when you're south of Steeles Avenue you've got a lot of serious concerns about the tax structure.
Mr Barber comments: "For many businesses stuck with empty buildings south of Steeles, demolition is becoming increasingly attractive. Turning unrentable buildings into parking lots lowers their taxes and creates some revenue, at least." Can you imagine? That's how bad it's got. Many of these businesses are talking about simply demolishing their buildings because it's just got so out of hand. "Make it a parking lot. We can't afford to continue." Hence, those paying taxes and the revenue coming in gets less and less. This whole issue cries out for major reform.
A researcher for the Metro board of trade, John Bech-Hansen, informed a group of experts who had convened to study this issue. He said the status quo is now totally unacceptable here in Metro, and that's what's been going on until now.
So this does give the Finance minister some flexibility, but it doesn't go far enough. It still doesn't solve the overall issue of the major tax reform that's going to be required. Quite frankly, I think you're going to have to start cutting taxes in some of these other areas that will encourage people to come to this province, whether it be on gas or alcohol or other such things that encourage particularly the conventions, all of which bring major revenue into the large hotels. Talk to the restaurant people: They have a real concern about the tax structure and the downsides of people coming to Toronto. This has been and still is, in my view, one of the greatest cities in the world, yet we have this concern that has been slowly creeping up on us to a crisis proportion.
Some of the experts pointed out at this recent convening that "the only thing less acceptable than the status quo is the board of trade's proposed reform." Essentially, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto is calling for "a massive shift of the property tax burden away from businesses and on to the backs of residents." Well, that's something I'd like to hear more about. When you start spreading it around, that means other people, the residents, are therefore going to have more taxes.
The fact of the matter is that we've got too many taxes in Metro Toronto. It has got completely out of hand. We've got too much government doing too many things that nobody wants, and that is the issue.
I'm not sure I essentially agree with the board of trade, although I certainly respect the fact that it initiated this debate and has got the government at least moving. But I'm prepared to hear more from them because they have made in the past, and continue to make, a major contribution to tax reform and other matters with respect to Metro Toronto.
Mr Barber continues: "That, given the reality of electoral politics, is a recipe for the impossible. It also ignores the fact that the Metro property tax system," as noted by Richard Gilbert, "discriminates against certain residents even more than it does against business." Mr Gilbert, as you know, is a well-known former municipal politician who has now gone on to greater things, and you have to respect what he says.
All of these things need to be looked at, but the way it comes across, the government isn't looking at anything. I have no idea, as I say, what the Fair Tax Commission has been doing or what it's concluding. This problem became evident because, unless this pass bill was passed, we clearly were going to have an unbelievable crisis as far as Toronto is concerned.
"Indeed, the highest tax rates apply to residents in apartment or condo buildings with seven or more units." Then Mr Barber says: "What to do, then? Acknowledging the difficulty of comprehensive reform, University of Toronto economist John Bossons argued for temporary 'circuit-breaker' measures that would operate whenever," as he calls it, "the doughnut fryer threatened to overheat. One example would be a new rule, specific to the Toronto region, stating that no developed commercial property can pay more in taxes than an amount equal to half its rental income."
I have no idea whether this is being looked at by the government, because out of the blue, with a crisis, with about a week or so left, the government comes forward with Bill 197 and says, "If you don't pass it, we're going to have a crisis," and it's right. But what in the world has it been doing for the last four years? All these people have theories, some of which may be good, whether it's the board of trade or Richard Gilbert or others. It's as if the government hasn't been listening to these people -- or indeed John Barber, the person who is writing the article I am referring to.
Mr Barber continues by saying: "Reform of education financing is also a clear priority, especially in Metro Toronto, where schools are funded entirely by property tax and attract none of the grants available to schools elsewhere. Taxing all Ontario businesses at a uniform rate for the purpose of education would automatically reduce taxes paid by Metro businesses by 6.1%, according to the board of trade."
I'm sure that's very fine, although I'm not too sure whether the rest of Ontario would agree with that position. But again, the pros and cons really haven't been put forward in any paper I've heard of that the government is doing, so what is it doing over there?
2000
Mr Barber concludes by saying: "Measures like this would allay the current crisis, but I doubt they would do much to rewrite," as he calls it, "the doughnut story." You'd have to read the whole article to get this. "There are far more powerful incentives to sprawl than the property tax system, and removing them will require much more radical reform."
The debates continue, the efforts by the Richard Gilberts and the Metro board of trade and others continue to be put forward, yet this government remains silent as to exactly what it's doing. Statistics Canada, it's been pointed out in this House, has said that in the small business sector where we are seeing jobs created, this sector particularly in the malls, is suffering from this reapportionment, that we'll see jobs lost, notwithstanding the legislation, because of reapportionment decisions. Jobs continue to be lost, notwithstanding all of this. Why are they continuing to be lost? The government doesn't seem to want to deal with that specific issue.
I could conclude that in terms of the real problems of taxes in Metropolitan Toronto, the assessment system is one, but the other is the high taxes. Yet the government continues to go on its way by saying: "We believe in the status quo. We're going to continue to allow to have high taxes." You can fool around with all these provisions in the Assessment Act -- many of these provisions most of us can't understand -- but the problem is that you keep piling on all these taxes. It concentrates in the city of Toronto and it concentrates around the province of Ontario. But the fact is that the taxes are too high.
It's been pointed out that last year in Scarborough, there were 42,000 property appeals, 24,000 appeals in North York, 11,000 property assessment appeals in the city of Etobicoke; in the city of Toronto there are hundreds of millions of dollars of business assessment under appeal right now. Is the government addressing these problems? The answer is no, "Just let time go by and time will deal with it all." Time is not going to deal with it all. You have to start dealing with some of these issues or not just the city of Toronto but the entire province of Ontario is going to have a very serious crisis.
I will be supporting the bill, but I plead with the government to take more action than it is with respect to higher taxes not only in Metro Toronto but all across this province.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member for Oxford.
Mr Sutherland: I know folks want to move on to the supply bill, but I wanted to respond to some of the comments that were made about certain issues related to this bill. I think I got general support for the bill from the members for Scarborough-Agincourt and for Dufferin-Peel, but they raised several other issues about assessment in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I think we all agree that there are some real issues that are going to have to be addressed regarding assessment in Metropolitan Toronto. The history of those problems, as we all know, goes back 25 or 30 years, in some cases, in how things have evolved.
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt mentioned jobs being lost in Metropolitan Toronto and that some of that had to do with taxes, and the member for Dufferin-Peel said that as well. Let me say, though, that there are many reasons that has occurred. I am not sure taxation is the only reason. The recession has certainly hit Toronto. We know the vacancy rates in the hospitality sector, hotels, have been much higher than they had been in the past; the recession hurt that area quite badly, and I am sure they're suffering a little more as a result of the strikes going on in professional sport. There are a lot of reasons.
I want to respond to the member for Dufferin-Peel about taxation issues. He said the government hasn't done anything to address the taxation issue here in Metropolitan Toronto. I want to remind him that it was this government that did repeal the commercial concentration tax that was put in effect by the previous government just as the last recession was beginning and certainly did have a negative impact. We have done something here.
He also talked about taxes and provincial taxes being too high; provincial taxes need to be reduced so you can provide grants to the municipalities. I find it interesting that the member for Dufferin-Peel would talk about grants to municipalities and try to relate it to the Common Sense Revolution because, as you know, it's not one of the protected areas. Municipal grants will be reduced by 20%, so for the member for Dufferin-Peel to get up and say if you're offloading, if you don't cut the taxes and you can't provide the municipal grants, then that's going to increase property taxes.
What we have today, and I just want to get this on the record, is that the member for Dufferin-Peel has clearly said that the Common Sense Revolution is going to cause large property tax increases. I don't think that's been on the record yet and we just heard him say that if you reduce grants to the municipalities, that'll increase property taxes. They're not protected in the Common Sense Revolution, they're subject to a minimum 20% cut, maybe more. I want to see them go out and campaign on increased property taxes in the next provincial election. That's exactly what the member has said.
I know some of my colleagues are getting a bit antsy here and they want to move on. I have a great deal of deference and respect for them, so I'm going to bring my comments to a close. I just wanted to ensure that everyone understood that we've just had it confirmed that the Common Sense Revolution is going to cause an increase --
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe there is a quorum present.
The Speaker: Could the table determine if a quorum is present?
Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Donna Bryce): A quorum is not present, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present.
The Speaker: The honourable member for Oxford.
Mr Sutherland: Speaker, I've finished my comments.
The Speaker: Mr Sutherland, in the absence of Mr Laughren, has moved third reading of Bill 197, An Act to amend the Assessment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.
SUPPLY ACT, 1994 / LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 1994
Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 204, An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 1995 / Projet de loi 204, Loi autorisant le paiement de certaines sommes destinées à la fonction publique pour l'exercice se terminant le 31 mars 1995.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member for Oxford have any opening comments?
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes, I have a couple of minutes of brief comments. In some of the debate and within the last week or so, we have heard people talk about job-killing legislation, we've heard them talk about how things are in a very poor shape in the province of Ontario.
I just wanted to put a few points on the record of some real economic facts. The facts are that unemployment is down significantly in the province of Ontario. In my part of the province it's the lowest in the entire country, below 6%; lots of investment going on. In my part of the province, a lot of the reason the unemployment rate is down so much is because the auto sector is doing extremely well. That has to do, of course, with some of the significant investment we've had in this province since 1990. I just want to point out we've had over $5 billion worth of investment in the auto sector since 1990.
2010
I don't know how people can get up and say then that the policies of this government have driven jobs away, have driven investment away, and continue to say that and expect the people of Ontario are really going to believe that when we know unemployment is down, when we've had significant investment, when we're creating a tremendous number of new jobs in this province. The OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, has said that this province is going to lead the country and lead the entire region in economic growth next year.
While managing through difficult times over the last four years, we are now seeing the benefit of some of the tough decisions this government has made, of some of the strong key investments we made in capital infrastructure that have supported new opportunities, new economic activities throughout the province. We've worked with different communities, whether that be in Kapuskasing, Sault Ste Marie, Thunder Bay or other parts of the province, to help companies get through the difficult time, to see those companies expanding and taking new orders; just tremendous opportunities.
I think it's important to have put on the record that in spite of some of the allegations that have been made about this government's policies -- killing jobs, driving investment away -- the facts speak for themselves and the facts in 1994 are proving that rhetoric is wrong. I suspect some people are going to continue with that rhetoric, and fair enough for them, but I want to tell you, I know the people I talk to are certainly indicating that there has been a change in the last year. The economy is picking up. People are feeling more positive and they're just not buying this rhetoric when all the economic facts are pointing to a very, very strong improvement in the economy, in jobs and in getting people back to work. The recovery is very strong.
We've got some work to do on other issues. There is always going to be more to be done, but I think the tough decisions, the strong leadership, the good plan of investing in jobs, maintaining services and continuing to live within our means through deficit reduction, and extra revenue that's coming in being used to reduce that deficit quicker, is a very effective plan. We're seeing the people of Ontario respond to it, we're seeing people in the business community respond to that very effectively, and as a result we're seeing strong economic growth -- as a matter of fact, the strongest economic growth in the country this year and that's going to occur in 1995 as well.
I just wanted to put those few points on the record as we discuss second reading of the Supply Act.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oxford and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate on this bill?
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased that the member for Oxford started his comments on supply the way he did by challenging all of us to look at the facts and to talk about the success of the NDP government in getting Ontario's economy rolling.
I use the government's facts when I'm commenting on the economy and the success of the NDP on managing the economy. I really think any objective reader of the government's own Ontario Economic Outlook, which is firstly a report card on the record of the NDP and then an outlook for the future -- the one thing we know is what's actually happened in the past, what's happened to date. I'll comment on that and then I'll comment on the economic outlook. This document, by the way, was put out by the government just a week ago. It's their Ontario Economic Outlook. It's the facts as they present them to us.
I just want to talk a little bit about the facts of the NDP's record here in Ontario, firstly on managing the economy. The member for Oxford just said that job creation is going just great. He's very proud of the job creation record, the member said. The government's very proud of the job creation record.
I take you to the table in the document that deals with job creation, Mr Speaker, and for any people who are inclined, it's table 31 in the Economic Outlook. Here's what the facts point out, the facts by the government itself. It shows here employment in Ontario in 1994: 4,849,000 people; in 1989, 4,949,000 people, 100,000 fewer people working in Ontario, according to the government's own figures, than in 1989. The rest of Canada in that same period of time -- the other nine provinces -- is up 240,000. Those are the facts from this government document. We have lost 100,000 jobs in the province of Ontario. The rest of Canada has gained 240,000.
The government here points out that in 1994 we are going to see fewer jobs created in Ontario than we did last year. That's not me speaking, that's the government's own book. Last year, 79,000 jobs created in Ontario; this year, according to the government's own numbers, 54,000 jobs. So what's happening? Why is that? Why are we seeing fewer jobs created in the province of Ontario in 1994 than we did in 1993?
Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Housing): Forty-five thousand jobs just in the last month.
Mr Phillips: One of the ministers is barracking over there, but I'm quoting the government's own numbers.
Hon Mr Allen: Get up to date.
Mr Phillips: The minister says get up to date. This is the document put out last week. This is what you put out last week.
Hon Mr Allen: One thousand five hundred jobs every day last month.
Mr Phillips: I must say, as well, that among our young people, which is perhaps one of the most tragic situations, here in Ontario we now see among our young people, 230,000 fewer jobs for our young people than we saw in 1989. The population of young people is unchanged, exactly the same number of young people in 1994 as there was in 1989, but we see 230,000 fewer jobs. That's up to date. Those are the government's own numbers. Those numbers are up to date and they are a tragedy.
We see even now, even in 1994, up to date -- the minister wants up-to-date numbers -- these were the numbers that were released a week ago. You want up-to-date numbers: 18,000 fewer jobs for our young people this year, the 11 months this year. Those are up-to-date numbers if you want up-to-date numbers. The minister is barracking over there about up-to-date numbers. Those are less than a week old.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): He's the Minister of Housing.
Mr Phillips: It's the Minister of Housing; 18,000 fewer jobs and if you're proud of that, you should be ashamed of yourself: 18,000 fewer jobs among our young people.
We see literally tens of thousands of young people who have dropped right out of the labour force and so if the government is proud of that record, it's an NDP government that should hang its head in shame. Those aren't my numbers, those are the government numbers that they produce for us in this document and the employment numbers that were released less than a week ago.
We talked earlier about jobs here in Metropolitan Toronto, and if you want to see a significant problem in jobs, it's Metropolitan Toronto, where we've lost in Metropolitan Toronto 15% of the jobs. You want up-to-date numbers? The Minister of Housing said get up-to-date numbers. These were the numbers released last Friday, six days ago. In Metropolitan Toronto, the number of jobs in November 1994 -- that was released less than a week ago -- 45,000 fewer jobs in Metropolitan Toronto in November 1994 than there were in November 1993. Those are up-to-date numbers. Those are the facts.
2020
Hon Mr Allen: Why don't you tell them about the 45,000 that were created last month alone?
Mr Phillips: The Minister of Housing continues to barrack, when the numbers that were released less than a week ago point out here in Metropolitan Toronto, for the month of November, 45,000 fewer jobs.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Forty-five thousand fewer jobs? Forty-five thousand more jobs.
Mr Phillips: No, 45,000 fewer jobs in Metropolitan Toronto. If you don't understand that those are the numbers, then you are not getting the facts from your government members, you're not getting the facts.
The second thing, again up to date: This is what the government put out a week ago, the economic outlook. What does it say about on social assistance caseloads? They're not going down, according to the government's own figures -- not my figures, the government's own figures. The number of social assistance caseloads in 1994 has gone up by 18,000 caseloads. Those are the government's numbers.
The member for Oxford was proudly talking about the amazing accomplishments of the NDP government. On the jobs front, there is no doubt, Ontario has struggled: 100,000 fewer people working in the province of Ontario than five years ago. And we should all recognize, because the government talks about it, that every year roughly 70,000 people enter the workforce, so you can imagine: All those people have entered the workforce but we have 100,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than we had in 1989.
I take the facts that -- I hope these are the facts because the government puts these out as the facts. The member for Oxford talks a lot about exports. I will just say that there is a very curious thing going on with our export-import situation in Ontario that I think needs further study. There's something called the international merchandising trade figures. These are the exports and the imports that Ontario sells or buys in other countries, the United States and the rest of the world.
Yes, exports are growing, and I'm very happy about that; they're growing dramatically in the US. As a matter of fact, since 1990 exports in Ontario are up $21 billion. That's good, that is a sign of our manufacturing sector being able to compete very aggressively in the United States. However, at the same time, imports are up $27 billion. What it means is that we now have in Ontario a trade deficit of almost $12 billion: We are importing almost $12 billion more goods than we are exporting. And by the way, the rest of the country has a merchandise trade surplus of $29 billion. Ontario has a significant merchandise trade deficit, and growing: As a matter of fact, in 1990 the trade deficit was $4.6 billion, this year it's $11.7 billion, almost $12 billion.
So we see that in Ontario, yes, exports are growing but imports are growing faster. I believe that's a signal, particularly when we have benefited substantially from a dramatically lower Canadian dollar, as we all know. The Canadian dollar has probably declined in that period of time from 1990 to 1993 by 8% or 9% and made our export business far more competitive and made it far more expensive to import. But something is happening: Our imports are growing dramatically faster than our exports. My leader, Lyn McLeod, raised this the other day and the government seemed to be upset that she would raise it, but surely that has to be a concern for all of us.
I would also say on the export situation that what is happening in terms of who we do business with is that in 1990, 85% of our exports were to the United States and now it's very close to 90%, so our export trade is growing, but it's all with the United States.
On one hand, I say great, we are able to compete far more aggressively in the United States; our manufacturing sector has proved it can do business in the United States just fine. But there are two troubling signs on the horizon.
In many ways it's mildly ironic that the NDP was probably the party most opposed to the free trade agreement, the party that said the strongest, "We have to do business with the rest of the world; we can't be tied to the United States," but since the NDP became the government, Ontario's dependence on the United States as the trading partner has increased dramatically. Now 90% of our exports are going to the US and 10% to the rest of the world; when they came into power, it was 15% going to the rest of the world. Rather than developing our business aggressively with the rest of the world, we are increasingly more dependent on one country.
I want to make it very clear that I very much appreciate doing business with the United States. We have an enormous asset there. Geographically, we are well located and, as we all know, our infrastructure, our ability to deliver goods within 24 hours to the major northern part of the United States is a huge asset. We're benefiting, I might say, from the fact that many of the northern states in the United States have had an economic resurgence as well so the plants there are doing well; our auto sector is without doubt benefiting from that. I am very pleased to see exports to the United States growing and I am very pleased to see that our manufacturing sector can compete, without question.
But I am just saying there are two huge concerns here. One is that at a time -- low dollar, aggressive moving into the United States -- when one would have expected our trade deficit to be narrowing, it's widening dramatically and quickly. As I said, in the rest of Canada the trade surplus is quite significant.
The second thing is that at a time when the economy in particularly the Far East is growing very dramatically, with real growth in many of the countries of the Pacific Rim of 8%, 9% and 10%, and we should be aggressively going after that -- and I happen to believe strongly that Ontario is uniquely suited to it. I've said on other occasions in the Legislature that we have a unique opportunity in Ontario to be doing business in the Pacific Rim. We have business people who have come to Canada from that part of the world, very successful business people. We have here in Toronto the consulates that will be of great assistance -- you know it better than I, Mr Speaker, because you are familiar with the consuls -- to us having access to trade there. We are in an era when communications and things like that are far more important, so the geographic distance is less important now.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This member is giving some valuable argument to the debate and there are 10 members in this House at this time. I do not consider that, nor I think do you, a quorum.
The Speaker: Would the table determine if a quorum is present.
Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Donna Bryce): Speaker, a quorum is not present.
The Speaker ordered the bells rung.
2030
Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is now present.
The Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt may continue with his speech.
Mr Phillips: I was talking about the issue of imports and exports in Ontario, saying that if one were to bet when our trade/sw surplus should be occurring, it would be now. Clearly our auto sector is booming, the dollar is at a very low point right now and should be negatively impacting imports and positively impacting exports, yet we see the trade deficit in Ontario growing to $12 billion, up from roughly $4.5 billion in 1990.
Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): What about interest rates?
Mr Phillips: One of the members coming in said, "What about interest rates?" Interestingly enough, the rest of the provinces have the same interest rates as Ontario, yet the trade surplus in the rest of Canada has gone from $22 billion in 1992 to $29 billion in 1993. With the same interest rates in the rest of Canada as Ontario, the rest of Canada has dramatically increased its trade surplus at exactly the same time as Ontario has dramatically increased its trade deficit. I would hope the government would appreciate that we begin to get ourselves into significant problems if all we're doing is, yes, increasing our exports but our imports are increasing far faster than that.
To go back, the NDP member opened his comments by saying, "Let's look at the facts." I look at the facts. When the government puts out a document like this, I study it, because these I presume are the facts they want us to look at. I see a trade deficit growing dramatically in Ontario and a trade surplus growing dramatically in the rest of Canada.
Mr Jamison: What about real growth?
Mr Phillips: I really appreciate the member throwing me some good suggestions. "What about real growth?" That's what one of the NDP members across the aisle said. Understand this, and again I use the government's own numbers: The output, or to use the economists' jargon, the gross domestic product in Ontario in 1994, according to the government's own numbers, is now only just getting back to where it was in 1989. We have gone five years, and we are only now in 1994 back to the output we had in 1989. In other words, we've had zero growth.
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Stalemate.
Mr Phillips: That's right, "Stalemate," my colleague says. Zero growth in the province of Ontario over five years.
So we often run into people who say, "Well, if the recovery is occurring, I'm still not quite feeling it." And why aren't we quite feeling it? It is because it's taken us five years to get back to where we were in 1989.
Hon Bob Huget (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): Ahh.
Mr Phillips: The members across may not like to hear that, but those are the numbers that the government puts out itself and that's what we all understand: five lost years in the province of Ontario.
I can go on. I'll go on to the government's own estimates on housing starts. Again, these are the government's own figures on housing starts in the province of Ontario, and what you find here is in 1989, 93,000 housing starts, then --
Hon Mr Huget: What about 1988?
Mr Phillips: The members says, "What about 1988?" -- 100,000 housing starts. What did we have this year in Ontario? Fewer than half that. In 1993, 45,000, and then, with the big recovery in 1994, 48,000 housing starts.
So you go through this entire document. What are the most important elements of the economy? Jobs. What's happened to jobs?
Hon Stephen Owens (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): It's depressing, Gerry, I know. You just can't take it.
Mr Phillips: The member across we can't stand the prosperity.
Hon Mr Owens: You just can't stand it, can you, Gerry?
Mr Phillips: Well, I'll just say to you, if having fewer jobs created in 1994 is what you call a great economic performance, fewer jobs in 1994 than 1993, there's something wrong.
Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): November 1944, 45,000 new jobs created in Ontario, the highest in the nation.
Mr Grandmaître: In 1944. You're living back in 1944. That's about your speed.
Interjection.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: Once again, one of the other cabinet ministers is sort of yelling across the House, but I take the figures directly out of your own document. You may not have been here earlier.
You said, what about the updated numbers? November 1994, numbers released six days ago, update numbers: Metro Toronto down 45,000 jobs. Those are the up-to-date numbers. Those are the numbers you released six days ago. Metro Toronto, November 1994, down 45,000 jobs, the government's own numbers from this document released a week and a half ago. As a matter of fact, the numbers just released six days ago. Ontario will see this year 64,000 jobs created. Those are the government's own numbers. I'm not arguing with your numbers. You gave us these numbers. Last year, 1993, 79,000 jobs.
You have to understand your own numbers, the numbers you're telling people, the facts. Fewer jobs are being created in Ontario in 1994 than in 1993. That is irrefutable. They're your own numbers.
Fewer jobs being created; social assistance caseload rising. Those are your own numbers. You released them less than two weeks ago, and confirmed them. I'm not making these up, I'm just repeating the numbers you prepared and gave to us. Social assistance going up, 678,000 cases.
Hon Mr Pilkey: Check page 10 --
Mr Phillips: These are your own numbers. The gross domestic product in 1994, the output in Ontario, just back to where it was in 1989. Housing starts, half what they were in 1989. The trade deficit, the highest we've had in years.
So I go back to what can only be described as an F.
Hon Mr Huget: What's your solution, Gerry?
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: I know you don't like to hear these numbers. I know you're getting angry about them, but the member for Oxford started his comments by saying what a wonderful economic performance the NDP government had. Give this to any objective individual and say, "Take a look at the NDP record, on any basis you want. Take a look at the NDP record." Take a look at the NDP economic record and it's a failure.
2040
Hon Mr Huget: You have to take a look at the recession too.
Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): The one you created.
Mr Phillips: There the members say you have to look at the recession. I go back to the point, 100,000 fewer jobs in Ontario. What about the 240,000 more jobs in the rest of Canada?
The member says interest rates have affected imports. How can it be that the rest of Canada has a $29-billion trade surplus and Ontario has a $12-billion trade deficit? How can these be?
Hon Mr Owens: Gerry, did you have a trade deficit when you were a minister?
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: Now I want to talk a little bit about the finances of the province, and I know the government's angry at me pointing out --
Ms Haeck: No, no, we're disappointed.
Mr Phillips: I know you're angry. You're getting angry that someone would point out what is in your own Economic Outlook.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I plead to you, interjections are out of order. I am sitting two seats away from the speaker and I cannot hear him.
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Well, Margaret, move over a couple of seats.
Mrs Marland: I think it's outrageous that the government members come into this House and all they can do is have interjections on the floor.
Interjections.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): The member for Ottawa East; aren't you lucky?
The Speaker: Order. The member for Huron, please come to order. Indeed the member for Mississauga South has a point of order. It is becoming increasingly difficult to hear the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who has been recognized and has the floor.
Mr Phillips: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm sorry to, as they say, upset the NDP members, but all I'm doing is, I am trying to use your own documents to point out the economic record.
I've talked about the economy. I want to talk a little bit about the finances, the fiscal record of the government. I want to just go over, again, what can only be described -- I mean, anybody who looked at the fiscal record of this government would give it an F.
Hon Mr Wilson: What did our Treasurer say?
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate that, for whatever reason, the government members may not want to hear this, but I will just go over the --
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: I'll make it easy for you. The Provincial Auditor. You don't have to rely on opposition numbers. Let's talk about the Provincial Auditor. What does he say?
When the NDP took over, when the new government took over, the deficit --
Hon Mr Wilson: Tell us how much, Gerry.
Mr Phillips: Well, I appreciate again the members giving me a chance. Here's what the Provincial Auditor said about the deficits.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Would the member for Scarborough-Agincourt take his seat, please. I must now begin to caution members that they are causing disorder in the House, and if they do not come to order, they will be named. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.
Mr Phillips: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'll go back to what the auditor pointed out. When the NDP took over, the accumulated deficit in the province of Ontario was $35.4 billion. That's the accumulated deficit for the whole history of the province.
What does the auditor say the accumulated deficit is now? He says at the end of 1993-94, March 31, 1994, it went from $35 billion to $80 billion. Then the auditor goes on to say, at the end of 1994-95 it will be over $90 billion. Think about that. The accumulated deficit of the province of Ontario, the debt, has gone from $35 billion to $90 billion since the NDP took over -- almost too incredible to believe.
We now have seen in their first budget, the 1992-91 budget, a $10.9-billion deficit; the 1992-93 budget, a $12.4-billion deficit; the 1993-94 budget, a $10.8 billion deficit. And I might add that, while the government continues to say the deficit this year is going to be approximately $8.2 billion, the independent Provincial Auditor -- and this is someone I hope all of us have some faith in. I certainly do. I think the Provincial Auditor is clearly an independent body, knowledgeable, looks at it. What does the independent Provincial Auditor say this year's deficit will be?
Well, he says this: "The Ontario finances," the way that the province reports its books, "differ significantly from their financial reality under any accounting rules." I'll read that again, because it essentially is a strongly worded statement: "The Ontario finances differ significantly from their financial reality under any accounting rules." In other words, it doesn't matter what accounting rules you use, the way the province of Ontario is reporting its 1994-95 budget, the budget we're into right now, differs significantly from financial reality. In other words, what we're getting from the government doesn't reflect financial reality.
We had a committee meeting, and actually one of my colleagues from what we call the third party, the Conservative Party, said: "All right, what is financial reality then? What is the real deficit in 1994-95?" Mr Peters, who is our Provincial Auditor, said, "That's the nub of the problem and that's why we said if the $2 billion is treated the same way as the transactions were done last year, then the deficit would be in the $10.9-billion range." What the auditor said was, "Financial reality means that this year's deficit would be in the $10.9-billion range" -- under any accounting rules. This isn't like, "Well, we're changing the accounting rules from one to the other, so it's just accounting, it's not real." Under any accounting rules, the deficit this year will be $10.9 billion.
The reason I raise that -- and again, I'm trying not to bait the government, because I'm using the Provincial Auditor's own comments -- is that the deficit, according to the Provincial Auditor, in 1994 is not going down. The deficit is going up. It's going up. And yet I know the government wants to go around saying, "We have reduced the deficit by 30% over the last two years."
It's not true. It's not reality. According to the Provincial Auditor, it differs significantly from financial reality, what you're saying. The deficit is not going down, according the Provincial Auditor; it's going up. That's a very important fact.
Hon Mr Allen: Addressing the question is entirely different than the question of the accounting of the deficit and you know it.
Mr Phillips: Well, the Minister of Housing is once again choosing to get upset at what the Provincial Auditor is saying, but the Provincial Auditor couldn't have more clear, saying it's --
Hon Mr Allen: You're playing with words and you're trying to hoodwink the public.
Mr Phillips: There's a very strong word. He's saying the Provincial Auditor is trying to hoodwink the public.
Hon Mr Allen: I said you are, and you know it.
Mr Phillips: The Provincial Auditor couldn't have been clearer. And you want to know who's trying to hoodwink the public?
Hon Mr Huget: You are.
Mr Phillips: The auditor has pointed it out. You are playing with financial reality.
Hon Mr Allen: You're playing with words.
Mr Phillips: I'm not playing with words. I am repeating what the Provincial Auditor said, and he couldn't have been clearer.
Hon Mr Allen: What a joke.
Mr Phillips: He couldn't have been clearer. He said he would not sign your books. The auditor will not sign this government's books, because it doesn't reflect financial reality, and you may not like to hear that --
Ms Haeck: He did sign them.
Mr Phillips: They say he signed the books. The only reason he signed the books was, he forced you -- forced you -- to change the way you report them. He said, "I will not sign them." The only way he signed them was that you changed the way you report them. You've increased the deficit by $1.6 billion over what you'd been saying.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: Forced you at the last moment. In fact, he was very clear. He said that the way you were trying to report your budget did not reflect financial reality under any accounting rules, and he forced you. He forced you to add $1.6 billion to the deficit. He absolutely forced it, and you were trying, right up the last minute, not to do that.
2050
Now we see, Mr Speaker, the auditor could not have been clearer about this year's budget, that you are differing significantly from financial reality. He has made it clear that you have to change that, that the real deficit is $10.9 billion, not the $8.2 billion you're reporting. And frankly, you are becoming the laughingstock in the financial community. Nobody trusts the books any more. This has to be the only jurisdiction in the world with two sets of books.
You know what might be interesting, Mr Speaker?
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Well, no one trusts the books since the $26-million surplus.
Mr Gary Wilson: How did you figure out you had a surplus in 1990?
Mr Phillips: Well, I'll digress slightly, because they say: "Gee, you promised a surplus when you ran and then it became a deficit. How did that happen?" Do you all trust the Provincial Auditor? Here's what the Provincial Auditor said. Not me; here's what the Provincial Auditor said. Firstly, the Provincial Auditor said this, and this was a report in 1991. He looked at all of this. He said, firstly, Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years -- that's the auditor -- the year ending March 31, 1990. Only one surplus in 20 years, the year ending March 31, 1990.
By the way, that was five months before you got elected. So five months before you got elected, a surplus, the only surplus in 20 years. Then the auditor goes on to say, there was supposed to be a second surplus. What happened? How did it go from a planned surplus to a $3-billion deficit? The auditor explains all of that. Firstly, again, I repeat: only one surplus, the auditor says, in 20 years, the year ending March 31, 1990. So I know --
Hon Irene Mathyssen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): What did you do with all that money, Gerry?
The Speaker: Order, the member for Middlesex.
Mr Phillips: I know you've all been told: "Gosh, we inherited a terrible mess. Things were just terrible." Five months before you got elected, the only balanced budget in 20 years in the history of the province. So I know you want to believe things were just awful, but the only balanced budget in 20 years.
The auditor goes on to explain why the second straight surplus didn't materialize. The auditor has looked at this, he looked at the whole thing, and he goes on to say that it was reasonable to expect at the time of the budget preparation for there to be a surplus. Three things happened, though, that led to the deficit. You may want to listen to this. I know you've been told the answer to this is you've got to tell your constituents, "We were left an awful mess," but you may want to listen to this and ask the next time you have the cabinet into your caucus, "How could this be?"
Again, I repeat: one surplus in 20 years, March 31, 1990. There was going to be a second surplus. The auditor explains that when the budget was presented, it was reasonable. Then he goes on to say that the extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget, meant total revenues were down by $1.1 billion, due primarily to the influence of the recession on taxation revenues. So the auditor says, all right, revenues dropped by $1.1 billion.
Secondly, special payments were up by roughly $1 billion, mainly social assistance. I think we can understand that, social assistance.
The third thing is the new NDP government chose to write three things off. You pay $200 million to the teachers' pension fund, $200 million to the teachers' pension fund that wasn't due; the Urban Transportation and Development Corp loan of $400 million; and SkyDome, $320 million. SkyDome, legitimate: Write it off. I agree with that. That was a good move, smart move. You wrote it all off, blamed the dastardly Liberals, then you sold it. That's fine. That's good politics. But the point is this: only one balanced budget now in 25 years, five months before you got elected, and then the explanation of the deficit. So I know you've all been told that your problems were as a result of what the Liberals did. Believe me, you inherited a province with a strong economy.
Now I wanted to stay on the Provincial Auditor, because some of you have been sort of yelling across that, oh, I'm exaggerating the Provincial Auditor's comments. Let's just go through 10 things that the Provincial Auditor caught you on. In fact, he used the language that you were "incorrect." That's pretty strong language, "incorrect."
One was the famed sale of GO trains. Just to remind the public out there, what the government did was it took $425 million worth of GO trains and somebody in the government flew over to Bermuda, found a company in Bermuda that would buy the GO trains for $425 million and then immediately -- immediately -- sell them back to the government. The government in a matter of minutes sold them -- actually, it was for $431 million -- and then bought them back for $431 million; in 10 minutes sold them for $431 million and bought them back. What did that little game cost us? The fee for that alone, just the fee, was a $4-million fee. As the auditor points out, that wasn't a sale; it was a phantom sale. Nobody sold them. You just took a big mortgage out on them, and we paid, the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, $4 million for that little manoeuvre, an offshore Bermuda company sale.
Again, you've only got to look at GO Transit's own financial statements. They say in there, "Under the instructions from the Minister of Finance, we did this." We're looking for money right now. A $4-million fee for a 10-minute sale of a GO train is questionable at best.
The second thing the auditor points out -- the public may not be aware of it -- is the government has sold all the buildings around Queen's Park. I see the member for Oshawa here. They sold the Michael Starr building in Oshawa. The Michael Starr building in Oshawa has been sold. All those government buildings have been sold off, but they're not sold at all. The auditor quite correctly points out that wasn't a sale. All it was was a paper transfer from one arm of the government to another arm of the government so you could show a bunch of revenue coming in that wasn't revenue at all. Luckily, the auditor caught that. But all these buildings around here have theoretically been sold and then immediately, instantly, leased back. The auditor quite correctly points out that's wrong.
All of the school, hospital, college, university capital now, the government has done something else, the auditor said, that is clearly, totally wrong. It used to be that the province of Ontario gave roughly $600 million a year in the form of grants to school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities for capital expenditures. The government tried to do something it called loan-based financing. I thought when that came out: "That sounds quite good. It sounds to me like the government's going to loan somebody the money and will get it paid back." That's not what it is at all. What it is is that the government says to a school board: "Listen. In the past, school board X, we may have given you a $5-million grant to build that school, but we're going to do it differently now. You go borrow the $5 million, because we want it on your books, but whoever you borrow it from, you tell them that we, the province, will commit to repay 100% of the principal and interest on that. It's just that we want to get it off our books on to someone else's books."
That's flim-flammery, and the auditor caught it. He said, "You can't do that." As a matter of fact, the auditor said to us, as members will know, he's been bombarded with phone calls from financial officers in hospitals saying: "They want us to put this down as a loan, but we think it should be recorded as a grant. Who's right?" The auditor says: "It's a grant. It's not a loan. Show it as a grant." The auditor forced that to be redone, and that's where he gets into this differing significantly from financial reality under any accounting rules.
The auditor also caught something that was interesting. In the Legislature today one of the members was talking about the Pension Benefits Act, as I recall. I want to remind the members: I think it was a year and a half ago, as I recall it now, but in any event, this Legislature was forced to pass -- the government members passed it -- a bill that exempted the government itself from the Pension Benefits Act. The government actually took $150 million out of the teachers' pension fund. That would never be permitted; there wouldn't be a private sector company in Ontario that could ever do that, that could ever get the Legislature to agree to pass legislation exempting itself from the Pension Benefits Act. The only way legally that the government could take $150 million out of the teachers' pension was to pass legislation exempting itself from the Pension Benefits Act.
2100
Once again, fortunately, the Provincial Auditor caught that. He said, "You can't do that. That's not right," particularly when we have an unfunded liability in that pension fund that's in the $7 billion to $8 billion range. The idea of taking $150 million cash out of a pension fund that has an unfunded liability in the $7 billion to $8 billion range is clearly preposterous. The only way that could be done, the only way, was the Legislature was required to pass legislation exempting the province from it.
I will also point out some other things that the auditor went over. All of us now know that our driver's licence now is a five-year driver's licence. You go and renew your driver's licence, you pay for five years. The government is taking all of that revenue -- you pay five years, they'll take it all into revenue this year. What it means, of course, is that the government of Ontario will have five years' revenue in three years and then no revenue at all for drivers' licences in the last two, because everybody will have renewed their licences. We were at a three-year licence. We'll all have renewed it in 1993, 1994 and 1995, and then, surprise, surprise, no driver's licence revenue available in 1996 and 1997.
I go over this because the auditor has done the people of Ontario an enormous service. He has forced the government to revise its books for 1993-94 and, believe me, right up until probably about three months ago, the government was continuing to report the deficit in a way that the auditor would never, ever, ever have signed. We found that right up until September we were getting deficit estimates from the government that were $1.6 billion lower than the final deficit because the auditor clearly forced the government to move on it.
The auditor pointed out those 10 things I've talked about, although I didn't go over all of them. There are other ones here, for example, of interest payments that were due but were delayed and should have been put in the year that they were incurred. The auditor got the government to make all those changes for last year, and then in his comments to the public, comments dated November 15, 1994, is where he, in what can only be regarded as strongly worded language, talks about the Ontario finances differing significantly from the financial reality under any accounting rules. Several of the people in the chamber were at the committee where he was asked the question, "If we used financial reality, what would the deficit this year, 1994-95, be?" He says it would be in the $10.9-billion range.
So what we have been told by the government is that the deficit is on a stiff downward trend. What we've been told by the Provincial Auditor is that it actually is going to go up this fiscal year, 1994-95, over 1993-94. When all is said and done, if you want my opinion on who I have confidence in and whose numbers I trust and whose numbers I think the public trust, and certainly whose numbers the financial community trusts and whose numbers, in the final analysis, will have to be reflected, the Provincial Auditor is the one I have the confidence in, and he has clearly pointed out that he doesn't trust the numbers of the government.
The reason I go through all of this is because the member for Oxford started the comment on supply by indicating that the government members feel things are just fine. I would say if you were to ask someone to do a very objective look at the economy in the last four years in the province and the fiscal situation in the last four years of the province, any objective look would say it has been a failure.
There is no doubt, when a government spends 25% more money than it raises; when the accumulated deficit, the debt, has gone from $35 billion to -- at the end of this year, in another four months, it will be $90 billion; and when, as I say, they spend 25% more money than they raise and when, for four straight years, frankly there has not been an appreciable dent in the deficit. I know the government says, "Well, this year there's going to be, because the deficit's going to be $8.5 billion," but the auditor says, "No, it isn't; it is going to be $10.9 billion." So we will have gone four straight years of a flat deficit.
I actually would urge, particularly, the backbench members to challenge that. How can it be? How can it be that the Provincial Auditor is saying $10.9 billion and we're saying $8.2 billion?
The auditor went over in detail in the 1994 budget how he arrived at that number. For example, remember I mentioned earlier the government sold all these government buildings to itself last year. The auditor points out that this year it's planning to do more of the same. He says that's not a sale at all. That has nothing to do with revenue. All you've done is transfer a government building. You're going to keep using it. You're going to have it for yourself. Nothing's changed; you've just transferred it over. Some $250 million worth of revenue is in this year's budget, and the auditor said, "No, you can't do that."
You remember I talked about the Bermuda sale of the GO trains, where somebody flew over to Bermuda, flipped the GO trains, sold them and then bought them back in 10 minutes? This year, the government's planning to do that with air fleets, ferries and bulldozers. Somebody in Bermuda, I gather, wants to buy the Ontario bulldozers and then sell them back to the government. That's $165 million.
Then you may recall we talked about this loan-based financing. The auditor said: "That is not reality. That does not reflect reality." For those people who look at the budget, in 1993-94, there was $854 million worth of those, and the government this year has put in $1.6 billion of those loan-based finances and another $349 million of other project-specific. The auditor said: "No, I'm not going to allow that. You can't call that loan-based financing and take it." Right now, none of that's in the deficit. None of it's on the books. The deficit does not include that $1.6 billion and that $349 million, and the Provincial Auditor says, "Well, that's going to have to be put in there." That's where he gets to the $10.9 billion.
The reason that's important, as I say, is that if the members think there's a significant reduction in the deficit, if you really believe that, you have a problem, because the auditor doesn't believe it. The auditor will not agree to it. It isn't accounting. I know you've been told: "Well, it's just their accounting rules. We're moving from one accounting system to the other and that's why it's happening." The auditor doesn't say that.
Well, the member for Oxford is shaking his head. The auditor says this: "Ontario's finances differ significantly from the financial reality under any accounting rule." He says this has nothing to do with accounting. This has to do with simply misreporting the numbers.
On the loan-based financing, he says they were incorrectly treated as loans receivable. On all of the sales of the government buildings, he says "incorrectly treated as revenue." And on the funds received from the Go Transit sale, they were "incorrectly treated as revenue." The auditor couldn't be clearer about that. This isn't accounting. This is not two separate accounting rules. This is just simply incorrectly treating them.
2110
So the reason for spending the time on it is that on both the economic side and on the fiscal side, one can only conclude that it has been a disaster the first four years.
The reason these things, in the end, are obviously crucial to the province of Ontario is that when we have a $90-billion debt, several things happen. One is that the average family in this province now spends $300 a month in taxes just to pay the interest on the provincial debt. You can imagine all the people out there, imagine every month. It would be an interesting exercise if everybody had to write a cheque to the provincial government covering their interest costs on the provincial debt. Five years ago, less than 10% of the revenues coming into the province were used to pay the interest on the debt. Now it's 17% or 18%.
Frankly, I will say this: The government has borrowed money very well. I will take my hat off to the Ministry of Finance officials. They are known as the most creative borrower in the world, and I say that to be somewhat complimentary. If you talk to the financial people, they will tell you that Ontario, if you can believe this, has won awards. Am I right? I think they've won awards for being the best borrower in the world. There are people who judge this stuff and the government of Ontario is truly the best borrower in the world. As I say, there are probably some nice trophies over in the Frost Building of number one borrower.
Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): Oh, yes?
Mr Phillips: I'm not kidding you. There are these awards. They have had the best advice in the world. We've got some great financial advisers here in Toronto who have given them advice. I dare say that's where the Go train thing came from. I dare say that's where every imaginable creative way of handling things has been done. I think the province just went to market yesterday with some creative things, if I'm not mistaken, and did quite well. We've got four-year bonds and 20-year bonds and we've got bonds in all sorts of denominations. We sell bonds in other denominations and then we swap them into Canadian dollars. I understand publicly that there is a bit of a downside to that. We've lost at least $100 million if not $200 million in one of those swap deals with one of the financial institutions that had some financial trouble, if I'm not mistaken.
Anyway, the point of all this is that we have become the world's biggest non-sovereign borrower. In other words, there are countries that borrow more than Ontario, but only countries. Nobody else but countries borrows more money than Ontario. We have been the most creative borrowers. We're going to embark in another few weeks on selling provincial savings bonds. When asked to comment on that, I said I don't have a problem with that. It's not, by the way, necessarily a cheap way to borrow money, because people in the financial markets will tell you that you've got to pay a lot of money to raise that, and it rolls over quickly, so you've got that annual expense. But they will --
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: Someone said, "Well, will they sell the bonds?" They'll sell the bonds, because they will get professional advice that will price them at the right level and they'll sell them. The institutions will sell them.
But the point is this: We now are the world's largest non-sovereign borrower. And make no mistake, we're on the edge right now. We have had three credit downgrades.
Interjection: Three?
Mr Phillips: Three. When the NDP came in, the province had a AAA credit rating, the best you could have. Then it was downgraded once to what's called AA+, then AA, then AA-. We now, with those three downgrades, are on the edge. One more downgrade, and we're into what's called the A credit rating.
We'll still be able to borrow money -- I'm not one who says that suddenly we won't be able to borrow money -- but the cost will go up substantially, because you move into A credit rating, your access is severely limited. I'm told that two thirds of the people who lend money to us now would not be able to lend money to us just because they are not allowed to lend money to an A- credit-rated operation. So we're right on the edge.
One of my concerns is that the evaluation of Ontario is based partially on really good analysis by people who watch this stuff carefully, but there's also some emotion involved in it. There's emotion involved in investment decisions from around the world, people in other countries looking where they may invest. Part analytical, part emotion. That's where, in my opinion, the two sets of books do us the most damage.
The credit rating agencies have the talent, the time, the expertise to do the analysis, to know what the real numbers are, but it is very unnerving to the world financial community to hear that Ontario has a deficit number that the government is reporting, and then one that is about $2.5 billion higher, according to the independent Provincial Auditor.
I've said this before, and it's true, that if this were a publicly traded company, if Ontario was listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, first, no accountant could sign the government's books right now, the ones where the deficit is reported. There's no doubt of that. Nobody could.
Well, the Solicitor General is waving his hand, but the Provincial Auditor will not agree to it, will never agree to it. If it were a company, it would be delisted from the stock exchange. There's no doubt about that. And as we head up to the budget, it will become increasingly clear that the real number for the province is the one that the Provincial Auditor supports, not the one that the government's reporting.
So as we debate tonight what's called supply, where the government is looking for the support of the House for ensuring that it has the legislative authority to pay its bills, clearly, you will get that. Clearly, we will deal with that because it's in all of our best interests. It is, none the less, important that we review what the member who introduced the supply bill said, and that was that things are fine in Ontario.
I go back over what I regard as your own public report card, and I would just urge all of you to look at the numbers. I'm just repeating the numbers in this document, where on the job front you say the number of jobs created in Ontario in 1994 will be fewer than it was in 1993. No one's disputing that. Those are your numbers; that's what's going to happen. As a matter of fact, the numbers are now in for 11 months and there are 64,000 more jobs in Ontario than there were in the same period a year ago, but last year there were 79,000 more jobs.
2120
We are actually seeing fewer jobs being created in Ontario in 1994 than we saw in 1993. As the members know, in any normal year I think 75,000 people join our labour force. We'd all been expecting a drop in the social assistance caseload. I think we had been told that many of the programs that the government had implemented, that the Jobs Ontario Training program had moved --
Mr Sutherland: Working well.
Mr Phillips: The member says, "Working well" -- tens of thousands of people off social assistance. I think there other tens of thousands who had been directed from getting social assistance to getting Canada pension or getting unemployment insurance, according to the government document, and jobs were supposed to have been created.
Yet, in spite of all that, we will see, according to the government's own numbers, a record number of people on social assistance in 1994, a caseload up 18,000. That's the jargon we use around here. I think normally a caseload represents two people, so that for each caseload there is actually an average of two people on social assistance, if I'm not mistaken. A caseload going up by 18,0000 I gather would be another 35,000 people on social assistance. The housing starts continue to be very weak. As a matter of fact, I was disappointed to see that even by --
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): How one equals two in Liberal talk.
Mr Phillips: I don't know whether I should be diverted by the --
Mr Poirier: No, never. Don't be diverted.
Mr Phillips: Okay. I'll just leave it to you to talk to your social assistance minister, who will explain caseload and numbers of people on social assistance.
But the number of housing starts -- 48,000 in 1994 and 54,000 in 1995 -- is still a major problem. As I said before, the gross domestic product, the output of the province, in 1994 will only get back to where it was in 1989. In spite of the fact that we are seeing very good exports, particularly in our auto sector, the output in the province in 1994 will just get back to where it was in 1989.
The one thing I'm very interested in is our merchandise trade, because I am convinced that the future of Ontario rests very much clearly on our ability to be able to trade globally, to compete globally and to be able to ship product around the world. I'm very concerned about the numbers in this document which show the trade deficit, the difference between our exports and imports. Exports have gone up $21 billion since 1990 and imports have gone up $27 billion, and our trade deficit is now approaching $12 billion. In the rest of Canada, the trade surplus is $29 billion. I raise this because I'm worried about it. I'm also concerned that we now see almost 90% of our exports going to the United States. I like doing business with the United States, but now, when we virtually have one customer, the United States --
Hon Mr Huget: Where have you been?
Mr Phillips: The member asks where I have been. I'm just repeating the numbers in your own document, where now 10% of our exports go to the rest of the world and 90% to the United States. As I said before, it's almost ironic that the party that had a huge problem with free trade and felt that doing business with the rest of the world was going to be the solution, that for whatever reason, the trend's actually gone in the opposite direction.
On the economic front, that's what's happened, and on the fiscal side, as I say, we will now have seen four straight budgets with deficits well in excess of $10 billion. I don't think there's any doubt that when people -- and the NDP itself, I think -- look back on the NDP government, they would say the biggest mistake was that first budget where you said you were going to spend your way out of the recession. I re-read that document often.
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: The Solicitor General's come back in. I went over this earlier. I don't want to have to go back over the same ground again, but I would be happy to. There's no doubt that the single biggest mistake was that first Bob Rae budget where they were going to spend their way out of the recession. It was the only jurisdiction in North America that had that fiscal plan. The word "restraint" never appeared in that budget, the word "restraint" wasn't in that budget anywhere, and, at a time when inflation was running around 2%, spending in that budget went up 14%. I think even the NDP privately would say, "If we could ever turn the clock back, we would never have done that." That started the big fiscal problem.
As I say, we will see. That deficit ended up at $10.9 billion; the next year, $12.4 billion; 1993-94, $10.8 billion; and, according to the Provincial Auditor, this year's deficit is up to $10.9 billion -- four straight years with deficits well in excess of $10 billion, spending 25% more money than is coming in and running up that accumulated debt of $90 billion.
The lesson the federal government teaches us is that you get on to a debt treadmill. With the federal government right now, 34 cents of every dollar that comes in goes to pay the interest on the debt. They are really being hit right now with increased interest rates. I will say that Ontario, so far, has not been hit heavily with increased interest rates, primarily because most of our debt is longer-term; we pre-borrowed a lot of it. Again, I go back: I think the borrowing operation of the province of Ontario has been darned good.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Let's see those trophies.
Mr Phillips: As I said earlier, they truly have won international awards. I wouldn't mind seeing the trophy case for number one borrower, most creative borrower and best new idea on borrowing. Almost every imaginable technique for borrowing has been used by the province of Ontario. I said earlier, and I'll say it again, many of these creative borrowing techniques, the Bermuda sale of the GO trains and the sale and leaseback of the government buildings -- I do know that they, and the Solicitor General will be interested in this, are eventually going to sell the jails. They've sold the courthouses and leased them back. They're going to sell the jails and lease them back.
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Gerry, come on.
Mr Phillips: The member says, "Gerry, come on." He's the Solicitor General; he's in charge of it. They've told us that. I don't know whether they've told you that, but they've told us that. That's part of the plan: They're going to sell the jails and then lease them back. The only thing that will stop that is the Provincial Auditor saying, "That does not reflect financial reality."
The Provincial Auditor has got the handle on that. The problem is that he cannot force the government to change. His hands are tied. He cannot force the government, until the books are closed, to change. But he's told the public and ourselves that if you want financial reality, the real deficit is $10.9 billion. Until we get financial reality, I think we create in the public a sense of a lack of confidence.
2130
I know exactly what's going to happen. The NDP will be out in January and will be saying, "The deficit's down 30% from two years ago." I would just say to the public and the Provincial Auditor: "Thank you, Provincial Auditor. You've given the right number." They will say, "Jobs are being created at a record clip," and we'll look at the numbers and say, "How could that be, 100,000 fewer jobs now in Ontario than in 1989?"
The good news, if you will, is that --
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): There's an election coming.
Mr Phillips: There's an election coming; that's part of the good news, thank you. We are seeing some signs of the economy growing. I'm very pleased with the economic growth so far in Ontario.
Mr Bradley: Is Bob Rae giving any credit to the federal government for that or not?
Mr Phillips: My colleague said, is he giving any credit to the federal government? I appreciated, by the way, the Team Canada trip to the Far East.
Mr Bradley: I have the photos.
Mr Phillips: There's the photo there.
Mrs Marland: Who went on that?
Mr Phillips: The Premier and the Prime Minister.
If you recognize that 90% of our business is done with the United States, we truly do have to build our business elsewhere. In my opinion, the Far East offers a good opportunity. I was pleased to see the Prime Minister going to the Far East and I was pleased to see the premiers going. I know that Premier Rae expressed reluctance initially, for whatever reason.
Mr Bradley: He was selling Candus when he was over there.
Mr Phillips: Well, he was selling Candus. He expressed reluctance to go over, but in the end agreed to go over, and I was pleased with that. I was pleased to see the nine premiers over in the Far East. That one single trip, with the Prime Minister leading it, I think established in that part of the world that Canada is keen to do business there, Canada is anxious to do business. I was pleased to see all of the arrangements that were completed there. I was very pleased to see that happen.
I think most people watched the Prime Minister and the Premier over there. I expressed, and I'll express it once again, my personal thanks to the Premier for the trip. As I said in the House earlier, the Prime Minister's always in some danger on a trip like that, but the Premier, I think maybe at his own personal risk, never left the side of the Prime Minister through the whole trip. I think all of us appreciate it that the RCMP couldn't always be at the side of the Prime Minister, but Premier Rae was. As I said before, I think sometimes the scariest moment is when the media come rushing forward and those television lights go on and there's turmoil. I appreciated particularly that when those cameras came on Premier Rae, at great personal risk, shielded the Prime Minister from the glare of those lights.
There he is -- I don't know whether everybody can see at home -- at one of those tense moments. That's Prime Minister Chrétien and there's about a quarter of an inch between Premier Rae's head and the Prime Minister's head.
Mr Bradley: I think you'd need a crowbar to separate them.
Mr Phillips: My colleague said you'd need a crowbar to separate them.
Anyway, we're having a little bit of fun here, but that trip said several things. One is that Canada and Ontario are anxious to do business in that part of the world, and we very much support that. There is no doubt that those economies are going to grow far faster than the North American economy. We have a unique entry into there.
I might say as another aside, because I want to make this point, that one of the advantages of having foreign students here at our universities is that we often establish some strong, long-term beneficial relationships. I know, in talking with several of the people at the U of T, that some of the U of T students who have come from other countries, who may still be living here or have gone back to their own country, are enormously successful business people, and we are doing business in Canada directly as a result of those foreign students having come here and been educated here. So I don't think we can forget some of the side economic benefits of some other sound -- I hope sound -- educational programs.
In any event, that trip was successful. Also, there was a message from the Canadian people, at least from the people I talked to, and that is that they appreciated the cooperation of the levels of government. I think that there was a certain message that we are a country and that if we are going to survive for the future, we all have to work together, that there is a limit to how much we can compete with various levels of government. That clearly is the message between the provinces and the federal government. I think it's probably also a message between other levels of government, that we cannot afford duplication and we cannot afford one government going one way and another government going another way and scarce resources being dissipated as a result of that. I think that was, as I say, one of the messages I got back from that trip.
I've talked about all of the problems, our fiscal problems and our economic problems. The silver lining in all of this is that there's not much doubt that the economy is performing fairly well right now; 4.5% real growth is very good. It, by the way, is not translated into job growth, which I would have thought. I would have thought that we would have seen more job growth occurring as a result of that.
I also had hoped that the revenues would be coming in a little faster than they are; maybe they are. Maybe the Minister of Finance is waiting to surprise us when what we call the quarterly report is out. The quarterly report will be out for the first nine months, which ends at the end of December, probably at the end of January. I hope that will reflect a much stronger growth in revenues.
I was pleased to see that the province got, I guess, $250 million from the federal government for fiscal stabilization.
Interjection: It was $187 million.
Mr Phillips: It was $187 million; that will be very useful.
Mr Klopp: I remember you got $1 billion, and you still couldn't put it against the debt.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Order.
Mr Phillips: There they go again. I'm sorry to upset you by quoting your own figures.
Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): You can't upset us, Gerry. We're not upset.
Mr Phillips: Marilyn Churley, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, she doesn't get upset, but others do. I'm sorry to point out that, contrary to what you would like to believe, the numbers you put out say that job growth in Ontario in 1994 is lower than it was in 1993, that social assistance caseload --
Hon Ms Churley: We're not the only ones saying that.
Mr Phillips: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations says no one is saying that. Actually, you know who's saying that? You're saying that.
Hon Ms Churley: Others are saying the same thing, Gerry.
Mr Phillips: We'll be voting, I gather, later tonight on supply. The government will get the money required to pay the bills. It will add, according to the Provincial Auditor, to that $10.9 billion deficit and end up at that level. It will mean that we will have, as I say, our fourth straight year of spending 25% more money than we're bringing in, of raising our accumulated deficit to $90 billion and of creating a very large economic and fiscal hole for us to climb out of.
I happen to think we're beginning to climb out of it. That's the good part of it. I happen to think that the economy is getting better. I happen to think that we should see some revenue growth. The problem is, when you've got that sort of debt deficit hole to get out of, when you've got those kinds of numbers of people on social assistance to help, when you've got that number of people unemployed -- 100,000 fewer than 1989; that's unmistakable, those are your own numbers -- we have a long way to go. None the less, later tonight the government will get approval to pay its bills, and that's perhaps the one piece of good news for some people out there.
2140
The Acting Speaker: Are there questions or comments to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I was pleased to listen to the comments from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt because I can tell you that he's been in the portfolio for long enough that he gets to know pretty much about the budgetary policies of this government.
When we look at the 30% reduction that the government's talking about with regard to its debt, when you reduce the debt from about $13 billion by 30% and still have about a $10-billion debt, it doesn't really make much sense to me to continue in that avenue of financial responsibilities. The day is coming when governments are going to have to realize that you can't spend more than you're making.
It's good to see the Solicitor General in the House tonight, because I just wanted to say that the budgetary policies with regard to correctional institutions, when you close down 51 facilities in the province, the public review board indicating that the lowest-cost-operating one was the best in the province, and close down the cheapest one to run and keep the dearest ones open, it certainly doesn't make much sense to me.
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt talked about the budgetary policies of this government, and that's just a bit of an example of what he has been talking about here tonight, about how the government could better manage the affairs of this province. I think when he looks at some of the debate that we have had today with regard to some of the private member's bills, with regard to the cost that will be attached through the one with regard to the Endangered, Threatened and Vulnerable Species Act, the costs that could be attached to that, that's all part of the budgetary policy, because we talked about what the cost of that is.
The budgetary policies of the government, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt says, are way out of whack. When you've still got a $10-billion deficit every year, I think we're going the wrong way.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments.
Mr Sutherland: There are many issues the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised, but I want to deal with a couple of them.
First of all, on his comments about trade, the numbers he's using -- he's only referring to international trade, may I say -- he's forgetting to take into account that we have a $21-billion surplus in interprovincial trade in this country.
I also want to remind him, as the minister did in response to a question from his leader, that one of the reasons we have higher inputs, of course, is because of the investments that are being made in business machinery and those things, a lot of which do come from out of the province, and of course the highest trade deficit we've had for the last 10 years was in fact during 1987, 1988 and 1989. Gee, who was in government then?
I also want to say I think the member's comments about the China trade trip are very good. What they also go to prove is this: that the government's decision to close down the foreign trade offices and try new, innovative approaches for developing international trade have been working very, very effectively. It shows the lack of thinking in the Liberal policy. They say they want to re-open those trade offices.
Let me just say about the fiscal policy, he talks about where they had a balanced budget. If they used the new accounting methods, $3 billion, $5 billion, throughout that, and if this government had the revenues rolling in of 8% increases, 10% increases, rather than three straight years of decline -- at least I think we should have expected there would have been some money set aside as we went into this past recession so that we wouldn't have had to get into larger deficits.
The Liberal Party did not have to make tough decisions, and as a result they deferred dealing with the realities. This government has dealt with the realities.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments.
Mr Bradley: I wish they'd put the member for Oxford in the cabinet so that he wouldn't have to make all these interventions all the time. His job is to defend the government position no matter what. There are some other members who are a little more independent. When you're in the cabinet, you have to do it; I admit that. But there are some other members who know how to do it in a little more independent fashion than simply the government line that they give you all the time. That really is demeaning to bright, articulate individuals, just to give the government line.
However, having said that, I want to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for his very detailed knowledge of the financial affairs of the province of Ontario and his description of the trip to Asia by the Premier. I too was pleased to see the Premier there, because it showed that he can work with the federal government -- at least when there's credit to be gotten, he'll be there large as life to be side by side.
I'm a hockey fan. People will say there has been no hockey played in the last while. One of the people with the sharpest elbows I've ever seen when there's a camera within 20 feet is none other than my good friend the member for York South. He can elbow anybody aside and get into that photograph when there's credit to be gotten.
What will be interesting to see is whether, when it's really tough out there and there are some tough decisions to be made, the Premier will stand side by side with the Prime Minister on that occasion. That's the real test of leadership. It's easy to be there when there's credit to be gotten, when there's good news to be given out, but I'll be watching carefully to see if our Premier is side by side with the Prime Minister when the tough decisions are there to be made.
The Acting Speaker: One more question or comment.
Hon Mr Allen: I certainly will agree with the last speaker to the extent that the member who last spoke in fact does have a great deal of knowledge of the matters which he was talking about. The problem was that he was fishing rather selectively in different ponds and pulling out fish here and there that didn't always make much of a catch when you put them all together. For example, he told us that the last few years have been difficult years. We all knew that. He went over and over again telling us how bad it was. We knew that the economy was in bad shape.
The issue, of course, that he raised around housing was an example. He said there were very few housing starts through the last years which we've been in government. But did he ask what in fact this government had done and report on what we had done with respect to housing as an initiative in terms of developing housing for this province? There was one point in the recession when 85% of the starts in this country were in fact happening right in this province and there was almost nothing happening in the rest of the country, but the reason that there was anything happening in Ontario was because the provincial government had launched a major program, the largest in Canadian history, to create affordable housing for this province.
We have currently 41,000 completed units of housing, constructed in a mere four years and a few months. We have 7,000 more housing units in construction. By the time we leave government, we will have created close to 60,000 units of housing, and 55,000 of them will have been in construction. There is simply no record in Canadian history to match that in terms of housing starts promoted for affordable housing for the people of Ontario during the last four years.
The Acting Speaker: Now the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to respond.
Mr Phillips: There's so much to respond to. The last minister who spoke was the minister of international trade, as I recall it, and it was under his tutelage that our international trade dropped. Our trade with the United States now is 90% of our exports; 10% of our exports go to the rest of the world. The member was just talking about Asia. Our trade with Asia in 1990 was $3 billion; in 1993 it was $2.8 billion. So the great effort to expand our trade with Asia wasn't working. It was dropping. It went from $3 billion to $2.8 billion. Mind you, our imports from Asia went up dramatically, but our exports dropped with the great NDP trade effort.
2150
I understand on the housing starts that the government has spent a lot of money on that. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, the annual cost now is about $1 billion. It's up about $300 million in the last few years. I think the billion dollars goes on for a long while, but what's happened is that in 1989, we had 93,000 housing starts -- again, I'm quoting from your figures -- 1989, just when you were coming in, 93,000 housing starts; in 1990-93, down to 45,000, half of them; and in 1994, 48,000.
Hon Mr Allen: Factor in what is happening in the private sector.
Mr Phillips: The member is saying, "Well, it's because the private sector isn't building them." Of course it's because the private sector isn't building them. Of course that's why it's not happening, but isn't that what you're supposed to be all about? Of course, it's fallen out. But of course it's fallen out because we have in the province of Ontario an economy that has failed in the past five years. There's no doubt about that. Luckily, we're beginning to see some growth, but as I said earlier, any objective analysis would give the Ontario economy an F for the last five years.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the Supply Act.
Mrs Marland: As I rise to speak to the Supply Act, 1994, which is An Act to authorize the payment of certain amounts for the Public Service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1995, I wish to just respond at the outset to some comments that were made earlier this evening by the member for Oxford.
He said, "Facts speak for themselves." That is a very accurate statement. I find it interesting that it was used as a rebuttal to something that was said earlier by a member of the official opposition, because the truth is, facts do speak for themselves. In this province, I don't think anything speaks louder about the current Bob Rae socialist government than the fact that they're 14% in the polls.
I think that tells this government what the people of Ontario think about it, its management of this province and its expenditures which lead to the need to pass this act tonight to pay certain bills.
One of the facts that I find particularly interesting is as recently as this week, we have learned that some of the traditional supporters of this government, namely the Canadian Auto Workers and CUPE, which is headed by Sid Ryan, have announced again that they will not be working to support these government members in the next election.
In fact, when the Treasurer was giving his economic outlook report in the House last week, Mr Ryan was sitting up in the front of the public gallery with some other members, I can only assume, of CUPE, and not Mr Ryan but some of the members had to be forcibly removed from the public gallery because they were calling down to their government, the New Democratic Party government -- the first time in the history of Ontario that the New Democratic Party has formed a government, and these unions that have always traditionally been the support for this particular party are continuing to be disenchanted. They certainly were very disenchanted at the time of the passage of the social contract bill. In fact, one thing that they have announced this week is that they will work for those members of this Legislature who voted against the social contract legislation.
The Acting Speaker: Could you relate this to Bill 204, please?
Mrs Marland: You wish me to identify the bill?
The Acting Speaker: The supply bill.
Hon Ms Churley: You have to speak to the bill, Margaret.
Mrs Marland: My comments are definitely on track because we are discussing the expenditures of the government, and whether we're talking about social contract -- a decision that I understand was made because the government didn't have enough money to pay their workers. At the time that the government made that decision that they didn't have enough money to pay their workers and passed the social contract legislation, they made that decision because they were trying to find somewhere to get money from. It was very interesting --
Hon Mr Owens: That's right, Margaret. Are you picking your hospital in Mississauga you are going to close?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mrs Marland: It was very interesting that all of these unions with their traditional support of the New Democratic Party suddenly detached themselves totally from that support.
Hon Mr Allen: You guys would probably provoke a general strike.
Mrs Marland: The fact that I'm having the interjections that I am now, I would assume is because the members of the New Democratic Party who are sitting in the House at this time do not like to be reminded that unless they voted against the social contract, the union members are not going to be working for them.
Hon Mr Huget: No, actually, Margaret, we're nauseated by your arrogance.
The Acting Speaker: Order. The member legitimately has the floor and is entitled to make her remarks.
Mrs Marland: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Another fact that this government should be contemplating is that there are 100,000 fewer people working now in this province than five years ago. If this government isn't concerned about that fact or wants to question that fact, then obviously they have not done their homework.
One of the indications of this government's mismanagement of the business of this province tragically was confirmed for us yesterday with a tremendous tragedy that took place in Hamilton. The reason that these tragedies are important for us to look at is because every time there is a tragedy, we must work to ensure that that never happens again.
On December 2 of last year, 1993, which is coincidentally almost a year ago -- we're standing in this House today on December 7 -- we had a demonstration outside Queen's Park of people and families with family members who had developmental disabilities. I also on that date placed a resolution before the House in private members' business. That resolution was passed in this House by 51 votes to 4. Needless to say, the four people who voted against that resolution were members of the government.
2200
Subsequent to that motion being passed on December 2, I wrote to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wrote to him on December 22 and I reminded him of the content of the resolution which this House had seen fit to support and pass. In my private member's resolution, I was calling for immediate reform of the provincial government's financial support to adults with developmental disabilities, and that unfortunately was the scenario of the tragedy yesterday in Hamilton.
Two of the options that I gave the government in my resolution were, firstly, to have the reform of the system that would result in directly allocating financial support to adults with developmental disabilities and their families or guardians, thereby allowing them to choose the support services that they most require.
The reason that was an important part of my resolution is that no one knows better than the families what the support services are that they require. Certainly nobody knew better than the mother in Hamilton yesterday what support services she was seeking on behalf of her family member.
The second part of my motion a year ago dealt with the redirecting of funds from other areas where cost reductions could be achieved, for instance, by reducing fraud, mismanagement and misallocation of funds in social assistance programs, welfare fraud, health card fraud, and with the savings from the recovery of those funds we would have more money to support adults with developmental disabilities.
What is totally shocking is that I wrote to the minister, as I said, on December 22, following the passage of my resolution in this House dealing with people with developmental disabilities; it took the Minister of Community and Social Services six months to reply to my letter -- six months, in spite of the fact that this Legislature had passed a resolution asking for those changes, supporting the changes that I was suggesting in my resolution.
These galleries, the public galleries and the members' galleries, were filled to capacity that day by families and their family members, some of whom in here who did have developmental disabilities, who were under great difficulty, as you well know and I well know, to say in a demonstrative way, "Please help us." It took six months for this Minister of Community and Social Services to reply to a letter following up on that resolution.
In his letter, dated June 10, 1994, he says, "The ministry currently invests a significant amount of public funds in developmental services." I don't have any debate with that. It's true, but when we have the kind of stress and crisis that families live in every single day in this province because they have developmentally disabled children and adults for whom they are trying to cope and for whom they are trying to care and have some kind of comfortable living environment, because there is not enough money spent on them.
Further on in the letter, the minister says: "You have commented that families are facing crisis situations now. I am aware that existing services are stretched and that the increased funding this year will not meet the needs of all people who are currently waiting for the service."
The final paragraph says, "The government also cannot be assured of new resources for developmental services in the future."
If we do not care and make sure that help is available for the most vulnerable people in our society, I have to wonder where our priorities are. I certainly know where the priorities are for our Ontario PC Party, and I will address that in a few moments, because we have committed it to writing in the Common Sense Revolution.
But the priorities of this government are to allow waste and overexpenditures in any number of areas. I'm not going to take the time tonight to table examples of that, because previous members speaking already, including my leader today, as a matter of fact, in question period, gave examples of where this government has wasted millions of dollars.
The Minister of Housing is sitting in the House tonight, and he too well knows where in non-profit housing programs this government has wasted millions of dollars. He too knows that the Provincial Auditor identified in his 1993 report $200 million in the non-profit housing program that simply was not accounted for: $200 million. Can you imagine how far $200 million would go to help families who live every day with a developmentally disabled child or adult? These families, most of them, have never asked the government for a dollar.
For a lot of them now, the parents are aging. In fact, in Mississauga alone we have some 80 parents who are over the age of 65 -- 65 years of age and they are still caring at home for a loved one who is developmentally disabled. We're talking about a parent of 65-plus lifting a developmentally disabled adult who can't walk, can't speak, wears diapers, can't feed themselves. I don't think, unless anyone has had that experience, they can begin to ever understand how much devotion that kind of caregiving requires, how much physical energy and how draining it is to a family, especially where the parents are aging.
In fact, in Mississauga we have 18 or 20 families, I think it is, where the parents are 80 years and over, yet we have a government that pretends it doesn't have money for these families. We have a Minister of Community and Social Services who says, "I am aware that existing services are stretched, that the increased funding this year will not meet the needs of all people who are currently waiting for the service." We certainly know one family for whom that answer had grave consequences.
2210
And it isn't that this government doesn't have any money. They have billions in revenue. The problem is that they don't know how to spend it, they don't know how to prioritize.
I'm sorry the Minister of Housing finds these comments humorous, because I am talking about the human face of tragedy. If the members of this House do not understand what the human face of tragedy means, I feel very sorry for them. When this party was in the opposition, I remember -- any one of us who was in this House when the New Democratic Party was in opposition remembers very well -- how they would stand in their place and pretend to be the only people who cared about people with disabilities, frailties and other difficulties in their lives. They would drag these people in to demonstrate what their concerns were to the then Liberal government; I was here for only six weeks when we were the government. But I only saw the New Democratic Party do that kind of pleading on behalf of these people.
How interesting it is that now when I stand in my place and plead on behalf of these people with special needs, the Minister of Housing laughs. Frankly, if this government thinks it can ever get away with ignoring people with special needs, it is going to find out how wrong it is.
When the minister says, after waiting six months to answer my letter, that "The government also cannot be assured of any new resources for developmental services in the future," can you imagine what that statement does to these families, these families that have been on waiting lists for so many years? In fact, Community Living Mississauga has closed its waiting lists. They decided there was no point in having waiting lists because some of the people had been on the waiting lists anywhere from five to 10 years.
The fact that this government says it knows there is a problem but it just doesn't have enough money is not good enough. They do have the money; they just don't know where to start spending it. In fact, they have so much money that they spend more than they need to spend. That's why our party has taken the position about how much money we can cut out of government. We know how much wastage and abuse of government funds goes on by this government. We also know that people with disabilities and our elderly senior citizens should never be made to grovel.
This is a pot that is boiling over and we have tragedies, and then this government says: "Be careful what you say. You mustn't politicize it." I was saying it a year ago, and I have a perfect right to stand in this House tonight and remind members that my resolution that was passed a year ago was asking for money for these developmentally disabled adults and children, and they came to this place to try to put the human face on the people who needed that money.
It isn't as though there are thousands and thousands of these families in this province. It wouldn't take a great deal of money, so why wouldn't the government make that a priority of expenditure? What kind of society will we ever become if we have a government that doesn't first look after its frail elderly and disabled and special-needs children and adults? What kind of society, what kind of government, cannot prioritize that that would be the first expenditure at the top of the list?
I wouldn't care if we never built another road, a bridge, community centre, whatever, if we were to prioritize looking after these people first. But this is not a priority of this government. I can simply say, "Shame on them," because I have no more words left to fight this battle with this government on behalf of families with adults and children with disabilities.
Particularly, my motion was dealing with families and children with developmental disabilities, and I would have preferred that the anniversary of my motion in this House had been marked differently than how it was marked yesterday.
I suppose there will be no hope for there being a remedy to this situation until this government is out of office and we have finally a government that will be absolutely forthright and say, "We cannot do everything for everybody, we cannot be everything to everybody, but we will know how to prioritize and we will have a civil, caring, supportive society in this province because we will first of all support those people who cannot help themselves." It's a very basic, elementary formula.
In continuing to talk about where this government spends money, I need to talk about the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Anyone who has followed it for the last number of years is very aware that there has been and, as I understand, continues to be chaos over there. We have removed chief commissioners and appointed new ones, and each new chief commissioner announces a new system of eliminating backlog and that all the cases will be cleared off within X number of months. There's not any point in putting the detail on the record because again it's all been on the record. We've had ministers come in this House and say, "We have a new chief commissioner and the Ontario Human Rights Commission will now be functioning well and we will get rid of the backlog."
The irony is, of course, that there probably isn't a more important government-funded agency to every single individual in this province than the one which is there to protect our basic human rights, and our basic human rights in this province are outlined in the Ontario Human Rights Code.
The Ontario Human Rights Code defines very clearly that we cannot be discriminated against for a number of things. Listed in that list of items for which we cannot be discriminated against is a disability.
2220
I have a constituent who was fired from his job six years ago because he has a learning disability. His case has been before the Ontario Human Rights Commission for six years. This is only a part of this gentleman's file. There are letters here that I could read from all the different chief commissioners and various staff who tell me, yes, they're concerned that -- I won't mention this man's name -- this man's case has still not been dealt with, but they have a new system coming in.
One letter goes back in fact to October 21, 1988. "This is what we're going to do to get on with this case." The truth of the matter is, of course, that the case has still not been resolved because we have a situation where there have not been resources given to the Ontario Human Rights Commission by the government in order for them to fund the necessary employment of staff to eliminate the backlog.
I had a meeting this summer with the director of legal services branch for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Mr Carl Dombeck. Mr Dombeck, in July of this year, had only been in that job I think for some six months. He told me very candidly that he was appalled by the situation that he found in the Ontario Human Rights Commission in terms of their case management. He told me that the staff person who had been looking after my constituent's case was "overworked and overwhelmed," and there again, in fairness to that staff person, I will not mention his name.
But this new director, who's newly appointed on the job, and obviously the job is cleanup, tells me that when he went in this staff person's office, he couldn't believe what he saw. This was one staff person who had, I think, in excess of 200 cases in his room at that time; at least 180, and I think he said 200 cases. He said he had files on the floor like this, piled up all around his office.
In those files was a man who has a learning disability who was discriminated against by his employer, lost his job because of it, although when his employer hired him he told the employer about his learning disability, and the employer turned around within less than a year and fired him. This man has three young children and a wife. He has a family to support.
For six years his case, his right to justice under the Ontario Human Rights Code, has been denied, and it has been denied because we have had two governments, albeit in the six years, who have not seen it as a priority to fund the Ontario Human Rights Commission to do their job properly.
Mr Dombeck told me that even the database was incorrect. He told me that this staff person whose office was piled up with all these files was the only reconsideration officer they had had for more than a year, and I correct my previous note: He had 300 cases in his office -- 300 cases.
Now let me tell you what the solution has been. The solution was that they were going to hire six students in law and that each would take 20 reconsideration cases. So that meant we would have 120 cases processed, hopefully, this past summer. I suppose that sounds like a solution, but the very saddest part of this whole story is the fact that through my investigation of what has been going on at the Human Rights Commission, I have uncovered the fact that the case investigators who are assigned to your case when you make a claim with the Ontario Human Rights Commission have not been trained in learning disabilities. Mr Dombeck told me in fact that he hadn't seen a learning disabled file. I was also told that no one has formal training for learning disabilities, but now some of the basic training that the commission is giving their investigators will include some special training for learning disabilities.
But you see, Madam Speaker, where this ends is it's all too late. It's too late for my constituent with his three children and his wife at home. It has been six years that this constituent has been waiting for his rights to be confirmed in a province as wealthy as Ontario -- six years. So now we're in 1994 and his case is going to be reviewed, perhaps by a law student and perhaps by another lawyer on the staff, none of whom has any training in learning disabilities. What they will do is open my constituent's file and they will read through the inches of pages and reports that have been compiled by an investigator six years ago who also wasn't trained in learning disabilities.
My constituent has spent over $8,000 in legal fees so far and he said he had no more money to spend on a lawyer in order to plead his case with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. He asked me if I would help him. I told him that, obviously, I am not a lawyer, but I said, "I will do whatever I can for you. I will fight for you," because the fact that you have a category of discrimination for which the Ontario Human Rights Commission has never seen fit to train its investigators is not his fault.
It's the fault of the commission and ultimately it's the fault of the government which would allow an Ontario Human Rights Commission to have, first of all, so few resources that 300 cases are piled in one person's office, while every one of those cases in those files in that person's office represents a human being. In the case of my constituent, they represent him and his wife and his three children. So I said to this constituent, "Yes, I will fight for you. I will do whatever I can legally do for you with the Ontario Human Rights Commission."
2230
Because we have a Members' Conflict of Interest Act, before I would step into that area, I sought the advice of His Honour Justice Gregory Evans, who is our Conflict of Interest Commissioner in Ontario. I asked him if it was legally permissible under the act for me to act on behalf of my constituent before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and I have a letter wherein Justice Gregory Evans says:
"Pursuant to section 5 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, 1988, it is my opinion that with the authorization of your constituent, you are entitled to attend the meeting scheduled with OHRC staff members and represent your constituent not only in the meeting, but in any hearing which may be held." Emphasis added: "in any hearing which may be held." It's done in bold font.
The emphasis is that under the conflict-of-interest act, I am permitted to represent my constituent before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, so I make that request to the commission because of the chaotic situation in the Human Rights Commission identified in July of this year by the director of legal services. Also, of course, it was a commission that was reviewed by the government agencies committee, and during that review by the government agencies committee, it became very clear that everybody acknowledged there was a huge backlog and it was a problem.
I then made the request to appear before the commission on behalf of my constituent, because I personally wanted to point out to the commission -- not in a letter, I wanted to be able to represent my constituent personally -- I wanted to be able to point out to them the injustice that has been done to my constituent by the delay itself; never mind whether his claim against his former employer about wrongful dismissal because of his learning disability stood, but the absolute breach of his human rights that after six years his case was still not resolved.
So I wrote and said that I would appear on his behalf at the next hearing before the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and last week, sadly, I got a reply from the Human Rights Commission. They say in their letter, and it's over the signature of the chief commissioner, Rosemary Brown:
"I would like to advise you that at a meeting of all the commissioners" -- all of the commissioners I think only meet three times a year. I don't want to misrepresent the number of times that they meet. I'm sorry, the full commission meets once every six weeks, perhaps nine times a year -- "at a meeting of all the commissioners held on November 16, 1994, your request to attend before the commission to make oral submissions on behalf of" -- and I'm omitting the name of the constituent -- "was considered.
"After giving your request much thought, the commissioners unanimously agreed to deny your request as there were no extraordinary reasons to alter the commission's practice of not allowing oral submissions."
Not to allow oral submissions when you are dealing with someone's rights under the Human Rights Code is something that is impossible to believe exists. It's impossible to believe that a citizen of this province cannot go before the Ontario Human Rights Commission and plead their case or, as in this case, have someone else do that for them, which I was willing to do.
The reason that they go on to give is even worse. They say, "The practice of not allowing one party to make oral submissions is based on a principle of natural justice and procedural fairness." "Natural justice"? What natural justice is there when this constituent has waited six years to have his case heard? What procedural fairness can there possibly be when he can no longer afford a lawyer and has asked someone else, in this case me, to represent him?
The letter goes on to say, "The commissioners were of the view that to allow a complainant's representative to appear before the commissioners and not offer the respondent the same opportunity would be a breach of natural justice. I am sure that you understand the commission's position on this issue.
"Yours truly
"Rosemary Brown."
I do not understand the commission's position on this issue, and I could perhaps understand this decision if it came from any other government agency, board or commission than that one which protects our basic human rights.
There's no problem in having the other side appear. I would have no difficulty. Obviously, the respondent to this claim would have to have the same opportunity, and I would invite that because, for once and for all, after six years, wouldn't it be great to hear what this employer had to say? Wouldn't it be great to finally know what kind of an employer this person is who would hire a person knowing that they have a learning disability, because that person told them they had a learning disability at the time of their hiring, and then turned around and fired them within less than a year because of the learning disability? It would be quite revealing to hear what the respondent, namely the employer, would have to say in a case like that.
So here we have this government-funded agency to protect the rights of the people of this province who talk about the principle of natural justice and do not know the meaning of the words. The meaning of "natural justice" would be to permit this man's case, after six years, to go forward to a hearing at which people may make oral presentations. Because unless I am there or someone else who now knows this case is there, the commission will not be told that the case was investigated by people who were not trained about learning disabilities, and yet the whole case is about a learning disability.
2240
When we look at government funding and expenditures, as we are with this supply bill, I can't begin to tell you how personally very upset I am on this one particular issue, because if we cannot defend a person's individual right to natural justice before the Ontario Human Rights Commission by permitting parties to both sides of the argument to make an oral submission, we are then saying, "What you have to say can always be committed to paper." But you see, the irony deepens. Because of the learning disability of this particular constituent of mine, something on paper isn't comprehensible, and that is the crux of the question.
The fact is that with a learning disability such as dyslexia, something that is written is not something that that individual can necessarily understand or communicate, and that person should be permitted to make an oral presentation before the commission. That has been denied, even though His Honour Justice Gregory Evans told me in the letter that not only could I go but that I had a right to attend any hearing which may be held.
What I need to know is how this government can continue to fund the Ontario Human Rights Commission while it denies the rights of people with learning disabilities. There are 20 files existing at the moment at the Ontario Human Rights Commission that involve learning disabilities, and yet they have now admitted that none of their investigators were trained in learning disabilities. Those investigators are the people who go out and interview both parties and complete a file. My constituent has been interviewed once; six years and he's only been interviewed once, and he was interviewed by somebody who didn't know anything about his learning disability. His whole future -- he isn't an elderly person, he's a young father -- his reputation, his ability to earn money and support his family depends on this right being wronged, because when he goes to apply for a job, naturally they can see very easily that he was fired from the previous job in less than a year.
You know, if you're discriminated against in this province because of the colour of your skin or a physical disability that is very apparent it would be much easier to understand the discrimination, but when you're talking about something that is inside the head as a learning disability -- I can't tell, Mr Speaker, whether you have a learning disability and you can't tell whether I do by looking at each other, nor can an investigator who isn't trained.
I simply say tonight as we pass the supply bill to pay for the funding of all of the expenditures of this government, which include the operation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, I beg this government to make a priority of finding out what it is they're paying for and what it is they are funding.
I probably know the answer because their priority for people with disabilities is demonstrated by the fact that the minister responsible for disabilities has four or five areas under her one hat brim. How can you do justice giving four or five areas of responsibility to one minister and then she isn't even an online ministry; she doesn't have her own budgets? You ask this minister responsible for disabilities or citizenship or seniors or racism -- and I've forgotten what her other hat is. You ask her a question -- and I've done it in this House; I've asked her. I've asked her about people with developmental disabilities, and you know what she does? She refers the question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. You know what that tells me? It tells me that that whole business of having a minister with these five hats is an absolute farce. I could go to the Minister of Community and Social Services first --
Mr White: So why didn't you?
Mrs Marland: -- but because there's a minister who is designated as the minister responsible for disabilities -- and I realize this is too tough for the member for Durham Centre to understand, if he asks me why would I not go first to the Minister of Community and Social Services. If he doesn't understand that, then it confirms my worst belief, which is, there is a reason why we're in such deep trouble in this province today.
I cannot talk any longer on that particular case because for me it has now become an emotional issue because I know what it means to the family and that individual. But please don't play around with the people of this province. Don't pretend as a government that you care. Don't pretend that you have a minister responsible for disabilities when you don't have in terms of actions, and when you have a Minister of Community and Social Services who says: "Yes, that's right. We don't have enough money for people with developmental disabilities. That's true, and we won't have any more money in the future." Don't tell people that. You do have money. You just don't know how to spend it.
I wanted to just touch on two other subjects where this government confirms that they do not know how to spend their money, and that is the issue about the out-of-province OHIP coverage. A lot has been said in this House; in fact, I have contributed to that debate previously as well. There has to be something wrong when our seniors have to go to court -- and the costs that includes -- to fight for something that is already a given right of theirs.
A given right of every person in this province is that if they travel, their health coverage goes with them. The fact that the only people who are pursuing the legality of this government's position on not allowing OHIP coverage to pay for out-of-province health expenses, the only people who are pursuing the issue are the Canadian Snowbird Association.
I've said before, people think the Canadian snowbirds, who are our seniors, are wealthy people, they're rich people. Of course, we know what this government thinks about people who may have saved for their old age in their retirement years, and their condemnation of these people is shown by the fact that they're saying, "Even if you have to go to a warmer climate because of your health, and even if you stayed home and you cost us more on our health care system because when you're home in the kind of climate that we have in our winters you get sick and you may need hospitalization, you may need doctors' treatments and drugs, even though all of that may be a fact, as soon as you leave the border of this province, sorry, folks, you're out of luck." So now, for many thousands of these seniors who can only just afford to go somewhere else for the winter months, we have a situation where they're faced with trying to find the money to pay for health coverage, or not go at all.
2250
If the New Democratic Party, the Bob Rae socialist government, would do something about getting its health card fraud and some of its other inefficiencies under control, it wouldn't need to attack all Ontarians with illegal acts, and it is illegal not to apply the portability of health insurance in a province. The Canada Health Act, in clause 11(1)(b), says, "the health care insurance plan of a province...must provide for and be administered and operated so as to provide for the payment of amounts for the cost of insured health services provided to insured persons while temporarily absent from the province."
Imagine. We have a situation in Ontario today where, although under the Canada Health Act everyone is entitled to travel with the security of knowing that the Ontario health insurance plan will pay their medical bills, people in order to be protected have to buy additional insurance, and, worse than that, the only people who are doing anything about it are those seniors themselves who are most directly affected. They are making the legal challenge in court about why the Canada Health Act is not being enforced on this province. I guess too, in fairness, it would have been nice to see the Ontario Liberals go after their federal brothers and get them to enforce the Canada Health Act.
I was going to talk about non-profit housing. I've made some reference to it, and fortunately now people are finally understanding what the racket is that's going on in many of our non-profit housing corporations because the government has not supervised those corporations. The government didn't even have operating agreements with many of them. That story is well known, because all through this spring I raised question after question in this House about yet another non-profit housing corporation for which an audit had revealed in some cases corruption and fraud. But this government continues to say that's the only way to provide housing, and they don't feel it's necessary to supervise those operations closely.
I want to comment on the cuts that the Attorney General's office has made to the countermeasures office operation. Mr John Bates, the president and founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, has had meetings during this year with the Attorney General to plead for more resources and to plead for stricter legislation to try to resolve the problem of drivers in this province who choose to drink and drive.
The response of the government has been to cut over a million dollars out of the program that comes under their countermeasures office. Some irony that they cut the funding for the program at the same time they released their own press release, which came out in October, which said that for the first time after a decade of decline, we now have an increase in drivers who drink and drive. We have a 4% increase in drunk driving convictions. We have 30,000 convictions in one year, in 1992, and 59% of those 30,000, approximately 18,000 of the 30,000 convictions, were repeat convictions. They were people who had already been found to be driving drunk, had been taken to a police station, had been put through the breathalyser test and a video in the police station, had then been charged with drunk driving, and had then gone to court and had been found guilty.
Eighteen thousand of them had done that more than once, at a time when police forces around this province, particularly the Ontario Provincial Police, have had their resources cut back and we have fewer OPP officers on the road now and therefore more people are able to drive drunk because the chance of them being caught is reduced by the very fact that because of the cutbacks by the government to municipalities to fund police forces, we cannot afford to have the number of police officers out there that we need to have.
This week, the top story on CFTO-TV, I think, two nights ago, Monday night, was that drunk driving is on the increase in Metro -- because they have now started the RIDE program. Drunk drivers kill. Eighty-one per cent of all road accident fatalities are alcohol-related; 81% of people who are killed on our roads and highways are accidents that are alcohol-related. They're not figures for debate. They are figures that came from the Attorney General's office.
If the Attorney General is saying there is a 4% increase in drunk drivers, how can this government possibly reduce the amount of money that it allocates to the countermeasures office? Oh, yes, they've got their new ads on television and they've got some advertising in the newspapers. But do you possibly think for one moment that a man -- and I say a man because 95% of the people who drink and drive are male; they are by far the highest number, the age between 25 and 40 -- do you think for one moment they could care less about an ad they see on television or in a newspaper? We are talking about many, many examples of where a driver has killed somebody, served a sentence, and within two weeks of being back out on the road is arrested again for drunk driving. There is no way on God's green earth that any advertisement is ever going to stop that person from driving drunk. They don't care. There is no penalty for them except another conviction and maybe another short-term suspension of their licence.
This is not the time to cut back on the resources allocated to measures to enforce our current laws. This is the time to look very seriously at the recommendation in my private member's Bill 195, where I am advocating a lifetime suspension of the driving licence of someone who chooses to drink and then chooses to drive. That bill would not take away the licence of any individual if an individual needs the licence to earn their living. Most of us do need to drive, but some people need to drive more than others: ambulance drivers, taxi drivers, bus drivers, truck drivers, whatever. They cannot work without their driver's licence. They know better than anybody that they must do everything they can to protect the status of their driving licence. They know better than anybody that they can never drink and drive, absolutely never drink and drive.
2300
My bill allows everybody to make one mistake. I'm simply saying that if the Attorney General's own report indicates that the biggest increase in drunk driving is that "chronic drinker," which are the words used in the Attorney General's report, then it's about time we took some responsibility in finding a remedy for that, and if it means that somebody loses their licence for life on a second conviction for drunk driving, then so be it. I don't mind if people drink, but I do mind if they drive after drinking.
We all have to be gravely concerned about the fact that in 1992, 353 people were killed on Ontario's roads, and 81% of them were alcohol-related accidents. So I simply say to this government: Do something about drunk driving. It's not only the people who are killed; it's also the thousands of people who are left maimed and disabled for life because of an injury sustained by being hit by a drunk driver.
Finally, I just want to make a comment about welfare. One of the areas of concern that I have had is how easy this government has made it for people to be on welfare per se. Obviously in a recession time it has been very difficult for a lot of people who lost their jobs, and those are not the people I am addressing.
I am very concerned about the number of students who are on welfare. This government makes it so easy to be on welfare because they removed the necessity for a home visit, a home inspection. You can have your cheque deposited by mail into your bank account. In the case of young people in Ontario, we have an incredible number of students on welfare. In September of this year, we had 33,394 welfare cases of persons 19 years of age or younger. What kind of society are we that we would have to be supporting almost 34,000 people 19 years of age or younger on welfare?
I have talked previously about an example in Mississauga where we have five young women living with a mother in her house where they each get whatever the student allowance for welfare is, and I think it's close to $700 a month, while the daughter of that mother who has these boarders lives in the house across the street, lives on the same street but in the house opposite. So in this house we have a mother with five boarders, all on welfare, while her own daughter lives with someone across the street, also claiming welfare: a very curious situation.
As a matter of fact, I received a letter last week from someone who lives in Etobicoke, and this person says:
"Dear Mrs Marland,
"Your comments recently on television about a number of young people on welfare living in a house with a women whose daughter lived across the street, also on welfare, attracted my attention and wrath. I am a retired teacher and would like to bring to your attention the scandalous situation of students receiving welfare. I would be pleased to visit your office, at your convenience, to discuss the matter. Your stand in Parliament was refreshing. The matters of welfare and welfare abuse are prime problem areas and must be brought to the attention of the taxpaying public."
This man is not a constituent of mine -- as I said, he lives in Etobicoke -- but he shares the same concern I have.
I don't think there's one of us in this House who, when we were a teenager up to the age of 19 or 20, at some time or other, if we were still living at home, wouldn't have thought it was wonderful to have the opportunity to get $600 or $700 a month and then go with three or four of our friends and set up housekeeping in an apartment. With an income of $2,400 to $3,000 a month you could rent an apartment and you could have a lot of fun, you could just have an absolute ball. You wouldn't have to abide by anybody's rules; you wouldn't have to listen to your parents any more. In order for students to do that, they simply have to say they cannot tolerate living at home any more. Student welfare, as far as I'm concerned, is one of the most shameful systems we have in the province today.
I acknowledge that there are some students for whom living at home in an abusive situation is not acceptable, and I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about those students for whom it's an avenue they've heard about, who know they can get on it and to stay on it, if they are school-age, you know what? They just have to be in school two days a week. They don't have to maintain a certain level of standard of marks; they just have to be checked into school two days a week.
They have a wonderful time, and we are paying for it. But worse than that, even if you set the monetary cost aside, in my opinion the worst thing is that we are teaching these children under 19 years of age that it's okay. We're killing their work ethic. We're saying it's okay to live off the state; you don't have to really go to school every day and you don't have to learn a trade or a profession or have a job, because the state will look after you. Believe you me, if we want to see what killing the work ethic did to a whole generation, we only have to see what happened when the Labour government went into office in Britain after the war.
I want to say one other thing about welfare. It's important for everybody to understand what it is our party is saying in the Common Sense Revolution. We are saying that we will cut the cost of government, but there are two areas I need to emphasize, and one is about seniors and the disabled.
"Another important step in welfare reform will be to move 170,000 of our citizens -- seniors and the disabled -- out of the 'welfare system' altogether. They should never have been there in the first place.
"We will establish a new and separate income supplement program, specifically for those who are unable to work. Funding for this program will be guaranteed at current levels. Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut."
That's in the Common Sense Revolution. What we are saying is that we will not be asking people with disabilities to come grovelling on their hands and knees to government, begging and pleading, as that mother in Hamilton did only a week ago, for extra help. We won't ask people, we will not allow people, to do that. The reason we will not allow it is because, in our opinion, they will always be a priority of government expenditure. And those people should never have been on the welfare system in the first place.
2310
One other area of government expenditure needs to be reinforced in terms of the commitment of a Mike Harris government in Ontario, and that is the area of health care. We hear government members, and for that matter, some Liberal opposition members, stand in this House and try to say what the Common Sense Revolution is saying. Unfortunately, they don't actually get the Common Sense Revolution and read it. So I want to read what we say about health care. Having criticized the fact that this government does not support our seniors, particularly those who leave the province because of winter weather, under the health care heading:
"We" -- a Mike Harris PC Party in Ontario -- "will not cut health care spending. It's far too important. And frankly, as we all get older, we are all going to need it more and more. Under this plan, health care spending will be guaranteed."
Can you imagine any party in this province putting in print what its policy will be? In this particular case, with health care spending, we are saying it will be guaranteed.
"As government, we will be aggressive about rooting out waste, abuse, health card fraud, mismanagement and duplication.
"Every dollar we save by cutting overhead or by bringing in the best new management techniques and thinking, will be reinvested in health care to improve services to patients. We call this commonsense approach, 'patient-based budgeting.'"
In closing, I have a little story to tell you about health care funding in this province, and this is on a personal note. This year has been a remarkable year for our family. Prior to this year, we did not have any grandchildren, and we were blessed on February 21 with the birth of Rebecca Jane Marland Bryan; on September 14, we were blessed with another baby granddaughter, Kathryn Elizabeth Marland, in Ottawa; and on October 23, we had yet a third baby granddaughter born, Hilary Ann Marland. These three granddaughters are the children, the baby daughters, of our own children and their spouses. Rebecca's parents are Ruth and Lawrence, Kate's parents are Robert and Jane, and Hilary's parents are Donald and Laurie.
What is really interesting about health care is that Jane was born in the Mississauga Hospital on February 21 and everything was provided for her. In fact, she was six weeks early so she was in a special nursery with an incubator and absolutely wonderful care by the special nursery nurses and medical staff. But when Hilary was born in October, eight months later, in the same hospital, Hilary's parents had to provide for Hilary everything she needed. So in the same hospital in a span of less than eight months, the first baby had everything provided for her in terms of special needs, plus diapers, plus nightgowns, the things she needed while she was in the hospital, but in October for the last granddaughter, Hilary, they even had to provide things like Vaseline, the diapers, the nightgowns -- everything.
In the case of that family that wasn't a problem for them to provide it, but I'm simply saying isn't it ironic that what is actually a basic need, I would think, for the care of a newborn baby, a diaper, is now no longer affordable for that hospital to provide, and that change has taken place in the short period of eight months.
I want to reassure the people of this province that probably the next time we debate a supply bill, a bill authorizing the payment of the government's expenditures, perhaps we'll be lucky enough to have a new government sponsoring that supply bill. Naturally, I expect it will be a Mike Harris government with the Common Sense Revolution, and I know that whatever government it will be, it will be 100% better than this Bob Rae socialist government. If it's a Mike Harris government, we will know how to prioritize in terms of human need first.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Mississauga South for her contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Seeing none, is there further debate?
Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister without Portfolio in Health): I rise this evening to speak in support of my government's efforts at controlling costs in this province. I believe this to be a particularly relevant subject, especially if we examine this government's ability to stick to a plan which stands firmly on three very sound legs: to create jobs, to live within our means and to preserve services.
First, I'd like to respond to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who spoke earlier this evening, and used our Ontario Economic Outlook book that was presented by the Minister of Finance a few short days ago. I'd like to take my own quotes from this book, as he did earlier this evening, to tell about the things he forgot to mention.
"Real output in Ontario will grow by 4.5% this year -- the strongest growth we've seen since 1988 -- and by more than 4% during each of the next four years. The Ontario economy will create 570,000 jobs over this period....
"The Ontario economy is now growing at its fastest rate in six years" -- the fastest rate in six years. Imagine that, under Bob Rae's leadership.
"Ontario's pace of growth and job creation is among the fastest in Canada" -- the fastest in Canada, out of the Ontario Economic Outlook.
"We cut payroll taxes for new employees to create 12,000 permanent jobs and provided new tax incentives for R&D expenditures, while holding the line on other taxes in the 1994 budget;
"Ontario Hydro recently cut electricity rates for big users and held the line for everyone else." At a time of a recession, this happened in Ontario under Bob Rae's leadership.
Hon Mr Christopherson: Whose leadership?
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Bob Rae's leadership and an NDP government -- Ontario Hydro rates frozen. Of course the Tories haven't caught on to that yet: They're still promising to freeze them. We've already done it.
"We've reduced our own overhead costs by 16% over the past three years." That's 16% over three years. "Spending on programs fell by 3.4% in 1993" -- and wait till you hear this -- "the first time in more than 50 years that the cost of government programs has fallen." The first time in 50 years, and it's happened under Bob Rae's leadership.
2320
Interjections.
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Now let's compare Ontario to the rest of Canada. Real growth in Ontario is outpacing growth in the rest of Canada under Bob Rae's leadership. Excluding Ontario, the rest of Canada expanded by 3.7% in 1994, compared to 4.5% in Ontario. Growth in the rest of the nation is expected to moderate to 3.4% in 1995, then average 3.8% per year in the medium term. This pace of economic expansion, and I say "expansion," will be less than in Ontario but better than other G-7 countries.
You can read more about this in our Ontario Economic Outlook, and I'm sure the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is glad that I'm reminding him of the things he forgot about in this book.
Let's talk about Ontario's fiscal strategy. The government has responded to some very unprecedented fiscal and economic challenges, such as federal economic and fiscal challenges, falling revenues during the time of a recession, limits on federal transfer dollars to health care and post-secondary education, changes to unemployment federally, which have led more people to provincially funded social assistance programs. Where are those people to go when the federal government leaves them in the lurch? Under Bob Rae's leadership, we won't leave them out there. We will continue to protect services.
Through these measures that we've done and others, such as the expenditure control plan and the social contract, as difficult as it was, spending has been brought under control in Ontario. Program spending has declined by 3.4% in 1993-94 and will fall again in 1994-95.
During the 1980s -- now think about the 1980s -- it was a time of growth. It was a time when you were making money. You spend a little, but you keep a little and you plan. You plan for better health care. You plan for a better infrastructure. Those university students, you plan their tuition. But what did we do in the 1980s under the leadership of the Liberals and the Tories? We spent at a double-digit pace. We were having a good time in the 1980s, weren't we? We spent well above the rate of inflation.
What does the fiscal outlook look like now? Again in the Ontario Economic Outlook that the Treasurer presented:
"As of the second quarter of the fiscal year, the deficit for 1994-95 is projected to be $8.3 billion, $206 million lower than forecast in the 1994 budget. This results from stronger revenues generated by the quickening pace of the economic expansion. Spending has been held to the budget plan."
We are doing things right in Ontario under Bob Rae's leadership.
As the associate Minister of Health, I feel it's only fair that I speak about what we've been able to accomplish through effective cost control as administered.
I have seen the impact on the expansion of necessary health services in this province. Before I outline the initiatives of this government, I would like to point out some of the facts regarding our Liberal and Tory predecessors, because we don't want to forget about our history. I'd like to dispel a few misconceptions about the ability of Liberals and Tories to manage the health care system in this province.
Throughout the 1980s, health care spending increased by over -- get this, folks -- 12% per year. These were the years during which the Tories and the Liberals held power in the province of Ontario. Let me be very clear about this: There exists no -- and may I repeat the word "no" -- evidence that the citizens of this province were any healthier or had better access to health care as a result of that unbridled spending.
During this period as well, indicators became ever more compelling that community-based health prevention initiatives would go much further towards improving the overall health of Ontarians than would our traditional reliance on expensive facilities.
I remember the 1980s, planning with the Women's Health Information Network about community-based services and how we could get those dollars moved from the institutions into our communities, but no, "Let's fund those institutions, those hospitals." In spite of all the efforts, in spite of all the research that had been done during the 1984-85 fiscal year, for instance, under the Tories -- I see they've all gone home now -- 47% of health care spending went to hospitals. Twenty-nine per cent went to physicians' services. And how much went to the community-based services? Only 2%. Two per cent to community-based services, something that we in northern and rural Ontario depend more and more on as we want to be served at home, something that the long-term-care act which was passed today will allow to happen in our communities.
In contrast, let's compare this to the NDP government under Bob Rae's leadership. It has stuck to its plans to live within our means. Our health care spending has remained virtually stable since 1992. Only marginal increases and decreases have occurred since that time, at the same time that we went through the toughest recession here in Ontario. For instance, health spending will decline by just under 1% during the two-year period 1993-95.
What is perhaps more telling is the pattern of the spending that has changed dramatically under our administration. During this same two-year period, spending on community and public health and long-term care will increase by over 12%. In a two-year period, we are going to spend over 12% more in community-based health care. That's an increase of over $298 million. These sectors account for 16% of health spending, an increase of 6% from a decade ago.
In a process of managing spending on health care services, we have certainly had to make some decisions that have been less than popular. One of those decisions was to systematically reduce our reliance and expenditures on services provided outside Canada.
In a recent article to her local media, the honourable member for Fort William tries to convince the people of northwestern Ontario that the fundamental underpinnings of our health care system are at risk because we have had to reduce what we will pay for hospital stays while in the United States.
I would like to point out to the honourable member that Ontarians are still covered by OHIP when they travel. Doctors' fees, lab fees and prescription medications, as well as a broad range of other medical services, are still part of that coverage, as are hospital room charges. There has always existed, in the past, as in the future, the need to top up that coverage for out-of-country travel with private insurance coverage.
What the honourable member clearly does not appreciate is the level of savings generated by these measures. Maybe she does appreciate that and maybe she wouldn't put the money to the same programs with the same priorities that we have chosen, but that's where we feel the people of Ontario want those dollars spent. And where do they want those dollars spent? The new rates for out-of-county hospital coverage are expected to generate approximately $20 million a year in savings on health care. This is in addition to the $237 million saved through other out-of-country policy changes implemented by the Bob Rae government since 1991-92.
Perhaps what is also not clear to the Liberal opposition is what these savings are being used for, and let me list a few. Let's start with the Ontario drug benefit program. Ontario is the last province Canada to continue to offer free drug benefits to seniors. Perhaps the members opposite would prefer to ask seniors to do without free drug benefits here at home in favour of 100% out-of-country hospital coverage.
Would it be better perhaps to do away with the Ontario Health Network? This is the computer program used by pharmacists dispensing to Ontario drug benefit recipients which alerts the pharmacists of any potentially dangerous drug interactions that may occur. This program represents a $72.5-million investment by our NDP government in the health of seniors and other Ontario drug benefit users. It is also expected to save this province $30 million a year through the prevention of abuses.
If the Liberals had reacted responsibly to the problems of diabetics in northern Ontario, we would have had the northern diabetes network program in northern Ontario years and years ago, and we would have also seen an expansion of dialysis service. These two services recently received funding totalling almost $16 million.
2330
I can go on to talk about the cancer strategy, the cancer plan and vision that we have for Ontario. There was no plan before we came into office in 1990. There was no cancer strategy. It was: "If you get here and you ask, you'll get some money, but we're not going to plan where we spend it. We're just going to spend it all, and if bad times come, oh well, we'll call an election and somebody else will deal with that."
Perhaps the honourable member for Fort William would like to speak with people in Kenora, Sudbury, North Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Timmins or Thunder Bay to see who is prepared to forego their dialysis treatment in order to finance out-of-country health and hospital coverage.
Clearly, the government of Bob Rae has recognized the obvious need for reducing our reliance on costly institutional services, and for increasing our efforts to improve health in Ontario.
I have sat in this House many times when the leader of the third party referred to this province as Bob's Ontario. I would like to say here this evening that I'm happy to live in Bob's Ontario. In Bob's Ontario, magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, services will be equally available to people all across this province, in their own hospitals, rather than being restricted to health science facilities only in major cities.
In Bob's Ontario, people will not have to wait as long as they might have under a Liberal, and almost certainly under a Conservative, government for bone marrow transplants, dialysis and cancer treatment. In Bob's Ontario, seniors will be able to access the community supports they need to remain in the comfort of their own homes, and they'll be able to do that by calling one number, no matter what service they need. In Bob's Ontario, the northern diabetes network is bringing health to northern diabetics, and it's doing so in the north. In the north, we can now access these services.
Does the honourable leader of the third party suggest that an Ontario governed by the Mike Harris party would be a better place? Let's have a look at some of their cousins in Alberta under Ralph Klein. What has that good guy, Ralph Klein, done? In the first year of their mandate in Alberta, the Klein Conservatives have cut funding of health care by 16%, cut 2,700 public sector jobs just since April, cut funding for education by 17%, cut funding for advanced education by 21%, and he's not done yet -- 1,800 more jobs are slated to disappear. Klein and his government intend to cut spending on education by $239 million over three years and health care spending by $734 million. Do we want a Mike Harris revolution in Ontario? No. We don't want a Mike Harris revolution in Ontario.
The impact of these cuts have been devastating to the average citizen of Alberta. Is this the kind of Alberta the honourable member from Nipissing would prefer to see in Ontario, cutting the financial deficit only to create a human deficit? I'll take Bob's Ontario any day. I'll take an Ontario that has a plan to create jobs, a plan that's working.
The Ontario economy will create 570,000 new jobs during the next three years. Over the last nine months alone, 137,000 jobs have been created, most of them full-time jobs, resulting in the lowest unemployment rate in three years in this province.
This accounts for almost half of the jobs created in Canada during 1994, and is the longest and strongest period of job growth in Ontario in six years, thanks to Bob Rae's leadership and the leadership of cabinet ministers and the rest of the caucus of this NDP government.
The Bob Rae government knows that Ontarians need jobs, that jobs create health as well as wealth. A working community means a healthy community. People with jobs feel better about themselves and are better able to look after themselves and their families. They're better able to contribute to the wellbeing of others.
From day one of our mandate, we recognized that the key to effectively managing our health care system was to help people stay healthy to begin with. That's why we have emphasized prevention and education.
But forgive me; I made a mistake earlier when I said the Rae government believes in jobs. No, that's wrong. We don't just believe in jobs; we help to create jobs. Yes, that's right: We create jobs and we're very good at it, jobs in partnerships with others.
We're all familiar by now with the success of our Jobs Ontario program, a program which, I must remind the people of Ontario, the honourable Leader of the Opposition has vowed to scrap. It seems strange to me that she would want to scrap Canada's most successful job creation program. Yes, Jobs Ontario has been the most successful job creation program in Canada, and at every announcement that's made in her riding she's there to pull out the trumpet and say, "Yes, this is a good job creation program happening in our community."
I would like to take a moment to talk about some of the job creation that's been happening in my riding of Port Arthur, and that's Thunder Bay country for those of you who may not know where Port Arthur is. I'm sure that the honourable Leader of the Opposition would be the first to agree that the NDP government, by supporting a number of key industries in Thunder Bay, has been successful at not only sustaining jobs but in creating hundreds of new ones.
Let's look at Bombardier, for example. In 1991, we negotiated a new agreement for UTDC with Bombardier, a deal that revitalized a failing industry, an industry that the Liberal government which the honourable leader of the official opposition was a part of was prepared to abandon -- abandon all those workers in Thunder Bay and sell the shares out from under them. This initiative under our leadership created hundreds of new jobs in Thunder Bay, jobs that will be there for years to come. In 1993, Bombardier was able to modernize its Thunder Bay facilities with $11 million from this government. This has helped Bombardier maintain its competitive edge and secure contracts internationally. I'm pleased to add that Bombardier's Thunder Bay plant this month alone signed contracts worth a total of $66 million.
Jobs Ontario job creation is working here in Ontario under Bob Rae's leadership. That spells new jobs for those men and women at Bombardier. That spells security in the future for Bombardier workers and their families, and healthier families. It's been estimated that average annual employment at that plant will increase by 200 to 700 by 1995-96, with peak employment periods of 1,100 or more beyond that date.
Some of you may already know about Provincial Papers, also in Thunder Bay, but I think it's a story worth telling again and again. This government provided about $18 million to help unionized employees buy out Provincial Papers. This avoided closing the mill and preserved more than 600 jobs for men and women in Thunder Bay. I'm glad to say that Provincial Papers posted a profit last year -- yes, a profit -- because Bob Rae's government, Bob Rae's leadership believed in those workers in that plant in Thunder Bay and stood behind them through very terrible and tough negotiations to make sure that they would be there this year to make that profit.
While on the subject of mills, the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Howard Hampton, was in Thunder Bay this August to announce further funding from this government to construct a new specialty hardwood mill for the people in Thunder Bay. This means close to 200 new jobs for the people of Thunder Bay. These are not short-term jobs; this represents an investment in a new industry, a new vision, new planning by this government in Ontario under Bob Rae's leadership.
Let me tell you something: Those trees have been in northern Ontario for a long time, and under no Tory or Liberal government did they ever take the time to plan on the future of the trees in northern Ontario and the rest of this province and what they could do with them. We've done it under Bob Rae's leadership. We've done it under the Minister of Natural Resources, Howard Hampton. This means an investment for the workers in Thunder Bay and an investment for the rest of Ontario.
This government developed a plan when it was elected in 1990 to govern this province. The plan is to create jobs, maintain services and control spending; not to create a human deficit, as the Tories would have you believe; not to control you a puzzle, as the Liberals say: "Elect us. We'll tell you our plan later." They don't have a plan to tell you about.
2340
Despite a debilitating recession in the last few years, one that the Liberals, and I must say this, knew was coming -- they knew that in two years' time, if they called an election, they wouldn't get re-elected. But hey, they were at 55% in the polls: "No sweat. We'll get this one over. We'll have five years to kind of clean up the mess and pull up our socks and then they'll re-elect us for another term." But the people of Ontario knew something smelled a little --
Interjection: Fishy.
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: -- fishy, thank you, when they called that early election and they didn't put them back in. They put Bob Rae in, they put the Bob Rae NDP government in, because we have a plan that's working. It's working in job creation, it's working in preserving services and it's working in spending control. And we're sticking to it. We have a story to tell and in 1995, when Bob Rae calls an election, we will be there to tell our story.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Port Arthur for her contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate?
Mr Bradley: I thought this bill was going to pass tonight, but it's not going to now.
Ms Murdock: She has waited all day, Jim. How long is it --
Mr Bradley: I'm just telling you the bill is not passing tonight.
Interjections.
Mr Bradley: No, it's not at all. Don't give me that stuff. The bill will not pass tonight.
I want to address some of the issues --
Hon Mr Huget: It will pass tomorrow first thing.
Mr Bradley: You can try that, I suppose, but the bill will not pass tonight on second reading. I recall that certain discussions took place around this bill and when it would pass. There were certain undertakings that were given, and those undertakings have not been followed, so we'll work on that basis.
Ms Murdock: Put it on the record who did that. It wasn't us.
Mr Bradley: Anyway, I don't know why you get so cantankerous this time of night.
Ms Murdock: You're the one who is cantankerous.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Bradley: It's easy to play the game that way. We were quite willing to pass this bill tonight on second reading, quite willing to do it.
I'm going to address a few of the issues that I think are important in this bill, the supply bill, which I think is a very significant bill since it deals with about $46 billion worth of expenditures or more and how the money is allocated by the government.
First of all, I want to indicate that I think a useful expenditure of this money would be an allocation of funding for people who have been the victims of a particular crime and the family of those victims. I have in my own constituency Mr and Mrs French, Donna and Doug French, who have had the misfortune and tragedy of having their daughter murdered. There's a trial that is going to be coming up soon. The judge has announced that there will be a change of venue, which for the families, both the Mahaffy family and the French family, if the venue is a considerable distance, will be a genuine challenge for them.
Financially, these people have already suffered considerably. Emotionally, none of us could really relate to how they have suffered. I have directed questions to both the Treasurer and the Attorney General concerning the possibility of funds being made available to cover some of the expenses, and both the Treasurer and the Attorney General have indicated that an effort would be made to do so in some manner or other. I appreciate that as being something positive for the families that are involved.
They have the cost of the transportation to and from the trial; they have the cost of accommodation, should it be far enough away; they have the cost of meals that would be eaten away from home at a more considerable cost; and they have the cost as well of lost wages and salaries, which can be rather considerable.
Very often, I saw -- and I'm not trying to make an extreme right-wing case that gets the blood flowing in many people, but if we contrast that difficulty they would have in obtaining assistance, because of course there are precedents that people worry about, with the crown and the defence lawyer both making a very strong case, to say the least, for the assistance that's available through our legal aid plan, we would find, in that particular case, that they were demanding almost that Mr Bernardo have money available to him for his lawyers. I would hope that the same degree of fervour would be found in those people who are concerned about this case to assist the victims of this crime, in this case the families of Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.
There is also before the House -- and I recognize the implications can be rather substantial, and this has been raised many times in the House -- a bill which would prevent or at least try to prevent people from making money from the proceeds of crime; for instance, writing books or other ways of exploiting that particular circumstance. An effort is being made at this time. The government is attempting, I understand the Premier said today, to accommodate this circumstance. I would hope that this House would be able to pass a bill which is acceptable to the Attorney General's department and will try to prevent those who have perhaps thought of benefiting from crime from doing so, in a financial way in particular.
I want to deal with a few other issues as well. In my own constituency, although it has province-wide implications, the Royal Canadian Henley Regatta rowing course is in need of some financial assistance from the government of Ontario in order to deal with problems related to silting of the course, which would prevent it from being a course which is acceptable in terms of world standards. The second is the environmental problem with the course, a potential problem in that there are toxic substances which have accumulated in certain spots along the course.
The federal government, the provincial government, the local government and people in the volunteer sector have contributed to the effort to assess the problem to begin with, and we are very hopeful that with the efforts of everyone working together, not counter to one another, we will indeed be able to solve this problem. It will be a tourist boon to St Catharines and to our part of the whole province of Ontario. It would bring the prestige, perhaps, of a world rowing championship once again, and to those of us -- I think that's everybody -- interested in the environment it would provide an opportunity to cleanse a waterway which can require that kind of cleansing. I hope there is continued progress and continued cooperation in that regard.
Another problem which has been brought to our attention -- and I'm not here to point partisan fingers tonight -- is an increasing problem with automobile insurance rates and vehicle insurance rates in this province. I have received at my constituency office, as I'm sure many people have, calls from people who have had either perhaps one claim or claims that would not be their own fault and, as a result, they have had a substantial increase in their insurance rates. There are others who express concern about the whole concept of no-fault insurance and believe that is one of the problems that confronts them.
2350
I was speaking to one of the government members earlier this evening privately in the House, and one of the things we were discussing is that if you look at the American system of government compared to ours, they use their committees in a different way. I thought it would be beneficial to have many people come before a committee to testify as to whether there can be a justification for the increases that are taking place in automobile insurance rates at this time. That doesn't happen as often under our system as it happens under the American system. I think that's valuable from a public-education point of view. I think it's valuable from an investigative point of view.
I also want to deal with an issue which was raised in the House today by the leader of the official opposition, Mrs McLeod, and that was an issue related to intervenor hours for disabled people. I want to acknowledge that this is a costly operation for government. I've listened to people in the province who would tell me, "If only you would cut in several areas, there would be plenty of money for such beneficial things as intervenors, those who will assist in the household with disabled people." But I think there's a recognition that this is a costly operation, and I believe that it is worthwhile.
I have met with people in those circumstances who have children with multiple disabilities. Those people have a real challenge dealing with those children, who eventually become adults, within their home. When I hear people on the extreme right talk about the fact that government has to cut way back in all of its expenditures, I think of those children and of those vulnerable adults who will be the victims of those cutbacks. As I said in the House the other night, you can take down all the French signs, you can take away the members' pay and you can deal with all the things that they call hotline shows about, but that doesn't leave the money for vulnerable children and adults.
That's why, it seems to me, we are elected. I was not elected here to protect the rich and the privileged; I was elected to this Legislature to protect those who are unable to protect themselves and to try to help to provide good government for all in this province. I know if I went door-to-door and asked people, "Shall we spend money on developmentally handicapped individuals? Shall we spend money on people who have been unfortunate enough to suffer a head injury? Shall we spend money on care, whether it's care which is respite care for Alzheimer patients or the actual care provided to them?" people would say yes.
Those are costly services. They don't come without a pricetag. That is why, when we talk about making deep cuts in terms of taxes or very deep cuts in terms of government expenditures, we must know that will mean a diminishing of service to those people. I think that has to be put on the table when we're going around the province to talk about these matters.
I've had people phone my constituency office as well about the extension of Paratransit services in communities, because while the services are much better than they used to be 15 or 20 years ago, there is still a need for those people to be able to play a role in our society that they consider to be deserving. I would certainly recommend that this be one of the priorities that would come out of the expenditure that is suggested by this bill.
There's an individual in our community by the name of Linda Crabtree who has been recognized both federally and provincially in terms of special awards. She has a dream for a retreat for people with disabilities. I hope that various levels of government, the volunteer sector and the private sector can help to make that dream of hers come true by allocating the appropriate amount of money and the kind of services that would be helpful to her and to those who share this dream.
I hope that the government will deal with the issue of the venting systems for furnaces in this province. That again is a matter that is brought to our attention. These matters don't always get a lot of attention in the news media or necessarily in this House, but there are a lot of people placed in a very difficult situation who have to vent carbon monoxide, and they have pipes in now which are no longer acceptable and yet they don't have pipes which are going to permanently be acceptable to replace them. There's considerable cost to these people and there's considerable inconvenience, and there are some questions that are being asked about that.
I want to, as well, deal with the issue of landlords and some of the problems that landlords encounter. The Minister of Housing is here tonight, and he knows that a series of governments have tried to assist tenants who have been in vulnerable situations over the years and have been quite successful in advancing the cause of tenants.
There are, however, out there landlords as well, many of them small landlords, who face anguish over the fact that they are unable to remove from their buildings people who are very bad tenants, who don't pay the rent and who do damage and cause great disruption to the rental accommodation. Not only is that a problem for the landlord who may have invested in a fourplex or a sixplex instead of something else, made an investment there, but it's also an imposition on those who live in those other apartments, the good tenants, the overwhelming majority of people who pay the rent and are prepared to be good tenants who treat the rental property as though it were their own property. For that reason, I believe that governments must address that.
The Minister of Community and Social Services spoke about trying to address the problem of those who receive public assistance but decide that they shall pay no rent even though a portion of that is devoted to, or supposedly devoted to, or allocated for the purposes of accommodation. He has said that he's going to look into that matter.
Again, I think there has to be a balance there. I believe that tenants need protection and that we've brought forward a lot of protection for them. On the other hand, I believe that the landlords, particularly those smaller landlords, also deserve consideration from government in our province.
I also want to deal with the issue of family and children's services and the difficulties that those people face in family and children's services. We have many more situations where there are dysfunctional families out there and many more children who are placed in a vulnerable situation. Family and children's services can deal with these problems only if they have the appropriate support from the various levels of government and indeed from the community on a volunteer basis, those who are prepared to make those donations.
We are in a building campaign in St Catharines for a new building, a family and children's services building, to better serve the public, but also there are direct funds that are needed for those children out there.
There are those who are suffering from Alzheimer disease; I made brief reference to them. More and more we are getting telephone calls from people who are absolutely desperate in having to deal with those in their own family who have Alzheimer disease, a terrible disease that removes from people their very existence and makes them what amounts to a liability -- and it's awful to say that -- and a great difficulty for the family and for themselves. I believe we have to address those problems.
When I hear people talk of cutbacks, when I hear people talk of government withdrawing from so many sectors, I believe that we have to take into consideration all of these matters, all of these vulnerable people, and ensure that they are going to be able to receive their just deserts from government and from our society as a whole.
The Speaker: It being 12 of the clock, the member may continue later.
Is there a business statement?
Mr Bradley: I'm finished my speaking. I've concluded my speech.
The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St Catharines. Are there questions and/or comments? Seeing none, is there a business statement? The Solicitor General, a business statement? Further debate? Is there further debate?
The member for Oxford has moved second reading of Bill 204. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.
Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): Pursuant to standing order 55, I wish to indicate the business of the House for Thursday, December 8.
On Thursday morning, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item number 75, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Bradley, and ballot item number 76, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Cooper.
On Thursday afternoon, we will give second and third reading consideration to certain private bills. Following that, we will give third reading to the Supply Act as well as third reading to Bill 198, amendments to the Liquor Licence Act and other acts with respect to after-hour clubs. Following that, we will give committee of the whole and third reading consideration to certain private members' bills, including: Bill 152, the Loan Brokers Act; Bill 192, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act respecting Firefighters; Bill 179, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act; Bill 183, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act; Bill 176, amendments to the Highway Traffic Act respecting the trucking industry; Bill 158, adoption disclosure; and Bill 191, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until later this morning at 10 am.
The House adjourned at 2402.