L050B - Tue 27 Oct 1998 / Mar 27 Oct 1998 1
HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
HIGHWAY 407 ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'AUTOROUTE 407
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407 / Projet de loi 70, Loi visant à intéresser le secteur privé à améliorer l'infrastructure des transports, réduire la circulation engorgée, créer des emplois et stimuler l'activité économique par la vente de l'autoroute 407.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): In the three minutes I have left since I spoke last Thursday, I would just like to ask the government once again, can they show us what public interest will benefit from the sale of Highway 407? I think the people of Ontario are really and truly interested in that. They are not interested in the history as to what the NDP government should have done or whether it was going to be a project that was financed by the public and the private sector. That's ancient history.
What public interest is served right now by the sale of this highway and by the sale of the lands that will be required to complete the 407? Somehow I'm of the opinion that the way this particular bill is written, which gives the minister almost unfettered discretion as to what he may or may not be able to do, with absolutely no transparency to the tendering process or to the contractual process that there may be with the private sector - I have my doubts whether this is the right way to go. Unless there truly is a benefit to the public to be gained from privatizing this particular road, I would say we should not go ahead with it. The only argument I heard the other day was the fact that the $1.8 billion that it cost to build the highway would no longer be part of the public debt of this province. We all know that the public debt of this province currently stands at about $115 billion. If we take $1.8 billion off that, I would say that's good. But if you really felt that way about the public debt of this province, why did you allow it to run up over the last two or three years by giving tax cuts we simply couldn't afford?
Interjections.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Someone get the red book.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please, member for Nepean.
Mr Gerretsen: You can start giving people tax cuts once the budget is in balance, but the fact that over the last four years we've added about $15 billion to the deficit and to the debt of this province is simply not the proper thing to do.
I say to the government and to the minister, who's in the House again today, give us the real reason. Why do you want to sell this? Why is it in the public interest to sell this road? I can't imagine anyone wanting to buy this road if they weren't going to make a dollar out of it as well from tolls and various other things that are going to take place on this road, so give me the real reason why you feel we should sell this roadway.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): You'll never get it, John.
Mr Gerretsen: The member says, "You'll never get it." I don't think you ever get it, because if you really think it's such a good deal, I think you owe it to the people of Ontario, without these general platitudes that we've heard so far -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and comments?
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): The member for Kingston and The Islands has made a number of good points. What is the reason for privatizing Highway 407, the toll highway? Is it because the government has given away close to $6 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest people of this province and they want to try to recoup $1.5 billion or $1.6 billion so that they can give more money back to the wealthiest people of Ontario?
The NDP government built Highway 407 and we were pretty proud of the fact that we were able to accomplish that in about three years instead of the 20-year plan that was out there. There is no reason that I have heard, and the member for Kingston and The Islands has pointed this out, unless the minister of privatization says: "I wanted to privatize the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, I wanted to privatize TVOntario. I've got to privatize something so I'm going to bring in a bill and we'll call it the privatization of Highway 407." Other than that, I agree with the member for Kingston and The Islands that we can't figure out any reason why this government would want to get rid of a good highway.
My wife Réjeanne and I are proud that we travel the 407. We catch it when we're coming in from Barrie and travel all the way through to Mississauga where my daughter Sandra and my grandson Eric live and then we continue on into Hamilton and visit my daughter Brenda and my oldest grandson Stéphane.
This is at a time when the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is shutting down the bus system in northern Ontario. He scrapped the airline system, norOntair. He cut back on the financing for trains. Here we have Highway 407 in southern Ontario that is a good highway and they want to privatize it, grab the money and give it to the wealthiest people in this province. That's the only thing I can think of.
Hon Rob Sampson (Minister without Portfolio [Privatization]): I very much appreciate the comments from my friend and colleague from Kingston and The Islands.
Mr Baird: You don't call him a friend, do you?
Hon Mr Sampson: Yes, I do call him a friend actually. Every once in a while I think he does believe in what we're trying to do over here, although he does represent another view of life. I struggle every once in a while in the House here to understand what the view of life of Liberals is anyhow on any issue, but it becomes clear now that the member would like to know what the public policy is, and he's right.
Listen, you don't deal with a public asset, a highway or any other particular asset, such as tree nurseries, unless you have a public policy objective that you hope to achieve in doing so. But simply because it's owned by government or it's owned by the private sector does not mean that one cannot achieve a public policy objective. One could achieve a public policy objective by doing things with the private sector. We do many things in government where we allow the private sector to perform an activity for us that delivers a public good. So to stand up in his place and say, "If it delivers on a public policy objective, it can only be done with public money," is ludicrous. It happens to reflect, I think, a Liberal principle, but it's absolutely ludicrous.
What are the public policy objectives to be delivered here? The member spoke to one: taking some $1.8-billion-odd dollars of debt off the backs of the taxpayers. I would say that's a public policy objective. I understand how it's Liberal policy to increase debt burden. I understand that. You did that very successfully during your reign of terror as a government in this province. I understand that and I understand how you will struggle with the fact that lowering debt and lowering taxes is indeed a public policy objective. That is your principle; it's not our principle.
Mr Gerretsen: You have not lowered the debt.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands.
Hon Mr Sampson: We believe that the taxpayers of this province shouldn't be paying for this road twice. You believe that; we don't.
1840
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I really appreciate, and I'm sure the people of Ontario appreciate, the fine comments of the member for Kingston and The Islands as he outlined what his view of this particular issue is.
Sometimes it's a curse, but if you've been around here for a while this gets pretty amazing. When Highway 407 was to be built, it originally was to be built as a private highway. That was the original concept. It was to be owned by the private company; the revenues were supposed to pay for it. That's how it started out. Then it became a private-public highway. It became that because the consortium couldn't borrow money without the government guaranteeing it, without the government providing the dollars up front, and that's because there was risk. So the NDP government then built the highway; at least, borrowing the money and having a consortium that they chose.
The chief government whip used to stand over about where the member for Windsor-Riverside is and there was steam coming out his ears. He thought this whole thing was crooked. There were real problems with the way it was let. There you go. That was what was happening back then. It was quite exciting here.
Now that the public has taken over the risk, apparently, in building the road - and we know what the revenues coming in are, we know all those things - it's time for the private sector to get back in the game. Well, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. To stand up here and to say that this particular project shouldn't be private, shouldn't be public - the flips that have gone on around this highway in the last few years have been just absolutely phenomenal.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I'm glad the member for Algoma-Manitoulin clarified the Liberal position when it came to this issue because there are occasions in this place when we're not quite sure what that position is. Now it's crystal clear.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, member for Dufferin-Peel.
Mr Lessard: The member for Kingston and The Islands made some very good points, I believe. He was talking about the privatization of Highway 407 and whether that was an issue of public policy or not. It all comes down to a question of who is going to pay for this privatization initiative. We have heard that the costs of borrowing money are a big part of the costs of developing capital infrastructure. A lot of times the government can borrow money at a lower cost than the private sector can, so if this is going to be privatized, it's going to increase the costs of transportation.
We think there are some valid arguments for a public-private consortium to be involved in projects like Highway 407 and that's the reason the NDP government built this project when it did. This government came up with the idea that the highway should be privatized, but if you think it's such a good idea, why don't you make public the study that justifies what you want to do with it? Make it public. Prove to the public that this is the greatest idea for transportation policy here in Ontario. What are you afraid of? Make the study public. We want to know why this is such a good idea. Why don't you just tell us?
Hon David Turnbull (Minister without Portfolio): A few points to put on the record -
The Acting Speaker: Just a moment. Member for Kingston and The Islands.
Hon Noble Villeneuve (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, minister responsible for francophone affairs): One more to go.
The Acting Speaker: No, we've gone around. Member for Kingston and The Islands, you have two minutes.
Interjection.
Mr Gerretsen: No, there were four comments: one, two, three, four, OK? I'm very pleased, though, to see that two cabinet ministers want to jump up and defend whatever they're saying.
I'm very disappointed with the minister of privatization. I asked a very simple question, not in a partisan sort of way as I did last Thursday. Sometimes I get partisan, but not on this issue.
Hon Mr Villeneuve: No, not you, John.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Gerretsen: I personally don't have any philosophical problems with privatization as such. However, the privatization effort, no matter what you're talking about, there has to be some public good that comes out of it. I invited him to give the reasons for that and he just blabbered on about something, accusing this party of that and that party of this and that and the other thing. The people of Ontario want to know, how do they benefit from this road being privatized? How do they benefit from it? It seems to me that if a private entrepreneur takes over this road and buys this road, that entrepreneur wants to make a dollar on it, whether it's through the tolls, whether it's on the maintenance or whatever. That's what private entrepreneurs are all about. They want to make profits and I totally believe that.
However, if somebody wants to make a dollar on it, why shouldn't the government keep that money? So there has to be another reason as to why you want to privatize it. So far, with all due respect to all the learned people on the other side of the House, I haven't heard one good reason other than the fact you're taking $1.8 billion off the public debt, which of course you've been adding on over the last three or four years with your ill-advised tax cut, until such time as the budget of this province is balanced.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I must say that I found the exchange in the House this evening somewhat confusing. The exchange has generated more heat than light, I think, but I would like to try to put this debate into some context.
We know that when this government was first elected, one of the great policy initiatives the government intended to move forward on was privatization of a number of public assets and public services. The ideological underpinning of this was that the private sector is, by definition, according to the Tories, more efficient. By definition, the public sector is inefficient. Therefore, public services could be more easily and more cheaply provided to the people of this province if they were in the private sector. We saw the efforts of this government to contract out a lot of services, and the minister, Mr Sampson, was appointed to deal with the big asset privatizations.
Then the government started to run into problems. First on the privatization or contracting out of public services, the government was taken to court because the government had made an agreement with its employees that the government would make every effort to ensure that the new contractor would employ staff who had previously been employed by the provincial government to provide those services. The court found that this government had not lived up to that obligation. In fact, the court said that the government had not made any serious effort at all to ensure that members of the public service were given an opportunity to be employed by the private contractors who were taking over public services. That then threw the government for a loop and the government had to go back to the planning stages.
The problem was this. Initially the government was saying they were going to just privatize the service; in other words, contract out. So they would put it up for bid and whichever company came forward with the best bid - not necessarily the lowest but the best bid as far as the government was concerned - would get the contract, and that was it. All the government supervisors were doing apparently was putting the name of the contractor on the bulletin board for the employees and saying, "Look, if you want a job you better apply here." That was not any real, serious effort to ensure that these people continued to be employed or that the public would benefit from their expertise in providing the service.
The government then decided perhaps instead of just contracting out the service, when the government intends to privatize, "the business" will be privatized. In other words, if you're talking about privatizing snowplowing on the roads, instead of just saying, "We're going to put this up for bid and whatever private contractors wish to may bid on snowplowing," the government said: "No, we're going to privatize this, but it's not just going to be contracted out. The private sector, if they want to do the snowplowing, will not only provide the service, but will have to take over the equipment and the staff."
1850
That of course was a lot more complicated because that meant also the government then was expecting the staff members would be paid the same salaries and benefits that they'd been paid in the public sector. Most of the private contractors, although not all, I'll admit, had no intention of paying those kinds of wages or benefits because that meant they would have to charge so much for their contracts that it would not be profitable. So the government had some serious difficulties with this. I understand they were serious difficulties and that still hasn't been really properly sorted out.
Another difficulty the government ran into was that senior civil servants, a few, who knew about the intentions of the government might be seen to be in a conflict of interest. There was the infamous case of an individual who had been a senior civil servant in one of the ministries who just by coincidence became a senior executive for one of the major contractors that was attempting to take over one of the public services for which he had been responsible when he was in government. Of course in response to that the government has now said that the Integrity Commissioner should take this as part of his new mandate and ensure that public servants do not profit from this information and be involved with private companies that might be able to take over public sector services. The government found that this was far more complex than they ever anticipated.
Then we come to the situation where we have the member for Mississauga West appointed as the minister for privatization.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): A good appointment.
Mr Wildman: Oh, I like the member. I have no concern about his ability. I think he's dedicated and interested in doing a good job, but he has a problem. His job was to privatize major public assets, and a number of those were identified. One was the liquor control board, another was TVOntario. Then there were some minor ones, things like a few Ministry of Natural Resources tree nurseries. The member for Mississauga West ran into some problems. First, as my friend from Lake Nipigon indicated, when he sidled up to people who looked like possible investors and opened his coat and, "Do you want to buy TVOntario?" there were no takers.
I remember once when I was on a trip to Italy, I went to the ruins at Pompeii near Naples and I was met on a street corner by a guy who kept opening his coat and saying, "Want to buy a watch?" He had a whole bunch of watches on the inside and he told me they were all genuine Swiss watches and that I could buy them for 10 bucks.
Hon Mr Villeneuve: How many did you buy?
Mr Wildman: I didn't take him up on it. I'm not suggesting that TVOntario was that kind of a sale. The problem the minister ran into when he was trying to sell TVOntario, when he said, "Do you want to buy a TV operation?" wasn't that people looked at him askance and said, "The TV operation you've got inside your coat there isn't worth anything." In fact it was the opposite. The public valued the asset so greatly that the minister had difficulty in persuading them that it was a good idea for it to move into the private sector. As a matter of fact, parents, teachers, people right across Ontario said: "TVOntario is providing a service that is important, it's educational, it's providing the kind of broadcasting that is not available in most cases in the private sector and we don't want it privatized. We want this to be an option for us as an alternative to private broadcasting."
While he was trying to unload what he thought was some kind of, I guess, cost to the public on to the private sector, the public was saying: "No, we value this. We want to keep it in the public sector. We like the way TVOntario operates. We like the fact that they are responsive to the community. We like the fact that they're providing an alternative to private broadcasting."
The government had to back off and they said: "No, no, we won't privatize TVOntario. We will get involved in a consultation" - I give them credit for that - "around how TVOntario can better meet the educational purposes for which it was established." The minister backed off, so then he was stuck: "I can't privatize TVOntario."
At the same time, there had been a lot of talk about privatizing the liquor control board. We all know that when we were in government we appointed the former interim leader of the Conservative Party as the chair of that operation and he's done a fabulous job. He's done a very good job in terms of ensuring that we do not have a situation similar to what there is in the United States or even in Alberta frankly where most of the liquor in the province is sold through private stores. You don't have the same kind of controls to ensure that juveniles do not get hold of booze at a time when they might be interested in experimenting in that area. In the United States they have a very difficult situation with robberies in liquor stores and a lot of violence involved in that area.
In contrast to that, Mr Brandt has done a tremendous job of ensuring the safety and security of the operation while at the same time expanding the selections, making the stores more attractive and better at serving the public. He's done a very good job.
Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): The best.
Mr Wildman: Yes, exactly. We did that and I'm glad that we appointed Mr Brandt and that he moved in that direction. He's done a good job.
The other problem, though, that Mr Sampson ran into was that the employees of the liquor control board mounted a very effective and successful advertising campaign where they talked about the need to ensure proper supervision and to ensure that juveniles did not get served liquor when they should not be. The public said: "Yes, that's right. That's true. We don't want to move in the direction of Alberta and we certainly don't want to move in the direction of the Americans," which is a problem for this government because there are many within the ranks of this government who believe that anything American is right, and not necessarily just with a capital R. They want to move in that direction, but the public said: "No, Ontario's different. As a society we're not interested in that. We want to keep the liquor control board in the public sector partly also because it returns somewhere in the neighbourhood of $700,000 a year in profits into the treasury of Ontario."
So the minister had another problem: He couldn't privatize the liquor control board. The public wouldn't stand for it. We get into the problem of diminishing returns. The minister is getting to a point where the things that he was responsible for privatizing, the public is saying to this government: "We don't want you to do that. We want you to back off."
1900
Of course, one of the other major assets - the major asset - that was slated for privatization was Ontario Hydro. The government has brought Bill 35 before the House and we are involved in a major discussion around the restructuring of Ontario Hydro, the breaking up of Ontario Hydro, the issue of stranded debt which was brought before the public yesterday where the government is socializing or putting into the public the vast majority of the $32-billion debt. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $23 billion is going to be stranded.
The companies that will result will have so little debt - it'll be the responsibility of the public taxpayers to pay off that debt - that those companies will be very attractive for privatization. I suspect that this government may indeed be moving in that direction, if they were to get re-elected. However, the problem is, Bill 35 says this government is interested in competition in the energy field.
Mr Lessard: Low-cost energy.
Mr Wildman: And low-cost energy. There is no commitment to low-cost energy. If this government privatizes those companies, makes them so attractive that they will be privatized, it'll be very difficult for the other independent energy producers to compete with them, so there won't really be competition and there probably won't be low-cost energy. But that matter is still up in the air. What the minister realized is that dealing with Ontario Hydro is far more complex than the government ever anticipated, even though every government has discovered that.
So the minister couldn't move in that direction. That may be in the future, but he couldn't move in that direction. What did that leave him with? It left him with the highway. Now he's going around saying, "You want to buy a road?" It was suggested by one wag that perhaps you could say, "Buy 407 and get three free nuclear plants." That might make it more attractive, I don't know.
But the fact is this. When we were in government we built the 407. It was originally anticipated that it would be built with private capital, a public-private consortium, but what we found, to be very frank - the minister's had his problems in dealing in these areas; we found it too. What we found is the private sector could not raise the capital to build 407 as cheaply as the government could, so we ended up with the taxpayers paying for 407 and the highway was built.
There had been talk about the need for 407 for years and years before we got into government. Particularly people in the northeast section of the greater Toronto area, or the northwest, all knew there needed to be a new east-west artery to carry traffic and take pressure off Highway 401. Everyone knew that, but it wasn't built. We built it. We built it with private involvement but we came to the conclusion, as did the private sector, that the public needed to build the road because it could be financed in a less costly way.
So now it's built. There's still some to be built in the east end -
Hon Mr Villeneuve: Both ends.
Mr Wildman: - at both ends, but it was built. You've got to give us credit for that at least.
This government is now saying, "Now that the taxpayers have built this road, we're going to privatize it, but we're going to take off the safeguards that were put there before." Before, this was going to be a toll road and the tolls were going to be there until the debt for the construction of the project was completed. In this bill, that safeguard is removed.
This means that any private investor that purchases and operates the highway and will be charging tolls in order to make a profit will not have to end the tolls once the capital construction is paid for, once the financing is paid for. That of course is how the private investor is going to make the money. They're going to make it by charging tolls and they'll be able to charge tolls as long as they like into the future. There will be no end to that.
In Sault Ste Marie, near where I live, there is a bridge, International Bridge, between the two Soos. It was financed publicly. There are tolls on that bridge but everybody understands that when the capital cost of that bridge is finally paid for - it's going to take in total 50 years - those tolls will be removed. Not any more under this bill with Highway 407. The private sector will continue to charge tolls. Also, there's no guarantee that they won't jack up the tolls. As traffic increases, congestion increases on the highway and more and more people have to use 407, those tolls will increase.
How is this going to serve the needs of the travelling public? I know it serves the needs of the minister, who has to be able to say to his cabinet colleagues and to the members of the Tory party that he did indeed privatize something. He was supposed to privatize something. He wasn't able to privatize most of the things he was responsible for, so now he's come up with 407. He can privatize it and it'll mean the travelling public will be paying higher and higher tolls forever and there will never be an end in sight.
I understand the problem the minister has experienced. I understand his need to be able to go around and say to people, "Want to buy a road?" But I think he should be saying, "Buy this road - "
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time is up. Questions and comments?
Hon Mr Turnbull: Just to get a few points on the record, when the Liberals were the government for five years there was virtually no investment in roads in this province. They absolutely abandoned the roads.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Turnbull: You can shout all you like. You didn't spend any money on the roads, even though you jacked up spending to record levels.
The NDP, at the beginning of their mandate, really didn't spend much but to their credit recognized that we did need roads and towards the end started to spend. They realized that they were in an economic crunch and looked to the private sector. They talked about public-private partnership and they looked to have the 407 designed, built and financed by the private sector.
A very curious thing happened. The day the quotes were opened, in secret - nobody in this Legislature knows what they were, other than the ministers involved in that, and still to this day it's not public - when they opened them, the deputy minister phoned me in my constituency office, as I was the critic at that time for transportation, on a Friday afternoon to tell me they weren't going to have the financing through the private sector. This is highly unusual for the deputy minister, who'd never been in contact with me before, to suddenly phone me up. But they never gave the private consortiums the opportunity to rebid on a different basis. This is the hanky-panky they got up to.
Now we need to expand roads and we've got to expand them quickly to make sure that the huge increase in trade that has occurred under our government is supported by infrastructure. We need to make sure that the private sector comes in and gets on with the job that the NDP had absolutely no plans for beyond saying, "OK, we'll finance it," and they left a $100-billion debt.
Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate the comments of the member for Algoma. As we are thinking about the 407 and what should be done with it, I think one of the things the minister for privatization probably would agree with is that in the sale of this important asset of the people of Ontario, he really has to consider what the bid is. That really tells all, doesn't it? What is a toll road worth these days? What's the going rate for a toll road in the province of Ontario or, for that matter, anywhere?
One of the difficulties governments have is determining what the appropriate price might be for an asset they're willing to dispose of. Frankly, toll roads, nuclear plants, generation plants, those kinds of assets sometimes don't have the largest market in the world.
1910
We have seen privatization of crown assets in this country and others, and one would have to think perhaps a prudent government, rather than ending up getting a fire sale price for an asset, might be wanting to consider this in terms of maybe even something like Air Canada or CN, where we offered shares to the public in the crown corporation after being privatized. It happened over a period of time so that the government would realize the best possible price rather than be at the mercy of some market forces which may - who knows - put us at the bottom of the market rather than at the top.
I would think the minister, who would want to be crunching the numbers, would want to make sure that he hits the market at the top for toll roads.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments.
Mr Lessard: I want to congratulate the member for Algoma for making what was just a spectacular speech about the privatization of Highway 407, especially the part when he opened up his jacket and said, "Wanna buy a highway?" I thought that was pretty cool.
He made a good point in the fact that he said the Liberals had promised to build this highway, probably the Tories back decades ago had realized the need to do it, but it was the NDP that finally built the highway. The fact is that it wouldn't have happened if it was left only to government. We know that because of the financial circumstances we faced at the time, and it was only through a public-private partnership that the highway was going to be able to be built.
Now that it has been built, why should we be privatizing it? We knew the benefits of the public-private partnership. Governments were going to be able to borrow the money at a lower rate than the private sector would do it.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Come to order.
Mr Lessard: We knew that the private sector wasn't going to be able to get the investment they needed to be able to build that highway. We wonder why it should be privatized now.
We need to see the reasons why this government is saying the highway should be privatized, but they won't make those studies public. Why not? We know the private sector is going to benefit from the construction of this highway. Higher profits are going to mean higher tolls for transportation here in the province, and those tolls are going to go on forever, well after the time when this highway is paid for. When I think about that, I think about how much people like my young son, Brett, are going to have to pay if they ever want to drive along Highway 407.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Lessard: This government is socializing debt and privatizing profit, and it's wrong.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): I was quite impressed with the speech as well. It's the first time I've seen a member stand up and throw open his coat to advertise a lining made by Harry Rosen. I congratulate you. I don't know if you're getting paid to advertise for Harry Rosen or just what you were performing there, but I didn't notice any watches or any roads or anything else in there on that lining.
It's interesting that the member for Algoma talked quite a bit about the LCBO. It's interesting, as our minister responsible for privatization looked at the LCBO, what a turnaround occurred in those stores. The kind of service, the selection that's available in the stores, that was the real thing our government was all about: improving the service and improving what was going on in these stores. That was very effective.
The member for Algoma talked about the profit and how much profit there is. With the amount of tax that's charged on liquor, it's not surprising there's good profit. Also there's a markup. I think the average bottle is around $3 or $4 and the markup is around $8, $9 or $10. So it's guaranteed to make a profit. What we were talking about was efficiency in handling those stores and in the operation of those stores, and that certainly happened.
He gave several examples, but the other one I wanted to refer to was TVOntario. There were all kinds of private channels out there, and it was high time it was addressed and that we took TVOntario and put it in the context of its original intent. That's really what is now happening. It was, again, something we examined very carefully. We listened and we consulted, which is a rare thing for the opposition. They didn't do that.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Galt: It's a rare thing for them to have been doing. We found out it's a good idea to leave it as we -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Member for Algoma.
Mr Wildman: I want to make one clarification. The member said that this had Harry Rosen in here. Actually, it doesn't have anything there, but if it were to have anything, it would be O. Perri, tailor, Sault Ste Marie, one of the best small businessmen in Sault Ste Marie, and I'm pleased that I was able to purchase this suit from him, if you're interested.
Having said that, the point that is crucial here is that section 47 of the Capital Investment Plan Act is not applicable to the 407. The minister has not explained what the reason is for that. That means that tolls can continue to be paid by users of this highway even after the road has been paid for. This sounds like a rip-off to me. The fact is this: The public has financed this through their taxes. The public is paying for this road already. The private sector has not had to do that; maybe they should have, but they haven't. The private sector hasn't done that and now, after it has been financed at public expense, we're going to privatize it, and the private sector is going to be able to continue charging tolls forever if they like. At the same time, as long as they own this, if the traffic increases on all of the other arteries in the greater Toronto area, there's no limit on the tolls that can be charged. They can charge what the market will bear, and we'll see that the travelling public is going to pay. They've already paid through their taxes for the financing of the road, and they're also going to have to pay through higher and higher tolls forever, as long as this road is in the private sector.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Galt: Thank you very much for the opportunity to address Bill 70 in its second reading, a bill that's about allowing the privatization of Highway 407. I think it's certainly the right direction to be going.
What we're really talking about in these different issues of privatization is whether the government should be operating for the public good or in fact whether a private company can provide for that public good in a more reasonable and affordable way.
Thanks to the minister responsible for privatization, we've been looking at a lot of these areas. We're not going the British route, where you just literally sold off everything as you came to it to the highest bidder. We're taking it in a very, very responsible way and addressing it as to who is best suited to serve and to look after these issues for the public of Ontario. We're very committed to reviewing these various issues.
I have a couple of quotes from the Common Sense Revolution, our platform, which actually came out back in 1994. "We believe the value of such assets is greater when being used to pay down the massive provincial debt than sitting on the government books." It was the kind of debt that evolved over the lost decade, from 1985 to 1995. Indeed, it is time to get rid of some of that debt and get some of it paid off.
Even though the member for Kingston and The Islands talked about the debt increasing over the last year or so while we've been in government, it's hard to know just which side, as a Liberal, they're going to come at. They talk about spending more, and then they come back saying they think we should be getting rid of all the debt. I really don't understand, and I don't think they understand, just where they're coming from when they talk this way. It's a flip and then it's a flop and then it's a flop and then it's a flip as they move back and forth with the different positions they take. Then they talk about the tax cuts. Well, of course the tax cuts are what is stimulating the economy and increasing the tax revenues coming into this province by a significant amount or the debt would be climbing even faster. It's really difficult to understand when they talk about the debt that is still increasing when they want us to be spending more.
1920
It goes on to say: "Marketable provincial assets will be transferred to an arm's-length corporation charged with their sale. Strict criteria will be established for selecting which assets we sell, and rigid guidelines will be established for protecting the public interest."
It goes on to say, "When a deal for a sale is made, it will be independently reviewed" - exactly what we're doing. "A rigorous conflict-of-interest policy will be enforced and the entire process will be open to scrutiny by the Legislature and the public."
That's really what Bill 70 is all about: It's open, it's in front of the taxpayers of Ontario.
As I look at the performance of some of the governments in the past, I look at bill passage and the number of days government sat. In the first three years of the previous two governments and our own, our government sat for 361 days in the first three years and passed 89 bills. That sounds like quite a bit. The NDP, in their first three years, only sat for 278 days, almost 100 days less, and they passed 143 bills. The Liberals, who sat for 297 days, that's 64 less days, passed 183 bills - more than double the number we passed in our first three years.
If you look further down, at how many hours were spent on the second reading of these bills, the PCs spent four hours and 50 minutes on second reading. The NDP, by comparison, spent one hour and 28 minutes, an hour and a half; the Liberals, an hour and eight minutes for second reading. They're the ones who talk about consultation. They should have had more time dealing with second readings of their bills.
The really interesting one is the third reading. In the first session, our government spent two hours and 10 minutes on third readings. The NDP government spent 48 minutes, and the Liberals spent a grand total of seven minutes for each bill on third reading. That is quite the consultation they carried out.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, order.
Mr Galt: Also, as I look further down, at the length of time spent on the road for committee hearings, actual committee hearings on the road, we spent 773 hours and 29 minutes. The NDP spent a little more than 100 hours less, 645 hours; and the Liberals about half the amount, 349 hours and 45 minutes. That is the party that keeps talking about consultation in this House.
There are many reasons for privatizing different aspects of crown corporations or things the government may own; one is that the activity may be maturing and it's ready to go out into the private sector. It may be monopoly, something like Ontario Hydro, that sort of got out of control and it's time that competition was brought into that particular marketplace, or it may simply be that there is competition in the private sector and it's time that activity did get out and compete with the private sector rather than being supported by a government agency.
In the past, it has been very necessary for the government to provide and to initiate different activities. Whether we talk about communication or the supplying of electricity, often it takes government to get some of these new ventures going. As we move along, times certainly change, and the private sector should be there to look at a variety of service alternatives that may be supplied by it.
Now as we look at it, there are a lot of activities out there that could be run by the private sector, with government acting as a coordinator to ensure they're carried out properly. It's important that government be there to have an opportunity to ensure that the public interest is up front. The government has a job to ensure that the services are reasonable and that the services are also affordable. We need to ensure that there is a level playing field for many of these activities that have been with government that we're putting out to the private sector. We need to oversee the process that service providers have so that there is competition in that market and the competition is on that level playing field.
We have a commitment, as I mentioned earlier, from the Common Sense Revolution to review many of the services that were supplied previously by the government, and hopefully many of these will in the future be supplied by private enterprise. Our government has developed the Ontario privatization review framework and we're in the process of looking at a lot of the businesses that have been operated by government to see if the public can be better served by the private sector. We examined, with expert advice and with public input, a great range of privatization options that may or may not be used. Some of these options range from a total sale of the asset to developing partnerships with the private sector, joint ventures and also things like long-term leases.
Each business has been examined on an individual basis. As we mentioned a few minutes ago, a good example would be TVOntario, or we could talk about the LCBO, Ontario Hydro or, now that we're discussing it, the 407. In all of these examinations we've come up with different ways of handling how those activities should be operated in the future. The subject we're on now is the privatization of the 407. There's been a very thorough review, some seven months of investigation, and the decision has been that probably private operation would be the preferable route to go and to have the private sector manage and maintain the 407 in the future.
It's important to remind the Legislature and the people of Ontario that it was the third party, then-Minister of Transportation Gilles Pouliot, who made a statement in a release that came out on February 10, 1993, "We cannot afford to wait for traditional sources of financing to move ahead." I well remember attending the Good Roads convention in February 1993 - I believe it was later in the month - and listening to the honourable Gilles Pouliot speak at that time, a very entertaining speaker. I was very impressed with his comments at that time. I don't recall the exact words but I went away with the impression that yes, 407 would be built by private funds.
We're hearing in the Legislature this evening that they ran into some trouble getting the private consortium to build it because they couldn't raise money. It may have related to the fact that we were in a recession; it may have related to the fact that the debt was accumulating at such a rate and to the financial situation of the province. Our debt was up, our deficit was up and everything was in trouble. Maybe that's why they were unable to get any financing at the time.
Our government is not waiting for some magic dollars to come along to finish 407. We're taking action to sell it to the appropriate bidder. This goes along with some of the thinking by Osborne in his book Reinventing Government. A quote from that: "It is a way of using public leverage to shape private decisions to achieve collective goals. It is a classic method of entrepreneurial governance: active government without bureaucratic government."
There's no question in my mind that this decision is in the best interests of the taxpayers of Ontario. This contract will be designed and will allow government input at any time. It won't be like Ontario Hydro, where it's at such arm's length and where the Ontario government has absolutely no - I shouldn't say "absolutely" - but almost no input, one of the reasons it's moving to competition; or something like the Ontario realty board, again a crown corporation at arm's length. The government will have direct input on a periodic basis. We'll certainly monitor that contract to ensure that the conditions are met, conditions that will have high standards, in areas such as financial management, the building, the safety and also the environmental regulations.
I can assure you that the new owner will have no special privileges. He or she - they - will be required to step into the shoes of the province and therefore will have the same restrictions as if the province were operating that particular highway. Then the government can use its energies to focus on other issues that are important to the people of Ontario - certainly, 407 is also important - but issues like health and classroom education, personal safety and also the development of other infrastructure in Ontario.
It's important, as I mentioned a minute ago, that there be some retention of government control. Certainly the government is responsible for the public interests of our society. The government has a responsibility for the public goods and that they are produced in an efficient manner, in this case the opportunity to drive on a highway that isn't congested that bypasses 401 and the downtown core of Toronto. Our government will sell this highway only if specific and strict conditions are met. It's certainly not going out on a fire sale to be given away. It is going to have to bring an appropriate price. One of the conditions that will be continued is unrestricted access by all vehicles. I see that as a very important condition. We can't screen out some of the heavy vehicles, for example, that are harder on highways. It must be open to all vehicles that want to get around the city of Toronto.
1930
There certainly will be a requirement that there be compliance with the safety standards of building that road and the extensions, the same as if it were any other road in the province. I'm pleased to see right in the legislation that it states it will be subject to environmental assessment as if it were a province, where it's into class EA, and that's very important, particularly when we look at the east end, moving out east of Brock Road to 115 that goes across the Oak Ridges Moraine, a very sensitive area. It's important that the environmental assessment is there and in place when they're looking at developing that end of the road.
Also, one of the conditions will be to see that the extensions both east and west will be completed in a reasonable time. We want to have it go from the QE up and around Toronto all the way through to 115, so traffic, say, from Montreal and Kingston moving through to Windsor or moving on into the US can get around the very congested area of Toronto, which occurs on occasion, of course. It's not surprising, being the largest city in Canada.
This is certainly going to be good for all of Ontario. It's going to help meet future transportation needs. I believe the minister of the day back in 1993 made some comment at the Good Roads convention to the effect that if they had to raise enough money, he'd have to get re-elected seven or eight times and it would be 2028 before it would get built, and that this is the right route to be going with private enterprise. We're continuing with the philosophy that the minister of that day had.
The transfer will take an awful lot of the risk from the province and put it on to the owner, who will have the ownership and be responsible for the construction. There will be a diminished dependence on provincial funding, therefore provincial funding will be more available for other activities. The owner, of course, will bear the costs of the completion, the costs of the upgrading and maintenance and also the costs of policing of that particular road. It's great to have these dollars that can then pay off a portion of the debt and also free up other dollars to be used to help reduce the debt and the deficit.
One of the benefits I made reference to earlier, and being parliamentary assistant for environment, that I'm very concerned about, is that the environmental assessment would be transferred to that new owner the same as if it were a province. That new owner will be really walking in the shoes of the province when it comes to things like environmental assessment.
By having the bypass, we'll get rid of the stress and the congestion of the 401. When cars and vehicles are generally sitting and idling or accelerating or braking, there are a lot of pollutants released, a lot of fuel wastage, and this is not good for our environment compared to a nice flow-through of traffic. The Minister of Transportation recognized that in his press release back on February 10, 1993: "We need to build Highway 407 now to relieve the stress on Highway 401. We must also reduce fuel waste and pollution caused by congestion on the 401 and other east-west routes."
It's important also to realize in this debate that what's being sold is a highway and the upgrades on that particular property. We are not selling the land or the grounds that the highway sits on. It's only the upgrade. The province will continue to retain the ownership of that road allowance. By doing this, it encourages the province to maintain an interest in that road. It maintains an interest in the various areas of the environment that are surrounding it. Just to re-emphasize, I think it's important that everybody be very aware, in this transfer of ownership, that the Environmental Assessment Act will apply to that owner, that developer, the very same as it presently does with the province.
In winding up, I just want to make a couple of comments about something in connection with privatization that I heard on the radio on Sunday evening as I was driving to Toronto -
Mr Wildman: On the 407.
Mr Galt: - on the 401. It was the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Finance, Tony Valeri. He is from Stoney Creek. I think I have it all right - it was while I was driving - trying to remember. He was the parliamentary secretary to Paul Martin. If I had closed my eyes and hadn't heard the name, I'd have been convinced that he was a member of our party. He was talking about privatization and what the private sector could do. He was saying that any of the surplus coming in should be paying down the debt. He was right on track; he was on message. That man knows what it's all about: good economic sense. The Liberals in this House could take a page from the book of Tony Valeri. I'd recommend they get a copy of what Tony was saying that evening on CFRB. It was very enlightening to hear a Liberal making those comments.
Bill 70 is the legislation necessary for the sale of 407, and I know this legislation will best serve the interests of the province of Ontario. I'm absolutely convinced that the taxpayers of Ontario will indeed be getting the best value possible sooner. They'll have the opportunity to bypass Toronto. Bill 70 is the right thing to be doing at this point in time.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'd like to respond to the member for Northumberland. He began his talk doing a comparison of how much time various governments had spent on passing legislation. I don't know where he was going with that. He suggested that previous governments had spent less time passing more legislation. Let me just comment on that. Perhaps the reason why was because you didn't have the hands of the opposition tied as you do today.
With the passage of rule changes in this particular House and the addition of another day so that the Tories can say, "We put in more time" - in other words, for the 100,000 people who are watching, this government considers the three hours from 6:30 to 9:30 another day so they can say, "We gave more days to other people," but they didn't really. It's all part of the same day and it's part of trying to control things and it's part of trying to put out the smoke and mirrors for things.
The member talked about Osborne and Gaebler. I'm glad he's reading things other than animal husbandry these days. The member talked about not selling the ground under the road. But I would ask him, if that's important enough to express, then why isn't it important enough to also identify in the legislation that we will ask the company or consortium, whatever it is, to negotiate a time frame from which that particular ground will revert back to the crown? Once you pave it over, you know it can't be used for anything else, unless it can be used for an airport. Of course you know that. It's not far away, but I doubt that is what's going to happen.
1940
Mr Len Wood: I listened to the member for Northumberland explain to the public out there why they couldn't privatize TVOntario, why they couldn't privatize the liquor control board - because the public would not allow it. They couldn't stand the heat that was generated out there from the public on the privatization of these two, TVOntario and the liquor control board.
Now the minister of privatization is saying: "Look, I have to privatize something. I've been appointed to cabinet, and my job is to privatize something. Maybe we should pick a highway, pick 407, and sell that off to the private sector, and we'll give them the right to charge tolls, user fees, taxes, on this road for the next 50 or 100 years or whatever, forever," instead of putting in the legislation that when the road is paid for and the government has been reimbursed for the money, the tolls would be eliminated. But they haven't done that. They've turned it over to the private sector to do it.
Where are the privatization studies that were done on the 407? We haven't seen them. We don't know if this is going to go out to committee or which committee it's going to go out to. We haven't heard any commitment from the government on that, and yet they're talking about trying to convince us that privatization of the 407 - to find money to give away to the rich people in Ontario, that is all this is about. They've given away $5 billion or $6 billion in a 30% tax cut, and now they're going to try to find $1.8 billion in the private sector to give away to the wealthiest people in Ontario. At the same time, the debt that the Tories are building up has increased over $20 billion.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): It's always a pleasure to comment on a speech given by the member for Northumberland. He always has such a great command of the issue and has all the facts at his disposal. In one of his last comments he summed up the whole argument, and that is, the best value for the taxpayer.
The New Democrats, to their credit, when the member for Lake Nipigon was the minister, understood the necessity of having the private sector involved. They understood that the government could not be everything to everybody. I struggle a little bit with their talk, that the taxpayers have paid for this. As I understand, there is still a substantial amount of debt associated with the road, so I don't think it has been paid for. Taxpayers are servicing their debt.
There is a business case to be made. We hear, "The tolls will go out of sight if the private sector owns it, and they will go on forever." Those of you who have been in business will understand that the law of supply and demand is an issue. If you lower the price, normally the usage goes up; if you raise the price, usage goes down. The private sector will have to be cognizant of that. Also, as we've seen with the 401 and others, roads wear out, so the private sector owner will have to put some reserves away to repair the road and maintain it.
Anyway, we know where the New Democrats stand. The really interesting thing in all of the discussion I've heard about Highway 407 is that we really don't know where the Liberals stand. We know their leader can take positions. A couple of weeks ago he took a position. We heard him take a position. I'm not sure all his members liked the position he took, but he did take a position. The Liberals are the next to speak, and I would love to hear whoever the speaker is stand up and tell us, once and for all, are they or aren't they in favour of the privatization of Highway 407?
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I thought that the member, somewhere along the line, would make a confession about the millions upon millions of dollars this government is squandering on self-serving, self-congratulatory political advertising, and I wondered if that would be accompanying this bill.
What the public out there should know is that the government is now embarking upon yet another campaign, at taxpayers' expense, to try to purvey its policies to the people of this province on health care. They sit there smugly, these people who go to church on Sunday morning and then seem to check their ethics on the front step or something like that, because ethics would dictate that you wouldn't take people's money to be spending on self-serving advertising the way this government is. If you're going to be ethical, if you're going to play the part, you've got to play the part all the way through.
I hope the member speaks to members of his caucus, I hope he speaks to the Premier, and tries to get the Conservative Party to pay for this advertising. This is being paid for with hard-earned tax dollars by the people of this province. I'm afraid they'll do it on this bill as well, another $4 million advertising campaign, all self-serving political advertising, and they sit there smugly - the people should know - with smirks on their faces. Surely there is somebody with a conscience over there who would say, "Take the money from the overflowing coffers of the Conservative Party," overflowing from the millions of dollars they're getting from the most powerful and the richest people in this province. I ask him to have his government end this blitz of advertising that's taking place at public expense.
Mr Galt: First, many thanks to the member for Chatham-Kent for his very kind comments. My response to the member for St Catharines - I guess I'd go with a question: Why did your government spend so much more on advertising than our government does on an annual basis? You sit there shaking your heard, but that's absolutely the way it was. You and Peterson and Patti Starr spent all kinds of money on advertising, making us look like pikers by comparison.
Mr Patten: No, we did not. You're lying.
Mr Galt: I listened to the comments of the member for Ottawa Centre -
The Acting Speaker: Hold it a second. Could you withdraw that comment, member for Ottawa Centre.
Mr Patten: Yes, I'm sorry I told him he was lying.
The Acting Speaker: No, just withdraw, please.
Mr Patten: You want me to withdraw?
The Acting Speaker: Yes.
Mr Patten: I withdraw.
The Acting Speaker: Go ahead.
Mr Galt: The member for Ottawa Centre seemed - I guess I hit a rather sensitive chord when we were speaking earlier. He was talking about the comparisons I was drawing. I think the member for Ottawa Centre would know and should know there were no rule changes for the first two years, so for two out of those three years the rules were exactly the same. That's a very poor response on his part. He's pulling on his coat; maybe he's going to sell a watch or something.
The member for Cochrane North said we couldn't take the heat. I think we can take the heat on a lot of issues. I don't know of a party in government that has ever come through; we're doing what we said we were going to do.
Mr Baird: We're here to fix government.
Mr Galt: We're here to fix government, there's no question. If it hadn't been for the lost decade, it might not be necessary to do so much fixing and get the tool box out so often. Let me tell you where some of the heat was. It was entertaining for the power workers.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Cochrane North, order.
Mr Galt: They advertised like they were going to sell Niagara Falls, not the power generator but selling Niagara Falls. When you see a union using that kind of advertising, it's very obvious that there's something very seriously wrong, that this government had to do something, and we are. We're going to put Ontario Hydro out to competition.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Not only am I pleased to stand in my place tonight to talk about this, but I know the member for Chatham-Kent is very anxious to know how we're going to vote on this, and it's a big thumbs down on this bill. If you want to know, that's it, and I've got 10 minutes to tell you why. It's not so much actually the principle of privatizing this piece of real estate, or the highway thereon, really.
Mr Bradley: No details.
Mr Ramsay: Basically that's what it is: There are absolutely no details about how you would go about that. We are sent here by the public to entrust that the public good is to be done on every transaction such as this that occurs. There is nothing in this bill to spell out how this transaction is going to take place.
In principle it might be the right thing to do. That's the way this got started by the previous government, that it is a toll road, so therefore it generates a revenue. Privatization might be the right thing to do. We would have liked to have seen you spell out how this would have been done.
My colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin brought up a very good point. He made a positive suggestion that when previous federal governments were looking at privatizing some of the crown corporations of the day, maybe there would be some very good examples, very successful examples, such as Air Canada, which he mentioned. That's a very successful example of a privatization that in the past, the way the country developed, was done as a national enterprise, and over time it seemed to be the right thing to do to privatize it, and my colleagues would agree with that. What you haven't spelled out here is exactly how this would happen. What are the details?
I see the minister of privatization is grimacing as he's walking and strutting about in the House here, but you really haven't given us that detail, and we would appreciate knowing. First of all, there's no cap or price or anything in here. There's nothing in this bill, for instance, to prevent the minister from selling this highway for $1. You could do that if you wished to do that. There's nothing in here to prevent that: $1, $10 or $100, whatever. There's nothing in the bill that would prevent that.
1950
Really, what we're saying is there's no public accountability built into this bill to assure the public that this is going to be done in a way that is above-board. In the briefings we have had from government bureaucrats, what is interesting is that there are no specific regulations ensuring a publicly accountable process for the sale of something the size of 407. This isn't included like the regular rules of purchasing that different ministries have. We know that over $20,000 or $25,000, whatever the limit is today, there is a tendering process that has to be adhered to. There seem to be enough watchdogs built into the government processes that that is adhered to. The public can be fairly well assured that is happening.
But the government of Ontario has never privatized an asset as large as this. The regular accountability regulations in government don't apply and you haven't given those details to us in this bill. That's why we are against how you're doing this, not what you're doing. We'd say to you that if you want to bring in amendments to show us and regulations to show us how you'd go about this, then we could certainly take another look at this and give you that support if that's what you wish.
As our caucus has said, the legislation has written on it, "Just trust us and we'll dispose of this multi-million dollar asset for the good of all." But there are no details about the maintenance of this, how the toll rates would work in the future or expropriation for expansion of this road. Who knows if you're going to get into a 99-year proposition? This road obviously is going to have to grow over time. I know the land is there to do that but maybe more land is going to be required. Again, we don't know that. Other issues such as this in running a public highway really should be spelled out. After all, we've had hundreds of years of experience in this province of running public highways. We should be able to put that in the bill to give people the assurance of what's going on. That, in short, is the answer to the member for Chatham-Kent.
I would like to talk about some of the other privatizations that you are considering. It's interesting that this government, while campaigning on a wide scope of privatizations, has reined in some of those, at least for now, probably up till the next election. I'm sure if they were to form the government again, some of these old chestnuts of theirs, like the LCBO, would be back on the table. They've pulled back sensibly from the privatization of the LCBO, even though we're talking about the government in the business of selling a commodity, because of the protection of our young people and the control that the LCBO structure offers.
In rural areas, in northern areas such as I represent, I would fear the privatization of the LCBO for another reason, and that is the matter of selection. In many smaller stores up north, depending on how they're privatized, if they're privatized so that average convenience stores got a piece of this, I could see seven different types of rye on one shelf and one brand of wine at the end. That would be all the selection that people in far northern areas would have, not the vast selection that is available today in our LCBO system.
The other genius of the LCBO system, when you talk to people in other jurisdictions who deal in beverage alcohol, is that the LCBO is the largest purchaser of beverage alcohol in the world. Because of that, we get the very best price for beverage alcohol of any jurisdiction in the world. Whether you go to California or New York state, there it's agents who are purchasers for, yes, very large populations, but they're only purchasing a few brands for that population or maybe even a sector of that population. We're much better off here, served by the system that we have.
The other area I'd like to touch upon is something the government is flirting with, but we're not sure how committed to, and that is the privatization of jails. I'm very happy to see the Solicitor General here today. It looks like they may not be privatizing some of the new superjails, even though they flirted with that. I would commend the government for that decision. The only problem is we're not sure how long in the future that is going to happen. Again, I think it's going to happen up until the next election. Who knows after that, depending on what happens after the next election.
I would say to the Solicitor General that if a Liberal government was elected next time, we would not be privatizing the jail system in Ontario, and for very good reason. Incarceration and coercion, the exercise of any type of force over citizens, is probably the most important and intrusive state power that a government can ever exercise over its citizens. You really shouldn't contract that out to the private sector because the very nature of corporations is to do well for themselves but not to do the public good. To contract that out to a corporation is absolutely wrong.
You're going to get into some of the fiascos that have happened in, for example, Youngstown, Ohio, where there is a privatized jail that is just not working. The reason is that every dime spent is 10 cents less profit for that company, so you start to cut back on wages, you start to cut back on staff training and preparedness in dealing with offenders. These types of issues start to build an operation that becomes a disaster, such as the jail in Youngstown, Ohio. That's the type of thing that we fear. The people who have direct supervision of our offenders in our facilities must be directly accountable to the state.
I'd make the case that it's very different running a jail and supervising offenders and protecting their rights as is their due from, say, contracting out the collection of garbage or dealing with other commodities or even, I suppose, privatizing Highway 407, a completely different issue. I would hope the government would apply this philosophical thinking as to what may be the functions of government, those very core functions of government that must remain in the public domain. Those are very important.
That's the type of thinking process you have to go through before you make the decision of holus-bolus privatizing everything the government does. There have to be those core functions that remain in our control, remain for the sake of public accountability because that is our job here. That's the reason we are here. That is what we are entrusted to do by the people who elect us. It's a very important function. It's something we must ensure that we keep in the public domain.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Questions and comments?
Mr Lessard: I'm glad that the member for Timiskaming has clarified once again the Liberal position this evening. He says that they're opposed to the method, I guess, of the privatization of Highway 407, which means in principle they're really not too opposed to it; in fact, maybe they think it's a good idea.
However, we are opposed to the privatization of Highway 407. We built 407 as a public-private partnership, but we weren't interested in the wholesale privatization of Highway 407. We knew that there needed to be some private sector involvement because the private sector wasn't going to be able to build that highway without public sector involvement. We think that what this is all about is an ideological bent to privatize something because the minister has to come up with something to privatize.
He wasn't able to privatize the LCBO. The Tories like to take credit that they've been involved in a lot of the initiatives to improve the LCBO, but I want to make it clear to the members of the government that it was our government that initiated a lot of the improvements to the LCBO. It was the member for Riverdale who was primarily involved with ensuring that the business practices of the LCBO were improved, that they become more involved in the marketability aspects and promotion of their products, improving the locations where they sold their products. I want to commend the member for Riverdale for her efforts.
2000
Hon Mr Sampson: I want to respond to some of the comments from my colleague across the floor, the member for Timiskaming. He spoke for most of his time about the process that will be involved as we proceed with the proposed sale. He also spoke very briefly and expressed some of his frustrations, and I gather his caucus's frustrations, that the terms of an actual deal can't be laid in front of this House at this point in time in the consideration of the bid. Of course the terms can't, because we haven't started the process that will actually allow us to solicit bids from interested players.
To go out to the private sector and say, "Listen, this is exactly the bid we want to see from you" and "This is exactly," as one of his colleagues said before, "the price we want you to pay," why bother to go through a tendering process? If that's what Liberals believe is a fair and open tendering process to encourage the private sector to come forward with innovative ideas as it relates to construction techniques, as it relates to financing techniques, as it relates to the operation of the highway, if that's their idea of how they solicit good ideas from the private sector, I'm a bit concerned.
The member talked about process and I want to assure him that I am indeed also concerned about process, and that's why we spent a considerable amount of time researching and looking for the right process to apply to these rather large transactions. We came forward with the review framework, which allowed us to properly consider ways to partner with the private sector and ways to implement partnership structures.
The exact procedure we will use, the exact steps we'll use, the way in which we intend to evaluate RFEIs will become very public and very open when we proceed with the final transaction, when we start to actually solicit bids. It will be as transparent and open as humanly and commercially possible.
Mr Patten: I want to commend my colleague from Timiskaming on his comments. I think he dealt clearly with the reservations that we have in our caucus. The minister attempted to address those, and I appreciate his comments in responding to the member for Timiskaming.
I think it is possible, by the way, Minister - it wouldn't take all that much to change my mind. I don't think we're totally in opposition to it but we have some worries and concerns which can be rectified through amendments at committee or at hearings, or whatever it is. Why can terms of reference related to your particular project not be put out, and the identified criteria?
Hon Mr Sampson: That's not a problem.
Mr Patten: OK, that's not there at the moment. If you're saying there are no problems, terrific. We can expect then that would be an amendment coming from us or from the government side, preferably from your side because you'd be happy with it if you proposed it, and we could discuss it. That would be a good start.
The terms of reference of course - you notice my friend from the NDP from Windsor-Riverside who was just illustrating a flip-flop. You know, that party always does that. Here's privatization. They started this project on a privatization program and now they're in disagreement with it. I fail to understand. If you're going to go down to a privatization bid, at least don't hook yourself into being caught with having to provide the financing. At least that's one particular situation that this piece of legislation does address.
Mr Len Wood: Briefly, on the member for Timiskaming, I know he talked a lot about the privatization of the LCBO not being a good idea, especially in northern Ontario. It's quite obvious this government has backed off on the privatization of that until probably after the next election. Hopefully you don't get another mandate.
I'm not sure exactly, from listening to the member for Timiskaming and the other Liberal member who made the comments, what position they're going to take on this. We've taken the position that Highway 407 is good the way it is. It should not be privatized and the extensions that have to be put there should continue to be funded the same as any other highways that were built right across this province and continue the tolling of the highway until such time as it's paid for and then the tolls would be eliminated. We've taken the position that that is the right way to go.
At the same time, we're demanding that they bring forward the studies that were supposed to have been done on this. We've asked that they reveal these studies, bring them in and table them in the Legislature, to see if this is the right way to go or if, as the member for Timiskaming said, they are going to give away this highway to their friends for a dollar or $10 and continue tolls for the next 50, 100 or 200 years so that the private sector would continue to make a profit off this highway.
That was not the intention. The NDP government built the highway. We're proud that we built it. The cheapest way to do it was with a joint public-private relationship. It was built and it's a good, safe highway built out of concrete that is good for years and years to come.
The Speaker: Response, member for Timiskaming.
Mr Ramsay: I also, like some of my colleagues, was quite blown away by the comment from the member for Windsor-Riverside, whose party in government previous to this one had started this privatized highway, but I guess they've changed their mind on that.
To the minister of privatization, the basic framework is what we are talking about. We are not talking about price. You obviously can't have transparency about dealing with the price, but we would like to know about the basic framework of how this highway is to be transferred to the private sector. The legislation speaks to additional side agreements to be established to settle issues such as future expansion of the highway, the tolling process and matters related to privacy concerns, police access and maintenance. These are broad frameworks that should be there. There should be transparency in the basic framework of the process, not the details. We certainly don't ask for that as you look for proposals from the private sector, but we should know what you have in mind for the future of this highway and how it should be operated.
Should, for instance, there be some sort of percentage of the future tolling revenue paid back to the taxpayers of Ontario, or we are absolutely going to sign this thing off for 99 years and let all the profits go to the company?
What will be the safety standards that will be demanded of this highway? This highway is built with a few safety standards shortcutted off from what they were a few years ago, but that's the way the previous government had tendered that. I imagine that over time our safety standards are going to change. We're going to have new ideas about what makes a safe highway. Are we going to build into this agreement the safeguards to ensure that the new owner, whoever that is going to be, will over time install the new safety standards?
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Lessard: I don't think it will be any surprise to the members in this House when I say that the initiative with respect to the privatization of Highway 407 is just another example of this government going too far, too fast, and in the wrong direction. This government is talking about raising the limits on 400-series highways up to 120 kilometres per hour. On Highway 407 we wonder whether the speed limit is going to be unlimited. That's how fast they're heading us into this privatization direction, at an unlimited speed limit. That's how we're going.
There are a number of issues with respect to this bill that cause me a great deal of concern, because this was a highway that was built as a public-private partnership. The member for Timiskaming made some mention of how it was the NDP that initiated this. Somehow, by implication, he was saying that because of the fact that the NDP was involved in the construction of this highway, somehow we were the ones that lead the present government into the privatization of it. That's an interesting suggestion. However, it's a real stretch to suggest that.
2010
The fact is that for a long period of time it was recognized that Highway 407 was going to be necessary in the province of Ontario to ensure that we had an efficient private transportation system, and by "private transportation" I mean that anyone would be able to drive on it without any restriction. We knew it was going to be impossible for the government of the day to be able to construct that highway completely without having a private sector partner, and that was the reason we did that. That was an initiative that was hailed not only here in Ontario but in many parts of the world as a successful means and way in which we were able to add to our highway infrastructure and improve the transportation system in Ontario.
That didn't mean we were advocating the wholesale privatization of the highway system in Ontario, as the Liberals would like to try and have people believe. We weren't advocating that this should all be turned over to the private sector, because we knew what that was going to mean. That would mean the private sector was going to be able to control the revenues on that highway, and that's something we didn't agree with. That's the reason we put in place the restriction that said that once this highway was paid for, the tolls were going to come off.
But what Bill 70 provides for is that those tolls are going to go on in perpetuity. That means that whoever is the owner of this highway is going to be able to reap the profits of it from the motorists of Ontario forever. There's not going to be any limitation on that. It's natural that there is going to be population growth along the Highway 407 corridor. It's happened along a lot of the 400-series corridors. That's where the development is taking place these days. It is going to place increasing demands on that highway, and because of that there is going to be more opportunity to justify jacking up tolls. This is another tax, another tax grab from a government that campaigned on a promise to try to reduce taxes. It's another user fee that is being imposed upon residents in Ontario, at least residents who happen to want to drive around the city of Toronto.
One of the things I want to focus on specifically is with respect to how this bill is going to be implemented. One of the things the bill provides for, in section 6, is that "the minister for privatization may enter into any agreement that he" - it's a he - "considers necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this act." We have no idea what that means. The minister can enter into whatever agreements he thinks necessary without having to have himself subjected to the scrutiny of this Legislature. That means we have no idea what sort of agreements he may feel necessary to carry out the objectives of Bill 70.
That ability to enter into agreements in secrecy makes me think of the fact that we have no idea why the government wants to privatize Highway 407 in the first place. They say they've conducted a study that justifies them going down this road - no pun intended. However, they haven't made this review public. I ask the government, why don't you make this review public? What is it that you have to hide? What are you afraid of? Why don't you want people to know? If it's such a good idea, why don't you table that study that says it is such a good idea?
The other aspect of this bill that is of concern is in subsection 14(2). It says, "The owner's powers set out in subsection (1)" - those sections deal with collection, establishing and enforcing tolls, enforcement of fees, interest rates to be charged on tolls and fees, the exemptions of certain vehicles, a number of things - "shall only be exercised in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in an agreement to be entered into between the minister for privatization and the owner." At the briefing that I had earlier this week, I asked whether those agreements were going to be public. I have yet to get an answer to that question.
This is completely unacceptable. That this government would engage in an exercise of the privatization of Highway 407, all of the standards of which with respect to the establishment of fees, the exemption of people who are using it and how they're going to collect those fees are the subject of an agreement that the public isn't going to have any knowledge of whatsoever, is completely unacceptable.
The other area that causes me a great deal of concern is with respect to the collection of information from those people who actually use the highway. We know that in order to use Highway 407 you have to have a transponder. It results in the automatic billing of the person who owns the transponder. But if you drive on the highway and you don't have a transponder, they take a picture of your licence plate and that information -
Mr Wildman: Photo radar.
Mr Lessard: Yes, it sounds a whole lot like photo radar to me. This government was a big objector to that.
However, they take a picture of your licence plate number and they have to find out who should be responsible for the payment of the fee. How they do that is they get that information from the Ministry of Transportation. I think drivers in the province would be very interested in ensuring that the information about their name and their address and the ownership of their vehicle was going to be kept confidential and not used for any purpose other than billing for the use of Highway 407.
Even though there is a provision in the act with respect to the confidentiality of that information, I think there needs to be something in there that provides some severe penalties in the event that the information is used for any other purpose, because I suspect that information has a whole lot of value to a whole lot of people who could benefit from the use of that information, in addition to a lot of people who are going to benefit from the privatization of Highway 407.
This is another example where whatever debt may be outstanding with respect to the construction of Highway 407 is going to be socialized from a government that disagrees with that socialist approach to things, and the ability to make profits well into the future is going to be privatized. That's going to be to the detriment of people who are driving on the highway and the rest of the taxpayers in the province.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Baird: I'm pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the speech of my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside. The importance of Highway 407 not just for the greater Toronto area but indeed for the entire province is significant, as I know he would agree.
I do find his supportive comments - he was a member of the NDP government when they first brought in this public-private sector partnership. He's perhaps less enthusiastic now that he's not in government. I'm reminded of a newspaper article I read not too long ago that the NDP was becoming too conservative, so they've backed up a little bit in terms of their support for privatization.
In dealing with the completion of Highway 407, it's important to look at the role of the private sector in terms of dealing with our fiscal challenges. This will allow transportation for those folks who live in the suburban areas and the regions around the greater Toronto area, for them to be able to get around, and most important, the increase in the number of transport trucks in transporting all of those goods that are being increased by all of the new jobs created in Ontario.
2020
I was disappointed that the member for Windsor-Riverside didn't mention the issue of taxes and the Liberal position on taxes. I was disappointed he didn't mention that. I read in Now magazine: "Not surprisingly, the question" of how the Liberals would pay for promises like education improvement "was on the agenda at the Liberals' retreat in Collingwood.... MPP Gerard Kennedy says he and some other caucus members favour a reconsideration of the position that they will `maintain the fiscal framework'" of the Tory tax cut. We spent a fair bit of time talking about that in Collingwood,' said Kennedy. `That was certainly the centrepiece of a lot of discussion. It covered a pretty good gamut. I don't think we have a consensus yet, so you could say there is a difference of opinion here. You can expect that,' he said." So we know that the Liberals are now actively, behind doors in their caucus meetings, planning to raise taxes on the people of Ontario. Shame, shame.
Mr Bradley: I was hoping - and I know what happened; you're down to 10 minutes now under the new rules of the House - that the member would comment on whether he thinks there will be a major advertising blitz to go with this bill. As he would know, the government has booked time on television and bought these very slick ads, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario, to do with health care, to try to convince people, for instance, that when they close the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, after it has provided 50 years of outstanding service to the people, service which by the way was extolled and complimented by the Premier in a scroll that was read out by a Tory member recently at an affair to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Hotel Dieu Hospital - whether the member thinks that to go with this bill we'll see that advertising blitz.
People should know, every time they see an advertisement on television, the commercials, every time they hear a commercial on radio, every time they open up the newspaper and see Mike Harris's smiling mug in one of these unnecessary advertisements, every time they reach into the mailbox and pull out a pamphlet with "Government of Ontario" on the bottom, that their hard-earned tax dollars are going not to keep the Hotel Dieu Hospital open, not to maintain outstanding health care services, not to ensure that we have an adequately funded education system, but rather to promote Mike Harris and his party.
These were the people, the member for Windsor-Riverside will remember, who made a virtue out of cutting. I'm going to ask the last question: Does he expect the Taxpayers Coalition Ontario to be launching an ad campaign against the government ad campaign?
Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate my friend from Windsor-Riverside on his presentation. I want to highlight one particular point he made, and that is the fact that in this bill it allows the minister to enter into any agreement he deems necessary in order to implement the bill - the law - that is, the privatization of Highway 407.
In a way, this reminds me of the Three Musketeers story, where at one point Richelieu gives the leader of the guard a paper on which he writes, "The bearer of this has done what he has done for the good of the state: signed, Richelieu," in other words, carte blanche. He could do whatever he wanted, do whatever he liked. It was OK because Richelieu, the cardinal, the leader of the government, had said, "You can do whatever you like because it's for the good of the state."
This minister under this bill will have the opportunity to do whatever he likes to enter into whatever agreement he wishes because it's for the implementation of the privatization of Highway 407. What kind of accountability is that? We aren't in an absolute monarchy as Richelieu was. We are in a constitutional democracy, where the assembly has the responsibility to hold the government accountable for the expenditure of public funds. Any agreement entered into that relates to the privatization of this highway must be subject to the scrutiny of the public and must be subject to the questioning of this House.
Mr Bradley: He just loves to model his tie.
Hon Mr Sampson: I really do appreciate the opportunity to model my tie and to respond to the member for Windsor-Riverside, who spoke for a few minutes about the collection of information on the toll highway. Information now is being collected by those people who do not have transponders but choose to drive the highway because it is now, and will continue to be, an open-access highway.
Under this particular bill, should the Legislature deem to pass this bill, we're going to enter into a negotiation with prospective buyers. We're going to say to the potential buyer: "In accordance with the bill, you have to maintain the highway as an open-access highway. Anybody who chooses to drive it should be allowed to drive it." By the way, the only restriction, I believe, is on large trucks which even now must have transponders to drive on it. Yes, information will be exchanged with the potential buyer as it relates to those people who don't have transponders. Why? It's to collect the fees and tolls associated with the use of the highway, like fees and tolls are being collected from the people who have transponders.
We're also saying to the potential buyer: "Why don't you go to those people who don't have transponders and offer them transponders and make it easier for them to use the highway with transponders? Market it, like a toll highway should be properly marketed to make sure that the next time they go on the highway, they don't have to pay the surcharge, they don't have to pay the billing fee, they don't have to pay any other sorts of fees; they have the right to travel the highway using the transponder." It just makes sense that those people should be contacted and told, "Listen, did you know that if you had a transponder, it would be cheaper?"
The Speaker: Response?
Mr Lessard: I just want to refer to the member for Mississauga West's comments about information. We know that we live in an information technology society. The value of information is increasing all the time. The collection of that information is going to have tremendous value. What this bill does is provide the private sector with access to a whole lot of valuable information that is currently on file with the Ministry of Transportation in Ontario. I think that's something that is going to benefit the private sector and create some incredible profits.
The member for Algoma makes a very good point as well: that the minister is going to be able to enter into any agreement he wants to in order to further the initiatives of the privatization of Highway 407. This is a government that's always interested in saving money, being more efficient. I wonder why they use 30 pages to set out this bill when all they could have said was that this is a bill to enable the minister for privatization to enter into any agreement he wants to privatize Highway 407. They could have put it on just one page because that's really what it comes down to.
The member for St Catharines talked about the ad campaign this government is going to initiate to promote the use of Highway 407. People can look forward to seeing that in their mailbox. When they reach into their mailbox, they can feel that other hand reaching down into their pockets, grabbing for another tax, another user fee. That's what the privatization of Highway 407 is going to mean: another user fee.
I think about the privatization coming for other roads, like the E.C. Rowe Expressway in my community. That's not something I look forward to.
The Speaker: Further debate?
2030
Mr Klees: I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 70, An Act to engage the private sector in improving transportation infrastructure, reducing traffic congestion, creating jobs, and stimulating economic activity through the sale of Highway 407. It would be good if we came back to the purpose of this bill, which is very clear.
The member for Kingston and The Islands has asked numerous times for us to clarify why we would do this and where the public interest lies in this bill. I'd like to point out to him that one of the things that will happen as a result of implementation of this piece of legislation is that there will be some 6,000 jobs created in the extension, the completion of this proposed highway. Certainly we couldn't see that taking place in the foreseeable future, because the fact is that we simply don't have the financial resources to do that.
Perhaps the member for Kingston and The Islands doesn't consider the creation of 6,000 new jobs in Ontario to be in the public interest. But I can tell the people in this province that certainly this government -
Mr Gerretsen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like that member to know that I certainly think the creation of 6,000 jobs in the private sector is in the best interests of Ontario.
The Speaker: That's not a point of order.
Mr Klees: I'm pleased to hear that. On the first point I make, it's good to know that the member for Kingston and The Islands agrees that it is in the public interest to privatize this highway.
I would like to go on to the second point, and that is local economic growth. The greater Toronto area depends very heavily on the appropriate infrastructure to be put in place to support not only the economic growth that has taken place over the last three years under our government, but certainly the economic growth that we anticipate will continue to take place under the economic policies we have brought to this province and will continue to manage.
Apparently the member for Kingston and The Islands believes that it is not in the public interest to generate local economic growth. He may want to again rise on a point order which isn't a point of order, but he would at least have an opportunity to clarify for the House and for the people in this province that he does in fact believe that local economic growth is in the public interest. Then we would have agreement on two points as to why this proposed bill is in fact in the public interest.
The NDP speaks of their initiative in creating a public-private partnership in the initial construction of this highway. I find their definition of public-private partnership very interesting. Apparently privatization, under their definition, means that you stick the taxpayer with all the cost and provide a management contract to the private sector. Under that definition of privatization, they succeeded in privatizing absolutely everything in the province, because they riddled this province with debt. There isn't a thing they did over a period of about five years that didn't accrue more and more burden of debt on the taxpayers, on the businesses, on anything that would move in this province. That isn't our definition of public-private partnership.
There seems to be a real concern about the fact that someone under this arrangement may make a profit. That's absolutely true. Someone will make a profit here. Public-private partnership means that there are winners on both sides. There's nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all with the fact that a party to an agreement that would purchase this highway, assume all of the risk, assume all of the responsibility of management, would also generate a profit.
At the same time, on the other side, what is the benefit to the taxpayer? Let me tell you about the benefit to the taxpayer. The taxpayer in this province would be relieved of the burden of debt that the NDP government, under their definition of public-private partnership, burdened the people with. I can tell you that at the end of the day, when this becomes a reality in Ontario, not only will the taxpayer benefit but, yes, the business that is doing business under the terms of this agreement will benefit, and that, we believe, is only right.
Reference has been made to responsibility. You say, what risk, what responsibility? Under section 28 of this proposed legislation it states very clearly, "The owner shall carry out the management of Highway 407 in compliance with the ministry safety standards used by the Ministry of Transportation for comparable controlled-access highways." The responsibilities are clearly there.
In addition to that, under section 29, "The Minister of Transportation may authorize such officials as he or she considers appropriate for the purpose of inspecting Highway 407 and carrying out an audit to ensure compliance with ministry safety standards." The suggestions that have been made that this is simply a giveaway to the private sector are absolutely false. There are many compliance requirements incorporated into this legislation that will ensure that whoever the successful proponent is will have very strict requirements to comply with safety standards, with environmental standards, and that the management responsibilities will not only be set out clearly but will be audited and compliance will be required under the terms of this proposal.
What does this mean to the people in the GTA? I can tell you that I certainly have had the opportunity to take advantage of this highway, and I commend the NDP for having taken the initiative, contrary to the Liberal Party while they were in government in this province for four to five years, who did nothing to support and strengthen the infrastructure in the province, allowed our highway system to -
Mr Patten: The 416. What are you talking about? The 416.
Mr Klees: You did literally nothing. You did a great deal to build the debt; you did nothing to build infrastructure. The people of this province have been asking the question for years now, what did you do with the revenue that was generated in this province during those very good years in the middle 1980s? Let's give the NDP credit. They understood there was a need to build this highway. The people of the GTA are benefiting from it. There is a great deal of economic development that is being generated as a result of it. They just simply had the formula wrong.
We made a commitment to the people of this province that we would right that wrong. The NDP righted the wrong of the Liberal government, who did nothing for infrastructure. We simply intend to right the wrong in terms of the formula that was used to construct and to finance this. There is nothing wrong at all with moving the risk and the responsibility on to the private sector, allowing them also to create some profit, to lighten the burden on the taxpayer. At the end of the day, there will be relief of the traffic congestion in this province because of the fact that as part of the obligation there will be a responsibility for the completion of both ends of this highway, which in turn will further lighten the load of traffic congestion.
We want to commend the NDP for having taken the initiative that they did on behalf of the people of the GTA in beginning this project. We will fulfill our responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to now properly manage that project and complete it. We stand before the people of Ontario, the taxpayers of this province, and we are proud of the fact that once again we will be keeping a promise that we made, and that was to look at how we do business in this province and find a better way to do business on behalf of the taxpayer.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
2040
Mr Gerretsen: The first thing I have to say is that the member still didn't give any reason as to why the province of Ontario should be privatizing this road. I've asked the same question now of the minister a number of times; I'll ask it of this member as well. He talked about some sections in the act giving the province some sort of say over the condition that the road should be built to and the condition that the road should be maintained at. Well, that's obvious. That goes without any reason. Obviously the road ought to be maintained up to provincial standards.
I would still like to know why it is in the public interest of this province to sell this highway. The minister can't answer it. Well, the minister has had some success in privatization. He has sold three tree farms since he's taken over that ministry some two and a half years ago and he's obviously looking for another project that will make his ministry a success. But the problem is, he can't do it. He can't do it because you cannot justify to the people of Ontario, if there is money to be made on this highway, why that money shouldn't flow to the public purse so that all of us in Ontario can benefit from the profits that are to be made from the highway. The minister knows it and the last member knows it. They can't explain it. If he can explain it, I would sincerely hope the minister will get up and for once give us a definitive answer as to why it is in the public interest of this province to sell this particular roadway.
If you look at the legislation, it is the most wide-open legislation that I've ever seen in the House, and from the senior members in my caucus, I understand that never has a bill been presented in this House that allows the minister to do almost anything with this road without public scrutiny. I think that's unacceptable.
Mr Lessard: I appreciate the member for York-Mackenzie praising the NDP government for initiating this project. He's right: There's nothing wrong with public-private partnership when it comes to projects of this nature. So I ask once again, why privatize Highway 407? If it's such a good idea, why don't you publicly present the studies that justify it, that say it's such a good idea? Show us the study. That's all we're asking.
Notwithstanding the fact that the public sector can borrow money at a lot lower interest rate than the private sector, the minister is still saying that privatization is a good idea. We know that's going to lead to higher costs. That means the people who are driving on the road are going to have to pay higher tolls.
Somehow they say that this is all justified because what the NDP did was to add to the provincial debt through the undertaking of these sorts of projects, so we need to privatize everything, we need to sell it, get rid of it and pay down that debt. Somehow he's saying that it's OK for people who are driving to continue to pay the debt for this highway in perpetuity, even after it's been paid off. Somehow it's not OK for the government to have a debt but it's OK for people who drive on the highway who need to put the payment of the bill on their MasterCard or not be able to pay it for a couple of months; it's OK for them to have a debt. It's OK for students who have high tuition costs to have to take out student loans; it's OK for them to have debts. It's OK for seniors who can't pay their drug costs to have debts. It's OK for property taxpayers who can't pay increased property taxes -
Mr Tilson: I want to comment on the remarks made by the member for York-Mackenzie. The members in the opposition can't understand why we're introducing this bill, and yet every member of the government has stood up, one after another, and told you exactly why this bill is being introduced and why we're asking that it be accepted by this House. The reason is because you spent all the money. It's all gone.
We've asked, "When was there a road last built in this province by an NDP or Liberal government?" The NDP, yes, started 407. They started in the middle and they didn't finish, or they didn't end it. They started this whole process of privatization, which I think we all acknowledge, with the exception of the Liberals, is a good idea. Simply, what Minister Sampson is doing is developing this development.
I look forward to the Liberals talking as to what their transportation policies are going to be, how they're going to solve the congestion problems around southern Ontario.
Mr Gerretsen: Cleaner fuel.
Mr Tilson: They say "cleaner fuel," but the fact of the matter is, are you going to build highways or are you not going to build highways? If you're going to build highways, where are you going to get the money? Are you going to raise taxes like you did when you were in government? If you're going to do that, then we've got major problems.
We have to continually look at new ways of doing things, and I think that's what this minister is trying to do, to develop a new way of building highways in this province. It's accepted by the NDP, I believe, that it's a good idea. Some Liberals say it's not a good idea and some say it's not a good idea. We'll see what happens when the vote takes place.
There simply, at this stage, is no plan by the Liberals as to where they're going to go. That seems to be the general policy with a lot of their issues. So we eagerly await the leader of the Liberal Party to come forth with a transportation policy as to how they're going to solve congestion around southern Ontario. Anyone who drives the roads, the 401, the QEW, knows that a good transportation policy cries out. This minister is solving it.
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): The last speaker mentioned that you want to see our policies. I ask the member opposite, we saw your policies during the campaign, and what you're doing today in government is nothing like what was in that book. Your Premier said, "It is not our plan to close hospitals." You've gone forward and closed 35. So don't come in here and talk about policies and what you want to hear.
What the public of Ontario deserves is a bona fide debate over financing in Ontario. We deserve to know that Toronto General Hospital can go out and debenture a loan so that the debt is simply moved off the province's books for capital expense of hospital building on to the trustees and board of governors of that hospital, and not even with a guarantee by the province of Ontario. I think we should have a finance debate in this House about why all of a sudden you will send school boards into debt and debenturing and sending out bonds to raise money and raise debt for their board. Of course, there's only one taxpayer in Ontario, so you now commit every future government of Ontario to overpay operating costs of boards for hospitals and schools so that it can compensate for the extended financial costs of those boards in the future. That's the kind of debate we deserve in this House.
The same is true for the sale of 407. If the highway was doing so well, as the minister has said all along, then they would have been crazy to sell it, but we don't know that because they won't release those figures. If it cost this government $600 million to $700 million just to acquire the property in order to have the highway built, then the public deserves to know how much money the government is going to receive when it chooses to sell the highway. That is not an unreasonable question. That is eminently reasonable for us to ask, and it is incumbent on this government to answer those questions. How much are you selling the highway for? What kind of financing is the province -
The Speaker: Response.
Mr Klees: I want to thank all members in this House who participated in this debate for their comments. I thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for once again asking that very important question: Where is the public interest in this bill? Specifically, the creation of 6,000 net new jobs; the reduction of the public debt, which obviously the Liberal Party doesn't care about because all they did was increase the debt; economic development in the province; the contribution that a highway system in the GTA will make overall to economic development.
I can tell the member that his constituents - actually not his, because it's probably irrelevant to his constituents, but the constituents in the GTA understand where the public interest is in this legislation.
I'd like to thank the minister responsible for privatization for having the foresight and the leadership to bring this piece of legislation forward. Not only is it necessary for us to complete the expansion of this highway to relieve the traffic congestion in the GTA in the interest of economic development, but in the interest of following through on our commitment to the people of this province that we, when elected, would look very carefully at how the province does business and if in fact there is an area where we can include the private sector, where the private sector can do the job better than government and we can relieve taxpayers' dollars to be used for better things such as hospitals, such as health care, such as social services in this province.
I believe the vast majority of the people in this province will congratulate this minister and this government for taking the initiative that previous governments refused to do or simply didn't have the vision to do.
The Speaker: Further debate.
Mr Bradley: I guess my first question is: Who's going to make a lot of money on this? I suspect they are going to be friends of the government who are lining up and rubbing their hands at the prospect of being able to make a good deal of money in something which is ordinarily the public domain. That will ensure that at the next fundraiser they will have to expand the convention centre even more to accommodate more of the rich and privileged at the fundraiser.
2050
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): More jobs.
Mr Bradley: My friend from Etobicoke-Humber says that will create more jobs. I can see that one place this government is creating jobs is in building bigger halls to hold the Tory fundraisers so they can get all those rich people in there shelling out their money. But I could tell him that they aren't spending that money on advertising, because they're spending the taxpayers' dollars on advertising right now. This must at least be getting at the conscience of some of the members.
I'm going to report this to the crime commissioner, the member for Scarborough West. I'll tell you why I'm going to report it to him. I'm going to report it to the crime commissioner because it is a crime that this government is taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers to launch these multi-million dollar advertising campaigns containing nothing but government propaganda, blatant partisan propaganda. In the past, I have asked the Speaker to rule on this, and I remember one of his landmark rulings, which said that he found it reprehensible, or words to that effect, that any government would use taxpayers' dollars for the purpose of bringing propaganda upon the population.
There's something else I wanted to draw to the attention of members of the House. I think the Premier of this province should launch a complaint with one of Conrad Black's newspapers, the St Catharines Standard. There's a headline in the paper that says "Paradise for Crooks" and right underneath they have the Premier's photograph. If I were somebody in the Premier's office, I would make sure I complained about this, because it says here, "Early arrival" and it shows the Premier right under a headline saying "Paradise for Crooks." Guy Giorno should get on this immediately, and there should be a front-page retraction of the fact that they've done this. I just wanted to draw that to your attention because I want to be fair to the Premier and I don't like seeing a headline - mind you, his photograph is on the front page of the Standard at the jobs and prosperity conference in St Catharines, which turned out of course to be, as my friend from Sarnia would no doubt agree, simply a public relations effort on the part of the government. If anybody thought it wasn't, they had to listen to Al Palladini's speech.
First of all, the Premier protested too much. He said about five times, "Of course, this is non-partisan." I looked around the room and saw more than a fair share of supporters of the revolution sitting in that room, some of them extolling the virtues of what was happening. I saw some of the ministers there. If it were three years ago that they had held this huge dog-and-pony show in St Catharines, if it were three years ago that they were consulting people on how to create jobs, I would have said, "That probably makes some sense; it's good to consult." But on the eve of an election, with the Premier now heading around the province trying to sell his health care policies, when in fact in St Catharines we see the headline "Hope Dims for the Dieu" - the Dieu of course is the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines. As members would know, while they didn't privatize it, the hand-picked political hospital closing commission of the Mike Harris government -
Mr Gerretsen: The destruction commission.
Mr Bradley: The hospital destruction commission, as my colleague from Kingston says, arrived in St Catharines like Darth Vader today and announced that the Hotel Dieu is gone. They put the boots to the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph once again, as they did in Kingston, as they did in Cornwall. Apparently they don't think these people know how to operate hospitals, yet they have an excellent reputation in St Catharines. I was looking in one place and saw this scroll from the Premier. One of the Tory members read the scroll a couple of months ago saying, "I congratulate the Hotel Dieu on its 50 years of service" to the people of our community. Very glowing terms. Well, now the Premier is going to have to send a sympathy card, because his government just put the boots to the Religious Hospitallers of St Joseph in St Catharines.
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): You'll have to go to Burk's Falls for some inspiration.
Mr Bradley: In Burk's Falls, of course, they were doing the opposite. In the riding of the provincial Treasurer, they were opening a hospital, not closing a hospital. I should mention they closed Maple Hurst Hospital in Thorold as well; that was kind of left behind. According to the legislative library, that brought to 42 the number of hospitals, private and public, that have been either forced to merge or had the doors closed completely. It's lights out at the Hotel Dieu if this hand-picked commission by Premier Harris happens to have its way and the hospitals close.
The Speaker will remember because he was a Conservative candidate and may be again - he's now independent, as the Speaker, and totally impartial - will well recall, as we all recall, in the last election the Premier being questioned during the leaders' debate. It was Robert Fisher of Global News who said, "Premier, does your health care policy involve the closing of hospitals?" or words to that effect. Mike Harris looked into the camera with those blue eyes, and he'd slimmed down for the campaign which they always do, and pointed his finger and said to the people of this province, "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you it is not my plan to close hospitals." The people who are supporters of Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines today were very concerned.
I must say to the Speaker - he would no doubt be concerned about this; perhaps I'll raise it with him at a more appropriate time as a point of privilege - that I went to the pronouncement this morning, the dagger being placed in the back of the Hotel Dieu Hospital which has served the people in St Catharines so well for so many years, half a century. The dagger is placed in their back by the hospital closing commission.
I tried to get into the meeting. Here are the elected representatives. They're herded aside somewhere. There was a big meeting taking place that started before the other meeting, where we had the media there. I wanted to hear the media asking the questions. They would not let me in the door. I had my foot in the door; I was shoving at the door. They had a security guard of some kind from some Tory consulting company who had been hired by the government to keep us out. Sandra Pupatello made it in. She kicked the door in and away she went in. I didn't want to create a scene. But I'm going to tell you, here were the elected representatives, including some Tory members who are there, and they weren't allowed into the place. This is shocking. I plan to raise this as a point of privilege at the appropriate time with the Speaker of this House.
We're talking about Highway 407. I thought something rather interesting. Dalton Camp is now my favourite columnist when he writes because he's really putting you neo-cons in your place. He's really exposing you for what you're all about. He mentioned privatization of highways. "Here's the price," he says, "that the less fortunate in our society have to pay" for your kind of policies. He says, "We need to remember how we solved our deficit problem." These people solved it. They gave away money to the rich people and then had to borrow to pay for that.
Mr Gerretsen: And blame the feds.
Mr Bradley: And blame the feds or blame somebody else. He said: "We need to remember how we solved our deficit problem. We did it by getting religion. We sold assets" - sound familiar? - "privatized the King's highways, downsized the public service, cut public services, starved our armed forces, turned our backs on the poor, stinted on aid to students and to our universities, and assiduously nickel-and-dimed the seniors."
We remember how you nickel-and-dimed them. You now force them to pay $2 every time they get a prescription in this province. They can make fun of that over there. I'm telling the seniors when I see them, I'm going to say to the seniors, that not only have these people charged you two bucks every time you get a prescription - seniors who have worked so hard to build up our province over the years - but of course you've ended rent control. Many of our seniors who live in rental buildings are trapped in their apartments now, because if they move out they're going to have to pay more money because the rent will have gone up.
Furthermore, there's not enough information with this bill to be able to support it.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
2100
Mr Len Wood: I listened very attentively to the member for St Catharines. He's quite concerned that at the same time that we're privatizing Highway 407, this government is closing down so many hospitals. I understand they closed down a hospital in his riding. He mentioned the fact that at the same time that we're talking about privatization and closing down hospitals, the government is saying they need the money, but they're wasting all kinds of money on advertising. In my riding, in my home, I get all kinds of flyers that come in with the card: "Mail it back to Mike Harris. Tell us what you think about the government's welfare system. Tell us what you think about one thing or another." They're spending, wasting, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The member for St Catharines covered that several times during his 10-minute speech here tonight.
There is concern that at a time when you have cutbacks and dumping and downloading on to municipalities, hospitals closing, schools closing - there's word out that up to 600 schools are going to close - for the sake of trying to save a few dollars, a lot of this is being dumped on to the property taxpayers. In this particular case, who's going to benefit from this?
The member for St Catharines was concerned that if the government did a privatization study, why the results of that study are not being made available to the public. We've continuously asked for this to be available. At this point in time, even though we've heard a number of the Conservative members up on their feet talking about what a good idea it is to privatize Highway 407 and recoup some of the money, they still haven't released the results of that privatization study.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Jack Carroll): Questions and comments?
Hon Mr Sampson: Thank you very much, Speaker. Welcome to the chair. As a rookie here in the Legislature I always appreciate listening to my friend from St Catharines either debate a particular piece of legislation or respond to debates in this Legislature. I always appreciate it as he sort of bobs and weaves his way around the public policy issues of the day and periodically delves into the bill under debate and then pops back into issues that -
Mr Bradley: If only I'd had more time I would have spoken about the bill.
Hon Mr Sampson: I'm sure he would like to have more time and in previous years he perhaps has taken advantage of that time, and I note the regularity with which he takes his time here to debate issues. But since he did actually momentarily discuss the bill, I want to respond to a couple of the points he raised. As he finished his comments he was talking about the lack of information. I think actually that's leveraging off a comment of one of his colleagues, that what they want to see in front of us today is the price that we're selling the highway at, the terms and conditions we intend to sell it at, how tolls will be regulated and a long litany of conditions.
I would say to him that would be nice to have, but of course you can't get that until you actually go out and start to solicit bids from people who are interested in buying the highway. To go out to somebody and say, "Listen, I want you to give me a bid for this particular asset and this is what I think it's worth," in advance of the bid is an absolutely ludicrous way in which to encourage the private sector to come forward with their responses. Why would they come forward and say, "No, I think we'd like to pay you more than what you think it's worth"?
I say to my colleagues across the floor - and they probably know this, since I would guess they've been involved in selling a few things in their private lives - you really don't know what something is worth until you ask somebody to give you a bid, and the member from Kingston knows that very well.
Mr Patten: It's a pleasure for me to comment and respond to the member for St Catharines, who has a stream of consciousness that is able to weave all kinds of relationships with this legislation on the privatization of the 407 and its relationship to the statement the Premier has made, and that of course did not happen, that hospitals would not be closed - related also to education and commitments that were made there. We see that money has been taken out of education.
What does all this mean? What the member was really saying was that it's important to have credibility. In this particular theme, we look at the fact that the government is not even prepared to share the figures on what's happening now with that particular highway. Is it making money or isn't it? If it is making money, then why can that not continue as it is? If profit is being made by the road at the moment, why can that not do the same thing?
What the member for St Catharines is worried about is that somebody could take this over. Presumably it's making money, because otherwise I think the government would disclose the figures, or perhaps they wouldn't because no one would want to buy it. So we don't know. There are unanswered questions.
We'd like you to be more transparent. We'd like you to share with us what the situation is now, on the basis on which it's being run now, and what happens once the payment, the money has been made and a reasonable profit has been made by a private coalition or company. Will there be a sharing of profits with the province, or will that resource revert to the province, or is this a deal in perpetuity?
Mr Lessard: As usual it was fascinating to hear the member for St Catharines. However, I was wondering whether we were going to hear from the member for Windsor-Sandwich tonight. I guess the member for St Catharines, being the House leader, probably made sure that he had an opportunity to speak tonight. We'll have to wait, I guess, to hear the member for Windsor-Sandwich. But he made a good point about who is going to benefit from the privatization of Highway 407 and who is going to end up paying the bills, because the fact is we don't know what that highway is worth because the government won't make that study available to us here.
We did hear about what this government thinks of the value of nuclear power plants. They say they're not worth a plugged nickel. We know that if they go to sell those nuclear power plants, there are going to be a lot of people who think buying a new plant for a buck might be a good investment. We don't want to see the fire sale of our public assets, like Highway 407.
The member also made a good point about how this government has solved what they said was a debt crisis here in Ontario. How they've done it is they've closed hospitals, they've closed schools, they've imposed lots of user fees on people. He referred to an article by Dalton Camp. It said that they've sold off public assets, they've made cuts to health care, they've made cuts to education, they've put higher tuition fees on students, but what he didn't say was that that article Dalton Camp wrote was talking about the federal Liberal government and what they did to end the debt crisis in Canada. I wonder what his response is to that.
The Acting Speaker: Final comments, the member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: To the member for Windsor-Riverside, when he said "selling highways," I think he was making reference to the New Democrats selling off Highway 407 originally. I think that's what he meant in that case and he was aiming as much at the Mike Harris government here as anywhere else.
In British Columbia at this time the NDP government is cutting income taxes, and Saskatchewan just passed back-to-work legislation, but he didn't mention any of those; I promise you, he didn't mention any of those. I do want to thank the member for his comments, though, because he remembered this advertising blitz that is going on by this government and will continue next month.
I should say that I had a constituent who wrote me a letter and sent the bill, saying that the person had paid a different rate going one way from another way on Highway 407. They went the same distance back and forth and got a different rate. They're also complaining about how much it is. I'm told that on the New York state freeway - it's not a freeway, obviously, it's a throughway - their charge for going a lot of miles is far less than it is on Highway 407. Perhaps someone else can investigate that and see what it's all about.
As for the member for Sandwich, I suspect that we will hear from the member for Sandwich on this issue and many, many more issues for many years to come in this Legislature.
I want to take this opportunity to put in a plug for Buzz Hargrove's new book called Labour of Love. It was launched on the 21st of this month at Ba-Ba-Lu'U in Yorkville - a very successful launching. It was the same night as an NDP fund-raiser. I don't know what that means, but it was launched there. Lastly, to recall to you that Maurice Duplessis was eulogized by Conrad Black in the Ottawa Citizen this week.
2110
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Len Wood: First of all I wanted to point out that this is the government that brought in a motion yesterday that the House would sit Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday nights. It's not enough that they've changed the rules in this House to muzzle both opposition parties, but they've decided they're going to continue to sit until 9:30 every night of the week that the Legislature is sitting and they call that a second day. We don't mind being here and I don't mind being here debating the issues, but we wonder if it means that they have an urgency to get bills like Bill 70, an act to privatize Highway 407, passed.
In the explanatory notes on the 407 it says, "The bill allows the minister responsible for privatization to transfer the crown's interest in Highway 407 to a private party." It doesn't say whether they're going to recoup the full cost of what it cost to build the highway or whether they're going to give it away for a dollar and allow the private sector to reap all of the benefits of tolls on the road, and in the bill they don't say when the tolls are going to be lifted.
I was proud of being part of the government that worked out an arrangement with the private sector and the public sector to build Highway 407. Had it not been done at that point in time and under those conditions, the highway probably would not have been built for another 10 or 15 years and it probably would have been close to the year 2020 before it would have been completed. As a result, there is a little bit of work that has to be done on both ends of Highway 407, but during the privatization of the 407 the new owner of that is going to be expected to build the two extensions on to it.
There's no guarantee as to what the fees are going to be. One of my fears is, having experienced travelling on the 407 as I come down from northern Ontario through Barrie and travel on to Mississauga and Hamilton to visit my two daughters, my two sons-in-law and two grandchildren - it's a good highway. It's built out of cement. It's a highway that is good for years and years. It's not pavement that's going to deteriorate and break up.
The risk has been taken care of now with the funding formula that was put in place, where our government at the time was able to go out and borrow the money at a cheaper rate and have the highway built faster than for what the private sector could go out and borrow the money on their own.
There were a lot of happy people out there during the recession, or just coming out of the recession, who were able to get jobs. It helped the economy of southern Ontario that had just come out of a recession. A lot of construction workers worked on this particular highway and managed to make a living for their families.
We have some concerns with the bill. First of all, I want to make it very clear that we are going to be voting against this bill. We don't feel that there's a reason to privatize Highway 407, because it's in good condition. As I said, we're proud of the fact that we did it.
Another solid reason for voting against this particular bill is the fact of why they're keeping everything secret. They're saying that they did a privatization study, and yet speaker after speaker from the NDP has asked for the results of this privatization study and the minister responsible for privatization is keeping it secret. This is a government that said it was going to be open and it was going to open things up to the scrutiny of the public. Now they want to keep everything confidential and secret. These are the only ways that we can find out whether the public interest is being taken care of or whether it's just another way of making the private sector wealthy through allowing them to take over this road.
Sure, there are stipulations there that the highway might have to be widened to 10 lanes sometime in the future and the private owner at that time would have to look after the cost of doing that, but they're not going to operate at a loss. If it costs them high interest to borrow the money to be able to do the expansion and widening of the road, somebody is going to have to pay it.
The other concern I have is that when the other highways start getting congested and the cars are bumper to bumper, the private sector that owns this highway, if it's privatized, is going to just continually jack up the toll rates as more and more people start using the highway. There's no guarantee that is not going to happen and the public could be left on the hook for that.
The highway was being built and owned, as I said, at the beginning by the taxpayers. Sure, the money was borrowed to build that road, but as the debt for the road was being paid off, the tolls would be eliminated. I can recall years ago when I used to pay a toll on the Burlington Skyway, but when the skyway was paid for the toll was eliminated and now you can travel on that road without a toll. But that is not what this particular Conservative government is doing.
Another concern that has been raised to me is, is it just the minister of privatization saying, "I want to privatize something. We promised during the Common Sense Revolution that we would privatize a number of things in Ontario," and when the public pressure got too much for them they decided not to privatize the LCBO, they decided not to privatize TVOntario, yet they're going to privatize the 407? Is it just a matter of the minister of privatization picking something out of the hat and saying: "Let's decide that we'll sell one of the roads. We're going to get out of the business of looking after roads and we're either going to sell them to the private sector or we're going to turn them over to the municipalities."
In my riding Highway 11, which travels from the east coast to the west coast - it's actually an extension of Yonge Street that goes up through Cochrane and Smooth Rock Falls and Kapuskasing - the Minister of Transportation is saying a section about five or six kilometres that goes through Kapuskasing is a connecting link. There is no such thing as a connecting link in the town of Kapuskasing, yet the property owners in the town of Kapuskasing are having to pay for the maintenance of this road.
Today during question period we raised the fact that along with privatizing 407 and trying to recoup some money, they're continuously reducing their responsibilities in northern Ontario. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines said, "I'm not responsible for the $10 million that was cut off the funding to Ontario Northland." As a result we're losing part of the train service; that's been reduced. We're losing the bus service from Hearst to Timmins and we lost the norOntair airline service. Northern Ontario, especially since Mike Harris became Premier - sure, he goes home to North Bay once in a while to play golf, but he turns his back on northern Ontario. He doesn't even look towards northern Ontario and continuously cuts and reduces the services that northern Ontario used to have for years and years and years.
As a result, I'm sure they're going to have a very difficult time in the next election electing Conservative members from northern Ontario. I hear rumours in North Bay that even Mike Harris is going to have a problem getting elected in his own seat as a result of all of the dumping. People have to remember that 85% of the land mass in this province belongs to northern Ontario and it has been neglected by this Reform-Conservative government. It's very unfortunate these things are happening, but Bill 70, in the state it's in, is not acceptable to our party.
2120
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Galt: The comments the member opposite, the member for Cochrane North, made relating to the results of the study are interesting. There is a bid coming up. Do you put everything out for the bidders to see all? There are some things that you have to do, to look at, when you're out selling, when you're putting yourself on the market, that are reasonable and understandable. I don't think you get the message that that kind of thing has to be held close to your chest when you're selling something as big as 407. This isn't just a little sale of a house or a small business. This is indeed a very big sale.
I know that the NDP has a position. It is good that they do have a position. This is something that the Liberals tend never to have. You never know what their position is going to be. I thought it was interesting, a week ago Monday in Kingston, where they had the Premier's conference on jobs and investment, we had two young people explaining to the member for Kingston and The Islands how significant tax cuts really would help this province. They talked about 50% tax cuts. Then they went on to prove how they would work and suggested that federal Liberals should do that as well. The member for Kingston and The Islands had the opportunity to hear this.
I also thought it was really interesting when one of the staffers from Kingston came in and told us about how the infrastructure, the sewer pipes and the water pipes, has gone downhill. They went way back to the time of Confederation. The previous mayor sitting in this House, the member for Kingston and The Islands, didn't do anything about the infrastructure of the city of Kingston when he had an opportunity when he was mayor of the city.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I would like to comment on the speech given by the member for Cochrane North. I think Ontarians have to be worried today when we see that this government is trying to sell its assets. I know they're looking for money because of the tax break that has been awarded to their friends at the present time, the 30%. They just cannot afford any more that $5 billion that it is going to cost the Ontario taxpayers every year, so we have to start selling our assets.
But what worries me at the present time, in this bill there's no guarantee how much this government is going to get for it. This road has cost the government or the Ontario taxpayers over $1 billion. But also, I found out from the public accounts committee that the maintenance contract has been awarded to the people who built this highway at $350,000 a year for a minimum of 10 years. So I don't know. If we turn around and sell the assets of 407, who's going to pay the $350,000 contract that has been awarded for maintenance?
There are other things too. When I look at it, Highway 17 in Prescott and Russell was transferred to the municipality. We couldn't buy the highway, we didn't want to buy it. When this government saw that the municipality was not going to take any part of the highway, they decided to sell it to the private sector instead. But in my own riding at the present time, we just cannot afford to maintain a bridge. We had to close the Pendleton bridge because the government says it has no more money for the municipality. What is going to happen after 30 years of this government? I'm sure you won't be there in 1999 because the Liberals are going to take over with Dalton McGuinty.
Mr Lessard: I want to commend the member for Cochrane North for his excellent representation of his constituents in Cochrane North.
There's one thing that can be said about the member. He always sticks up for the interests of constituents, and it's lucky that the member for Cochrane North is doing that because we know the Mike Harris government is ignoring constituents in the north. We've heard that today with their transportation policy. People have to wait days for the bus to come up there now because of cuts to northern transportation grants. We've seen the impacts of the downloading on to municipalities on roads in the north. We know that this market-based system of providing transportation is not going to work when it comes to northern and remote municipalities, because we know if those roads were going to be turned into toll roads, people just wouldn't be able to pay for them. That's why they expect the provincial government to be able to provide assistance when it comes to transportation in the north. I commend the member for Cochrane North for sticking up for those constituents.
We're talking about the sale of an important public resource here. The member for Northumberland says that when you're selling something, you don't want to tip your hand to those people who are going to buy it. But we're talking about something that is a public resource. If you're going to privatize it and sell it to the private sector because you think it's such a good idea, it's incumbent upon the government to demonstrate to the public why it's a good idea. You need to make this study public or else the public isn't going to agree with your scheme, they're going to agree with the NDP.
Mr Baird: That's quite a leap by the last speaker, they're going to agree with the NDP.
I listened with great interest to the speech by my colleague the member for Cochrane North. I like the member for Cochrane North. He's certainly a passionate defender of his constituents. I do disagree with him. When he looks at the record of this government in terms of northern Ontario, I think it would look quite favourable. We're not the government who ripped off the northern Ontario heritage fund; we're the government who put the money back. I think the people of northern Ontario will look quite favourably on that record. In the only single test the people of northern Ontario had to evaluate the Mike Harris government, they went from 19% to 31% of the vote in Nickel Belt. That was an extremely important indication of what the people in northern Ontario felt.
Mrs Pupatello: Yes, that was despite giving guns to 12-year-olds.
Mr Baird: I hear the member for Windsor-Sandwich going on. I was reading an article the other day where the member for Windsor-Sandwich was quoted, and I could read it. It's from the Hamilton Spectator, the 9th of the ninth month, 1995, right after the Liberals went to the election. She said, "`We are all singing from the same song sheet,' said rookie member Sandra Pupatello of Windsor. `How can we go in guns blazing when we would have been doing the same things?'"
Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like you to rule on whether or not it's appropriate that members opposite take quotes completely out of context so that they are not accurate.
The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On that point of order, it is quite in order for a member to take quotes out of context.
The Acting Speaker: That's also not a point of order. Final comments, member for Cochrane North.
Mr Len Wood: It's kind of interesting that we're getting very close to 9:30 of the clock, but I want to thank the member for Northumberland, the member for Prescott and Russell, the member for Windsor-Riverside and the member for Nepean.
I don't know why the member for Nepean would want to go out and spread rumours around that the money for the heritage board was not there; it was there. The only trouble we have right now is that this government has not spent a penny of the heritage fund over the last three years. The reason the heritage board was set up was that there would be $30 million a year going into the fund and, with the interest, it would continue to be spent for economic development in northern Ontario.
As I said in my comments earlier, now all of the money that is being produced in northern Ontario from the resources, the transport industry and one thing or another that comes out of northern Ontario is being squandered away - a lot of it - in advertising for the government, which is patting itself on the back and saying: "I'm sure you must have got that 30% tax break. I'm sure you must think that welfare is better. I'm sure you must think it's better if we close 600 hospitals" -
Mr Baird: Close 600 hospitals?
Mr Len Wood: - "Close 600 schools and 42 hospitals."
It's sad that we're at the point now where you would see that many hospitals and schools closed in order to give a tax break to the wealthiest people in this province, the people in this province who are well enough off that they don't need the money, and yet the children and the poor people in this province are going to be paying the price.
When it comes to the 407, we haven't heard yet if they're going to have public hearings or how many weeks of public hearings they're going to have on Bill 70. I'm surprised that the minister of privatization hasn't -
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It being almost 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2131.