[Report continued from volume A]
1800
CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES
Continuing the debate on motion for second reading on Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi sur la location immobilière en ce qui concerne les coopératives.
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise with respect to Bill 166, which is An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives. I understand there are a number of amendments being put forward today, which we will be dealing with later.
At first blush this legislation appears to be enabling legislation, and I would concur that some of it is. As the member has indicated, the act is now amended to include a definition of the "non-profit housing cooperative," and it is that, not on the legalities of what is a non-profit housing cooperative but the continual pushing for the non-profit co-op, the non-profit housing unit, that our caucus has been so vehemently opposed to and continues to be opposed in this specific legislation that is before it.
As well, the amendment deals with the fact that, "A non-profit housing cooperative may not change its articles so that it is no longer such a cooperative and it cannot be converted into any other cooperative or corporation." I must confess I have trouble with that. If the principles of non-profit housing or non-profit co-ops have come to an end, why shouldn't there be a system? Why are we entrenching this philosophy in our system?
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Are you against cooperatives?
Mr Tilson: No, I didn't say I was against cooperatives. I said I was against the non-profit cooperatives. If the ministers wish to get together and form a profit co-op, I would wholeheartedly support that. What I am opposed to, and what our caucus is opposed to, is the non-profit co-op, and I will be commenting on that very briefly, because many of the amendments deal with the non-profit cooperative.
A third proposed amendment is that the relationship between a non-member housing cooperative "and persons occupying member units is removed from the application of the landlord and tenant law." Of course that is a problem that surfaced very recently in the legal decision, I believe it was McBride and Comfort Living Housing Co-operative, where it was discovered that the people who occupied non-profit housing cooperatives couldn't obtain writs of possession. The procedure for obtaining writs of possession under the Landlord and Tenant Act did not apply and wasn't available in the non-profit housing cooperative context, and that is the reason why there have been a number of amendments in this bill to rectify that.
Provisions are made as to how and on what grounds a non-profit housing co-op may terminate membership. The bill requires that the grounds for termination be set out in the bylaws and be in accordance with the Human Rights Code. The bill establishes the right of members "to attend and make presentations at the meetings of both the board and the members dealing with the termination," and "A non-profit housing cooperative may not distrain a member's possessions for non-payment of housing charges."
There are then a number of amendments dealing with worker co-ops, which were introduced to facilitate the operation of the worker co-op at Algoma Steel. This is of course an area that goes beyond the non-profit housing and does provide a definition of a "worker cooperative." As well, worker cooperatives may have as few as three members and non-worker co-ops may have as few as five. The surplus of worker co-ops is required to be paid out to members "in proportion to either the compensation paid to or on behalf of each member in the year or the hours worked by each member in the year, as set out in the bylaws."
As well, since the introduction of this bill the government has come up with a number of amendments, in excess of at least 22 -- I think there are even more today -- which will be proceeding to committee of the whole. The amendments brought to section 17 of the bill were done at the instigation of a corporation in your riding, actually, Mr Speaker -- Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. I have to take a while to say all that. Specifically it was done at the instigation of the St Albert Co-op Cheese Factory. The St Albert Co-op, by the very nature of its success -- in spite of all the dealings of this government, it has turned out to be a success at making cheese -- placed itself in direct contravention of those portions of the act which required to conduct no more than 50% of its business outside of the co-op membership. The success of its cheese has resulted in a greater need for milk than is available to the membership due to the provisions of the Ontario Milk Marketing Board.
As a result, the amendments are proposed which will allow co-ops in the case of those purchasing outside the entitlement determined by the marketing board to consider items purchased from marketing boards which were originally purchased from co-op members as being purchased directly from their members. In instances where a full entitlement has been purchased, any derivative from that entitlement may be considered to have been purchased directly from a co-op member.
That, generally, as I understand it, is a brief summary of some of the amendments.
It's the whole principle of the non-profit co-op that I have spoken about in this House and on the various housing committees since I was elected to office. There seems to be, if members of this House will read, in more and more newspaper columns a concern over this government's housing policies, specifically when the issue of costs with respect to hospitals, municipalities, school boards is being restricted. Yet we're continuing to go on in non-profit housing and co-op housing.
This bill is an example of how that philosophy is continuing. In fact the whole issue of non-profit co-op housing is being entrenched as a result of this legislation. The Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario says that one out of every three housing starts in Ontario this year will be co-op or non-profit housing. When you look at all the statistics, someone is clearly profiting from the proliferation of non-profit housing and non-profit co-op housing, specifically housing consultants, architects, developers, builders, banks, lawyers and on it goes, while the government is certainly crying the blues.
In the previous bill debated in this House we talked about deficits. This government is continually talking about what deep financial difficulties it's in and commenting on the transfer payments to the various municipalities and school boards etc. At the same time they're proceeding with unbelievable zeal in spending on non-profit housing co-ops, non-profit housing and social housing in the last three years -- from $327 million to $662 million in the last three years. This was during the time that subsidies for non-profit housing increased 91% per year and when hospitals and schools are being forced to accept just a 1% increase.
We understand that the annual subsidy will exceed $1 billion by 1995 as other non-profit housing and co-op housing promised by this government -- to build another 10,000 units per year. This whole philosophy of pursuing non-profit housing and non-profit co-op housing, we believe, must stop. In addition to the subsidy paid out to people living in non-profit co-op housing, the taxpayers of Ontario are paying $222 million annually in operating costs for 84,000 units of 20- to 30-year-old properties owned by the Ontario Housing Corp. This is an increase of 30% a year over the last three years, compared with the massive increase being spent on non-profit housing.
1810
There are over 94,000 non-profit housing units in Ontario today. In 1986 the Liberal government went on a non-profit building binge. By March 31, 1991, 41,860 new non-profit units were built and another 3,000 are under way or have been promised, for a total of 71,860. We have to look very carefully not only at the spending of these non-profit co-ops and the non-profit housing but at the annual subsidies that are required each year to maintain them. Why this bill is insisting on the entrenching of this legislation when all these facts are coming forward is certainly beyond me.
The annual subsidy for non-profit housing in Ontario amounts to over $400 million. When the promised 30,000 new units are built, the annual subsidy will be over $800 million. So over 35 years, that subsidy paid by taxpayers will likely exceed $20 billion. Yet with this bill we're continuing to entrench all kinds of non-profit housing, and specifically the non-profit co-op housing.
As I understand it, about 20% of the non-profit housing are co-ops. As my friend the member for Essex South commented, Mr Jack Layton left his unit after a tremendous outcry. The current Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations also lived in a co-op for about 11 years. You look at the whole philosophy of why we're going into it. The people who need the housing assistance: Is that the way we should be going? I'm speaking specifically to non-profit, co-op housing.
About 60% of the non-profit co-ops are occupied by needy and working poor families who pay a maximum of 25% of their income on rent. The other tenants are supposed to pay the market rents. However, the annual subsidy paid by the government is the difference between the rents collected and the mortgage and operating expenses. It's a complex method of calculation, and that shows the unfairness for co-op apartments. This sometimes means that their market rents are actually higher than the market.
Last year one Toronto co-op was asking $847 a month for vacant apartments while the going rent for neighbouring apartments was $550. Of course the current critic for Housing of our caucus, the member for Mississauga South, has continually given examples of that contradiction. As a result, co-op apartments are empty which therefore require larger government assistance. There lies the rub. Why are we entrenching this type of housing when it's not working? It's simply not working.
The other complaint we have received is that of equal access. Who are those people who get to live in subsidized co-op housing? There seems to be some sort of correlation between being a member of the NDP and living in subsidized housing. That seems to be the general trend as more and more information is coming out. Although the needy and working poor are supposed to have equal access to non-profit housing in Metro, where these statistics are coming forward, a family in Metro east has complained to its member of this provincial Legislature that it is being forced out of its non-profit co-op because it is not an NDP supporter, a remarkable position to be in. Last year Toronto councillor Tom Jakobek claimed to have a study showing that many co-op tenants are also NDP supporters.
In conclusion, because I think the general and enabling legislation -- I understand the need for the business of the Landlord and Tenant Act and I understand the need to change the assistance with respect to the company in your riding, Mr Speaker -- it's the principle of non-profit, co-op housing that our caucus continues to oppose.
This province can no longer afford "affordable" housing of non-profit, cooperative housing. The statistics simply say not only that we cannot afford the annual expenditures, which are on the increase, the annual subsidies, because it's simply not fair -- the statistics show more and more that people who shouldn't be in these units are in them -- but we also can't afford the unbelievable expense of putting it together: the cost of the developer, the cost of the consultant -- the consultant being the main one -- and all the other people who are required that normally wouldn't be required in the general subsidy type of program which our party has expressed many times in this House.
So, Mr Speaker, I simply cannot let this bill go in this House without again expressing our caucus's concern with the government's direction in continuing the whole process of non-profit housing and the whole process of non-profit, co-op housing when it should be into direct subsidies. We can't afford this direction, particularly when the government says on the one hand, "We can't afford to increase the transfer payments to hospitals and school boards and municipalities."
Mr Speaker, it's a pleasure to put forward our caucus's comments with respect to this bill and I look forward to further debate.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate? Seeing none, does the parliamentary assistant want to wrap up? The member for Scarborough Centre.
Mr Owens: I will be very brief but very generous. I'd like to thank the member for Essex South and the member for Dufferin-Peel for their participation in the debate. I certainly cannot associate myself totally with their remarks, but I'd like to thank them for participating in this debate.
The member for Dufferin-Peel brought up an issue with respect to the St Albert Cheese Co-op. I know that the Speaker, the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, had some involvement with that cheese co-op and I am pleased to be able to present that amendment today. It is my understanding that the cheese co-op is pleased with the amendment. It will certainly help them to grow and thrive. With that, Mr Speaker, thank you very much.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Owens has moved second reading of Bill 166. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that we proceed with third reading of Bill 166? No?
Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): Mr Speaker, I understand that the House leaders have agreed to proceed to committee of the whole on this item. With unanimous consent, I would call committee of the whole consideration of Bill 166, the Co-operative Corporations Statute Law Amendment Act.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent to proceed to committee of the whole? Agreed.
1820
House in committee of the whole.
CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES
Consideration of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi sur la location immobilière en ce qui concerne les coopératives.
The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Could I have a list of the government amendments for proceeding with committee of the whole from the member for Scarborough Centre?
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): It's my understanding that you should have those amendments at this time.
The Second Deputy Chair: Could we have which sections are to be amended in Bill 166?
Mr Owens: I am looking at amendment to subsection 1(1), subsection 5(3.1), subsections 144(3) to (9), section 144.2.
The Second Deputy Chair: I think the Chair has them here as well: Subsection 1(1); subsection 2(3); section 9, subsection 55(1.2); section 17, subsections 144(3) to (9); section 18, section 144.2; section 20, subsection 151(5); section 21, subsections 156(7) and (8); section 23, subsection 171.1(2); section 23, subsection 171.2(2); section 23, section 171.3; section 23, subsections 171.4(2) and (3); section 23, sections 171.5, 171.6 and 171.7; section 23, subsection 171.8(0.1); section 23, subsection 171.8(1); section 23, subsections 171.8(3) to (7); subsections 171.9(3) and (4); subsections 171.13(1), (2), (3), (8), (12) and (13); subsection 171.14(1); section 171.14.1; subsections 171.20(1) and (1.1); section 24, clause 186(b.3); section 25, subsections 2(2) to (4), and finally, section 25.1 of the bill. These are your government amendments.
Does the honourable parliamentary assistant wish to proceed with government amendments?
Mr Owens: Yes, Mr Chairman. With consent, I request that staff be allowed on the floor.
The Second Deputy Chair: Do we have unanimous consent to bring on staff? Agreed? Agreed.
Section 1:
The First Deputy Chair (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Owens moves that subsection 1(1) of the bill, subsection 1(1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, read:
"'Worker co-operative' means a co-operative."
The First Deputy Chair: May I ask the parliamentary assistant to stand when he's introducing these things. I would also ask for a little forbearance on the part of some of the members.
Mr Owens: I was going to beg your indulgence, Mr Chair, as I have a rather large book to go through.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that the definitions of "housing charges" and "non-profit housing co-operative" in subsection 1(1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"'housing charges' means the charges a non-profit housing cooperative charges its members and includes charges unrelated to housing; ('frais de logement')
"'non-profit housing co-operative' means a cooperative, without share capital, the articles of which provide that the cooperative is a non-profit housing cooperative for the purposes of this act; ('coopérative de logement sans but lucratif')"
1830
Mr Owens: The explanation for this is that the definition of "housing charges" has been expanded to capture more of the administrative costs borne by the cooperative. The definition of the "non-profit housing cooperative" clarifies that the non-profit housing cooperatives do not have to track the language in the act in their articles as long as their articles essentially identify the cooperative as a non-profit housing cooperative subject to the special provisions of the act dealing with the non-profit housing cooperatives.
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments to the amendment put forth by the honourable parliamentary assistant? If there are none, shall Mr Owens's amendment to subsection 1(1) of the bill carry?
Motion agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
Section 2:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that subsection 5(3.1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in subsection 2(3) of the bill, be amended,
"(a) by striking out 'shall provide that' in the fourth line and substituting 'shall be deemed to provide that';
"(b) by striking out clause (b); and
"(c) by striking out 'non-profit or charitable organizations' in the last two lines of clause (d) and substituting 'non-profit housing cooperatives or charitable organizations.'"
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any comments or questions?
Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Perhaps Mr Owens could give a brief description of why the amendments are needed.
Mr Owens: The amendment to the preamble of subsection 5(3.1), along with the amendment to the definition of "non-profit housing cooperative" in subsection 1(1), clarifies that non-profit housing cooperatives do not have to track the language of the act in their articles as long as their articles essentially identify the cooperative as a non-profit housing cooperative subject to the special provisions of the act dealing with non-profit housing cooperatives.
Clause 5(3.1)(d) has been deleted. This clause defines one of the attributes of the non-profit housing cooperative as a housing cooperative where each member has a right to occupy a member unit. While in principle this is true of non-profit housing cooperatives, enshrining this principle in legislation may create practical problems for cooperatives. This principle may be susceptible to the interpretation that a member has an enforceable right against the cooperative to occupy a member unit. This is not always possible or desirable.
Most non-profit housing cooperatives have members on waiting lists for housing units. Such members may argue that they have a fundamental right to a housing unit in a cooperative that takes precedence over a cooperative's right to designate units as non-member units. Furthermore, persons may become members of a housing cooperative without any intention of living there. This is often the case with incorporators of a housing cooperative who have become involved in establishing a cooperative because of an ideological commitment to cooperative principles.
The amendment to clause 5(3.1)(d) limits the potential beneficiaries of any distribution of a non-profit housing cooperative's assets on dissolution to other non-profit housing cooperatives or a charitable organization. If distribution to non-profit organizations were possible, there is the danger that these non-profit organizations could be used to subvert the principle that members in a non-profit housing cooperative should not realize any capital gain from membership in the cooperative. Some non-profit organizations could be converted to profit business organizations and thereafter on dissolution distribute their assets to their member shareholders. Non-profit organizations incorporated under part III of the Corporations Act are a notable example. Through an application for supplementary letters patent, they can be converted to a business corporation.
The First Deputy Chair: Further questions or comments?
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): It's interesting to know that if I happen to be a member and form a cooperative, this amendment would allow the executive of the cooperative, I understood you to say, to exclude me from occupancy of a unit in the cooperative if for some reason they have designated that non-members be allocated a certain number of units beyond that which were already assigned for members' occupation. It would seem to me to be a bit of a disadvantage, wouldn't you think, for me, as a person who helped to form the cooperative, if I couldn't occupy part of the cooperative?
I'm not trying to prolong this, but it looks like a little bit of a mischief that could be played on somebody who may have fallen out of favour in the cooperative. I understand the strength of commitment shared by those people who put together cooperatives, but in a falling out it seems to me somebody could be easily thrown out of the cooperative or prevented from accessing the cooperative by a bit of a mischief being played by designating extra units for non-members. I wonder if that's really possible. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It certainly sounded that way when you were reading your explanation.
I'm concerned that anybody who joins a cooperative or helps to form it should be able to occupy units, if there are enough units for occupation, other than units which are designated for non-members. I wonder if you might just explain a little more clearly that this amendment is not going to disadvantage someone merely because he or she has a falling out or a differing opinion with respect to a cooperative.
I raise this matter because staff might recall that during my time as Minister of Financial Institutions, there were in fact a couple of issues about members being thrown out of cooperatives and who could take court action. I don't wish to name any individuals, but I think by the recognition of the incident there are some people who know already the cooperative in question. Could you perhaps tell me that we're not going to work some mischief on somebody merely because he has a falling out with the majority of the executive of the cooperative?
Mr Owens: I appreciate the member's concerns, but I think they may be -- misdirected may be too strong a word but we're simply looking at the amendment to allow the founding board to be involved in the development and that this designation is --
Mr Elston: Whoops, a little bit of penmanship here. You know, the school system isn't as good as it used to be.
Mr Owens: I suppose we could take a look at the Hall-Dennis report as the beginnings of that, but that's clearly not the --
Mr Elston: I think this fellow is a more recent graduate than that.
Mr Owens: I thank the member for Bruce for his concerns, but it's our opinion that to exclude people is not possible because of the Ministry of Housing requirements with respect to membership. However, your concern is noted and appreciated.
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions or comments on subsection 2(3)? If not, shall Mr Owens's amendment stand as part of the bill?
Motion agreed to.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
1840
Section 9:
Mr Owens: I move that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding the following as subsection 55(1.2) of the Co-operative Corporations Act:
"Non-profit housing cooperatives
"(1.2) In the application of this section with respect to a non-profit housing cooperative, the surplus arising from the business of the cooperative is the surplus arising from the operations of the cooperative excluding the proceeds from the sale of any assets not sold in the ordinary course of operations."
This amendment is consequential on an amendment to subsection 171.2(2) which will permit a non-profit housing cooperative to pay its members patronage returns. Subsection 55(1.2) determines how a non-profit housing cooperative may calculate a patronage dividend. It excludes from the surplus out of which patronage dividends are declared any proceeds arising from the sale of the cooperative's assets.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens, because you were in midflight I didn't want to interrupt you at the time, but actually I should read the motion after you put the motion, if that's all right.
Mr Owens: I think you're enjoying this, actually.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves --
Interjection: Dispense.
The First Deputy Chair: Do you have an explanation?
Mr Owens: Should I start at the beginning?
The First Deputy Chair: I don't think that's necessary.
Mr Owens: It excludes from the surplus out of which patronage dividends are declared any proceeds arising from the sale of the cooperative's assets outside the ordinary course of its business. This prevents members of a non-profit housing cooperative from realizing any capital gains for a piecemeal sale of its housing units. Such restrictions are also meant to preserve the existing stock of affordable non-profit housing.
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions and/or comments on the amendment as moved by Mr Owens?
Mr Elston: I only comment that this is a noble effort.
The First Deputy Chair: Any other questions and/or comments?
Mr Mancini: My understanding is that this has never happened in the province before, and that this is a precautionary amendment the ministry is putting forward. I was wondering if the parliamentary assistant could verify that.
The First Deputy Chair: Further questions and/or comments? Is there a response to the member for Essex South? No response? Other questions and/or comments?
Mr Mancini: Mr Chairman, how can there be no response? We are asking questions about the amendments that are being placed before the House so that we can speedily pass them. It was a very simple question. Maybe staff can help.
Mr Owens: With respect, I didn't hear the question.
The First Deputy Chair: Would the honourable member please repeat the question so that the parliamentary assistant may answer it?
Mr Mancini: I was wondering if there had been any situations in the province that have taken place which the honourable parliamentary assistant could give us firsthand knowledge about, or is this just a precautionary amendment the government has decided to bring forward?
Mr Owens: Up to this point there is not a situation that has happened in Ontario. It is a precautionary measure. It's our understanding that it has happened in Quebec. We want to prevent that from happening here in Ontario.
The First Deputy Chair: Any other comments or questions? If not, shall the amendment on section 9 presented by Mr Owens carry?
Motion agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 10 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
Section 17:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that section 17 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Subsection 144(3) of the Act is repealed and the following substituted:
"Idem
"(3) For the purposes of computing the amount of business under subsection (2), there shall be not included in the amount of business conducted with non-members, the value of goods or products acquired, marketed, handled, dealt in or sold or services rendered by the cooperatives from, on behalf of or for non-members who are required, by a marketing plan established under an act of the Legislature, to conduct such business only with the cooperative.
"Idem
"(4) If a member of a cooperative sells products to a marketing board under a marketing plan established under an act of the Legislature and the marketing board in turn sells the products, or equivalent products if the products are fungible, to the cooperative, the cooperative shall be deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have bought the products or the equivalent products directly from the member.
"'Derivative' of a product
"(5) In subsections (6) and (7), a 'derivative' of a product is something that contains the product or is made, either in whole or in part, from the product.
"If limitations on purchase of a product
"(6) If a marketing plan established under an act of the Legislature provides for transferable entitlements to buy a product and a cooperative buys all the product that its entitlement allows then any derivative of the product that the cooperative buys is deemed, for the purposes of this section, to have been bought directly from its members.
"Idem
"(7) Subsection (6) applies only to the extent that the total consideration given for the products, equivalent products or derivatives of the products deemed, under subsection (4) or (6), to have been bought directly from members does not exceed the consideration received for the products that the members of the cooperative sell.
"Cooperatives with object to provide employment
"(8) This section does not apply to a cooperative the articles of which provide that the cooperative's primary object is to provide employment to its members.
"Non-profit housing cooperatives
"(9) This section does not apply to non-profit housing cooperatives."
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens, do you have an explanation?
Mr Owens: These amendments involve both editorial and substantive changes. The changes to subsection 144(3) of the Co-operative Corporations Act are principally editorial. The reference to "marketing plan established under...the Parliament of Canada" has been deleted, since we are advised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that all marketing plans in operation in Ontario derive their authority from provincial legislation.
Subsection (4) is further amended to delete the reference to marketing plans established under an act "of the Parliament of Canada."
Subsections (5), (6), and (7) deal with a situation where a cooperative's production is subject to a quota under a marketing plan. For example, cooperatives that produce cheese and ice cream can, by virtue of a quota system, only buy a certain amount of raw milk from the marketing board. This amount may not equal the total amount of milk that could be produced by its members; the cooperative could purchase quota from other processors, but this is not always financially possible.
The case of a successful cheese and ice cream cooperative, The Alternative, is for the cooperative to purchase milk in a semiprocessed or processed state from other cheese and ice cream producers who may not necessarily be members of the co-op. In doing so, such cooperatives run the risk of offending the rule against businesses with non-members and being converted to a business corporation.
The amendments permit such cooperatives to purchase products from other non-member producers by deeming such products to have been purchased directly from the cooperative's members, to the extent that such purchases do not exceed the amount of product, as measured by consideration, paid for by the products that the members of the cooperatives could have produced and sold to the cooperative but for the marketing plan. By permitting the cooperative to deem such business with non-members as business with members, the members of the cooperative will benefit in so far as any profit generated by the co-op may be a dividend passed on to its members.
Subsection 144(8) excludes worker cooperatives from the rule against business with non-members. A similar rule for worker cooperatives appears in a new section, 144.1.
Finally, subsection 144(9) excludes non-profit housing cooperatives from the application of this section. A special rule for non-profit housing cooperatives appears in section 144.2.
1850
The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments for the honourable parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Financial Institutions? If there are none, shall section 17, with the amendments, be carried?
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Shall section 17, as amended, stand as part of the bill?
Section 17, as amended, agreed to.
Section 18:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section after section 144.1 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in section 18 of the bill:
"Non-profit housing cooperatives
"144.2(1) No non-profit housing cooperative shall, over a period of three years or more, conduct 50 per cent or more of its business with non-members of the cooperative.
"Idem
"(2) Subsection 144(2) applies, with necessary modifications, for the purposes of this section."
Are there any explanations?
Mr Owens: Section 144.2 establishes the rules against businesses with non-members for the non-profit housing cooperatives. A non-profit housing cooperative must, over a period of three years, conduct at least 50% or more of its business with members. Unlike other cooperatives, however, where a non-profit housing cooperative fails to comply with the rule, the minister does not have the discretion to convert the cooperative to either a business corporation or a corporation governed under part III of the Corporations Act. The minister's only option is to seek a court order for compliance pursuant to section 178 of the Act. This difference in the rule against businesses with non-members for non-profit housing cooperatives is consistent with the policy of preserving existing stock of non-profit cooperative housing.
The First Deputy Chair: Shall the amendment to section 18 carry?
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Shall section 18, as amended, stand as part of the bill?
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
Section 20:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that subsection 151(5) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in section 20 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Non-profit housing cooperatives
"(5) A non-profit housing cooperative may not amend its articles to do anything described in clause (1)(l), (m) or (n) or amend its articles so that the cooperative is no longer a non-profit housing cooperative as defined in section 1(1) and no attempt to do so is effective."
Are there any explanations? Any questions and/or comments? Shall the section, as amended, carry?
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Shall section 20, as amended, stand as part of the bill?
Section 20, as amended, agreed to.
Section 21:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that subsection 156(7) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in section 21 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Non-profit housing cooperatives
"(7) Despite subsection (1), a non-profit housing cooperative may not amalgamate except in accordance with subsection (8).
"Idem
"(8) A non-profit housing cooperative may amalgamate with another non-profit housing cooperative but only if,
"(a) each cooperative has been a non-profit housing cooperative either since it came into existence or since the 2nd day of October, 1992; and
"(b) the cooperatives are continued after the amalgamation as a non-profit housing cooperative."
Motion agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Section 22 agreed to.
Section 23:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that section 171.1 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in section 23 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Idem
"(2) Section 143 does not apply with respect to non-profit housing cooperatives."
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair : Mr Owens moves that subsection 171.2(2) of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in section 23 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Exceptions
"(2) Despite subsection (1), a non-profit housing cooperative may pay a member,
"(a) amounts owed to the member including patronage returns and interest on a member loan or any other loan from the member at a rate not exceeding the prescribed maximum annual percentage; or
"(b) reasonable amounts for goods or services provided by the member."
Motion agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moves that section 171.3 of the Co-operative Corporations Act, as set out in section 23 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Compensation relating to member unit
"171.3(1) No person shall accept compensation for the withdrawal of membership by a member of a non-profit housing cooperative or for the giving up of possession of a member unit by such a member other than,
"(a) compensation for amounts owed to the member by the cooperative; or
"(b) compensation for furnishings or improvements made by the member if the compensation is reasonable and is approved by the board of directors.
"Compensation from other users
"(2) No person shall accept, in connection with the use of part of a member unit by another person, compensation that exceeds the amount that, having regard to the latter person's use of the housing unit, would be a reasonable share of the housing charges relating to the unit.
"Idem
"(3) No person shall accept, in connection with the use of a member unit, compensation that exceeds the housing charges relating to the unit.
"Excess owed to cooperative
"(4) A person who accepts compensation in contravention of this section shall pay the cooperative an amount equal to the value of the compensation or the excess compensation and that amount is a debt the cooperative may recover in a civil proceeding."
Motion agreed to.
1900
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I would request that we accept the balance of amendments as they have been tabled with you and deem them to have been read into the record, and ask unanimous consent just to have all questions put to pass the amendments.
The First Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent that all the amendments be deemed as having been read into the record? Agreed.
If that is the agreement of the House, then I shall read at least the title of each of the amendments and then at the end of that ask if they are carried.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.4(2) and (3) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, sections 171.5, 171.6 and 171.7 of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.8(0.1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsection 171.8(1), paragraphs (1) to (10) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.8(3) to (7) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.9(3) and (4) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.13(1), (2), (3), (8), (12) and (13) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.14(1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, section 171.14.1 of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Mr Owens moved section 23 of the bill, subsections 171.20(1) and (1.1) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Section 23, as amended, agreed to.
Section 24:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moved section 24 of the bill, clause 186(b.3) of the Co-operative Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to.
Section 24, as amended, agreed to.
Section 25:
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moved section 25 of the bill, subsections 2(2) to (4) of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Motion agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
The First Deputy Chair: Mr Owens moved section 25.1 of the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Section 25.1 agreed to.
Sections 26 and 27 agreed to.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
On motion by Mr Owens, the committee of the whole reported one bill with certain amendments.
WATERFRONT REGENERATION TRUST AGENCY ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR L'AGENCE FIDUCIAIRE DE RÉGÉNÉRATION DU SECTEUR RIVERAIN
Mrs Grier moved second reading of Bill 1, An Act to establish the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency / Loi créant l'Agence fiduciaire de régénération du secteur riverain.
Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate for second reading this particular piece of legislation. My riding, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, is part of the Toronto waterfront, and as minister responsible for both the environment and the greater Toronto area, I am delighted to have an opportunity to debate this bill. I look forward to what I am sure is going to be widespread support, because the bill is the product of a very non-partisan process.
The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront was established as a federal royal commission in 1988 in response to a recommendation from Prime Minister Mulroney. In October 1989, Premier Peterson recognized both the value of the work of the Crombie commission and the fact that in following its mandate from the federal government of examining the Toronto waterfront the finding was very clear that you can't look at the waterfront and the rehabilitation of the waterfront and the future of the waterfront without also looking at the watershed. So in October 1989, Premier Peterson expanded the mandate of the royal commission, and Mr Crombie had the fairly unique honour of being a royal commissioner to both the federal government and the provincial government of Ontario. From that Conservative and then Liberal, the honoured recipient of Mr Crombie's report and recommendations was, of course, our government, represented by myself.
What we have today flowing from that amazing agreement of the worth of this work and the worth of the project and the validity of the recommendations is a bill to establish a trust to assist in the regeneration of this waterfront, a waterfront that stretches many miles from the Niagara Escarpment to the Ganaraska watershed, a waterfront that has been much forgotten and much neglected over the years, a waterfront that reflects the history of this area and the need for a regeneration trust. The word "regeneration," of course, flows from the final report of the Crombie commission, which is entitled Regeneration.
1910
While one wonders on an occasion like this what one can say and how one can word one's support for the legislation, you find in this particular case that there are no better words to use than those of the authors of the royal commission report themselves. On the back of the document they describe regeneration in these words: "It is difficult to imagine a time of greater need for waterfront generation and a better opportunity to do it right." The work of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront highlights the links that exist between city and nature; among people, the economy, health and environmental sustainability. It promotes the ecosystem approach to achieve both environmental regeneration and economic recovery. It suggests new ways of doing things, round table processes to bring agencies, the public and business together, integration of environmental and land use planning and partnerships to get things done.
In this final report, the Honourable David Crombie recommends ways to regenerate the region's waterfront by cleaning up the rivers and Lake Ontario, establishing greenways and trails throughout the bioregion, protecting and restoring habitats, enhancing sense of place through historical connections, social diversity, attractive vistas and good design and, finally, stimulating the regional economy through new green infrastructure, environmentally friendly enterprise, transportation and waterfront housing.
That is why it is so important that we establish the kind of trust that is envisaged by Bill 1. One of the things that Mr Crombie found and identified very clearly in the clear and graphic descriptions in his report was what he called jurisdictional gridlock: the inability to make progress because of the plethora of governments and agencies that were there. Having said that, I hasten to add that I do not see the regeneration trust as adding to that gridlock. It is not intended to be another level of approvals. It is in fact a facilitator, an agency with a mandate to cut through some of that gridlock and to take action on the recommendations, to implement the ecosystem approach that is envisaged in the report.
The mandate of the trust is very clear and is set out in Bill 1. It is that, using an ecosystem approach, the trust will offer a number of opportunities to advance the province's environmental and economic agendas on the waterfront by integrating environmental land use and transportation planning, by coordinating the implementation of the Lake Ontario greenway and trail, by expediting decisions on waterfront issues and by creating waterfront partnership agreements among municipalities, the province and others to achieve waterfront objectives.
Those four principles are in fact the four specific tasks that we have asked the trust -- and we have asked Mr Crombie to head up the trust agency -- to embark upon as a first stage. The initial focus will be on the completion of the planning for the area that has been identified as Garrison Common: lands that are held in a combination of public agencies from the CNE to Ontario Place to Old Fort York, plus private interests that own land there; lands that have amazing opportunity for regeneration and for revitalization.
But that revitalization will only happen if there is some coordinated planning and some entity that can pull those plans together. I regret the news today that Toronto is not to be the site of Expo '98. I certainly had hoped that as we planned Garrison Common, Expo might have provided both a catalyst and an objective which we could work towards, but I would like to make it plain on behalf of the government that we certainly see the need to continue with the planning for Garrison Common and to bring together all of the agencies involved in that, despite our disappointment at the loss of Expo.
The second specific function we have asked the trust to undertake is the transportation corridor study, a study of the central waterfront area where a lot of the focus has been on the future of the Gardiner Expressway, an expressway that was identified by Mr Crombie as being a physical and almost an attitudinal barrier to access to the waterfront. The results of that study indicate how that access east-west across the waterfront can be retained but perhaps in a way that does not create the physical barrier provided by the Gardiner, but that too of course is a long-term objective.
I think it's important to identify that much of the work of the trust will be looking to the future, dealing with specific issues in the near future but also planning for the long term and putting place policies and structures and principles that will guide us well into the future. None are more important than the regeneration of the shoreline, the project from which the title of the report is taken; that includes a very broad mandate, looking at the health of the shoreline, coming up with a study as to how we can move to regenerate the shoreline and at the same time enhance public access, make it clean, diverse, usable, accessible waterfront, the eight principles that Mr Crombie has endorsed, and include in that, of course, the concept of a greenway along the waterfront, a greenway that would include but not be constrained only to a trail.
While obviously a trail would be very much part of that, I think what Mr Crombie has done in his report is broaden our understanding that greenways are more than merely trails with broad shoulders, that they are places where diversity of vegetation can be encouraged, where there can be diversity of wildlife, where there can be busy parts and active activities on the waterfront, as well as quiet areas of solitude and contemplation. The linkage of the very many public, open spaces that currently exist on the waterfront is envisaged to stretch not only along the waterfront but up the river valleys, back to the Oak Ridges moraine linking the Niagara Escarpment and the trail system that was pioneered 25 years ago by the Bruce Trail Association with the other network of trails that is evolving across the province.
I was very pleased last week to have been able to release new lakefilling guidelines and sediment quality guidelines. Those are certainly very key instruments in achieving the kind of clean waterfront that is envisaged by the waterfront trust and that is required if we are to regenerate the waterfront.
I want to talk a little bit about trusts because they are not a very common entity in Ontario, though they are in other areas. Trusts have been very much a part of the conservation activities in Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, the United States and part of Canada. They vary widely in structure and organization, from the National Trust in Britain with a staff of 6,000 and properties all across and around the British Isles, to some 700 land trusts in the United States, most of which are locally based and have very small budgets.
All trusts have a legislative base, which is why Bill 1 is so important. Typically they are charitable, non-government organizations involved often in the acquisition of land or in the holding of land, which is one of the responsibilities that the act allows the waterfront regeneration trust to do, but essentially they are agencies for the preservation and conservation and to hold in trust the public resource of land and particularly in this case waterfront land.
The model we are establishing today through Bill 1 is one that has its mandate restricted to the area generally encompassed by the greater Toronto area; as Bill 1 says, land that is related to the shore of Lake Ontario, extending from Burlington Bay in the west to the Trent River in the east. But I think it is fair to say that the example we are setting by the establishment of this trust is one that is going to be closely watched in other jurisdictions, one that may well set a model worth following by other areas that have as their objectives the protection, conservation and regeneration of waterfront lands, that are concerned about the need to consult with the public and determine the public interest and the environmental integrity of waterfront and other lands, areas across the province that see the need in their jurisdiction to coordinate programs and policies relating to waterfront lands and areas that want to have an agency to facilitate the establishment of green and open spaces along the waterfront or along the river valleys may well find that a trust such as that envisaged in Bill 1 is one that suits their purposes as well.
I'd be pleased, as this debate continues, to answer questions or respond to concerns that the opposition parties may have, but as I have said, this act and this commission had their genesis in a Conservative federal government and a Liberal provincial government. I'm very pleased on behalf of our government to participate in this debate and I look forward to widespread support on all sides of the House. Thank you very much.
1920
The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments?
Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): As my contribution to the debate, I just want to recall a little story, because Mr Crombie was mentioned very often and I think he's been involved in this business. He spoke not too long ago in Ottawa to members of the National Capital Commission and to politicians about his experience when he was first appointed. Everybody was talking about ecosystems. The minister tonight as well mentioned that word, "ecosystems." So David Crombie said: "Gee, ecosystems, ecosystems. Everybody's talking about it. I'm a politician. I'm in favour. What is it?"
I think this points out that we should explain to a lot of people who are not familiar with the terminology and all the slang that's being used by certain environmental groups that "ecosystem" in essence means that all things are related. That obviously is an extremely important concept, that you just can't touch on one element without having an effect on many other elements. That's really the idea of ecosystems, and that's why I think Mr Crombie came to realize the importance of this theme and of this topic. I think that's what the minister was referring to, and I just wanted to put on the record this little insight from Mr Crombie.
The Acting Speaker: Before we begin with the questions and comments, I beg the indulgence of the House to try to keep the noise down a bit. It's hard to hear the members who are speaking and trying to debate Bill 1.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): What the minister talks about sounds wonderful and probably has some merit to it, but the problem is that she mentioned it's a concept something like the Bruce Trail. The Bruce Trail started out as a good concept and people were excited that they could hike from Niagara Falls to Tobermory. But then along came the Niagara Escarpment Commission and ruined the whole thing. I'm hoping something like this doesn't turn out to be a fiasco like the Niagara Escarpment Commission, which takes property rights away from people; there's no doubt about it.
If this thing's going to be in the same category, I would have a hard time supporting it. But maybe the minister will tell us later on that this isn't going to happen, as I hope it won't, because the escarpment, as I said, has taken away rights from people in our area and all along the escarpment. It's put a black mark on the Bruce Trail. The Bruce Trail now doesn't get the support in my area that it used to get.
When it started, as I said, it was an excellent idea so that people could get out of the cities and get into the different areas of the country and hike and have a good time. Then what happened was somebody got greedy. They didn't want to have to look at new homes, maybe, as they walked along the trail, so they got this idea about the Niagara Escarpment. The concept of the escarpment wasn't too bad, but then they put a commission in, people who aren't responsible to anyone, people who make decisions that aren't proper and that take away the rights of people in my area and all along the escarpment. So I hope something like this doesn't turn out the same fiasco we've had with the Niagara Escarpment.
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I share my colleague's concerns, especially in light of the fact that Bill 1 allows within it considerable powers that are vested with this agency by virtue of cabinet order and regulations established exclusively by cabinet, privately by cabinet, and if there is any indication in the manner in which this government has consulted in the past on very sensitive matters, then it would be clear that the government already has its agenda. To that extent, one should realize that this government very clearly does not recognize property rights in this province and that this whole agency -- I don't wish to taint the agency as much as I wish to suggest that the government of the day will drive this agency with the regulations it establishes, and those regulations very clearly will be predisposed to riding roughshod over people who own property.
I might point out that these are not just people of wealth who, having worked hard to acquire it, are sitting on properties worth considerable value. These are people who have bought a modestly priced condominium, who are situated directly on the lake, and who are going to realize that their privacy is in jeopardy and that their condominium corporation now has some liability concerns. I would like to ask the minister, in spite of her enthusiasm for all the noble principles associated with this bill, that she undertake to assure this House somewhere in the record that her predisposed socialist bias towards riding roughshod over property rights in this province won't manifest itself in those cabinet regulations.
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have just one point. It may have been a slip when the minister was talking, but in reviewing the nine principles that have been presented by Commissioner Crombie, you said eight principles. I just want to see if there is any dispute between you and the commissioner on the number of principles. The commissioner stated what those principles were, and I think they make tremendously good sense: clean, green, usable, diverse, open, accessible, committed, affordable and attractive. If you're thinking of omitting one of those, I'd be very interested in knowing which one it would be and why you would want to take one of them out. The sense is that he has tried to give a balanced view that says environmentally but also historically understandable, and also something in the context of a great municipality such as we have here. The minister indicated that there were eight principles; I hope she can clarify that there are really nine she is endorsing that are part of the regeneration concept.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable Minister of the Environment has two minutes to respond.
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me assure the member for Markham that it was merely that I couldn't count adequately. I endorse all of the principles for an ecosystem approach and a clean waterfront espoused by Mr Crombie and I apologize to Mr Crombie if I said eight when I should have said nine.
To the member for Burlington South, who talks in meaningless words about my predisposal to ride roughshod over private property, all I can say about that is: nonsense. If he is concerned about this agency, then I ask him to perhaps examine more clearly the principles espoused in the regeneration trust document, which I'm sure he's read, or he would not have wanted to participate in the debate.
To the member for Grey, let me also reject categorically his characterization of the Niagara Escarpment Commission. The Niagara Escarpment Commission, let me remind him, is composed of a number of members who are elected by their municipalities along the range of the escarpment, and the others are appointed as members at large by this government subject to an examination process by a standing committee of this Legislature and responsible through me to this Legislature.
Let me end by thanking the member for Nepean most kindly for his understanding of the ecosystem concept. I hope that his wisdom and understanding would spread to some of his colleagues.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
1930
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I don't know whether I would wish to join the debate on the Niagara Escarpment, although I must point out to the honourable Minister of the Environment that what my friend the member for Grey has raised is the issue that comes to the heart of a whole series of these commissions, that is, how does a non-elected body -- because the commissioner really is appointed; the elected representatives on the body are appointed on behalf of the various councils and otherwise; it is an appointed body. But how do they come to grips with the conflict of interests that really surround the idea of a national trust? She has indicated that they exist all over the place in this fine world of ours, but they are not without their own controversies.
Although I don't want to join the issue of how effective or ineffective the Niagara Escarpment is, what I do wish to point out is that I agree fully with my friend the member for Grey when he raises the spectre of the difficulties which are generated by the problems associated with determining who has access to lands which are privately owned and subject, at least in some way, to the trust.
I have a whole series of issues that should really be discussed under Bill 1. I'm cognizant of the time that has been taken to this point on the debate on second reading and I know that as a result of the delay in getting this far we shouldn't have long debates, but there are certain things that I think must be at least raised as issues of concern.
I have been interested in Mr Crombie for quite some time because he has had a very illustrious career, known as the Tiny Perfect Mayor in his days in the great city that we now stand in, and known for his accomplishments in bringing communities together in dealing with issues that have a whole series of problems associated with them which would probably have overcome some other, more experienced people in his days as mayor. But he overcame them all in many ways and gained a reputation for being a man of considerable achievement, a person dedicated to public will being carried forward in a way that was evenhanded and otherwise.
It is against that backdrop that we come to David Crombie as he is now, the Honourable David Crombie, because of his experience in the federal cabinet in a Conservative administration. He and I have something in common. He ran for his party and didn't quite make it; I ran for mine and didn't quite make it. The difference between our ways at the moment is that while we think as politicians that upon retirement we would look for Eden, he has not only found his Eden, he is in fact in charge of reconstructing the Eden in which he dwells. He has found a way of getting the appointment from his federal colleagues, jointly paid for in those early days by the Liberal administration of that day. He has now found in his report a sense of public acceptance which allows the New Democrats of this province to set up this trust, for which he will receive the head decision-maker's pay. Whatever he is paid for it, I'm sure he will be well worth every penny he receives.
That having been said, it reminds me that the honourable Minister of the Environment doesn't understand the difference between non-partisan and multipartisan activity involved in the waterfront. Each of the parties, Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat, and I dare say even some of the environmental parties whose names have not been formally registered, I guess, in our political system provincially or federally, probably support David Crombie as the head of --
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): There's only one true green party in Ontario and that's the New Democrats.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please.
Mr Elston: The honourable member for Algoma was merely expressing the concern that the current New Democratic administration is certainly showing signs of being green in the way it conducts its business, and I actually support that. He and I see eye to eye on a whole series of issues. That was one I was not going to raise.
Just to get back to the point of the debate, multiparty support for Mr Crombie has allowed him to carry his report to the level that it has gone to this point. His continuing support will be necessary if he is to continue to broker the various interests that form along the waterfront. I only wish to suggest to him that he will need not only his considerable skill, honed as mayor and as an elected federal member and then as a federal minister and then as the waterfront's first appointee, to try to straighten out what were perceived to be difficulties and I think which now are acknowledged as difficulties, as he performs his new roles.
The member for Burlington South talked about the extensive powers given under section 1 of the bill. I think he meant to say "under the objects clause, under section 4." I had go back and flip over the page because I didn't see anything in section 1 on its own that gives any powers at all; it merely talks about definitions of agencies, ministers, waterfront lands etc. The objects of this whole bill are contained in section 4, and then section 5 goes on to give this particular agency all of the powers necessary to carry out those objects. That, in fact, is where there is considerable authority.
However, the real problem with this bill is that it doesn't guarantee any access to funds, and the access to funds is going to be critical if there is going to be not only a brokering of interest but ultimately a bringing together of interests in a way that will make sure this will be an entire project seen as an ecosystem project from outside of this particular country.
I note with some dismay the fact that the current government is doing with this organization what it has tried to do with several others. I can't fault them alone because the Tories before us and the Liberals before the New Democrats, I think fell into the sense of the modern government which pushed away responsibility for day-to-day affairs being decided upon by the elected authorities and created what were described as arm's-length institutions.
This is another arm's-length institution in that if there is some decision taken that isn't popular, the minister of the day -- and in this particular situation the Minister of the Environment, under section 2, is the minister responsible -- can stand up in answering questions and say: "No, no. That's the job of the Honourable David Crombie; he is at arm's length from us and he will make the decision." It sounds a little bit like the story we get with respect to waste and the waste authority, which the minister is fond of now quoting in relation to being arm's length and, as a result, her being unable to effect any kind of policy or directional change by that institution.
I think we have to be quite clear. This trust will be as effective as it is funded. This trust will be as good as the word of the current government in its support for Mr Crombie. He can do marvellous things. He can accomplish a whole series of brokering of individual interests to an extent that looks marvellous on paper, but it will not be delivered unless there is a commitment of funding. My fear at this particular stage with this act is that it is indeed forcing all of these items to be pushed off into the future. In fact, without money you can only dream of the future and waste the present, where we are now finding ourselves so much afflicted by difficulties along that waterfront.
What are those difficulties? I think you know them as well as I do. The honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore in her capacity as Minister of the Environment identified a few. There is the Gardiner, for instance; transportation. There is the design of buildings. Some people will remember that there was a moratorium placed on the development along the waterfront at a particular time by our administration to prevent a cluttering of any further extent by a series of what were described as a group of very unattractive buildings.
I note with some degree of concern that there isn't a lot of attention being paid to my speech. I am prepared to go on much longer, unless people are prepared to be quiet for a few more minutes. I merely want to say --
Interjections.
Mr Elston: Don't bother. We will talk above these guys.
It seems to me that when we come to grips with the types of interests that are here -- the ones to build and occupy land along the lakeshore of this province, and here in the city of Toronto and its extended area down to Halton and other places -- and you ask yourself who has the right to be accessing this waterfront, who has the right to be on it, who has the right to be on what trails and at what time, how far do the trails extend, how do you deal with the ownership of private land, you're getting yourself right back into the very serious difficulties that have been associated with the Niagara Escarpment and otherwise. We have not been as successful in mediating all of the problems there, and while you may have found the remarks from the member for Grey to be slightly exaggerated or maybe even confrontational, they were in a sense a real expression, in my view, of some of the very popularly held opinions of the people in the ridings of Grey and Bruce and other places along the Niagara Escarpment, because they really do believe that they have, where they have lost their points, been overridden by a public interest that quite honestly doesn't care about them.
This effort must allow Mr Crombie to be an honest broker of the interests as opposed to somebody who implements a decision beyond the interests of particular private owners of land or other things along this waterfront.
1940
I note with some degree of interest that there isn't a heck of a lot I can do about the noise level in here except to yell louder, but that will only make my remarks slightly less coherent then they already are, but I do wish to say a couple of more things. In the end --
The Acting Speaker: I ask the member to be seated for a moment. I would like to bring to the attention of the members of the House that the honourable member for Bruce not only has the floor, but is trying to respond to the minister on this important Bill 1. It would help if conversations could take place outside the chamber; that way we could hear the honourable member for Bruce.
Interjection.
Mr Elston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm not going to be that much longer. I was just asked how much longer I am going to be.
[Applause]
Mr Elston: I'm prepared to read into the record my entire Hamilton convention speech if I get any more applause. I think that should be enough to still the entire place. If you're not careful, I'll read the whole thing.
Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): What happened after your speech?
Mr Elston: We had 12 hours of wonderful time. The member for Rainy River asked what happened after my leadership speech. We had a long session that resulted in my being not quite able to count to 20, like somebody else couldn't count to 20 last week. But that's another issue and in the end we both kind of lost the day, as I recall it.
There are some very important issues, extremely important for us to say we support Mr Crombie in his efforts. It may be sort of, if I can still use the expression, motherhood. You know, it is important that we do something with our waterfront; it's important that we have an idea of how the public is going to have access to it; it's important that we don't look at the backside of the waterfront development, as we do these days, from the Gardiner and be offended by a sort of unsightliness.
But as you manoeuvre yourself on a boat cruise on the waterfront, you look at this more spectacular view. To be quite honest, I'm a bit offended by the fact that the people who are able to live very close on the other side, on the Lakeshore side of the Gardiner, have this marvellous view, but the people who view the back side of those buildings don't see anything at all. I support the Minister of the Environment in her sense that something ought to be done so that people can see more than the backsides of the buildings. It's a marvellous view from the lakecraft. It's a beautiful downtown view you see, skyscrapers here and there. It makes a wonderful picture for the promotional materials, but if you're on the Gardiner, it's not quite as nice.
If you happen to go down to Sunnyside Beach and you take a look at what's going on, it's not a bad view if you're looking along east and west from that areas, but it isn't very pleasant when you're confronted by those warning signs that say "Please do not go near the water" because it's closed.
We heard the honourable Minister of the Environment talk about a clean waterfront, but we didn't hear the honourable member talk about what is critical to a dynamic waterfront, and that is clean water. It's something I know she's committed to but about which we have heard almost nothing. While Mr Crombie can take a whole series of initiatives with respect to the waterfront, it is going to be difficult to convince visitors to this city, or in fact the greater Toronto area, that we have improved anything along the waterfront if those warning signs are up saying "Please don't go in the water" as soon as the May 24 weekend hits our fair province.
The filth in the water is related to the types of problems that are associated with urban growth.
Mr Cousens: When the Liberals took over, look what a mess they made of it.
Mr Jackson: Don't go swimming in it.
Mr Elston: You guys have a problem?
The water itself and the quality of that water is absolutely critical to the vibrancy of the waterfront. While we take a look at the waterfront, we are forced to go up the river, as the honourable Minister of the Environment indicated, but we're forced to go not just up the rivers -- in this case, I think Mr Crombie is being sent up the river without a chequebook, but that's another issue -- we have to go right to the headwaters of the Don and of the Credit and all of those rivers that will be the focus of his attention.
We have to guard the Oak Ridges moraine, we have to decide whether or not there is not some pre-eminent provincial interest in making sure that the headwaters of all our ecosystems in this watershed and in the series of watersheds are protected from being deviated by excessive development and other things. If we have no headwaters of all these rivers that people know about here in the city and other places, then we have no rivers. If we put all that water underground into giant sewers, storm sewers or whatever, or drainage tiles, then there is no ecosystem. If we don't guard against the elimination of the headwaters, then the work of Mr Crombie is really not going to be for very much.
The issue is much larger than just having a trust that deals with the waterfront and a few of the rivers. It takes us right back to the beginning sources of these waterways. It also takes us to the fact, if I can again reflect on it, that the Minister of the Environment is going to be critically necessary to the success of this. She will not and cannot stand here and say we have an independent, arm's-length trust that is looking after all of these issues for us. She must provide the very basic understanding and commitment in terms of finances which will be required to make sure that the rivers even exist in 25 years.
This takes us back to some of the remarks we made earlier about the municipal omnibus bill. She is going to have to undertake that there will be provincial money set aside to allow us to repair the damage caused by a lack of separation of our sewage. We have storm water running into our sanitary sewer system. We have sewage running into our storm water system. We have sewage moving right into our rivers. As long as that is allowed, we will end up having difficulty convincing people that we are serious about having a vibrant waterfront activity going on.
I have a whole lot of other things I could talk about. The dirty beaches and everything like that, though, for me represent the sign of progress. It's difficult. It's a long-term problem we're going to have to wrestle with. But unless that is dealt with, how can we market ourselves as having any priority for this ecosystem or whatever it is described as in the public brochures?
I wish Mr Crombie well. I wish him well in dealing with the four other people who will be with him on this group. I guess the board of directors technically will manage his life for him. I suspect, knowing Mr Crombie, that he will sit down, organize, put forward some objectives both in the short term and the long term which he will hope to deliver upon, but I expect we will be hearing from Mr Crombie with respect to how well he's going to be able to perform his tasks with the allocation of funds that he will be allowed.
I'm worried, just as I was with the municipal stuff, that one of the powers given is that the agency can borrow money. Mr Crombie will be able to borrow money on the strength of a Treasurer's guarantee. What that tells me is that there isn't going to be a lot of desire by the current administration to fund this organization with taxpayers' dollars except indirectly through the guarantee, and if there is a problem in making repayments, which I suspect there will be, by this trust, we will find that the Treasurer will try and maintain himself a comfortable distance away from the Honourable David Crombie and his undertakings.
I raise these as issues of concern, and only concern, because we in the end support an initiative to try and take control of this waterfront in terms of a long-term view of our world. We are losing much too quickly places for our citizens to dwell in a more pastoral setting. We are losing much too quickly the purity of our water. We are losing our water, period, as we see a whole series of companies shipping clean Canadian water in tanker trucks to the United States for a marvellous amount of money. But in the end, if this allows us to assert some degree of provincial authority with respect to maintaining but a very small part of this province -- let's face it, it's a heavily populated part of the province but a very small part of the province -- and control it in a way which will preserve it, in fact not only preserve but enhance it, so that we can have people who can go swimming in it or at least not be afraid of having their kids walk ankle-deep in the very edges of it, then we will have accomplished something.
1950
We support it. As I said, I raise the concerns only because the concerns, in my view, leave Mr Crombie with an unenviable series of meetings in the immediate future and an endless series of brokering-type meetings not only with individual municipalities like the city of Toronto or the city of Etobicoke, Oakville or any of these others, but also with conservation authorities who are now, as we all know, under a considerable amount of pressure because of funding issues. While this is in front of us now and while we're told it is for the future, my concern is that there is perhaps only the will to make this an instrument to take the current administration to the future with the minimum exposure to funding requirements.
Mr Speaker, I now cede the floor to others to speak on this. This is much more critically important than people know, and the experiment with David Crombie, while I know it represents for him a great place for a retirement activity, is much more than that. I know the Honourable David Crombie has much more to contribute to the public in this way and, in fact, I believe he will be successful if he is sustained by the administration.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable Minister of the Environment.
Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I'd just like to thank the member for Bruce for his contribution to this debate and for his support for the legislation. Let me assure him that I think this legislation and the role that the trust will play follow very logically from the sustainable development initiatives at the Ontario round table, which he, like me, had the honour to chair at one time and which is entirely consistent with that philosophy.
I do want to set one point clear, because there have been a number of references to the Niagara Escarpment Commission. I think it would be unfortunate if we didn't clarify very early in this debate that there is no real analogy between the Niagara Escarpment Commission and this trust. The Niagara Escarpment Commission has an ability to regulate the use of private land, and that is not going to be a responsibility or a power of the trust. It is simply providing an advisory, facilitating role.
Let me say to the member for Bruce that Mr Crombie is far from retirement, and certainly this will be a very active role for him. Let me reassure the member that the startup budget of the trust is going to be $2 million, with specific funding for projects which indeed, as the member correctly says, will need to be brokered or discussed between ministries from which those projects are being carried out.
I also want to respond to his comments about water quality and assure him that I recognize very clearly, as does this government, that an accessible, green waterfront needs clean water to which one can have access. The initiatives that I've already announced with respect to pollution prevention initiatives, the determination of the toxic 21 candidate chemicals for ban or phaseout, the announcement just this week of funding for such things as detention tanks for combined sewers in various places not only in Lake Ontario but in other parts of the Great Lakes, and the lakefill and sediment quality guidelines that I mentioned had been released when I was making my comments on the speech will all contribute to that objective.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The member for Cochrane South.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I want to go to the very beginning, because I'd like to have something clarified from the member who spoke on this particular issue. At the beginning he was talking about the difference between appointed and elected boards, and I'm just wondering where he was going with that. Was he advocating that somehow or other there should be a process set up by which those boards would be elected or would they be appointed?
The only reason I raise the point is because I know I've heard the debate around here before, and also within the community, on the difference between those particular kinds of boards in regard to them being appointed or elected. There's a net benefit in appointing, in bringing the expertise together and making sure you can get the representation from across the community on those particular boards and the expertise that you need in order to carry out the business. But on the elected side, I think I understand what the member was saying, which is that in order to ensure a certain amount of democracy -- perhaps you could just clarify that in your comments, because I don't think the point was made very clearly.
The Acting Speaker: Are there questions and/or comments? If there are none, the honourable member for Bruce has two minutes for response.
Mr Elston: To clarify the comment, I was acting only as an honest mediator between the Minister of the Environment and the member for Grey. They were worried about whether there were elected or appointed members on the escarpment. They are all appointed, although some serve as elected members in their local councils. That was all I was saying.
The issues around what has or hasn't been done lead me a little bit to note that we have as many, and probably more, problems environmentally now in this province than we did when Jim Bradley, my colleague from St Catharines, was Minister of the Environment. There hasn't been a lot of energy focused on eliminating the problems with respect to water quality, which the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore used to speak of so eloquently when she was the opposition critic for Environment.
It used to be that it was unacceptable to have any lakefilling whatsoever. That has changed. It used to be that there were going to be clear air acts and clean drinking water acts and a whole series of things. I merely wanted to indicate that we seem to have slipped a little, and Mr Crombie's work is going to be affected negatively if there isn't a picking up of those initiatives.
I was reminded by the member for Halton Centre that there was supposed to have been an environmental bill of rights, which hasn't quite yet seen the light of day. I'm worried that while all of these things, great and otherwise, put in Bill 1 might very well happen, so far what has happened in the first two years of the New Democratic administration is a slipping away from the dedication that we had at one time noted from the honourable member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.
I have just one other point. I read the "powers" clause. It says, "Except as limited by this act, the agency has all the powers that are necessary or expedient for carrying out its objects." And under section 4, the objects are many. That could lead to a whole series of problems in the future.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Cousens: In considering this bill, Bill 1, An Act to establish the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency, you have to put it into context, the much larger context that has to concern all people. Consider what happened at Rio, where representatives from around the world came to think about the future of our planet Earth and what we can do in society to make sure this gift we have of this land here in Canada, but wherever it exists -- that all of us have a very fundamental responsibility to ensure we pass on something better to our children than what we received, and not take for granted the very life systems, these ecosystems, and what it takes for one interdependent living being upon another. In all these contexts, whether it be in Canada, the United States or any other part of the world, there must be a common desire to preserve and protect it so that there is something available to future generations.
So we come a little bit chastised after Rio, understanding that the world is a far cry from being perfect, that commitment from governments is not as deep as one would have hoped. One of the best speeches that came out of Rio was that of David Suzuki's own daughter, which was in one of the Saturday papers. It was probably one of the best statements of any person whose speech I've read from Rio, and truly expressed the need for all of us to commit everything we've got to Mother Earth and to the future of civilization through the preservation of things that make this Earth live.
2000
The problems are great, and as we address this waterfront regeneration trust, we put that into a much bigger context, knowing there are other things that need to be done as it pertains to the air, to the land and to other laws and acts that can be placed into law to make sure that governments and business and people, wherever they are, are doing what they can to rebuild what was once given to us and our forefathers.
Many things are going on within our society that are obtaining the support of a cross-section of people, but within our school system especially. You're seeing young people think green, and what they're doing in the schools now, through their practice, through their teaching, through their involvement in the community shows what can happen when you start with young people, because they're teaching their parents and others in society of the need to recycle, and to recover and rebuild, to do all those things that are part of the 3Rs.
I'm now, though, at the point where, when we come into this Legislature, we have to be very grateful for the leadership that has been given by David Crombie: one-time mayor of Toronto, federal member of Parliament, cabinet minister and now someone who helped write this document, Regeneration, and other parts of the commission reports. It isn't easy reading but it's good reading, and people who take in what goes on at different levels of government could benefit greatly from the content of this book. I commend the federal government and the province and all levels that have helped support the statements that are made here and the kind of thinking that goes behind it.
I have a few criticisms that I will table as I go into my presentation, but this is the basis of the bill before us. The thinking within that is very progressive, and indeed if you want to think green, it certainly has the green message loud and clear.
What we're talking about in this bill -- it's too bad you can't see it perfectly from there, Mr Speaker -- is that part around Lake Ontario from Hamilton Harbour over to the Trent River. Within this you begin to see --
Interjection: Don't forget the Rideau.
Mr Cousens: Well, the Rideau goes down a little further, my good friend, but it's another one we've got to protect. Yesterday you happened to have a little something for Smiths Falls, so you got a bit of a smile from the Minister of the Environment.
But what we're talking about here are all the tributaries and all those things from the Niagara Escarpment right over here to the Ganaraska feed into Lake Ontario. We have to understand that there are many rivers and streams, some of which have been destroyed over the years. The Don River is an example of that, and the book goes into the story of the Don, just a terrible statement on how we and our forefathers callously disregarded the breath of life that comes to waterways through the very tributaries that lead into those rivers.
At the head of the Don River is the large Keele Valley landfill site. It's just sitting on top of the headwaters of the Don River. There you have the largest landfill site in Canada sitting on those headwaters, and if there should be a breach in the seal of the clay that protects those headwaters from the leachate that is gathering there, then what we're going to see is a contamination that comes right down through the whole Don River.
The protectionism that people feel for the Rouge Valley and the Rouge River and all the tributaries that feed there is another sense in which society has begun to recognize the need for a national park, a place which we protect in the middle of this large urban landscape for ever -- protect it from being built up, protect it from erosion, protect it from men and women and children, protect it for the natural state that it can be and should be in.
What we've seen in Mr Crombie's report is a statement that begins to express some of the thinking that, if it's not too late, can be the basis of a future for the waterfront from Burlington Bay right through to the Trent River. To that extent, the intentions that have been presented by the Minister of the Environment and minister responsible for the greater Toronto area are honourable and certainly ones that I want to support. When you hear those words, they ring true. When you hear the sense of commitment that is coming through from Mr Crombie, as rephrased by the Minister of the Environment as she read sections from this book tonight, one can sense there is a feeling that is genuine. I strongly support that feeling, and when it comes time to vote for this bill, in spite of the many things I'm going to say against it, it is the intention that I'm supporting. The bill itself leaves me very, very worried on a number of fronts, but I would not want to be seen opposing that intention and so we'll support the bill.
Notwithstanding that, I have concerns with how we can implement so many of these recommendations. One of the recommendations that has been made within Regeneration is the whole sense of a round table, where people from different groups and with different perspectives are able to sit around one table, if they are different jurisdictions to have them around the same table, and then deal in a common way with the common problem, and that is the protection and preservation of our waterfront.
To that extent, we really have to make sure that discussion continues to take place and that everyone possible becomes immersed in the dialogue that causes them to make a commitment even further to make sure the right things are done. The problem we have, and as Mr Crombie has referred to in Regeneration, is the paralysis caused by the problems of bureaucracy and the fragmented jurisdictions.
I don't think the bill before us tonight begins to touch upon that fundamental issue of all the levels of government. That's an issue that has concerned many of us; we keep tripping over ourselves when we've got so many levels. You have all the different regional councils that are going to be involved with this common waterfront. You have federal, provincial, regional municipalities, metropolitan municipalities and cities. Then you get the combination of all these people with different budgets, different financial outlooks, different financial capabilities. What I'd like to somehow see is that when you're trying to have this round table dialogue that there is a common pot of money in the centre of the round table instead of a pot being under everyone's chair, which they can use for whatever they want, whether that be a pot of money or a pot for another purpose. Let there be one common pot so that there is a common direction taken to ensure that everyone is on the same wavelength to rebuild and recreate the principles around the waterfront.
As you look at the principles, I have to say that I strongly endorse the nine principles that have been enunciated within this book. No need to elaborate upon them, but they are there and they are clear, when you think: Keep it clean. Is it green? Is it usable, diverse, open, accessible? The commitment that's there, the affordability of it, the attractiveness and the fact that future developers and future people who have plans around the waterfront will find ways of fitting their plans into these principles right from the beginning.
I'm worried about some of the factors that have come out of the book on regeneration when you have such different approaches now being taken. For instance, Ajax has a 400-foot setback from the lake all along its front. That isn't true in Toronto and it isn't true in other parts. Can we begin to see these municipalities and communities develop a common strategy that will allow them to participate in it? Are we going to begin to see something happen in Scarborough? I now understand that Scarborough is reworking, still, its 1959 official plan, after it has had some 800 amendments to it. Can we not begin to make sure that the regional municipalities of all those municipalities that come close to the waterfront, as has been defined in this bill, begin to readdress their official plans so that they take into consideration the kind of thinking that is implicit in everything Mr Crombie has said? These are actionable items.
2010
They are all part of what has been described in the book as the jurisdictional gridlock. That's probably the single biggest problem that Canada has. We've got so many governments tripping over each other. In fact, I'm satisfied that we have enough government in Canada and Ontario and our own communities to serve a citizenship of well over 130 million people rather than just less than the 30 million we've got, but we've got to find ways that those levels will begin to work together.
I'm disappointed that today Toronto and Ontario lost Expo '98. I think it would have done a great deal to promote some of the thinking within this plan. Certainly if we had seen that, the Garrison Common could have been more quickly developed and other actions would have begun. It shouldn't be an excuse though. It should be a time now, inasmuch as it would have become an issue, for this government not to just cry over the spilt milk and the fact that we're not getting Expo '98. Let us now, as a government, take lead action with all those areas around us and begin to set up a doable action plan that is going to actually accomplish the protection of the waterfront. I think the province has to get back in the plan and make sure it happens.
We have major problems continuing, and if we think the problems are going to be solved through a new agency, we're wrong. It's going to continue to take the vigilance of every municipality, every environmentalist, every human being who is dependant upon this watershed to make sure the right things are done. We can't just continue to fill the lake with fill. We've got to understand what impact that is having in the long term. We have to understand that there is a master plan that means something. People will buy into it. People will understand that there couldn't be anything more important to this large urban area than to really optimize and take the best advantage of this waterfront, not just for the appearance's sake but for all that it has to offer future generations.
The bill itself seems rather innocuous. It is the first bill and it is a symbolic bill, as much as anything, because the government tabled it on April 6, when we returned, three weeks after we could have come back. This government didn't decide to return when the calendar had it struck. We could have been back here in the Legislature dealing with this and other legislation far earlier, but the government deemed it necessary to take extra time.
It meant that we have not had a chance to debate the budget meaningfully. There have been a few speeches, but nothing more. We haven't dealt with the budget bills yet. We have not dealt with the labour reform bill; it's been tabled, but we have not had a chance to debate it. We've wasted a tremendous amount of time and this bill, Bill 1, was brought down as the symbolic first gesture of this government's readiness to start to work. Well, we could have started to work three weeks earlier and begun something of the important processes that need to be done for the people of Ontario, but that was not to be the case. Here we are now, in the last several days of this session, dealing with the first bill.
If anything tells you about the inefficiency and the incompetence of a government, it has to do with the fact that we don't begin debate of a bill, if it was so important -- and it is. It was tabled April 6 and now we are dealing with it almost three months later. That is in itself a statement about the incompetency of the Honourable -- I use that term advisedly -- David Cooke, the House leader of the New Democratic Party. If he had any sense, he could have started to schedule legislation for this Legislature far earlier, rather than allow it to get tied up in the horrible knot that we've been caught in for the last several weeks, as he brought in, singlehandedly and under the table and not with the discussion of the other parties, the changes in what is our constitution, the way in which we run this place. It's almost contemptible. In fact, it is contemptible in that the New Democrats, when they were in opposition, wouldn't have tolerated the kind of railroading that is now part of the New Democratic way of doing business.
It's disappointing and it's part of the breach of promise that the people of Ontario will hold them accountable for next time we go to the polls. The people of Ontario will remember the fact that here is a government that doesn't know how to govern, a government that doesn't know how to organize its business, a government that's full of excuses, a government that has come along and made this place into the angry place it has become. If anyone has any understanding of the breakdowns that have taken place, all they have to do is look at the way the New Democrats and the honourable David Cooke have run the business of this House. It is disgusting in the extreme.
Here we are on Bill 1, which was tabled in the House on April 6, and we're not debating until now, June 23. I find that an affront. If it was that important, they could have brought it in far earlier for debate in this House. It's not the opposition that tables when things are going to be discussed. It is not the opposition that gives the orders of the day. It is the government, and if the government wants to procrastinate and delay, then it's able to do it. The power given to the government on September 6, 1990, in the last election, is an incredibly large power, and when they abuse it as they have in the way in which they schedule and conduct business in this House, it begins to make people wonder why it is we are here and what it is we are doing. Is it any wonder that people don't have a lot of confidence in the way business is conducted in this place?
Bill 1, having been tabled on April 6, really deals with a number of issues. I have a number of concerns. Here is a new agency being created by the government. Could the government accomplish these very same acts and deeds within the existing Ministry of the Environment? Is there any other way in which it could be done without costing the taxpayers as much money as this is going to cost us? Every time you look at some of the key parts of this bill, it talks about money. I would therefore want to know how much this agency is going to cost.
I wonder if the Ministry of the Environment, as the honourable Ruth Grier is here, can indicate if there is a budget for the agency, whether that has been tabled, and whether or not that's something that could be circulated to other members of the House. I would be most interested in knowing what the budget is for this agency; not only the cost to run the agency, but also capital plans that might be expedited by the agency.
Let's look at section 8 of the bill: "The agency shall pay its members who are not employed in the public service of Ontario the remuneration that the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines." Certainly we expect people to be paid, but I have problems when I've seen what this government did with Ontario Hydro. Here we had a board that was part of Ontario Hydro, where competent, capable, qualified people were appointed to positions, and what we now see is the Who's Who of the New Democratic Party sitting on the board of directors of Ontario Hydro. That's what's there.
Hon Mr Wildman: Used to be Tories.
Mr Cousens: The people who are there now are the Who's Who of the New Democratic Party, and that is a systematic program of the New Democrats going across all the agencies across the province to make sure they put their own buddies and their own friends, regardless of their incompetence, on public boards. So if I had some sense that this new agency might be composed of people who didn't win an election for the New Democrats or someone who's unemployed like Dale Martin, who got himself a recent job -- I mean, you can just go through the list; there are lots of them. Michael Cassidy's on the board for Ontario Hydro. Maybe you could give him another chance. He's already drawing his pension and he could come in here and do something else.
If this government would actually live by the commitment that Mr Rae made when he was in opposition that people would be appointed to positions and there would be no political partisanship, then there would be a sense that those positions would be well filled by qualified people. I don't have confidence that this government is going to appoint the right kind of people to these agencies. There it is, it's another sinecure for the New Democrats, and I find that a concern.
2020
You start seeing the expenses that are going to be paid. I worry every time you start seeing this government getting close to the coffers. They've already built a deficit for us of over $11 billion this year. We realize that sometimes you have to spend a dollar in order to do the right thing, but how many dollars are we going to see appropriated for these plans? "The agency may not borrow money or give security against its property except with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council."
What this bill also has in it are weasel words that allow whatever agency is developed to -- though the intent may be very clear and though the Minister of the Environment in her own comments said pretty well everything I could agree with, within the bill there is enough power there to retract, move away, do something different, doublecross. I don't know what you call it. If you talk about a government that's been capable of doublecrossing the people of Ontario, there is plenty of precedent for it. This government knew how to do it when it came along. It's the very thing I'm worried about.
Here is an illustration to prove why I worry. It wasn't that long ago that we were getting ready for the election. Mr Rae was Leader of the Opposition for the New Democrats and had the opportunity to visit south York region, near a landfill site that happens to be known as Keele Valley. While he was there, he said to the good people of Vaughan and York region -- and I'm paraphrasing; I don't have the exact words -- "I will never allow this landfill site to be expanded without a full environmental assessment." That was what he said. He made that commitment and I'm sure picked up a few votes on that. He was running against one of the very powerful Liberal members at the time, one who was able to withstand that New Democratic push, the lies that were coming out from the New Democratic Party at that time. So the member for York Centre succeeded in winning that election in spite of the fact that the then Leader of the Opposition, Bob Rae, said, "I will never allow this landfill site to be expanded or built up without a full environmental assessment."
So there's a sense that something went wrong, because with Bill 143, this government has taken a different course of action, certainly not something one would consider fairminded. It's the breach of trust that I'm talking about in Bill 1, where there is a chance for this government, in spite of all the good words that are stirred into this beautiful bill, in spite of the commitment that comes out of Regeneration and the statements made by David Crombie, the commissioner, in spite of the commitment of all of us to see something done to protect and rebuild our waterfront -- in spite of that, we've got the weasel little segments in this bill that will give the minister the discretion to do something different. "The agency may not borrow money or give security against its property except with the approval" -- every time you turn around, there is the opportunity for this board to go back to the minister, who can then establish and maintain her own systems accordingly. It worries me.
I would like to table that concern so that the people of this House know long before it happens that we're dealing with a government that has tremendous power and can do what it wants, when it wants, how it wants, and for whatever reason it wants. When that happens, the intentions, as much as they are honourable now, can be reversed, can be changed, and they can do what they want with them. So as we look at Bill 1, I have concerns.
Yesterday the Minister of the Environment made a number of announcements under the guise of being a whole new set of statements, and those announcements really had nothing to do with anything new. These were announcements that had to do with sewer and water systems in the province that would normally be made and done anyway, but the government saw fit to print up press releases and make an announcement in the House as if they were doing something special.
We see the whole infrastructure as it surrounds the greater Toronto area in need of rebuilding and strengthening. We need to see the standards improved, increased and monitored so that the waste that's going through those systems is somehow being improved. But what I see instead is that we will continue to have 99% of our beaches along Lake Ontario closed because the storm water systems still aren't right and no one yet has cottoned on to the fact that as long as you have storm water systems that are mixed in with the sewers, when there are large rainstorms, then you're going to flush those sewers into the waters that people would normally swim in, and we can't do anything about it.
We understand how serious the deterioration is in the sewers within the greater Toronto area. It's tremendously serious, and you begin to realize that as we clean up the water that's going through, it's also causing the sewers to have some of the coatings inside them to be removed and we're going to see a faster deterioration. We've got to see a different approach to protecting the sewers within the greater Toronto area. Road salt: We still haven't dealt with that.
More and more people in the Toronto area are beginning to think their water is unsafe to drink. People are concerned about matters that pertain to water, yet what we see instead of the Ministry of the Environment accepting responsibility for the waterfront and finding ways of doing it in a frugal, economical way, it is establishing yet another crown corporation that will fall under its aegis to look after the waterfront.
An example of one of the authorities that this government has established is the Interim Waste Authority, and what it has done is also prove that this government doesn't fully understand the significance of the waterfront. One hand doesn't seem to know what the other is doing. You've got the Interim Waste Authority, which has selected some 57 different potential landfill sites within the greater Toronto area in which people from this area, Metro and the whole GTA, will dispose of their waste.
The Ministry of the Environment, through the Interim Waste Authority, has selected possible sites on the Rouge Valley system, some on the Oak Ridges moraine, one right on the skirts of Lake Ontario, and another that's really close to the edge, within several kilometres, of Lake Simcoe. We're talking about this government saying, "We want to protect the waters around the greater Toronto area," yet at the same time that we're debating this bill, hundreds, if not thousands, of people who live in the greater Toronto area are screaming with anger and dismay that this government has not understood the environmental sensitivity of those areas. The Interim Waste Authority has selected 57 sites in York, Durham and Peel, and three of those are going to end up being primary sites for refuse and garbage for the greater Toronto area in these regions, and those areas are on the sensitive lands feeding into the waterways that lead to Lake Ontario. It just doesn't make sense.
It doesn't make sense for a lot of reasons. It doesn't make sense when there is another site outside the greater Toronto area, such as the Adams mine in Kirkland Lake, that is interested in look at the possibility. Let there be an environmental assessment to consider that as an option. But this government has closed off the options. This government won't look at other options. This government won't look at incineration and it won't look at rail shipping of garbage outside the greater Toronto area.
It came out with the fallacious argument that says, "Well, if you're going to look at one, such as the Adams mine, then you'd have to look at Marmora or other sites." No. Look at a willing host, look at a site that's willing to have it and consider the total environmental ramifications of every one of those sites. It is foolhardiness that this government has said, "We'll choose 57 sites, and among those sites are sites on the Rouge Valley system and on the Oak Ridges moraine in environmentally sensitive areas."
It is wrong. Anyone who takes that as if, "Oh, well, it's just the New Democrats" -- I tell you, it's a breach of the trust of the people of Ontario that the New Democrats were going to have integrity when it came to subjects green. This government does not have that integrity, and the people of Ontario -- you can tell by the demonstration that took place in front of the Legislature today; not a lot of people, but I think the cows spoke as well as anyone, because they had a statement to make and they did it right here on the front steps of the Legislature. They were saying, "Hey, not in our backyard." Well, they did it in our backyard.
2030
The people of Georgina, the people of York, the people outside Metropolitan Toronto don't want the solutions this government is coming up with. Then we come along with Bill 1 and say, "Here, we're doing something to protect the waterfront."
Meanwhile, the very waters feeding into this waterfront are going to have garbage dumps considered for them. I can't accept that for one minute, and the people who live in the greater Toronto area are appalled that this government would even consider those sites on the Rouge Valley, on the Oak Ridges moraine, the Ganaraska, Lake Ontario or Lake Simcoe as potential garbage dumps. That is wrong. For you to have Bill 1 saying, "We're going to do something to regenerate the waterfront," how can that be meaningful if in fact you're going to have a bunch of garbage dumps considered all around the greater Toronto area?
People will not take this lying down. This government cannot do this to the people of Ontario. They're doing it roughshod, and they come along with the pompous statements of this bill, and what's happening here is not linked to what the Interim Waste Authority is doing.
I'm sorry. I'm a little upset because I happen to live in one of those ridings that happens to have a couple of dumps selected. The people in my community just don't know how to fight it because the system is such that they are unable to react to it, because Bill 143, which was the government's vehicle to act -- people have no understanding of how powerful that bill is in taking away rights, in taking away the rights of municipalities, of regions, of the conservation act, the rights of people for ownership of property.
It's just too bad the federal government never got around to putting property rights in the Constitution, because if it did, Bill 143 would be unconstitutional for certain. Maybe there is someone who can challenge that bill through other means right now; I don't know. I don't have the resources. I tried to challenge it in committee and I didn't get very far and neither did people from our caucus. We had tremendous support from the member for Mississauga South; we had tremendous support from all our caucus members, who fought with everything they could to make sure the government wouldn't proceed with Bill 143. Bill 143 is a bill that is so inconsistent with this bill that now here on the one hand we're saying, "We want to do everything we can to protect --
Hon Mr Hampton: Time.
Mr Cousens: Oh, I'm just beginning.
Hon Mr Wildman: Wait a minute; we gave you half an hour.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.
Mr Cousens: I think there is enough to be said here that just hasn't been said, and certainly not listened to.
Hon Mr Wildman: You mean you broke the deal?
Mr Cousens: I'm sorry. If there is a deal, I'd be very interested. I respect it if there is any kind of arrangement.
Hon Mr Wildman: We said we would listen to you for half an hour.
Mr Cousens: If there is some arrangement, I apologize. If I'm not to go on any further -- I did have more I wanted to say. I'm sorry if there is, because the way this House operates, I've always believed that if there is an arrangement, one should abide by it and one shouldn't be in breach of it. If I have limitations in the amount of time I can speak, then I would therefore have to yield the floor. I apologize. Is that the case?
Hon Mr Wildman: No, you can go right ahead and endure the consequences.
Mr Cousens: It would appear there is no agreement. For the sake of my mother, who's watching this program right now, I want her to know I'm not breaking a rule of the House, because one of the things we have to be very careful about --
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Keep going, Don.
Mr Cousens: I am talking about the Interim Waste Authority and the issue that it has released landfill sites on environmentally sensitive areas. What I'm most anxious to talk about is the way in which those decisions by the Interim Waste Authority are in absolute contrast and are the opposite of what is being proposed in the Regeneration statement by Mr Crombie, and by the intent, I think, of this bill by the Minister of the Environment.
Hon Mr Wildman: Is your apartment on the waterfront?
Mr Cousens: You're going to be in for a longer speech if the interruptions continue and if there's not going to be any stopping them, Mr Speaker.
I believe the people of the greater Toronto area have no reason to trust this government. When you start talking about a government that has broken that trust, all you have to do is talk to the 57 different groups that are around the greater Toronto area who are impacted by the very dumb, foolish decisions of the Interim Waste Authority, which is an arm's-length body of the minister and which the minister is part of.
Now we come along and the minister is saying, "I'm going to start another organization and we're going to call that one the agency for the regeneration of trust." I have to believe that this minister has lost it, and certainly in losing the trust of the people of the greater Toronto area has offended the sense of what is right and wrong of just thousands of people.
When I attended the session today out in front of the Legislature steps, it was again proof of it. When we were up in Egypt the other night, in the member for Durham-York's riding, we saw it there. We have a meeting in Stouffville tomorrow night. All of these people are exasperated by this government's decisions and they feel that their faith has been broken by a government that has said one thing and then gone and done another.
So we come along and have a new bill. We're saying the minister's going to set up a new agency. She already has one agency and we can see what she's doing with that. She first of all would like to make everybody think that the minister is not involved with the Interim Waste Authority and that the Interim Waste Authority is doing its own thing.
That Interim Waste Authority has been structured by the Ministry of the Environment, has been selected by the Ministry of the Environment, reports to the Ministry of the Environment and is accountable to the Ministry of the Environment. So it is as much an arm of the Ministry of the Environment as will be this agency that's looking at the waterfront regeneration.
When the minister can on one hand say, "I want to do something about the waterfront. I share the sense of commitment and the intention to do something about it," it is totally inconsistent for this minister then to come along and say that the very headwaters of all those rivers and lakes are going to be feeding into Lake Ontario. You can just see them there. They all come along through and they feed from Burlington Bay right over here, right through into that key watershed.
What could be more serious? On the one hand we want to do something to regenerate the waterfront, and on the other hand this government is seeking to destroy it. If this government were at least willing to look at other viable alternatives and if those alternatives were to be seen as rail haulage outside the greater Toronto area; if the alternative to having all the waste for the greater Toronto area buried in the greater Toronto area itself -- even the consideration of incineration.
Now the thought of incineration evokes many problems for many people. But at least subject the subject of incineration to a full environmental assessment. Would that be a way of solving the problem? I personally do not want to say that incineration is the way to go, but I am prepared to say, "Let it be scientifically evaluated as an option under a full environmental assessment so that we can see whether or not it is a viable, realistic alterative to landfilling."
If you're able to get energy from waste, if you're able to sort material out before it goes in, if you're able to maintain the 3R program prior to any incineration, in that way you're able to continue to have the best of all worlds. Is it something that can be looked at? Is it something that could be subjected to environmental assessment?
I appreciate the fact that I don't have all the answers. I don't pretend to. But if the process were allowed to proceed, then we would go away the wiser. But instead of having that opportunity, the Ministry of the Environment has said no to incineration, no to shipment of waste outside greater Toronto and yes to having all the garbage landfilled within the greater Toronto area.
What is especially besmirching her reputation is the fact that this minister would have York region be responsible for all of Metro's waste. I have not yet been able to figure out why the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area would honour York region so highly by giving us Metro's waste. We don't want it. We don't want Metro's waste in York region.
We'd rather see them find another place for it, and if that other place happens to be the Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake, let there be an environmental assessment to consider that. Don't just assume that it has to go in York region. Don't just assume that it has to go in Keele Valley or that Keele Valley has to be expanded. Don't just assume that it has to go in one of the other 22 sites that have been selected for York region.
2040
All of those sites have to do with the waterfront, because so many of those sites are feeding into the river systems and the tributaries that flow into Lake Ontario. Is there any reason why people are concerned about the water they drink? It's the fact that there is so much going on within this greater Toronto area when in fact we could do some of the things outside of that area and relieve ourselves of some of the additional problems. It concerns me. It does concern my constituents. It concerns the people of the greater Toronto area.
I want to ask why the Minister of the Environment, who today in presenting Bill 1, An Act to establish the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency, has not acted even yet on the Ontario water secretariat. Why hasn't the Minister of the Environment acted on the Ontario water secretariat?
One of the commitments made earlier by the now- defunct Liberals, who have gone to their great reward having broken their own promises and having broken the faith of the people, so now we see them fallen from power when they had all the chance in the world to do something -- they had come upon the idea of setting up a secretariat, which would be another way of making sure that water would be clean and available to all people in Ontario.
It's one of those fundamental resources that we just can't take for granted. Ontario has such a great supply of fresh water. Our own Great Lakes, which are reservoirs from the ice age and wouldn't be there but for that, over the years have become one of the major sources of fresh water in the world. Yet the government of Ontario, which had a chance, having made the promise in its Agenda for People that it would do something to establish a water secretariat, and having been in office now, lo, these almost two years -- what a painful two years it's been -- still has not done anything on the water secretariat. We're seeing something now on the waterfront regeneration. Thank goodness Mr Crombie and those who have been involved with that have given some leadership there. But they have not followed through on another one of their promises, which was to do something to ensure fresh water. It's a major issue.
Up until recently, we had a tremendous resource for hydro-electric power and electricity in this province. What we've seen is a tampering and playing with Ontario Hydro by this government that is going to diminish that agency of the people. It's going to reduce its power. It's reducing its power by virtue of not building more -- more than anything, it has reduced that to a skeleton of what it was capable of being. Instead of Ontario having economical power, as we had in the past, we're now going to be paying 20% more within the year. That's 20% more, and power will go up and up and up. Why can't we go back and learn the lesson that we did with Ontario Hydro in guaranteeing economical electricity for all the people of Ontario, and do something as a model of that to ensure fresh water for everybody in Ontario?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Cousens: The need for a water secretariat --
Interjections.
The Speaker: The member for Markham has the floor.
Mr Cousens: The concern I have still is that the water secretariat, which was a commitment this government made and this government really endorsed, has not happened. We're dealing with another bill, and it's high time you dealt with water in a very realistic way and came forward with plans and what you're going to do. It has not happened. This minister has not succeeded in that. This minister has ended up blocking it. This minister has not brought forward legislation that's going to deal with the future water supplies for everyone in Ontario, and we've got to deal with that. That is an issue that we cannot allow to be separated.
I concern myself as well with the way in which this act is going to allow itself to work with all the people who make up the greater Toronto area. Is this government going to try to build walls that separate this agency from development? Is it going to set up walls to separate people from progress? Is this going to have a sense of balance within it that respects the property rights of the people who are going to be affected by this act? I think it's important to make sure that this government does not just come along and take away rights of people that are otherwise theirs.
There are many concerns that I have on this whole bill. I am concerned about the way it links in to the greater issue of the Interim Waste Authority and garbage. I am concerned about the breakdown in trust that exists now between the public and Mrs Grier, the Minister of the Environment. Mrs Grier has not been available for consultation and discussion on many issues. We've seen that before, when people from Kirkland Lake wanted to meet with her. They couldn't. Those who were known as environmentalists could meet with her, but for others who wanted to talk, she wasn't available. Certainly people who came in front of the Legislature today wanted to speak with the Minister of the Environment, and she didn't come to speak to them.
I think what we really want to make sure is that when this bill starts talking about consultation, which is one of the key words used by this government, that consultation will be something that actually means there is going to be listening and dialogue between this agency and the people. The government has a tremendous public relations campaign, and the public must understand that when you've got the resources of government at your disposal, as the New Democrats now have, it means that the government can pretty well sell anything it wants. They can put out their press releases; they can carry the story; they can finance different things.
They're giving something like $19 million to the Interim Waste Authority to come along and plan three major landfill sites in the greater Toronto area, yet there is no intervenor funding for those people who want to fight those landfill sites. For a government that talked about people having an opportunity to protect themselves, there isn't any of that money coming out to assist those people who want to fight those landfill sites. When this government says "to consult with the public," it raises red flags to me that in fact the government will not be consulting. They'll tell you what they want to do; it satisfies the people who want to believe it. But the fact of the matter is they're going to come along and they're going to do what they want to do.
I start with the premise that if what David Crombie had to say in Regeneration is worthwhile, we as a community of people have a chance to grasp on to the intent of what he has offered. I think we can take what he has offered and say: "You know, Mr Crombie, you've got some good ideas. We are willing to live with some of them." Not all of them are great, and when he says in this that about 6% in York region are doing recycling, he's wrong. There are far more than that. We're close to 20% in York region that are recycling. When he comes along and suggests roof gardens in order to have more greenery, I think there are some issues there that we should stop and look at when he is saying that is a way of trying to get more green. Some of his ideas are very solid; some need more investigation.
I feel that overall it gives us a basis for the future and if we, as legislators and people committed to the environment, can learn from these lessons and implement them in a fairminded way, respecting the rights of people and understanding the nine principles that underlie his writing, then we will have taken this whole area from Burlington Harbour to the Trent forward, so that we've somehow protected it for future generations. I share that long-term goal; how it is done is just another matter.
It's too bad the government feels that this bill is the required way to proceed. I do not think it's the way I would do it, but in light of the fact that it at least takes a step forward on regeneration, I am able to support that intent and will therefore support that and only hope that the minister, who's suffered my remarks all evening, will at least consider them as she goes about fulfilling her duties as the Minister of the Environment and the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area.
The Speaker: I thank the member for Markham for his contribution and invite questions or comments.
2050
Hon Mr Wildman: A model of brevity.
Hon Mrs Grier: Following that model of brevity, I'll try to keep it short and thank the honourable member for his support for the legislation. I won't comment on much of what he said except that he did talk about the -- I think he used the word "weasel" words in the legislation.
I just wanted to draw his attention to the fact that in section 4 of Bill 1 the objects of the regeneration trust agency are very clearly spelled out and object number (f) is "to do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order direct," but to point out to the member that in section 5 the only powers attributable to the agency are in fact powers that are necessary to carry out its objects. Not to put too fine a point on it, the fears that the member might have had about the powers of this agency are, I think, not justified.
I won't comment on the member's description of the task of the Interim Waste Authority -- I think we've done that extensively ad nauseam day by day in question period -- but just remind the member that the Keele Valley landfill which he is concerned about, and justifiably, was not subject to an environmental assessment. I agree with him that had it been it might in fact not be where it is, but I say to him that the surest way of making sure the Keele Valley landfill is closed as quickly as possible is to allow the IWA to get on with the job of finding new landfill sites for the GTA.
I wasn't at the demonstration today that the member was at. I understand the cow that he mentioned made a fair comment on some of the speeches that it heard.
The Speaker: Any other questions or comments? If not, the member for Markham has up to two minutes to respond.
Mr Cousens: I can only say that the cow went and bought a membership to the New Democratic Party and is probably one of your better members.
I thank the minister for at least listening. I wish this minister would open up more round table dialogue such as is described by Mr Crombie in the report. There really has to be far more dialogue on environmental issues, and when we see that concept work, all groups begin to become part of a solution rather than build barriers that separate them. This is a government unfortunately that doesn't know how to bring people together for dialogue, and that's been the case with the Ontario labour legislation where you've got labour and government developing a strategy that almost seems to be against business.
What you have here with the Ministry of the Environment not being prepared to sit down and work with other people -- certainly with the Environment critics, certainly with the public at large -- there is a sense of alienation that's going on within the Ministry of the Environment that is very much a concern to all of us. It's the most powerful ministry in the government right now by virtue of the control it has over development and housing, yet what I want to see is some way in which all of us become partners in solving the environmental crises that pervade our province.
If we could deal with those intents, if we had a minority government, it would be in a much better position to trade off on some of those issues and make sure we're moving in the same direction. As it stands now, the government has a solid majority and can push through whatever legislation it wants without our being able to modify it, change it or improve it.
That was the case with Bill 143. The government railroaded it through, made it happen, and now we're caught in a position where people like Mr Wiseman, the member for Durham West, doesn't know what to do because he didn't realize the bad significance it would have on him. But that's the problem of this government. They have not considered everything on the balance.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Let me just say off the start that I will have to tip my hat to one David Crombie. He has without a doubt proven that if flexible enough you can get along with absolutely every political party in this country. He has been appointed by the federal government, a Tory regime, helped on by a provincial government during the Liberal reign, and now has reached fruition with the NDP in Ontario.
Exactly what he, Mr Crombie, hopes to accomplish is still up for some long-term debate. Some opinions offered to me suggest that rather than the announced waterfront regeneration, it could have started with the words "once upon a time." It's about as much reality as a fairy tale you read at night to your children. Burying the Gardiner Expressway and the green trail through the GTA, particularly through Metro, have about as much opportunity for fulfilment as a second term for the NDP. He has no doubt achieved the optimum goal of a politician or a statesman: He has been gainfully employed since resigning his seat at the federal level, all on the public payroll.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): He's not even an NDPer.
Mr Stockwell: No, he's not. Well, some would suggest otherwise.
The question I have is: Speaking of private sector experience, what exactly does this minister think she is achieving by announcing this specific piece of legislation? She has gone to great lengths, in my opinion, in offering her defence to the member for Markham by suggesting: "No, regardless of what you say, regardless of what you think, regardless of what your speech said, this Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency has absolutely no power. I promise you, it has no power. It can't do anything. I've proven it, because they're to advise the minister. That's about it. They're to consult, they're to coordinate, they can facilitate" -- all the right language if you're a socialist" -- and "such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order direct."
What exactly can they do? The minister has said they really can't do anything. So the point is, if they can't do anything, what sense is there in creating this -- it's another new NDP term -- trust agency? It seems rather hilarious to me that this government would suggest that anybody use the word "trust" after Agenda for People.
But what does this group have as part of its mandate? Let's examine what the province can do on any or all sites on the waterfront in the GTA. This minister is an absolute expert in knowing exactly what governments can and cannot do when it comes to development of waterfront property. I cite as an example the motel strip in the city of Etobicoke. For some 25 years this minister had been fighting any development on the motel strip, yet when she became minister she capitulated within 12 short months. My, how times change.
What can this group do that the government can't do when it declares provincial interest? Nothing -- absolutely no difference at all. So why do we have this group? Why has this group been announced? I suggest it's because neither this government nor this minister has any idea what their plans are for the waterfront or any idea of how to fulfil them. They simply commissioned a report that has absolutely no chance of being successful without literally billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars being invested.
This government knows full well it's not prepared to invest billions and billions of taxpayers' dollars, so: "We'll simply create a ruse. We'll create a regeneration trust agency headed up by one David Crombie, and Mr Crombie will say lovely things and use the right words that politicians use today. He'll say things like 'burying the Gardiner.'"
If I hear about burying the Gardiner again, the person who says it should be turfed out of office. There's absolutely no chance you're going to bury the Gardiner. Get that through your heads. It's far too much money. Quit wasting taxpayers' money studying attempts to bury the Gardiner. It won't happen. Simple. Case closed. Quit wasting money. Don't create more committees.
2100
Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I thought you were talking about burying the gardener. I was feeling sympathy for the poor woman.
Mr Stockwell: The member for Middlesex is clearly upset about this, or is it because you don't have a riding any more? We're talking about the Gardiner and burying the Gardiner. This appears to be very central to the debate.
Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Which Gardiner?
Mr Stockwell: The Gardiner Expressway running along the lakefront in Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr Dadamo: Oh, that Gardiner.
Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): I thought you were talking about your vegetable garden.
Mr Stockwell: They're a funny lot, Mr Speaker, aren't they? Jeez, they're a humorous lot.
Hon Mrs Haslam: Having to listen to you at this time of night --
Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Culture and Communications is cackling away there. That's a great day, isn't it, when you can get in here, sign some more cheques to these associations? Wonderful, isn't it? You can write an $8.5-million cheque. Do it now. It would be interesting to see you write an $8.5-million cheque to the Art Gallery of Ontario.
To go on, we know we can't bury the Gardiner, so we must create this agency. The minister has had a long history on lakefront development and lakefront redevelopment. It's kind of interesting, isn't it, that this minister, who talks about development, regeneration of a green path across the lakefront and the GTA, is the very same minister who's part of a government that is in fact the biggest developer on the lakefront in Etobicoke. This government that is so proud of its public open-space policy is the largest developer on the lakefront in the city of Etobicoke. They are, in fact, developing cooperative housing on the old psychiatric grounds, Humber College, right on the lakefront. Not more than 10 blocks from the minister's house, they're doing this development.
Hon Mrs Grier: Five.
Mr Stockwell: I wouldn't say it's five blocks, but I'll buy into it. Five blocks from the minister's house they're developing the lakefront in the city of Etobicoke. Now, there's commitment from a government with a public open-space policy on the waterfront: It's the biggest developer. It strikes me that it seems to be somewhat amiss of what their public policy is when it comes to private development. Having said that, they're caught in a conundrum here of cooperative housing as opposed to environmentally sensitive development on the waterfront in the GTA.
We've now decided, through the minister's statement, that we are going to create this Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency which the minister has said will have no power. What it will do, no one knows for certain, other than the fact that it's going to consult, coordinate and facilitate, not necessarily in that order: "to coordinate programs and policies of the government of Ontario and its agencies relating to waterfront lands." Maybe you can send them down to the Lakeshore Psychiatric grounds, Madam Minister, and ask them to consult about that in your very own riding, because I think you'll find your own constituents aren't in agreement with your government's policy.
"To facilitate the establishment of a trail and associated green space or open spaces in the waterfront lands" and "to do do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council" deems necessary: Why then have we established this waterfront trust? May I suggest it's simply another attempt by this government to create another agency that will distance it from the constituents, that will distance it from the people who elected it and will distance it from the decision-making process and therefore remove decisions from this government and this cabinet?
This minister knows very well how to get involved in local planning. This minister knows how to deal with a provincial interest on local planning issues on the lakefront. But what comes of this is that this minister and this government simply do not have the guts to deal with the issue head on. In fact, what is left for them to do is to create this trust agency.
This trust agency will be the dirty dealer in all the negotiations that take place on the waterfront. This trust agency will carry the hatchet for all the tough decisions they don't want to make. This trust agency will be very similar to the landfill group this minister has set up to deal with the 57 landfill sites. What is becoming very clear in my mind with this government and particularly this minister is that she doesn't have the guts to make decisions so she fobs it off on associations, groups and agencies that she creates so as not to have to make the decision herself.
That is absolutely the wrong way to go, because all we're creating here is a new government agency, more bureaucrats, more costs to carry out programs that this minister knows full well that if she wanted to carry out she would simply declare provincial interests on any developments taking place and she could carry forward any of the issues that she thinks are important.
So the question now is, will local municipalities accept the fact that this act is in place? Earlier we had a two-minute question or response from the member for Oxford, Kimble Sutherland. He was suggesting that in Bill 165, allowing municipalities to debenture more money for greater periods of time, for longer lengths, was actually allowing municipalities to mature; allowing them the ability to debenture and acquire debt was a sign of maturing for municipal councils. What I find very interesting is that on the one hand this government believes municipalities are capable of running their own financial affairs, increasing their capacity to debenture and increasing the length of time they may debenture, but they're not prepared to let local municipalities deal with the development applications and environmental sidebars that go with those development applications under their own official plans. I'm not certain why they're capable of debenturing more money but they're not capable of dealing with development applications.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): They don't follow their official plans. If they did, there wouldn't be any problem.
Mr Stockwell: The argument comes from a member who I don't believe was ever elected to municipal council. The fact is that those municipal councils were elected. They have official plans. If they want to change their official plans by a vote of council, they may in fact change their official plan. I know full well that when the Minister of the Environment was on council she voted to change the official plan on a number of occasions. In fact, I would bet that any member of that government across the floor who was on municipal council voted on a number of occasions to change their official plan. The fact is they are duly elected councils by the people within those city limits or those towns and they're capable of making development decisions in their own cities. What this will do will add another layer.
Finally, let's deal with the bureaucracy of the waterfront. The bureaucracy of the waterfront is very simple. There is far too much; there is far too much bureaucracy in regard to the waterfront in the greater Toronto area.
To deal with the waterfront bureaucracy you must begin at the local level. At the local level, each council along the waterfront in Metro has an environmental committee, a waterfront development committee etc, and the local council deals with development on the waterfront. That's probably three or four separate agencies dealing with waterfront and the environment.
If you move on to the Metropolitan Toronto council, it has an environmental committee, a sustainable environment committee, a development committee, economic development committee, council etc. There are probably half a dozen to 10 committees you must get through at the local level alone.
On the provincial level you have to deal with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, the ministry responsible for the greater Toronto area, the Ministry of the Environment, this committee and who knows how many other committees when dealing with the development of the waterfront.
So the question is, how come nothing gets done? Because there is so much bureaucracy involved to waterfront, waterfront development and sustainable growth that nobody can wade through the quagmire of bureaucrats, politicians and hangers-on -- consultants and the David Crombies of the world -- ever to accomplish anything. Therefore you have a dying breed out there of people who own property on the waterfront or want to see property developed on the waterfront but can't get through the bureaucratic maze it takes to do anything on the waterfront.
The other issue that isn't dealt with in Bill 1 is all the private ownership. I'm certain the minister will be very interested in the comments about private ownership on the waterfront. In the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the minister's own riding, predominantly most of the waterfront property is held by private ownership. All through Longbranch, all through New Toronto right through portions of Mimico, most of the property along the waterfront is privately owned. In fact, most of the property that is privately owned also includes riparian rights as part of those people's ownership of the property. Riparian rights, for those laypeople involved here, is that they own certain portions of the property out into the lake because of erosion.
2110
So when you're debating Bill 1, you're talking about development of the waterfront, you're talking about a green path throughout. You must understand that a large chunk of that property you're discussing is privately held, and these people have no intention of changing their use or altering the ownership of their property.
In the end, we have seen this government fob off all the major decisions. Their suggestion from the minister in clause (f) is "do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order direct." She says: "Don't worry. I won't be giving them any special power." Pardon me, Madam Minister, but frankly, I don't believe you people any more. I don't believe you people when you tell anybody anything about any promise you're going to make. I heard you promise about government-run auto insurance; I heard you promise about a common pause day on Sunday; I heard you talk about cabinet integrity; I've heard you tell me the deficit was $10 billion. I've heard all these promises. In fact, your credibility is absolutely and totally shot.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): They weren't going to put a dump in the Rouge.
Mr Stockwell: That's right. You weren't going to put a dump in the Rouge. Poor old Wiseman, the member for Durham, believed you when you weren't going to put dumps up in Whitevale. You have no credibility. I remember when you told me you were going to eradicate food banks, the ex-minister of social services: "Just give us three months; we'll wipe out food banks." Your credibility is far, far gone. It's no longer a case to argue about the credibility of this government. You've broken more promises than you've kept. You've broken far more promises than you've kept.
So to suggest to this House, "Don't worry; I won't give them any excess power" -- well, I hardly think that those people who own property on the lake are sleeping any easier when the NDP government, the master of broken promises, tells people: "Don't worry. We won't put anything into this that will cause you concern." I'm sure the people of Whitevale and the Rouge are sleeping a lot easier knowing you made those promises last year, as well as Keele Valley and Britannia.
So on that note, I would suggest this government is hollering into a cave if it thinks any one believes it with respect to keeping a lid on this agency or commission.
Finally, I've seen the book Mr Crombie produced and I have very a difficult time understanding from that book to this legislation exactly what this government wants to succeed at. I've read this: You go to number 4 and it will tell you what it wants to do; these are the objects of the agency.
"The objects of the agency are,
"(a) to advise the minister on any matter relating to the use, disposition, conservation, protection and regeneration of waterfront lands."
Give me a break. You've got more people on staff who could advise you about that. You need to set this up and create more bureaucrats because you don't have enough people on your staff, in the GTA, in Environment, in Municipal Affairs to advise you on "the disposition, conservation, protection and regeneration of waterfront lands"? You're telling me you need more bureaucrats? That's insulting.
"(b) to consult with the public and to determine the public interest in the environmental integrity of waterfront lands."
Well, what's your job, Madam Minister? What are the jobs of these people who sit behind you? Isn't their job in fact to meet with the public and determine what they think is important, determine what they think is in the interest of the environmental integrity of the waterfront lands? You have to strike a commission to do your job? What are you elected here to do if not to represent your constituents?
"(c) to coordinate programs and policy of the government of Ontario and its agencies relating to waterfront lands."
Well, we don't know what those programs and policies are. We've heard a lot of talk about burying the Gardiner and a few other green paths. As far as I'm concerned, striking an agency to do that is totally wasteful.
This is a good one: "(d) To serve as a resource centre and clearinghouse of information to the public for policy of the government of Ontario relating to waterfront lands."
They are going to have this group be a clearinghouse of information to the public. Madam Minister, what do you do? What does your staff do? What do these people who sit in here do? Aren't they the clearinghouses? Aren't these the people who are supposed to offer up the information to the public? You've got to strike an entire new bureaucracy, give them an entire new budget, pay somebody six figures in salary to run, to act as a clearinghouse for your public policy?
Mrs Marland: It's a job for Jack Layton.
Mr Stockwell: A job for David Crombie.
"(e) to facilitate the establishment of a trail and associated green or open spaces in the waterfront lands."
Madam Minister, if you want to establish a trail and associated green or open spaces, you're going to have to pass some very draconian legislation that steals back property that is privately held from the public whom you're elected to serve. I don't believe this minister is prepared to do that, and if she were prepared to do that, she is striking this agency to do it because they don't have the guts to try and take this property back from the private-sector public. I know her constituents would not be very happy to think that her government was going to take property back from them for a green public open space that they have bought and lived on for many years.
Mr Speaker, (f), the catch-all, "to do such other things as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order direct." What does that mean? That's the caveat. If you've ever read the tax act or you've ever filed your business taxes, you know full well that the very last section in the very last book of 17 or 18 books says, "If nothing else prevails here, you've got to live within the spirit of this law," and that's the catch-all. So if they think that you try to sneak around your taxes, that one catches everybody. You've got to live within the spirit, and that's exactly what this is.
This government doesn't have the guts to tell us why it's struck this committee. It doesn't have the guts to come forward and tell the public why it's struck this committee. They've not the guts to tell us what this committee is going to do. They only told us that David Crombie -- and to add insult to injury, Mr Speaker, this government didn't even have the guts to come into this House and announce that Mr Crombie's report was before the public. They did it at a press conference. They didn't have the guts to hear from the opposition benches in here what Mr Crombie's report was all about.
From the constituents I've talked to, who in fact live in the GTA and surround the waterfront, there are some certain, very real fears that they have about this minister, this government and their properties. I will say to you, Mr Speaker, that this agency will end up with some very broad and wide- ranging powers it will carry out. They will be the hatchet people for this government to bring forward recommendations that no municipal council likes, nor the citizens, because in the end this government doesn't have the guts to carry out its own public policy, so it will fob it off on another agency, which they will not be allowed to blame.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Durham West.
Mr Wiseman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to make a few comments about the direct comments that the member has made with reference to the environmental situation as it pertains to Whitevale and the landfill sites in that area and the comments he made concerning the discussion around the P1 landfill site prior to the election.
He has indicated that the Premier or in fact the current Minister of the Environment had promised there would be no landfill sites in Whitevale. This is an inaccurate comment to make. That was never made. It was never made by me and it was never made by the Premier and it was never made by the Minister of the Environment. The promise that was made to the constituents of Pickering by myself and by the Premier was simply that if there was going to be a landfill site in Durham, or in particular in north Pickering, that it would undergo a full environmental assessment hearing.
In September 1990, the whole court case against the previous government began and then the exemption of P1 under the Environmental Protection Act was lifted and in fact this government imposed a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing on P1. That subsequently led to the lifting of P1 as a site by the regional government of Durham, not by the minister.
I would add that the promise that was made and the promise that is being kept is that there would be no landfill site, no greenfield landfill site, in the region of Durham without a full Environmental Assessment Act hearing, and that promise was made by me and it was made publicly on an ongoing basis for the full 18 months that I've been in this seat.
2120
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable Minister of the Environment.
Hon Mrs Grier: I don't think that the speech we've just heard warrants a great deal of response other than to give me the opportunity to reassure those owners of lakefront property that contrary to what they have just heard --
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of the Environment has the floor.
Hon Mrs Grier: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What I wanted to do was to correct the record very clearly and assure those owners of private property whose homes back on to Lake Ontario that it is certainly not the intent of the agency, contrary to what they might have heard, to expropriate their land or to run roughshod over their property rights, and I think it's important that that be said.
Let me also say that the idea of appointing somebody to cut through the jurisdictional gridlock that has impeded efforts to regenerate the Toronto waterfront is not new. I happened upon a cutting from just 10 years ago. The Toronto Sun in March 1982 had a headline, "Ontario Czar Proposed for the Waterfront."
What is proposed by the waterfront trust is not by any means a czar, but the sentiments that were expressed by the member of Metro council 10 years ago to the effect that the idea of a Queen's-Park-appointed czar with powers to cut through the various jurisdictions is one that that particular member of council said he had had a few weeks ago and is the only answer that makes sense.
He went on to say that nothing will happen on Toronto's waterfront until Ontario appoints an overall czar to oversee the mammoth project. Far be it for me to visit the sins of the sons upon the fathers or, in this case, the father upon the son, but the speaker was none other than Etobicoke controller, Metro councillor Bill Stockwell.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to point out to you that while the Minister of the Environment was making her remarks the member for Markham was doing much as the member for Etobicoke West is now doing. He was letting forth with a steady stream of bile directed at the member for Durham West. He used terms like "Judas," "snake," and so on.
The Acting Speaker: I'm sorry. That's not a point of order.
Hon Mr Wildman: That's not a point of order, Mr Speaker? Is he allowed to use that kind of language in the House?
The Acting Speaker: I did not hear unparliamentary language. I'm sorry. There is a lot of noise.
If the honourable member for Mississauga South would take her seat, I might well recognize her. Further questions and/or comments?
Mrs Marland: When we talk about a subject like waterfront regeneration I really wish that I would hear from the government some real leadership on this subject, and I think the government would do well to listen to some of the comments made by my colleague the member for Etobicoke West.
You know, we have this magnificent country called Canada. We have this fabulous province, Ontario, and we spend millions of dollars landfilling into the lake. As someone whose riding --
Interjections.
Mrs Marland: You know, this is a perfect illustration tonight about why these evening sittings are a total absurd waste of time, exactly what's going on in this House at this very moment.
We have this enormous province of Ontario. We have done such a poor job of preserving greenbelt and park and recreation areas that we now spend twice as much money as it would cost to develop on land by landfilling into the lake. When we talk about this bill in terms of waterfront regeneration, I hope there will not be more consideration given to the subject of creating parks in our lake. I think it's time we planned our province with more long-range vision than what has been done in the past.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant.
Mr Elston: I will just briefly join the debate. I think we're finding that the two-minute replies or request for answering of questions is now being used as time for apologies about things undone, thoughts unrequited in terms of delivery of programs to the public. I know that's what the Minister of the Environment is doing. The member for Durham West is using it as time to try to tell his constituents: "Don't blame me. I'm doing the best I can."
I only want to comment to the member for Etobicoke West who, although from time to time he is noted as interjecting out of order, has placed on the record, in order, a whole series of concerns around the operation of this particular trust in a manner which I guess is full of style and enthusiasm and perhaps leads people to add a little bit of vigour into their interjections. But in every way he touches upon the very issues that have to be answered. I don't always agree with my friend the member for Etobicoke West. We don't share the same philosophical bent. He resides in this chamber to my left but is fully a resident of the right, and that of course shows a sort of lack of balance that we Liberals have been accustomed to being brought up with.
I think what is happening, if I might, with respect to both the member for Grey and the member for Etobicoke West is that they feel their concerns quite sincerely from their philosophical position. But that does not detract in any way from the issue of identification of the problems that must be addressed by the Honourable David Crombie and by the Minister of the Environment. While we can disagree on what the end result is or even the projection into the future of what problems will arise, the identification of the problems themselves ought to be enough for the Minister of the Environment to understand that real problems lie ahead.
The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Etobicoke West has two minutes in response.
Mr Stockwell: I thank the member for Bruce. I do reside to the right of the member. I will agree wholeheartedly on that.
To even warrant a response to the member for Durham West, Mr Wiseman -- it's absolutely hilarious, this political football that they're now playing in Durham, and he's being kicked from goalpost to goalpost. The point is very simply that this is not a full environmental assessment hearing that you promised. You know full well. Don't try and kid the public. Those used to take 17 years, what you have promised. This is going to be merely a few short years. Stop kidding the troops. Get off the bench; get in the game; tell it like it is.
Interjections.
Mr Stockwell: Second, as they caterwaul -- and I'm sorry the minister left. I really, frankly, considered that --
Mr Wiseman: I am not kidding. I know exactly what's going on. Metro council wouldn't listen to us. They know more about this than you'll ever know.
Mr Stockwell: Apparently he knows more about this than I'll ever know.
Mr Wiseman: No, Metro council.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. A year ago I told him he was going to get a dump site. He said he wasn't going to get any. I was wrong; he's getting seven. You're right. You know it all. I don't know anything.
I'm really disappointed the Minister of the Environment left. It's just like the Minister of the Environment to prance out of here when the heat gets turned up. Having the audacity to suggest that I should defend quotes my father made as an elected official in the city of Etobicoke about a waterfront program that was taking place in the very early 1980s is absolutely hilarious, but that is what this minister has stooped to.
She can't defend this piece of legislation. She knows full well that my policy, public stated policy on this issue, has been the same from the day I was elected until today. She has waffled like a cheap waffle-maker on this issue as well as on all the landfill issues and she comes up with a quote my father made 10 years ago; absolutely the lowest form of politics I've seen and absolutely typical of the Minister of the Environment.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further debate.
2130
Mr Jackson: I'm pleased to rise and offer comments on second reading of this bill as I've received about 45 letters of concern from my constituents. I was also aware of a meeting in my riding attended by about 90 constituents expressing concerns about the matters contained in this bill, so I appreciate the House granting me the opportunity to express some of those concerns on behalf of those citizens for purposes of the public record.
At the outset let me simply say that it is far too appropriate that the Crombie commission was named the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront and that in typical Toronto fashion it has seen fit to reach out and embrace portions of Hamilton Harbour, Burlington Bay. There's a certain paternalistic arrogance associated with this Toronto-centred region, Toronto-centred planning, Toronto-centred decisions, Toronto-centred problems, with the taxpayers of Burlington always seeming to be cast in the role of taxpayer having to pay the brunt of any solutions that are dreamed up by these people in the so-called central core of the GTA, the city of Toronto.
The truth is, and the minister would have to agree, I'm sure, that the history of planning in Halton and in particular in my community of Burlington has been exemplary with respect to developing the necessary funds to ensure long-term planning interests for windows to the lake, as we call them, or opportunities to preserve lakefront property; it constitute an admirable record for our community. We have planned, we have budgeted, we have put aside conservation funds, regional government funds, municipal funds, in order to acquire land legally at fair market value during the course of the last 25 to 30 years. When our council, in the best interests of our community, comes to the conclusion that certain lands are best left in the public hands, it has paid the necessary price to buy out that property in order to have it available.
So there has always been an understanding in the community of Burlington that we would play by fair rules in order to secure our long-term future access to waterfront properties, and today Burlington finds itself in an unusual position. On the one hand, we have a Toronto-centred report and vision and concept which is saying, "Well, things may not have done as well in Ajax or closer to Oshawa and up to the Trent system so we're going to change the rules of the game," and that's not fair to the citizens of Burlington and to a city council that has agreed to play by those rules up to this point, because what is now happening -- my primary concern I want to put on the record -- is the fact that we've created yet another agency which takes responsibility for these decisions away from elected individuals who are accountable and puts it in the hands of faceless, nameless appointees of a given government of the day, and without an agenda of their own, we would hope, but there are no guarantees.
What the provincial government has done is develop a framework called the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency as empowered in this bill. It has created an agency which can make those decisions and advise cabinet, and cabinet can come in and make a decision based on this unelected body giving it all the advice it needs to hijack property rights, to move in and indicate that 15 feet of a person's property now becomes a public access easement; that the property owners are now going to be legally liable for anything that happens to people who are on their property legally; and that they are legally responsible to maintain the property to standards which some faceless, nameless bureaucrat -- who's holed up somewhere in Toronto and not out representing the community of Burlington and the interests of property owners who have paid fair market value for that property, continue to maintain it and are concerned about the public safety -- is going to designate for him. All these facts will not necessarily be considered by a group that is not held accountable through an elected process.
I cannot in good conscience abdicate my responsibilities as a legislator by simply offering again another responsibility to an unelected body. There's every indication that the concerns are valid, because the municipal council of Burlington has already reacted. I have a copy of an agreement between the city of Burlington and a land division application for Lakehurst Villa Properties at 3074 Lakeshore Road. Already the municipal council of Burlington has reacted to the --
Hon Mr Wildman: That sounds like one of my old speeches.
Mr Jackson: I'm pleased that the Minister of Natural Resources is here, because he has some concerns with respect to his government taking over certain lands that cottages are on in this province. These arguments are all valid, and I know the minister has listened very carefully when I've raised those concerns about the Balm Beach residents and others, but the arguments are still the same. At least the Minister of Natural Resources somehow is taking responsibility for the decisions that have to be made around whether or not the provincial interests will come to bear on that property, but not the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment has abdicated that responsibility.
I didn't mean to be distracted, Mr Speaker, by the interjection of my good friend the Minister of Natural Resources. I enjoy his interjections from time to time.
But back to this development application, because I think members should be aware of what the city of Burlington said to the land owner in this case: "Because there was a David Crombie commission somewhere in downtown Toronto and because the government has made it abundantly clear that at some point in the future we'd like to create a trail, you cannot have your building permit on your property unless you deed a 15-metre-wide easement to the water's edge in favour of the city of Burlington for open public space purposes for the eventual creation of a pedestrian linkage."
My God, we don't even have this legislation passed and already municipalities have jumped on it. Why? Because they've got somebody else to blame. When my constituents went to the city council meeting that night and when they objected, my newly elected mayor, Walter Mulkewich -- he's well known to the members opposite. He ran for the NDP on many occasions. He ran against me unsuccessfully and he's thankful, because now he's the mayor.
Hon Mr Hampton: It's all the same.
Mr Jackson: The last thing you need is one more confused member over there, Mr Treasurer.
The truth is that the municipal council in Burlington is prepared to walk away from years of spending of taxpayers' money and acquiring a considerable amount of lakeshore property in favour now of simply hijacking 15 metres of a strip of property between the water and the back of the properties of owners all along the lakeshore in the city of Burlington. They're prepared to go further, to say, "You will be liable to maintain the insurance on that property, and if somebody falls over the side of the cliff" -- because we have quite a high shoreline -- "you will be liable for that, and if somebody falls and it's because you didn't maintain the retaining wall, then you're liable because you have to maintain the retaining wall." Last time I checked, it was $4,000 a running foot for these things.
I wouldn't mind if I were an elected individual and I came in and said to my constituents, "That's what I'm going to do to your property," because my constituents have the right to vote me out of office for having done that. But with this contemptible process of setting up phantom agencies -- phantom in the sense that the public really has no legitimate claim to hold them accountable -- we've abdicated our responsibility to make these decisions.
2140
I simply say to the minister, we do not disagree that access to the lake is an important resource for the future of this province. We do not disagree on that point. But we disagree as to how we're going to acquire that heritage for our citizens. According to this government's plan, it will be to create an agency where the cabinet can create powers at will and impose a whole series of draconian rules.
My colleague the member for Etobicoke West enunciated the concerns when one looks at the objects. Clearly the objects of this Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency call for it to have responsibility to guide cabinet with the disposition of property. That doesn't mean the sale of property owned by the trust; it means the disposition of all real property between the Trent system and Hamilton Harbour. Clause 4(b) talks about "environmental integrity." This really is a case where an unelected body has the power to walk in and say: "Okay, you're going to maintain that property; you're going to create the landscaping. We have a problem with security. Several women walking along there have been physically assaulted or raped. You're now going to have to spend $20,000 or $30,000 on lighting and make sure it's well lit. After all, according to the easement, you're legally liable for that strip of land."
These questions have been raised in a couple of very short public meetings in the community of Burlington. We're not getting satisfactory answers. We're being told: "After all, this is what the province wants, and if you've got a problem, go speak to them." They have. They've come to me with their problems and they've asked me to raise them here on the floor of the Legislature.
When you look at object (d), it talks about a clearinghouse for public information. Frankly, it's a clearinghouse for public objections. There used to be a time when we had an appellate mechanism that tied itself back to the cabinet. Not in this case.
My whip is indicating -- my colleagues the members for Markham and Etobicoke West spoke at great length, and in the interests of not being inconsistent I will continue.
The second point is (f), which is the catchall, that by an order in council they can literally do anything. An order in council means cabinet. Cabinet has the power to convey to this body all or any powers it sees fit.
Here are some of the individual concerns. John McCallum in my riding mentioned: "If the government is going to materially affect the value of my property, who is considering whether or not this will stand during an assessment appeal, whether or not the value of the property has been diminished in part or in whole as a result of these imposed liabilities on the property?"
David Sampson has expressed interest and concern on the issue if, for example, his house burns down. He lives on the lakeshore. He would routinely, then, walk into the city hall and ask for another building permit. But it's not so easy under this arrangement. Now the city of Burlington says: "There's this Crombie commission somewhere down the road in Toronto and they say we've got all this power now. Before you get your building permit, we want you to give us 15 feet off the back of your parcel. You have to sign that you'll be legally liable to keep it insured for third-party liability and that you'll maintain it according to our standards."
If Mr Sampson says, "Excuse me, but that's a violation of my rights, you're withholding my building permit," of course Mr Sampson has the right to take the city of Burlington to court for the next year and run up legal bills in excess of $50,000 to $75,000. He might lose, he might win, but why would be create an infrastructure that puts our citizens into that kind of a position?
There are no assurances in this bill that there will be any of these kinds of protections for existing residents who live on the lakefront properties in this part of the province. Frankly the bill conveys a right to blackmail property owners when circumstances indicate they need to go to the city for a minor variance, for a severance or for a building permit of any description.
I mentioned the issues of public safety, lighting, policing. I'd also like to mention that no consideration has been given either in the Crombie document or in the government's own vision for this Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency about simple complications such as developing parklands and linkages where there's no place for people to park their vehicles.
Why this is a concern is again that the ministry and the government have intervened in a planning process that was working well in the community of Burlington. We had developed a concept of windows to the lake; we had established the necessary linkages to rapid transit so that our citizens could get to the lakeshore, to large parcels of beachfront property so they could enjoy beach-related activities throughout the summer. All this was planned, but not now. Somebody in Toronto decided that what we've been planning for 25 years in Burlington is no longer relevant.
Frankly I cannot support that. I cannot support the arrogance of an imposed set of criteria on a community that's been doing an admirable job. I cannot support a principle of abdicating our responsibilities as elected people because if there is going to be massive intrusions into property rights in this province, this government and all members of this House have washed their hands of this business by voting in this Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency to do their dirty work for them.
I personally will not be a part of it. My constituents have made it abundantly clear that they do not believe that in Ontario today this is the kind of abdication of their rights that they are prepared to sit back and see happen. What disturbs me is we've lost all sense of accountability in the name of preserving something that's not going to go away. No one is going to come and take away our lakeshore properties.
I believe quite frankly that in the community of Burlington we have an admirable record of opening up access to the waterfront and we should not now begin punishing our property owners simply because they had a problem in the waterfront lands in Metro Toronto and now Burlington is going to have to pay.
Finally, I would suggest to all members they give a second, sober thought to the amount of power they are vesting in this agency. This agency can spend an awful lot of taxpayers' money without specifically assembling any additional new lands for lakeshore purposes. The fact is that there are several proposals currently under consideration by the government for joint participation at federal, provincial and municipal levels to acquire at fair market value parcels of land that can act as parkland and they will stay in the public trust for ever.
This government has chosen not to pursue that course but rather to sterilize land, to expropriate it without compensation, to shift the liability for a public park to private individuals who pay for that insurance and, worst of all, to allow municipalities to ride roughshod over their own zoning bylaws, all in the name of a so-called provincial interest which is conveyed to them by Bill 1, the Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency Act. For this reason and in all conscience, I cannot support it.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions and/or comments on the member's participation? The honourable Minister of the Environment.
2150
Hon Mrs Grier: Just a couple of points that I want to make, because I certainly appreciate the member's comments and recognize that he is reflecting concerns that he's had from his constituents. As I said in response to the member for Etobicoke West, I don't think that those particular concerns of private property owners are justified. The agency simply has the authority to advise the minister on the disposition of waterfront lands. It does not have the power to acquire or dispose of privately owned land, and it is not an expropriating authority.
In addition, I think the member does the region of Halton and the city of Burlington a disservice, because they have certainly been in the forefront of conservation policies of the protection of the waterfront and of the establishment of greenways and regeneration. The report of the Crombie commission says that very clearly and points out in fact that the town of Oakville has had a public access policy consistently applied since the mid-1970s, has shown great foresight and has been of substantial long-term benefit.
The town is seeking a 15-metre-wide public access strip if and when lands are redeveloped. That is not uncommon. That has been going on for some long time, and I recognize that I think the member's point was that with the trust in place municipalities would give up that responsibility to the trust. I don't in fact think that's likely to occur and that is not the intent of the trust, as I've pointed out.
The trust will want to enter into partnership agreements with the regions whereby the regions continue their policies, if it is the region of Halton, or establish similar policies if it is regions that have not yet had the foresight and the view of the long future that has been shown by the region of Halton. So I hope that the member will understand some of the differences between what's been happening and what is proposed and will see fit to support the bill.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The member for Burlington South rightly raises issues that have been brought to him by his constituents with property along the lakeshore, and I think does so in a spirit of raising concern frankly about the accountability of the waterfront trust.
We know that for many years the city of Burlington has acquired beachfront properties, frequently through the conservation authority, but has done so in full view of the public: in public meetings, by publicly elected officials, operating in a public manner with public votes. The minister has pointed out that in the adjacent community of Oakville since the 1970s we have required parkland dedication when land is sold for development on the lakefront, and indeed that policy of the municipality has been a popular and positive one in our community. But those decisions have also been made in full public view by publicly elected officials operating in public meetings.
The ministry indicates that partnership agreements with municipalities must be a major part of the activity of the waterfront trust. I should point out to the minister as well, and to Mr Jackson, that the Crombie report itself says that those partnership agreements will not be worth the paper they're written on unless funding accompanies them.
The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Burlington South has two minutes in response.
Mr Jackson: The Minister of the Environment is well aware that I wasn't in any way undermining the record of the communities in Halton as it relates to this issue. What I remind the minister is that the Crombie commission and this Waterfront Regeneration Trust Agency take what was in the zoning bylaws in Burlington for any of the designated commercial areas on the waterfront and taking 15 feet from a commercial enterprise, which we've been doing routinely and doing well, and taking park dedication and buying land with it. All of this is supportable.
What we're objecting to is the municipality is now going beyond and interpreting the cherry-picking of private property and people's private property between these commercial districts. They have never been designated, so when the minister suggests what she suggests, she goes beyond what the mandate was in Burlington and takes it in an entirely different new direction. Existing property owners have legitimate fears which have not been laid to rest by the minister's comments today, and frankly the multimillions of dollars that you will spend creating a bureaucracy is not what the future needs of our province are. It is to acquire the necessary land, and in a free society that means paying the fair market value for that.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 1? Would the parliamentary assistant want to wrap up debate?
Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I was carrying the bill. Let me merely say to my colleagues that I certainly appreciate the opportunity to debate it and the widespread support that has been shown for the principles of the legislation, even though I know there are some individual concerns and issues that I know will be addressed as we proceed. I look forward to establishing the trust, getting it up and going and being part of regenerating this very special waterfront.
The Acting Speaker: Mrs Grier has moved second reading of Bill 1 on waterfront regeneration. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
Motion agreed to.
Bill ordered for third reading.
CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS
Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Would the honourable minister have a few opening remarks?
Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr Speaker. This bill puts into effect several measures announced by the Treasurer in the 1991 Ontario budget.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I know that we all wish to be relatively efficient with our remarks, but I think the minister could be a little more effective if she would at least give us a slight indication of what is in this Corporations Tax Amendment Act. I know that it does apply to the 1991 budget report by the Treasurer. It has been a little bit of time since we visited this. I think in terms of the debate that we have to have just a few more comments than that.
I appreciate that she wants to help us out of this House this evening, but please, there are some fairly sophisticatedly written paragraphs in here and I think a little bit of an explanation would be helpful. Maybe she means to do it on wrapup, I'm not sure, but I think we should have more. Would she not give us something more than just saying this applies to the 1991 budget? Please help us in this.
The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the Minister of Revenue to continue? Agreed.
2200
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: The reason for being so brief was so that all those viewers who are watching out there weren't confused, because we've changed some of this with the 1992 budget and this bill is over a year old, so I assumed that most of them were briefed and quite aware of it. Anyway, I will continue.
This bill concerns highly profitable corporations that benefit from the small business deduction. A surtax will reduce the benefit of the small business deduction for corporations with taxable income over $200,000 and eliminates it entirely where taxable income is more than $500,000.
Specific rules will apply to share the surtax among corporations that are members of an associated group. Also, corporations with manufacturing and processing profits that pay the surtax will still get the full benefit of the manufacturing and processing tax credit. This is effective for taxation years ending after December 1991.
Second, the rate of capital tax will be increased to 1% for banks and loan and trust companies. This bill also eliminates the premium tax exemption that insurance companies received for automobile insurance contracts. This and the capital tax increase are effective for taxation years ending after April 29, 1991.
The bill also makes three technical amendments to the Corporations Tax Act including measures to bring the act in line with the federal Income Tax Act.
The Ontario current cost adjustment is a tax deduction based on the cost of eligible manufacturing and processing equipment and pollution control equipment. A technical amendment will clarify that the deduction may be claimed only in the first year that eligible equipment is available for use by the corporation. This will harmonize the timing of the deduction with claims for the capital cost allowance and simplify the administrative process for corporations.
Another amendment puts a limit on the amount of the research and development superallowance that a member of a limited partnership can claim. This will ensure that the deduction is claimed only by investors who have taken the risk to fund research and development activities. A final technical amendment will ensure a six-year time period for the ministry to conduct a reassessment for certain taxation years.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Bruce.
Mr Elston: What was extremely important for us was the first sentence or two that were given to us, that in fact there are a number of changes now reflected in the current taxation year that are going to be passed into law by this particular statute. The question I have for everybody is, why weren't we told that at the beginning of the debate rather than us having to stand up and ask for the explanation? I think it really reflects pretty badly on the sense --
Interjection.
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, the member for Oxford is talking about the cheese out of his constituency. I highly recommend everybody visit Ingersoll and other places where they have good produce, but I don't recommend the interjections of the member for Oxford that take away from the debate on what is, I believe, a fundamental piece of legislation for the health of our economy.
It really talks not only about certain tax measures which are now more than a year old and which we were unable to debate in this House because the House leader of the government would not call this for second reading; this now being called for second reading after the 1992 budget. I might say that interestingly enough the government House leader would not even call debate on the budget in 1992. We have had but one speaker each on the budget. The Treasurer has spoken, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken and the leader of the third party has spoken, but we have been unable to talk about this year's 1992 budget. Here we are dealing with 1991, which in fact is now amended by the 1992 budgetary business of this House.
I only wish to note this: With respect to the 1991 budget, this was to be an integral part of the 1991 budget, which was to deliver to the people of this province a $9.7-billion deficit. The deficit for this year was well over $11 billion and probably would have been much higher. This year, it's forecast to be $9.9 billion, and I'm afraid we are really out of luck and out of time with this stuff.
The Acting Chair: Further questions and/or comments on the Minister of Revenue's opening remarks?
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I think it's really telling that the minister, when she first stood up, indicated that she did not want to explain the bill because she didn't want to confuse the public of Ontario. That's absolutely astounding, that a minister, when introducing a bill for reading, would indicate she has no explanation because she might confuse the people of Ontario. I would like to ask a question of the minister. Could she explain the nature of the amendments for the people of Ontario? What are the amendments intended to create or exactly what are they for? Would she please tell the people of Ontario?
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I don't want to prolong the debate unduly this evening. But to be fair to the Minister of Revenue, who has done a wonderful job of shepherding tax bills through this assembly, I had the same sense that she did, that the people of Ontario should understand that one of the reasons we need the rules changes that are now coming into this assembly is that it was very difficult to schedule debate for very important bills from last year's budget given some of the antics of the opposition in this assembly. I think the Minister of Revenue is trying to be very gentle, non-provocative and not tease the bears on the other side.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.
Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Mr Speaker, I only rise to make comment on what the Treasurer just said --
The Acting Speaker: Sorry. We are commenting on the Minister of Revenue.
Mr Mancini: I'm commenting on what the Treasurer has commented about what the Minister of Revenue said.
The Acting Speaker: We are commenting on the Minister of Revenue's remarks.
Mr Mancini: The Minister of Revenue said, of course, that she didn't have time to make any comments to the general public because she wanted to save the time of the Legislature, and then the honourable Treasurer said that one of the reasons the minister wanted to save the time of the Legislature was because the opposition had obstructed the work of the Legislature and the government and the Minister of Revenue were not able to do their work last year.
What I want to let the Legislature and especially the Treasurer know is that when we were discussing the recall of the Legislature over the winter, it was the government that decided we should come back four weeks late and it was the Liberal opposition that asked that a formal minute in the House leaders' meetings be taken so that it would be on record that the Liberals wanted the Legislature to come back in time so that the government could introduce its agenda. I think we should all be aware of that, Mr Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The honourable Minister of Revenue has two minutes in response.
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Mr Speaker, I'd like to respond by saying that this bill is over a year old. People in the business community have got their books up to date, are up to speed and know what we are doing. They also are aware of what we did in the last budget in reducing some of the taxes for the business corporations of this province, so for them this is old news. It is very unfortunate that the opposition parties were not up to speed in realizing the changes we made in the 1992 budget.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Elston: I was just getting warmed up in my other comments, but I don't propose to be here all evening. It's interesting that when we look at this bill, the thing that always strikes me about tax bills is that they are utterly and totally unreadable except to two groups of people, excluding ministers and parliamentary assistants and parliamentarians. They are readable by the professionals around it, both lawyers and accountants who have differences of opinion on what they say, and then by the very people we see sneaking their little selves around the corner of the Speaker's chair and who are smiling with the broadest, knowing knowledge that they alone understand what this stuff really means.
2210
For me, it was interesting to revisit this, and it has nothing to do with the fact that the people who construct these things are willingly trying to make it difficult for people, but it reflects upon the degree of complexity with respect to how our affairs are managed these days. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that I wished when I had opened this up to read -- because you know I'm not actually the critic for this portfolio -- that I had spent just a little bit more time preparing myself, because I thought, unfortunately, that the explanatory notes were exactly for that purpose. What the explanatory notes do for people when they pick up tax bills is that they explain very quickly that you should put it back down because you really don't understand what it's going to mean. That's what these explanatory notes say.
I just want to read a couple of them, because these are the things that are simple enough for laypeople to understand. Then you get to the sections and you're really out of luck. Let's just read a couple. This is subsection 4(2): "The amendment clarifies that the Ontario current cost adjustment may be claimed by a corporation respective of an eligible asset no earlier than the first taxation year in which the asset is available for use by the corporation for the purpose of earning income from a business." Sounds straightforward if you spend a bit of time reading the rest of it.
If you turned to the subsection and you read that, you know right well why it has become so costly to do business in the province of Ontario. It's not a problem, with respect, that has been dropped upon the people who do business by this administration, by the Liberals or the Conservatives by themselves, but there has been a group of complexities which have been built around carrying on business these days that require our bureaucrats to construct more precise language around the loopholes they wish to close. Until we come to grips with the manner in which we simplify our daily activities of carrying on business, our statutes will continue to be totally misunderstood and not understandable at all to laypeople.
For people who are carrying on business, it will mean absolutely for ever that you cannot do your own tax returns. Very few people are able to sustain themselves in trying to swallow the Corporations Tax Act in their operation when they perform all the other taxation manoeuvres that have to be done if you're going to use all of the sections of this to your best advantage. The federal statute is by reference referred to in here; this statute has to comply with certain steps taken in the federal budgetary activities.
As to this very short bill about which we really don't, in fairness to the Minister of Revenue, wish to hear a whole lot of detail but which is so critically important for the carrying on of business, not from a partisan part of view but just for the purposes of everyday activity, so that women and men who operate their businesses can, with some degree of certainty decide in 1990 that, "My steps to better business judgement will be based upon this, and it will be based upon this for this year, next year and the year following," it would be nice if this were a simple piece of business.
Taxation in this province is complex. This bill, short, is more complex than a lot of the statutes much longer in other areas of ministerial capacities demonstrated by the member for London Centre or for Hastings-Peterborough. But this little beauty ensures that there will be a lot of work for the professional people who spend their lives trying to decipher what the sections mean. It's not only deciphering what the sections mean, but trying to decipher how it is that the best advantage of the women and men who operate the businesses can have or achieve under their business arrangements.
We spend a whole lot of activity and time in this great province of ours chasing after the elusive nature of tax changes -- not once a decade or twice a decade, but every taxation year. And just when things look like they're getting certain, the ground moves under the feet of the people who have to do business.
I'm not talking in terms of a partisan position at this stage, but I will depart now towards a partisan concern. While all parties have had to change their tax policies from time to time to feed the coffers of this province, which pays for the services -- or doesn't, in the case of this current administration, reach anywhere close to paying for the services but which go towards them -- it is unfair, in my view, for business certainty in the province for the current administration to now add to the complexity of year-by-year changes in the existing taxes by dumping into the mix the Fair Tax Commission, which really should have been named the New Tax Commission by the Treasurer because, while people struggle after the certainty that they wish to achieve for their business decisions, their whole world is turned upside down at least once a year by the Treasurer, by every Treasurer. We don't know whether there's going to be a new retail sales tax. We don't know whether there's going to be a new employer health tax levy. We don't know whether there'll be a new corporations tax. We don't know whether there'll be a new capital tax --
Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Who introduced all those taxes anyway?
Mr Elston: There are so many taxes out there, and the member for Rainy River says, "Who introduced them?" Well, I stand here and say that there has not been one tax brought in in Ontario that hasn't been introduced by the Tories, the Liberals or the New Democrats, with perhaps an exception of what might have been introduced in the 1919-24 session by the United Farmers of Ontario.
I don't know that any of us can go away from this place and claim to be pure when it comes to dealing with taxes. All we need to do is claim that we have added to the complexity at each stage of the development of our tax system since that first tax was levied. The first promise that there would be a temporary income tax has led us to the stage where we've had a number of federal tax changes. I guess the most notable one that was tried most recently was by the federal Liberal tax minister, MacEachen, who was beaten up and booted all over Canada, and later we found that some of those tax measures actually were passed by Brian Mulroney and his band.
Actually, they're an interesting group. They take from the poor and give to the rich, and here we've got a group of people who say that they're in for fair taxes. What they're doing is making everybody equally poor. What's more, with taxes like this one -- followed, by the way, in 1992 by more changes to the same Corporations Tax Act -- they are ensuring that not only are they reducing the rich to become poor and the poor to become poorer; they're making sure the corporations decide not to stay here.
One of the useful pieces of legislation that we have in our quiver of tools to attract new investment is our tax policies. Whatever the Treasurer may say, when he starts playing around with closing loopholes or trying to do things that look like they are tax shelters, he is making a decision for the people in executive positions in the business organizations of our country. If he does a really good job and closes all the loopholes he will eventually ensure that there will be no loopholes and no advantages for corporations to have their head offices here in Ontario.
Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources): Are you in favour of loopholes?
Mr Elston: Now, is that important? Well, in some cases, for the member for Algoma, it is important tax policy to decide that there will be some advantages for establishing corporate head offices here, because it means jobs.
Hon Mr Wildman: There's a difference between tax expenditures and loopholes.
Mr Elston: Tax expenditures -- that's what you do, you spend the taxes you collect.
Mr Speaker, the Algoma --
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I know the Minister of Natural Resources knows full well that interjections are out of order, and if the member for Bruce would address the Chair.
Mr Elston: The semantics argument aside, we're talking about the same stuff. It may be wrong to call it a loophole, but when you close things they talk in terms of loopholes. When they decide to put a provision in that allows an exemption they call it a tax incentive. I don't care what it's called, but if you close off all the advantages that this particular province has for establishing head offices and businesses here, you will end up having no advantage and people will go to other jurisdictions.
Not only is it a choice now between Ontario, Quebec and BC, but it is more and more a choice about having a head office in Canada or perhaps in the United States or Mexico or potentially a whole series of other places.
I only raise these things because the complexity of this is not the fault of the people who make them; it is partly a fault of the complexity of our society, the ownership rules that have been built up to respond to the tax changes in their earliest incarnations. As we make these things more complex to catch the new schemes which are designed to try to outpace the latest changes in the policy and tax wording, we will continue to become more complex. That's the nature of this business. But at some stage when you start reading these sections you will ultimately overload even the smartest of our professionals, and the whole system will start to explode. In fact, part of our tax revolt is the fact that the people who --
Hon Mr Laughren: He's wrong.
2220
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, get that man's credentials, and throw him out if he doesn't have any.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): There is a stranger in the House.
Mr Elston: His distraction has taken me from my line of thought and I may have forgotten where I was going. But part of the problem --
Hon Mr Laughren: This is a blessing for all.
Hon Mr Wildman: Please, let's have some more distraction.
Mr Elston: I'm going to do what I promised to do earlier in this place; I'm going to read my entire leadership campaign speech. If these people don't leave me alone, I'm going to read it. Then there'll be trouble. What we need are more night sittings, I can tell.
Hon Mr Hampton: We understand that was very stimulating.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I don't believe it. Murray doesn't have anything to say.
Mr Elston: I have lots to say. I may have more to say than I realized when I first stood up here. I just want to say this: Basically, when we come right down to all the stuff that's happening here, the complexity of the tax system is a response to people's trying to outrace the changes in our tax system until we get to a stage where we simplify it. Until we stop this incremental complexity building in our tax system and in our ownership of assets in trying to avoid taxes or get around taxes, we are going to find ourselves increasingly dragged down into an uncompetitive chase which really takes people away from running their businesses.
The whole issue with running a business is that people get an idea. Let's say it's a small business. They get an idea, they sit down, they try and put their product on the market, whatever that might be. The next thing they start to find out is that if they had done it in this manner, they could have saved themselves $10,000 or $20,000, so they hire somebody who saves them $10,000. But then you keep on spending money and you pursue day after day the elusive dream of getting to a stage where it's all settled and you can do predictably the work your product requires you to do.
What I was about to say when I was interrupted by the Treasurer was this: Part of the reason there is a tax revolt is that people are wearying under the load of trying to outrace the changes in the tax system or out-think the people who will make the changes, trying to respond to the next step to such an extent that --
Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): We are talking about a bill that is a year and a half old. How much thinking do they have to do?
Mr Elston: The member Drummond White, I guess, doesn't understand what I'm getting at. The whole point of this problem is that so many people are frustrated with the chase that is required by taxation policy, not just here, but in Ottawa and also at the local municipal level, that they can't get back to doing the thing they love best. In some places it's the creating of products which have been of help in the international field. Sometimes it's been a product like a snowblower which has helped create employment in the local community. Mr Speaker, in your case it might have been a spreader.
One of the frustrations in the tax revolt discussions is that people are so consumed by the issues of tax and the incursion in time of the local business person in dealing with taxes that they have no time for the thing they love doing best, which is making products, which is trying to stimulate the economy, which is enjoying themselves in operating their business.
I understand that part of the operation of a business is to do taxes; it is part of the world we're in. But surely at some stage we will have to simplify some of this or we really will explode under the burden. All of a sudden people will find themselves just totally unable to function because 110% of their time is taken up in trying to answer where the next step will be taken with respect to taxes. Taxes are a big part of it and we're talking now in the Fair Tax Commission about minimum corporate taxes, a whole series of other new taxes, speculation taxes and otherwise, and that just adds to the burden of this.
Maybe to prove my point I should read one of the sections, which I found kind of interesting. Here it is, section 41.1. It's actually section 9 of the bill, 41.1 in the Corporations Tax Act. Here it is:
"(1) Every corporation that has claimed a deduction under subsection 41(1) for a taxation year shall pay, in addition to the amount of tax otherwise payable for the taxation year under this part, a surtax equal to the lesser of,
"(a) the amount claimed as a deduction by the corporation under subsection 41(1) for the taxation year; or
"(b) the amount determined according to the following formula:
"S = 3.7/100 x A x B/200,000
"Where:
"'S' is the amount determined under this clause;
"'A' is the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of,
"(a) the taxable income of the corporation for the taxation year, and
"(b) the taxable income of each corporation with which the corporation was associated at any time during the taxation year, for the last taxation year of such corporation that ended on or before the last day of the corporation's taxation year,
"exceeds,
"(c) $200,000; and"
That was "S" and "A"; now we go to "B."
"'B' is the amount determined by the corporation for the taxation year under subsection 41(2)."
I wish I could finish the rest, but I know that would take me a whole other page.
For the trained ear of the people who are on staff in the Ministry of Revenue, that's not just such a big deal, because they work with that every day. They know the little nuances in some of these phrases. It is not perhaps very difficult for the trained ear of the accountant. It is perhaps not even a difficulty for the trained ear of the lawyer who works daily in this business.
But the people who do business in this province are everyday people, people who are not trained to listen to the nuances in tax statutes. But those people are the ones who have to sign the forms, who have to remit the tax, who have to make the change in their family corporations, in their business arrangements, in their partnerships and every other thing in their business over the long haul, and they are the people who are confused. And you know something, Mr Speaker? They are the people who have to earn the dollars to pay those people with the well-adjusted earlobes who collect all of the nuances of the latest tax changes.
This is 1991. I really have spent longer than I wanted to, and I apologize, but I had a few distractions and I had to get myself back into the train of thought.
Hon Mr Laughren: Don't apologize; it was good.
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I want to have it recorded in Hansard that the Treasurer has said my speech has been good. I want that to go out in my next householder. So if Hansard records that, I can then at least answer the criticisms about my presence here or something.
What we need are more night sittings, as I've said lots of times.
But the people have to earn the money to pay the trained professionals to understand this. The people also have to make enough money to pay for their capital investments, which are going to be subject to special tax rates under this statute. Those people are the ones who have to make the money to pay the people who work for them. They are the people who make the money who then have to go into their own households to allow their mothers and fathers who may be dependent upon them, their children who may be dependent upon them, their extended families who may be dependent upon them, to earn a decent living.
If there is any reason why people are so frustrated, it is that they spend too much of their time dealing with statutes like this. It is not a complaint in a partisan fashion. It is a plea, I guess, in sort of a practical lesson, which would lead us here as legislators to try to grapple with simplifying the way we do business in this place and do business in the tax statutes.
I don't have the answer as to how you make things simple. All I'm afraid of is that at some day in the future we won't have a decision to be made about making things simpler. There won't be anything left to be made simple. I'm very much concerned.
2230
Actually, there's a simplified version of this form. You only need to ask two questions, I'm told. This is very clever; I never thought of this. Somebody who wasn't speaking during my speech obviously had time to think. It says, "The new New Democratic Party taxation form is composed of the following two questions: (1) How much money do you make? (2) Send it in." Then it requires a statutory declaration that you're not withholding anything that you shouldn't have been withholding.
Mr Speaker, that's a possibility. But you know something that's interesting? We joke about this and it is kind of funny, but there are people in communities right around the province who believe they've already got that far. They believe they work for nothing, filling in papers and a whole series of other things.
Hon Mr Laughren: Is that from a Liberal?
Mr Elston: Yes, it's from a Liberal. It's from a whole bunch of people who listen to a whole group of other people who complain about this.
Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, I see, given your record in tax policy.
Mr Elston: Listen, our record in tax policy is no better or worse than yours. In fact, in the end, because of the deficit which you will leave us, it will be seen to be much, much better. That's a little bit stirring, I suppose; there may be some debate coming as a result of that.
But I cannot claim and will not claim for my party that we didn't raise taxes, because in fact we did. We tried to do the best we could, as some people now say, in meeting the day-to-day operational expenses of our government's expenditures. The Tories were the most clever group of people when it came to finding new taxes. The New Democrats are going to be and in fact have become clever people in finding new sources of revenue.
What are those new sources? In addition to increasing taxes as they're doing under this form -- this is a two-question form. Under the New Democrats, they don't only raise taxes here but they in fact raise money other ways by giving borrowing authority to the trusts, like we just talked about in the waterfront regeneration, and by providing for the municipalities the right to raise money by borrowing on the basis of municipal assets, which to this point in time have largely been sheltered from having loans levied on them. They have found a way of raising money by getting Ontario Hydro to raise rates, and that's a nasty tax. They make Hydro spend what they call social dollars --
Hon Mr Laughren: Who built Darlington?
Mr Elston: We did, the Tories did and you did. Is that enough? You all did. Who required Hydro to raise its rates to pay for expenditures in Kapuskasing and Elliot Lake? It is just another means of avoiding paying tax dollars by forcing Hydro to make the expenditures. The expenditures should have been made, according to my way of thinking, but they ought to have been made by taxpayers' dollars. These people have really done things in raising money in very clever ways.
Every government in this world of ours, in this great province of ours, will be faced with the real problem of, which taxes are you going to raise tomorrow? I respect the fact that the Treasurer today is probably trying to consider where he can move next, because there isn't a lot of flexibility any place in our system, when we find ourselves hampered with so many unemployed people in our province; when our consumption is down so much; when the frustration of the people affects their expenditures in the retail markets. Where does the Treasurer go? I don't blame him for looking at old taxes and new taxes; that's what treasurers are paid to do.
But I won't stand up here and say that we can all be saved harmless because we don't happen to be in government at the moment. All I wanted to do was indicate how complex this was and how this was a great example of why our people are so frustrated.
I don't know how many times I've looked back over the history books to find that taxation has been the cause of major upheaval and major change to the extent that could have not been anticipated at the time. The great story about the tea tax; my God, what has that loosed on us? What did that do? Take a look at what happened with the great empires; taxation or the exaction of money or payments were at the heart of a whole series of discontents because it required minions, people of the government, to go out and force payment from people.
Can't we learn? The more complex our society gets, the more complex the taxes and the more complex the returns are and the more frustrated our people become; they feel like they're spending all their time doing this stuff. Here we are doing 1991's work, and now we're told that in 1992 changes have already taken place which put part of this into some kind of archive.
Hon Mr Laughren: So why are you debating it at length?
Mr Elston: I'm debating at length, Mr Treasurer, to point out a couple of fundamental problems with the system we find ourselves in. Rather than having a Fair Tax Commission, which really is a "new tax" commission, he ought to be looking at the fundamental need to find a new way of getting resources, rather than putting it on the backs of the men and women who actually own businesses. That's what you're doing. You're just transferring it out of the government, making all the work be done by accountants and lawyers paid for by men and women who have businesses.
It's too much for us. At some stage we will be faced with total unravelling if we are not careful. Certainly we are now faced as constituency people with unhappy people. It's one of the things Preston Manning is growing on: the discontent with taxation authority, of the complexities around it.
I've said more than I wanted to say, I've spoken longer than I wanted to speak. But, Mr Speaker, I can't for a moment abide by the sense that to pass this is going to be of any assistance to our business community.
Hon Mr Laughren: That's why we changed it this year.
Mr Elston: You've changed it this year already. In fact, the ground has moved. The ground has already moved well beyond us. Mr Speaker, I would like --
Hon Mr Wildman: Did you say the earth moved?
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I was just listening to the member for Algoma who is not in his seat. As I said yesterday, this guy, the member for Algoma, ought to get Joe Clark's job. I think he is handling his two complex portfolios in such a way that if he doesn't get Clark's job federally when his federal leader takes over -- that might be in the year 2045 or whatever, but whoever is around in those days should recognize the great job the Joe Clark of the Ontario Legislature is doing in his role as Minister of Natural Resources and the minister responsible for native affairs.
I sort of slipped off the edge of the bill, but I am going to sit down now. I think the point has been made to the people who are listening that it's impossible to understand our tax legislation unless you are fully engrossed in it, unless you are paid to be part of it, either at the initiation stages, at the tax return stages or in fact at the collection stages. That's why not only are our people frustrated but our courts are clogged and our appeal tribunals are clogged with trying to figure out whether everybody is paying a fair share of her or his tax obligations.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I enjoyed the sermon from the member for Bruce as much as I enjoyed the interjections from the current Treasurer, the two noted parliamentarians who between them are responsible for over 57 tax increases to the taxpayers of this province in the last seven years -- and those are the ones that we even know about. If we're listening to our constituents, our constituents are telling us, "Stop playing politics with taxation." We have a ping-pong game going on in this House.
I ask you to look at section 15 of this bill. The Liberals, in a bold political move to prop up their auto insurance approach, gave the insurance companies a $150-million tax break in order that premiums would drop just prior to the election.
I'm pleased that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is in the House tonight, because the Treasurer has seen this little benefit and opportunity to tax and he's figuring again on playing politics with this issue. The Treasurer said, "Aha, let's grab that $150 million, maybe $200 million." What's it going to do? All those rebates that were going to individual policyholders in this province, all those policies, now they're not going to get those rebates. Why? Because the government is playing politics with taxation policy to prop up its theory that the private sector can't reduce its auto premiums when it gets a break from government.
The Liberals gave them a break in order to drop their premiums, but you couldn't live with that. You had to go and play politics with it and say, "God, we can't have insurance premiums dropping while we're about to turn our back on public auto insurance." That's what this bill does. It's going to suck another $200 million of premiums out of policyholders in this province. That's what this bill does. You know that's what you're doing. My constituents asked me to come here tonight and say, "Stop playing politics with taxation policy."
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?
2240
Mr Callahan: I listened to the member for Bruce and he did assist me in terms of what this bill is about. It is a very complex bill. I'm awaiting the explanation, in summing up, by the minister. Because if the member for Bruce, who is a lawyer, has difficulty in understanding this bill and if the minister in introducing the bill did not explain to us what the bill was all about, it means she may have introduced a bill into the House which she knows nothing about. If that's the case, then the people who are under the parapet are the people who put it together. I'm sure they're fine people but we cannot -- with that type of responsibility of a minister not knowing what the bill is, any bill could be introduced into this House.
Without knowing what it's all about, without having an appropriate explanation from the minister, we may very well find we're voting for a bill that will tax the people of Ontario unnecessarily or inappropriately. I'm waiting with bated breath. I see the Treasurer is sitting next to the minister. I'm sure he will brief her on exactly what this bill means and she will tell us in 50 words or less how simple it is to understand the bill because she understands it fully.
I'm really amazed that she didn't open by telling us what the bill was about. We all know that in every piece of legislation introduced into the House there is a very succinct description of exactly what it means. Clearly she's been well briefed by her officials and she knows exactly what this bill will do, I would hope. As hard as the member for Bruce attempted to explain it to us, it is a complex bill. But one would expect that a minister of the crown, who has all of the responsibilities of a minister, would fully understand the bill and would be able to explain it in a succinct and appropriate fashion to the people of Ontario, since it means that the Treasurer has the right to put his hand in the pockets of the people of Ontario and take their money.
Madam Minister, I would hope that before you're finished you will tell all of us in succinct words what the bill means.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?
Mr White: I want to compliment the member for Bruce on his elocution, on the very simple points he made about how complex legislation like this is. This bill of course is a piece of legislation which amends a substantive piece of tax legislation. The member for Bruce knows, as a lawyer, how important such pieces of legislation are. Every single item, every single section, is an amendment to another tax act. Thus, were it not for bills like this, we wouldn't have the obscurantism, we wouldn't have the pettifoggery, we wouldn't have the livelihood of so many of our friends in the legal profession. I thank the member opposite for pointing out the importance of his profession in obscuring what would otherwise be a perfectly confused piece of legislation.
What is even more obscurant in this legislation is the fact that it's a year old. We're reflecting policy from last year, from 1991's budget. The important legislation is forthcoming, the legislation which reflects the realities of 1992 and the importance of having corporate minimum taxes reduced to some degree, a reduction in tax for corporations, a reduction for small businesses. Those are the significant, pressing issues we need to get on to in our legislative agenda. I thank the member for Bruce for his eloquence, and as well for taking so relatively little time in dealing with legislation that is of course a year old.
The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?
Mr Chiarelli: I want to compliment the member for Bruce for his comments, but I'm very saddened by the fact that a member such as the member for Bruce, with his wealth of experience, his common sense and the fact that he's very honourable in debate, is never recognized by the government side.
I think there are a lot of people who believe that the government listens to some things the opposition says. We have in the member for Bruce a former Minister of Health, a former Minister of Financial Institutions and a former Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, and I can say that his words are not listened to the least bit. The government is not wise enough or smart enough to take his counsel, or the counsel of other members in opposition, when he has so much to contribute, nor have they been following the advice of a lot of experienced people who form part of the diverse province that we have.
The member could have been very political. He could have quoted the member for Eglinton last week when she said that from 1981 to 1984 Mike Harris supported the Conservative government in 16 tax increases, but he chose not to do so. He could have said that Mike Harris supported increases in personal income tax, OHIP premiums, beer taxes, fuel taxes, tobacco taxes and a 5% surcharge on Ontario personal income tax etc.
The member for Bruce could have said that but he didn't because he's an honourable gentleman and he's interested in honest debate and in giving fair and honest advice to the government which, I am sad to say, I don't believe it's listening to, and I think this Legislature could really be improved and enriched if people listened to each other and their advice.
The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.
Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): I thank my colleague for introducing, I think, a note of reality to this debate. There are two things that are certain, death and taxes, but the third thing I'd add to that list is that every government, sooner or later, has to face the people. The Conservative government faced the people and it was recognized then --
Mr Jackson: Survived 42 years, as I recall.
Mr Scott: -- that they had a tax record that was not popular with the people. Our government --
Mr Jackson: Oh no, our time had come, 42 years was enough. We didn't want a North American record.
The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Mr Scott: The member for Burlington South, I tell his constituents, is becoming virtually intolerable.
Mr Jackson: I'm always easier to take over a couple of drinks, Ian; you know that.
Mr Scott: Our government had to face the electorate and the charge was put against us that we had raised 33 new taxes, but this government, before it gets overconfident, had better face the fact that it's going to meet the people too in three years and it's going to be seen, and there may be reasons to justify it --
Mr Jackson: You hope they're going to beat your record.
Mr Scott: -- as the government that has most significantly raised taxes in the history of Ontario. The deficit of the province tripling over the next three years is going to be paid for, and it's going to be paid for by taxes. It's going to be paid for by taxes raised by this party, or its successors, and imposed upon the ratepayers of the province of Ontario.
Before the government of the day gets carried away with what a wonderful job it's doing and how it's record is better than everybody else's in the province and how it isn't raising taxes nearly as much as anybody else, it better come to grips with the fact that in three years, the obligation of that government, those members, to raise the taxes of the ratepayers in Ontario will escalate beyond anything the other older parties have had even the opportunity to undertake.
I may not be here, God knows, but I venture to say that in 1995 there will be no question that this government, through circumstances that may be justified, will be obliged to raise taxes --
The Acting Speaker: Thank you.
Mr Scott: -- at a level that has never been seen in Ontario.
The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member. The member for Bruce has two minutes in response.
Mr Elston: With all those interjections, I think I should get more than two minutes, but I'll hold myself back.
I thank my colleagues for their comments, but it's interesting to note that every time we try to deal with bills like the Corporations Tax Act, the debate is usually quite short, and the reason it's quite short is because most of us don't understand the sections. We sort of take the advice from the people whose job it is to put this stuff together, and I admire them -- I really do -- because I couldn't spend all of my time rattling around these clauses; I mean, I really can't.
I took income tax when I was in law school and I liked it for a pursuit for a time, but I don't have the discipline nor do I have the courage to try to find my way through a labyrinth of interesting ownership techniques and tools which allow us to try to find out if people are paying their fair share of taxes, or at least to try to enforce the payment of a fair share of taxes.
It is a noble pursuit, but is a pursuit for which I am not well suited because I don't have the patience for it. If I don't have the patience for it, it is no wonder my constituents have lost patience with the tax system. It is no wonder that all of us are getting people coming to us and saying: "Why are you doing this again? I just went to my accountant. He/she says that I have to pay this much more when last year I paid him/her so much to try and set up a situation that would let me keep some of my hard-earned dollars."
Our whole future depends on the business community creating jobs. I'm not talking about big business. I'm not talking about particular people. I'm talking about the men and women who are living in Ontario and wishing to create products which will employ people in distribution, employ people in manufacturing and otherwise. If we don't let up on these people, we soon won't have anybody to pay for anything in this province and that's discouraging.
2250
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I don't think that members of the Legislature should use the excuse that because a tax statute or a law is difficult, we are excused from debating it and for not finding out what in fact is included within that statute. I want to thank the Ministry of Revenue officials who offered me, this afternoon, the opportunity of a briefing. I wasn't able to attend that briefing because I was involved with the standing committee on administration of justice dealing with some other bills for which I have taken some responsibility. But I was given some briefing notes or a compendium of the act which clearly outlines what in fact is included in this Corporations Tax Amendment Act.
While Mr White, the member for Durham Centre, would claim that this law is a year old, in fact it's not a year old. It was only introduced on April 15, 1992, although the intention was put forward by the Treasurer a year ago when he introduced the budget in 1991. I believe it was early May 1991. Therefore, for the members of the government to complain that the opposition somehow has been dragging its heels on this legislation is a bogus argument. This legislation was introduced only a month and a half ago and this is the first opportunity we have had to debate it.
In my view, there are three important things to take into consideration in this act. First of all, this is a taxation act. It increases taxes on small business. It increases taxes on financial institutions and it increases taxes on automobile insurance premiums.
I thought we would never see an NDP government, which ran on a platform of lower automobile insurance premiums in 1987 -- the central plank to its platform was lower automobile insurance premiums. So what did the Treasurer of Ontario do in his very first budget? He increased premiums on automobile insurance by charging a 3% surcharge on those automobile insurance premiums.
I don't know how they live with themselves when they had staked their political future on such principles as lowering automobile insurance and focused so much on that particular issue. They have abandoned public auto insurance and they have increased the premiums for the people of Ontario, be they old, be they middle-aged or be they young people.
I find that extremely difficult to accept from this government and I want to indicate our heartfelt opposition to this legislation. I don't believe any amount of debate is going to stop these people from reneging on their campaign promises. I don't believe any amount of talk is going to stop their unmitigated rush to increase all kinds of taxes, taxes which have been shown in the budget, taxes which have been brought forward by regulation by the Attorney General on estates and all kinds of various other parts of our legal system. We will continue in this party to oppose each and every tax increase, and this bill only represents at least three more of those tax increases which we so ardently oppose.
The Acting Speaker: I believe all members who wished to participate have participated. The Minister of Revenue may have a few final statements.
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I'd like to inform the member for Bruce that subsection 4(2), which he found very difficult to understand and very complicated, was a benefit that was conferred on the business community by your government in 1988. The amendment we made to this section was to simplify it for business and it's something the corporations have welcomed.
I'd also like to inform both the opposition parties that it took 42 years of Conservative government and five years of Liberal government to come where we have in this province, with the high taxation and the lack of equality and fairness for all the people of this province. I am sure the people of Ontario are not naïve and will vote for us and support us as we put equality and fair taxation into the province.
The Acting Speaker: Ms Wark-Martyn has moved second reading of Bill 11, the Corporations Tax Amendment Act.
I have received from the government whip the following correspondence:
"To the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly:
"Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Shelley Wark-Martyn for second reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Wednesday, June 24, 1992."
It is signed by Shirley Coppen, MPP, chief government whip.
Vote deferred.
2300
ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO
Mr Laughren moved second reading of Bill 16, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. / Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The 1992 Ontario Loan Act will provide the government with authority to borrow up to $16.5 billion over the period ending December 31, 1993. The amount of the loan act is calculated as the sum of the financing requirements for this year plus the financing requirements for the first nine months of the next fiscal year. We have also added a contingency of $600 million to allow the government to accelerate the borrowing program slightly to take advantage of any opportunities to borrow funds at low interest rates.
It is traditional to request authority to meet the borrowing needs for part of the following fiscal year to allow adequate time for the passage of subsequent Loan Acts, thus ensuring an orderly borrowing program.
This year's borrowing program will include bonds, treasury bills, US commercial paper and medium-term notes, as well as borrowings from the Canada pension plan.
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to engage in the debate on second reading and I look forward to the comments and even the advice of the members of the opposition.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments on the Treasurer's opening remarks? Further debate? The honourable member for Bruce.
Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Well, Mr Speaker, as though I haven't said enough already.
Interjections.
Mr Elston: I was so attracted to the interjections of the honourable Treasurer in my previous speech that I may attempt to get his attention again this time.
We have here a request for some $16.5 billion dollars in terms of being able to borrow that much money. That is just about the same amount of money the Treasurer is going to be faced with in terms of deficit financing for the current fiscal year. It is striking to me that we are dealing with this loan act just before the summer holidays, when everybody else in this province is trying to figure out how they are going to take some time away from their jobs and their homes -- actually, how they are going to find enough money, because they have no jobs, to take a break from the everyday frustrations of the Ontario economy we are now in.
It is very, very difficult for people to think about what $16.5 billion means. What is a billion dollars in terms of the realities of the woman or the man who is on the main street of our small towns who can't find a job? And we're asking ourselves, is it okay for us to borrow 16.5 of those billions of dollars?
The magnitude of this number is huge by anybody's standards, it seems to me, maybe with the exception of the United States and a fellow by the name of Ross Perot, who by himself is a billionaire with a tremendous personal wealth capacity, a huge capacity. I don't know what his total net worth is, but perhaps he could give us the money in the province of Ontario. Doesn't that strike us all as slightly odd? Of course, it is the same North American community that has given him that tremendous wealth.
Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think he's a New Democrat.
Mr Elston: Somebody thinks Mr Perot is not a New Democrat. I think he is not a Democrat at all, but then we will soon find out as the press finds out more about H. Ross Perot as he runs to become President of the United States, an economy with which we are engaged in perhaps not mortal combat for the jobs in North America's economy but certainly a devastating struggle for a piece of the action.
When we get the authority to borrow $16.5 billion, as this Treasurer will, because we all recognize the fact that he's got to have it, isn't it interesting that we've got to have $16.5 billion while I've got people at home who this spring couldn't borrow $25,000 to fund their farm operations? I couldn't get people money if I tried in the magnitude of $10,000 to keep their family farms going for another year. We couldn't find another $55,000 or $60,000 to keep a couple of plants going in my area, so that the women and men who are on the line there could continue to earn an income.
Now, $50,000 compared to $16.5 billion is a huge, huge number and the concern I expressed before about the taxes is a concern that is often relayed to me, but there's a second concern that's attached to concern about paying taxes, that is, that the money that is spent by the government of this province -- again, I'm not going to be partisan on this, but government in general -- is not spent for the people, they think, who pay the actual tax dollars. "What do I get from all of those expenditures?" What am I going to tell the people in Chepstow they're getting out of this borrowing of $16.5 billion? What is it?
My difficulty is that, first of all, none of those people probably will ever see $1 billion, let alone $16.5 billion. What is that I tell the people about the priorities that are attached to the expenditures of this $16.5 billion? Basically, what I have to tell them is that it falls into a giant black hole called the consolidated revenue fund to be mixed there -- it's probably spent before it gets in, by the way -- but it's mixed and is sent out at a speed that is dizzying to even those people who are --
Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Try a Carl Sagan analogy there: billions and billions.
Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): Oh, Cam, please keep quiet.
Mr Elston: This is the first time one of my speeches has ever mobilized any member of the audience. I'm afraid I'm going to have to take lessons on how to cool my speeches out.
Mr Scott: I may have to run in Burlington South.
Mr Jackson: You would be welcome to try.
Mr Scott: I'd probably clean your clock, my friend.
Mr Elston: Oh, my God. I think we have a challenge here. It could be that the member for St George-St David will be running in Burlington South some time. This is sounding rather ominous, and it all comes about as a result of me talking about $16.5 billion. I'm not sure where the connection is, but we're about to get to it, I'm afraid, someplace along the line.
What I was talking about was my constituents wondering: "Where does the money go? What do I get out of this $16.5-billion expenditure?" The feeling is: "I pay taxes, I work hard, I don't get anywhere, I don't get ahead. I don't find myself being able to predict that I can provide a decent living for my kids, for my family, for my extended family. I can't do the things in my community that I thought were important and worthwhile. The world changes. I lose my job, maybe in fact lose home, lose family members as a result of the economy, and my local representative is in Queen's Park tonight approving a measure that allows the government of Ontario to borrow $16.5 billion."
This year alone, the budget projection deficit is $9.9 billion. Most people don't think this year, unlike what they said last year of the Treasurer's projection which in those days was phrased in terms of "spot on," that the $9.9-billion deficit projected for the current year is spot on. That might be a little bit difficult. I think, as with most treasurers, what they do is move the spot. The spot moves.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I told him about Round-up; he got it confused with "spot on."
Mr Elston: The member for Huron, who now resides just temporarily in the Premier's seat, has told me he was talking to the Treasurer about the agricultural industry and discussing Round-up with him, but we couldn't afford to buy Round-up in our part of the country because there was no money for our farm people to borrow. While we're talking about borrowing $16.5 billion, it was tough for people to get money to put their crops in this year. Not everybody had that difficulty, but a lot of people had the difficulty, and a lot of people had difficulty because there wasn't funding in place quickly enough under the Minister of Agriculture and Food's program to put the money out in the spring planting season. Maybe if this $16.5 billion had been borrowed first it would have been there for my constituents. Maybe it would have been there for a lot of farm constituents right around the province.
2310
What the people are really concerned about is that they pay their taxes but they don't seem to get anything back for it. There are a couple of problems, and it is partly because we've become accustomed to all the programs that we do pay for in this province.
Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Who created them?
Mr Elston: Some of them brought in by the Conservative government, some brought in by our government, some now brought in by the New Democratic Party government.
But in the end, the people don't see the result of the expenditure any more. There is no measurement of an effective type of fiscal arrangement any more that says to the individual taxpayer or consumer of our government services, "This is value for your dollar." I don't know how the Treasurer's going to stand here in this House at another time and say, "For the $16.5 billion I can point to this and this and this as value for the dollar."
I see the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education right now heads a department which is most under attack, because there is a real sense that there isn't value for the dollars being spent, and he is spending a lot of money, like his predecessors have, on trying to provide educational services for our province. But a lot of people in my constituency and a lot of people in the city of Toronto, who I see on a daily basis, are talking about not getting the results that should be coming from the dollars that we spend.
Mr David Winninger (London South): They're talking about your 12 trips last year, Murray.
Mr Elston: The honourable member for London South is criticizing me for having taken 12 trips on legislative business last year. I did take 12 trips. I don't know what the cost of those 12 trips was. Why don't you tell me? What was it?
Mr Winninger: It's $3,195.
Mr Elston: Thirty-one hundred dollars for doing business around the province. That's 12 trips. Those were "luxury" fares all around the province. I did it because in the days when I was in the opposition leader's office, I chose to use my legislative trips to take me from one place to another around this province so I could talk to some men and women. I don't think it's worthwhile to really dwell on it too much, but $3,100 for 12 trips isn't that much, except to say that the honourable member for London South is right to identify that expenditure as part of the $16.5 billion that will have to be found for this current fiscal year. It's part of the taxation costs. There isn't any question about that at all.
From my point of view, everyone of us makes some expenditures which we're either prepared to measure against rational expenditures or we're going to be condemned for not expending anything. If he wants to condemn me for having used the 12 trips, that's fine; I guess I'll have to wear that. But I want to tell the people of the province --
Hon Mr Laughren: You're a bit defensive.
Mr Elston: The Treasurer says to me, "You're a bit defensive on the 12 trips." Well, I'll tell you, I feel defensive in this place about the expenditure of taxpayers' money because it's costing a lot of money for each member in this House on an average basis, and every time we spend money as members it's something that we can't put in the field to provide the government services. And I do feel touchy about it, I really do, but until I can find airfare in this province that costs less to give me a plane ride from Sudbury to Kingston than it does to take a plane fare from Toronto to London, England, then maybe we'll have some other debate at that time.
I've gotten away from the point, but it does talk about the expenditures of money here and I am defensive about it because, to be quite honest, the whole world is reflecting on the amount of money spent by their elected officials, not only at this level on their own operations --
Hon Mr Laughren: You shouldn't be.
Mr Elston: Well, I am, because we are spending money and people are saying, "What value do we get from you guys?" That is the real question. They say, "What are you doing talking there at quarter after 11?" It's actually probably a better time to talk here than if it were in prime time. "What are you doing talking there? What value do we get from you? What value do we get from the Minister of Education's department? What value do we get from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines' department?" Those are all things we ought to be defensive about, because there isn't a lot of money out there to be collected or, as the member for Huron was describing to the Treasurer, to be rounded up.
What value is there in all this? The expenditures made by the members here or by the Minister of Education are trying at least to provide value added for all our offices, for the kids that the Minister of Education is responsible for -- or maybe it's responsible to; I suppose in this line of business we're responsible to the children, because in the end what they take from the expenditures that are made to provide them with some educational services will end up forming their experiences in school, also providing them with the backdrop for what will become of them in later life, I believe.
What value is given from having a bunch of people around here, 130 members, some with more assets, to be quite honest, than others have to play with, some bottom lines in these expense accounts or sheets which are out here on our desks tonight which are --
Mr Stockwell: Unbelievable.
Mr Elston: Well, no, the bottom lines are actually sort of reduced in size because of certain status, as in executive council or House leaders' roles or chief whips or parliamentary assistants.
When we start asking the question, should we be borrowing $16.5 billion? there's only one answer: There is no question that we have to borrow it. We have to provide health care, we have to provide education and we have to provide other services, but maybe it's a time when we ask ourselves, do we have to provide everything we are doing?
I happen to have a position which requires -- at least which has forced me, I guess, in some ways to reflect upon the absolute essential nature of providing health care services in this province. Every time I hear about the possible decanting of one service or another out of our health field, I somehow feel like I have lost part of my culture.
The great thing I like about Ontario is that I can walk around any part of North America and look at those other people and say, in the province of Ontario, if you fall ill, you don't have to worry about whether or not you can afford to go to a hospital or a doctor or another type of practitioner; you can go; you can get access to those services.
It is not a punishment to become ill as it is in some other places, notably our great neighbour to the south of us, where indeed some 40 million people -- and now, because that was a figure I used to use in the Health ministry, probably more than 40 million people -- are without any kind of support in health services at all. Another group of people, a large number of people, don't have substantial coverage for health services. Another group of people of course can afford to buy whatever there is that is offered in that great country to the south of us.
I guess we got distracted a wee bit by my colleague from London South, and perhaps he'll want to go through his entire list when he stands up to tell us what he spent money on in London South and other places, but really the borrowing cannot be avoided because that's where we find ourselves.
But the exercise that the member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer, is going to have to go through is weeding out the places where he doesn't necessarily have to spend the money. So far the exercise which he has undertaken has been trying to find bits and pieces of money -- and that has been the way with Treasurers for as long as I can recall, which is really only about 11 years; that's my experience here -- has been a sort of broadcasting of a net over the entire operation and pulling in to him what he can.
The exercise which was brought to my attention by several of my then cabinet colleagues was one of really setting priorities in which you establish clearly and firmly what the government believes ought to be the real priorities of expenditure and saying, for times when our fiscal situation prevents us from paying for everything we see, that at least these several areas are going to be protected from the erosion that could cause a collapse of the system we know, and which can have devastating effects on the individual men and women of this province who need the support we should be offering.
The borrowing probably has to be carried out because the federal authorities are cutting back in their transfer payments, but can we expect any differently because, I'll tell you, in the end, whether it's a municipal tax, a provincial tax or a federal tax, I only have one wallet, and as one taxpayer all three levels of government will take the money from me, and they will take it from my constituents, and they will take it from the constituents of the member for Nickel Belt, and they will take it from the pockets of the member for London South and from his constituents: one pocketbook.
Our problem right now is we have a country and a province that cannot find exactly where we want to put our real asset base to work. We want to spread it all over every place, and maybe some of the things we've been doing are not now essential. Education, I would argue, is extremely essential. I would argue that health care is extremely essential. I would argue that the member for London Centre in her role as Minister of Community and Social Services is putting a lot of work into an essential area. But maybe, Mr Treasurer, you can't keep going to all those places if you expect to be doing a good job in the ones that really count for the women and the men and the children of this province.
2320
Borrow $16.5 billion? I guess so. But what is $16.5 billion when you don't have $16.50 to buy yourself the next month's rent, the next meal, make the next payment on your mortgage, on your car or in fact even decide whether or not there is $16.50 to get yourself a little gift around one of the important events in your year?
What is $16.5 billion? I don't know. For a lot of people it really is not something that they even want to think about. All they know is that they don't have resources. All they know is that they can't just stand up in the House some day in their own place and say, "Give me $16.5 billion," like we can. We're privileged. But it is our responsibility and it is our obligation to those people to set clear priorities for how we spend those $16.5 billion, so they actually get to the women and men who need our help. That, in the end, is probably the reason that all of us who may be voting against this in some ways will feel just a touch guilty because we know the Treasurer has to have his fix of dollars.
The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Bruce for his contribution and invite comments and/or questions.
Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The member for Bruce referred to the unfortunate timing of the introduction for second reading being five after 11 in the evening.
The Treasurer introduced for second reading a bill which basically has one section, and it says that the government "may borrow in any manner provided by the Financial Administration Act such sums, not exceeding a total aggregate amount of $16.5 billion, as are considered necessary to discharge any indebtedness or obligation of Ontario."
What is important here is that we're dealing on second reading with a bill authorizing the borrowing of $16.5 billion at the same time as the government House leader is introducing proposed rules that would restrict the right of the opposition to debate this particular type of legislation to approximately five-and-a-half hours. It is important for the people of Ontario to realize that the new rules on this type of bill, introduced for second reading to authorize $16.5 billion of borrowing, would restrict the opposition to a mere five-and-a-half hours debate. The people of Ontario do not yet realize the significance of the restrictions that are being placed on the members of this Legislature who are trying to do their work on behalf of the people of Ontario.
If you can just conceive, Mr Speaker, that they would want us to be limited to five-and-a-half hours debate to approve their $16.5 billion worth of borrowing, it's a shame, and the people of Ontario do not yet realize it and we in opposition are trying to make them aware of it. We hope they realize it before it's too late.
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I just always enjoy listening to the member for Bruce. It's such a sort of warped view that one is able to have a sense of humour when one is listening to it.
Indeed, his memory is failing him, because when you go back to when the New Democrats took power on September 6, it was just after the Liberals had forecast a surplus in the budget of the province of Ontario. Then soon after, when they started to analyse the books -- at that point there was still some integrity left with the government -- there was some sense that in fact there wasn't a surplus; it was a deficit.
Now mind you, what's happened since then is the Liberal policies have been implemented by the New Democrats. Let's face it: There isn't any doubt that the reason we have gone into debt is in part, and large part, because of the Liberal squandering of the wealth of Ontario.
Mr Scott: Squandering?
Mr Cousens: They just threw it away, Ian. I couldn't believe it, so for them to stand up with such righteous indignation about the way the government's spending is not without having some guilt of their own. The first thing is to understand that he who is without sin casts the first stone. If you do, you know what it's going to feel like. But for the New Democrats there isn't any doubt that you have drawn the correct conclusion.
I will not support this bill. I cannot tolerate the way these New Democrats, under Floyd Laughren, the Deputy Premier, spend money with such abandon, increasing the debt of Ontario more than all the provinces combined. We in Ontario are now leading as far as deficit is concerned. Then you come along and just want to borrow more for the bad spending habits.
You haven't learned any of the lessons. You haven't understood what it is to balance the budget. If you do this with your own personal accounting, you're going to be bankrupt. Well, you're doing that to the province of Ontario. We are going to have a hard time getting out of the problems that you're creating for us when we take power a few years from now.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I think it's interesting to note that slipped in this little piece of legislation is subsection 1(2). It says, "The authority to borrow conferred by this act is in addition to that conferred by any other act." That means this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are other ways the Treasurer can get at borrowing.
Let me tell you something: We talk about wonderful words around here like the consolidated revenue fund because the people out there don't understand that's just a bottomless pit into which all the money goes. We talk about order in council, which sounds like a delightful thing where the Lieutenant Governor comes in and gives his sanction and his blessing to borrowing of revenues by the government.
These people have been dipping in, through what is known as orders in council, to increase the fees for registering a document for all the real estate processes by $2. They've increased the probate fees by a spectacular amount for people who have an estate over $50,000, because they're rich. I suggest to you that what the Treasurer is doing tonight is asking for the authority to borrow $16.5 billion and in fact what he's doing is he's dipping into the pockets of people secretly through these cabinet orders.
We will only see the result of that when we go to buy a home or when we die or when we go to buy -- the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is now going to allow you to use credit cards to buy booze in the liquor store and groceries. What do you think is going to happen? That is in fact an indirect tax on the people of this province.
When you stand here and try to put through this simple bill at 11:30 at night with the limited debate, as my colleague has said, the $16.5 billion, you are not telling the public the true facts. You have access to an awful lot more money and you people will spend, spend, spend, spend. The taxpayers don't mind paying taxes when they see some results but they're not seeing any results.
Mr Scott: I'd like to congratulate the honourable member for Bruce on his remarks. In the course of them, the Treasurer made an interesting observation because someone was referring to the fact that the Attorney General and the cabinet have increased legal fees, in some cases by up to 300%, in order to raise revenue. The Treasurer of course laughed that off and said, "Who feels sorry for the lawyers?" I just want to bring to the attention of the people of Ontario --
Hon Mr Laughren: If it is not the lawyers, what is it?
Mr Scott: No, he still thinks it's funny because he thinks it's a tax on lawyers. The fact is the lawyers are simply the tax collectors for the government. If for example a single parent has to go to court to get support and the fee to commence that proceeding has been raised by 300%, does the Treasurer really think the lawyer pays that fee? Of course the lawyer doesn't pay it. He says to the client, "I can't commence the proceeding until you bring in that money, which the Treasurer wants, and if you don't, I can't commence it."
So the Treasurer is really quite naïve, isn't he? He thinks somehow it is a tax on lawyers. If it were, I'd be delighted to pay it as one of them. It's a tax on clients. The worst thing is, it's a tax on people who have family law disputes, who need to go to court to get custody, who have their young kids in trouble with the law. The Treasurer, to bail himself out of this mess he's in, has decided those people had better start paying. He thinks he can laugh it all off and the people will buy it if he says, "The lawyers are going to pay." No one who's ever been to a lawyer will believe that for one single minute. The client pays the fees.
The Treasurer doesn't understand the most straightforward things about how money's expended in the province.
2330
The Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Mr Scott: The people of Ontario had better understand that. Not only is he getting us into a mess; he doesn't understand the problems that he's creating.
The Speaker: As excellent as the contribution may be, the time has expired.
The member for Bruce has up to two minutes to respond to the statements made.
Mr Elston: I want to thank the honourable member for Markham, the honourable W. Donald Cousens, who obviously was not here when I was speaking. I don't know where he was. I wasn't casting stones or aspersions or anything else on anybody but merely noting for his edification that the people of the province have become accustomed to certain programs. There is a custom in this province so far, by each of the political parties that are running for office, trying to tell people that there is for them more and more and more to pay for their favourite programs. We can't continue to do that.
Or we keep asking everybody if they will pay the bill later for the borrowing of $16.5 billion today. That was my point. I wasn't casting aspersions on anybody. I didn't say that any of us have been blameless in that. But we are all to blame for letting people think or believe that in fact there is a neverending trail of money trees in this province that is going to pay for everything that people ask us to give.
To be quite blunt, as a member from Bruce county, as a member in this Legislative Assembly, as a member who wants to do the right thing for our people, for my kids, we've got to tell people that we can't give them anything; that whatever service is provided in this province will be paid for one way, one day or another. It will be paid by me in forgoing an old age pension, it will be paid by me in forgoing my Canada pension, it may be paid by me forgoing my member's pension, but one way, one day the things that we tell people we are giving them will be paid for in this province by us or by our children or this province will be taken away from us.
It's about time we learned that lesson.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I think the significant part of this bill is that it says that the borrowing authority expires at the end of December 1993. That may be true, but the cost of borrowing $16.5 billion does not end at the end of December 1993. The cost of borrowing this much money along with the cost of carrying the accumulated annual deficit that this socialist government is leaving to this province as a legacy will go on long past December 1993. In fact it will probably go on past all of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. That is the tragedy of this Bill 16 that is before the House tonight.
As I stand here at 25 minutes before midnight tonight to make a few comments on Bill 16, I'm happy to note that in the House are the Minister of Education and the Minister of Community and Social Services, because I would like to give them each an example of why I am opposed to borrowing $16.5 billion.
We are not in this province today looking after the people that we need to look after in terms of priority from the very beginning. Yes, this government is spending more money than it's receiving. This government is not balancing or even attempting to balance its books. Admittedly, when this government came to office it inherited, instead of what it thought was an $11 million surplus from the previous Liberal government, what was the beginning of a deficit, which last year was just under $10 billion, which this year is just over $10 billion, and we're very fearful that next year it may be as high as $14 billion.
I think that one of the significant facts about where we are today in Ontario with our annual deficit and our accumulated debt is one simple set of figures. When the Conservative government went out of office in 1985 it was 118 years since Confederation. In 118 years since Confederation this province had accumulated $30 billion in debt. In the next five years under the Liberal government we increased that $30 billion to $40 billion. In the two years that the Bob Rae socialist government has been in office we have added another $20 billion. So this is very significant from the fact that it took 118 years to have a $30 billion debt. We now have another $20 billion added to that.
Most people learn at a very early age that, as one other member has said but it's actually an expression that we have used a lot in our family, you simply spend within your allowable income. You don't borrow from the future for the present. I wouldn't mind if I felt that this government was borrowing because it was managing the money it does get in income across the province, if it was managing that money well. Obviously we are aware of the fact that this government has no idea what it's doing with money in terms of priorities.
I would say to the Minister of Community and Social Services that in the city of Mississauga we have an organization with which I know she is familiar, and that is Community Living. Community Living Mississauga has had an accumulation of what is now a five-year waiting list to service its clients. They have an inordinate number of clients on their waiting list. Community Living Mississauga, because of its reduced funding from the province over the last five or six years, has been placed in the unenviable position of having to close its waiting lists. They are simply saying that if a waiting list is five years long, what is the point of adding more names to it? They are closing their waiting list at the same time that the region of Peel is growing 20,000 people a year.
Twenty thousand people a year is more people than the majority of the 843 municipalities in this province have as their total residency. This Minister of Community and Social Services has inherited a situation which I plead to her to remedy, and if this government is going to borrow $16.5 billion, surely there should be some remedy for the people who most need it. I would suggest that in a perfect world, if there was a money tree at Queen's Park, we could do everything for everybody. We recognize that is not possible. We simply say, and I'm saying on behalf of my residents and particularly the people who need the services of Community Living Mississauga, please prioritize in terms of human need. Please decide that those people who are not in a position to have an equal opportunity because they have all kinds of frailties and developmental disabilities need the help and support through programs.
2340
When those programs are not available, they don't have a choice of supporting themselves, going out to work, freeing their parents of responsibility for them. When these clients who need this special care cannot access it, the total burden falls on the parents. I'd like to tell you, Madam Minister, because I do appreciate the fact that you're here 15 minutes before midnight, that I have two particular young men in mind tonight.
They're both 20. They've both been on a program where they're bussed every day to a day school program. They're both very developmentally disabled. One of them cannot walk or speak or feed himself and wears diapers. The other is not quite that gravely disabled. Never in 20 years has either of these families reached out and asked the government at any level -- municipal, provincial or federal -- for any help. For 20 years these families have looked after their children with their tremendous disabilities. They've been grateful for a few hours on a daily basis of respite when those children have been picked up in a bus and taken to their school environment, where they've been able to interact with whatever limited ability they had with other children.
When these children become 21 they are no longer eligible for these day programs in these schools. There are no other programs available for them. It's not a matter of them falling through the cracks; it's just the fact that once they're 21, the programs do not exist.
Community Living Mississauga has recognized that the government doesn't have unlimited funds also, so it has developed a program called Supported And Independent Living. I know that your staff have met with the proponents of SAIL, and I know that you have been briefed by your staff on that program. The theory behind the SAIL program is that the individual families involve a circle of support in the community, not asking directly for individual funding for each one of these young children, as they are, because although they're 20 or 21 or 30 or 40 years of age, they simply don't have the ability beyond that of very young children.
Community Living Mississauga has asked for funding for a coordinator of this SAIL program. Even that is not being granted to Community Living. So they cannot even offer an alternative self-help kind of organization where these families can get organized to provide alternative programs.
Where do we get off in a province as rich and as wealthy as Ontario in 1992 not helping the people who need the help the most? Where do we find the money to spend on many other programs for healthy, able-bodied people who do have alternatives, who will always survive, because if they are physically and mentally able there will always be something they can do? Where and why is it that we have programs for those people and we don't have programs for these other people who in no way can help themselves?
You see, the real tragedy evolves when those people who are so frail physically and so developmentally disabled become equivalent to what we would refer to as adults, when they become 40 and 45 years old and their parents who are now maybe in their late sixties, and in some cases of some families that I've been trying to help as old as in their seventies, are still trying to care for their children because there is no outside source of help.
We have a moral responsibility in my humble opinion to look after these people before we look after anyone else. In an imperfect world where there isn't endless funding, I simply plead with you to look again on behalf of Community Living Mississauga at its SAIL program, at the very least, and see if you can find the funds to be a catalyst to making that program successful so that it can help a lot of the people they presently have on their waiting list.
Having said that, I hope also that these young men whose example I have given you, who have no future of programs outside of their family, will have some kind of program available to them after the age of 21. Those families are not saying: "We need an institutional setting. We need all-day or all-night care." They're just asking for programs that involve a few hours. I think that is an obligation that you have, that I have, that everyone in this Legislature has; that is, to make sure these people's needs are met.
I say also to the Minister of Education that when he is looking at announcing funding for any kind of new initiative in education across this province he should look first at equalizing the opportunity for education in this province.
Interjections.
Hon Mr Laughren: Oh don't be mean. Margaret has a right to speak. You have a right to speak, Margaret. Don't let them bully you.
Mrs Marland: I appreciate the Treasurer telling me that I have a right to speak. It's actually very confusing, Mr Treasurer, because I am being handed a number of notes, as you can appreciate.
To speak about the equality of opportunity for education, I say to the Minister of Education tonight, in this bill, Bill 16, your Treasurer is asking to borrow $16.5 billion. Surely in that $16.5 billion that this government is borrowing, you could find some way of equalizing the opportunity for education in this province.
2350
By that I mean an example in my riding, in the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, there is a school called St James school. It's a very old school. I have written to every Minister of Education for the last seven years and invited the Minister of Education to come and visit this school. I asked the Liberal ministers of Education and I've asked -- I think you're the third Minister of Education for your government. We've invited each and every one of you to come to visit St James school.
It is a small school in Port Credit and the standard of physical plant that those students have would be equivalent to some kind of temporary summer school in northern Ontario, or the kids maybe came for five or six weeks in the summer and were all in portables and temporary accommodation. That's what St James school is about.
I have talked about this school as an example of underfunding in education for a long time in this Legislature. I've talked about the fact that when they come to their annual Christmas concert they have to hold it in a church; they do not have an auditorium or even a gymnasium. They do not have a large room in which to have an assembly. The largest room they have is two portables put together. You can appreciate that two portables do not have the height in the ceiling for sports, so they're not able to have a full sports program other than when the weather is good enough and they can be outside.
In that same school board, the Dufferin-Peel separate school board, over 40% of their students are in portables. Now, wouldn't you think with a $10.9 billion deficit that this province could promise the students at the Dufferin-Peel school board something better than to go through all their grades in school in portables, but unfortunately that is the story.
We actually now have students graduating from grade 12 and grade 13 in the Dufferin-Peel separate school board who have never been in anything except a portable. I think if we really believe in the future of this province, we have to guarantee the right to equal education, and every professional teacher in this province -- and there's a number in this Legislature -- I'm sure would agree that to teach in a portable, or to learn in a portable, is not the same as in a proper school building.
When we look at the inequities of standards for basic needs in this province, I really feel that this government is just carrying on the problems of reduced standards and unsatisfactory non-solutions that the previous Liberal government practiced.
The fact is that in the region of Peel we have the largest public school board in Canada, and the Peel Board of Education, as you are well aware, has just cancelled its junior kindergarten program. Whether or not you are in favour of junior kindergarten philosophically from an educational point of view is one issue, but what a ludicrous situation this government has put the Peel Board of Education in.
Barely three or four weeks after the Peel Board of Education decided to cancel junior kindergarten and lay off over 300 teachers affecting over 6,000 junior kindergarten children, this Minister of Education tables in this House a bill which will mandate, make compulsory, junior kindergarten in all public school boards by 1994. Here we are in 1992, and two years from now the Peel Board of Education is going to have to restructure and gear up again, rehire and organize for junior kindergarten; I suppose by then in excess of maybe 7,000 students.
This minister has said he has something like $51 million in contingency funds, I understand. What sense does it make for this minister to sit back and say: "Well, I've got this money in my pocket, but I haven't quite decided who is going to get it yet. In the meantime, if you can't balance your budget, Peel Board of Education, then you're going to have to do whatever you have to do to balance it, because it's illegal to budget for a deficit."
So the Peel Board of Education started cutting many very serious programs. It was cutting English as a second language, and in a board where a very high percentage of all the immigrant children who arrive at Toronto international airport end up arriving in our schools in Peel, English as a second language is a very necessary program. Then it was faced with the decision of cutting the special education programs. How is it possible, again, for any government with any compassion to sit by and watch special education programs or English-as-a-second-language programs cut?
We're back to the same argument: Wouldn't it be great to reduce class size? I remember when the Liberal government spent something like $50 million or $60 million reducing class size to 25 around this province for normal kids. When I say "normal," I mean children who do not require special education. If you are a parent, you know that a class with 30 children or 25 children in it doesn't make a great deal of difference in terms of the opportunity for individual learning and individual teaching for those children. It makes a lot of difference if you're reducing the class size to a small class, which is 12 to 15.
The Liberal government spent $50 million or $60 million reducing class size for normal children at the same time that some of these examples I've given you about the Community Living clients were not being addressed, at the same time that I was pleading for help for people with special needs.
This government is simply going on with the same kind of programming, and this is the government that said it had the greatest social agenda of any political party in the history of this province. This government is not demonstrating its social agenda nor its moral responsibility to people in need. You only have to talk to the parents of the children in my riding whom I've given as an example or go and visit some of the schools that do not have the same educational opportunity because the children don't have the same physical plant as children in other parts of this province outside the region of Peel.
When you look at this bill before us now to borrow $16.5 billion, which is about 30% of the total budget of this province, you have to ask why. Is there no revenue at all? I suppose part of the answer this year is no. There is revenue, there is still money coming in to this government, but albeit because of this government's policies now identified in legislation, for example the labour law reforms, this government is driving business out of the province. As businesses close and go into bankruptcy and new businesses are not attracted to come into this province, certainly we are losing money from revenue.
The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga South, I don't wish to interrupt wisdom, but it being 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned.
The House adjourned at 2400.