Hansard Transcript 1993-Jun-16 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Monday 14 June will go down as one of the darkest days in the history of this province and its Parliament. On that day Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren, by introducing the so-called Social Contract Act, introduced and became the authors of the most anti-democratic, anti-labour, anti-civil-rights piece of legislation that has ever been introduced in any Legislature in Canada.

One eminent lawyer described this bill as the most dramatic intrusion into the collective bargaining process that he had ever seen. We all agree that restraint in public expenditure is an important order of the day, but what Bob Rae has done is nothing short of a Kremlinesque grab for power. He has chosen not only to restrain the rights of workers working with trade unions to negotiate their collective agreements but has summarily destroyed civil rights and simple rights, like the right to grieve and the right to complain, as a result of the arbitrary actions of employers.

Everyone in this province should see this legislation for what it is and see what a threat it represents to all of our civil liberties, the liberties that protect us in a free and democratic society.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The social contract legislation introduced by the Treasurer does nothing to help municipalities confronted by enormous cuts to their transfer payments.

Municipal employer representatives acted in good faith by staying at the talks and remained committed to working out a solution with the NDP government to cut the deficit, save services and jobs and ensure no tax increases. The social contract legislation provides little assurance that savings will be found in compensation.

Many of Ontario's 839 municipalities believe a wage freeze will not provide the savings required to offset the NDP government's recent slashing of $110 million in unconditional grants and the $285-million cut to the public sector payrolls. The government has left municipalities with no choice but to lay off employees and cut services.

Municipal representatives are also alarmed about the distribution of the cuts to individual municipalities. Throughout the social contract discussions, municipalities focused on the need to reduce the sectoral target and recommended that one quarter of this year's impact be deferred to the second quarter of 1996, making the amount for 1993 no more than $150 million.

This is a reasonable suggestion in recognition of a fiscal year problem facing municipalities across Ontario. The Premier has an obligation to direct his government to help reduce the impact of midyear cuts on the beleaguered municipalities in Ontario.

Time is running out and the resumption of discussions must happen as soon as possible, before the social contract legislation becomes law.

RIDE FOR SIGHT

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today in the House to inform the members of the Legislature of the 1993 Ride For Sight, a motorcycle event held in every province and territory in Canada during the month of June.

In 1979, a small number of motorcycle enthusiasts had the first rally and raised $8,000. From this humble beginning, the Ride For Sight has developed into a national event with approximately 8,000 motorcyclists raising close to $1 million in 1992 to fund eye research in Canada.

All the donor money raised on the Ride For Sight goes to retinitis pigmentosa research and other closely allied degenerations of the eye. Retinitis pigmentosa is a major cause of blindness in people between the ages of 6 and 60 and affects thousands of Canadians. Canadian scientists are recognized worldwide for their efforts in fighting this group of diseases. In Ontario, research is being conducted by scientists at the Hospital for Sick Children here in Toronto.

Participating motorcyclists are justifiably proud of their contribution in this successful work because the Ride For Sight is the largest source of private funding for eye research. In 1992, motorcyclists across Canada raised over $835,000, of which over $450,000 was raised in Ontario.

This year, Fenelon Falls hosts the Ride For Sight June 18, 19 and 20. Motorcyclists will be able to enjoy a full weekend of activities with their friends and families. The Ride For Sight weekend rally is a way to say thanks to all the motorcyclists and volunteers who took the time and made the effort to help others.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people involved in the Ride For Sight and their contributions towards retinitis pigmentosa research and to wish them the best for this weekend.

1340

COMPENSATION FOR AIDS PATIENTS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Mr Speaker, you will know that consistently since November 1991 I've been asking that the province of Ontario participate alongside the federal government in a compensation plan that would ensure that those who have contracted HIV through tainted blood and blood products have security for themselves and for their families.

Quebec, Nova Scotia and Alberta have instituted plans to provide restitution, and in each case, those provincial plans have been introduced after extensive consultation on their design with organizations such as the Canadian Haemophilia Society, whose membership is substantially affected by this problem.

Last week, the Minister of Health said, outside of the House, "Governments in the past did not adopt policies that protected people who received blood." Clearly, she has accepted the liability of the government for its actions. She has speculated in the press that there may be a compensation plan, but unfortunately she has refused to meet with those very people who could assist in its design and ensure that an Ontario program meets the needs of those who have used and are affected by tainted blood and blood products.

We need to know what responsibility this government will take for the social and medical costs of a tainted blood supply, and that any Ontario plan is carefully and thoughtfully drafted with the input of those who are affected by it. The minister must ensure the consultation and involvement of those who received HIV-tainted blood.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On May 7, a group of 35 grade 7 students from Zion Heights Junior High School came to Queen's Park to present a petition and letters to my office. They are concerned about the lack of government protection for endangered species.

There have been seven new additions to Canada's endangered species list. These additions bring the total number of endangered plant and animal species in Canada to 236. Approximately 40% of these species are found in what were once the great deciduous forests of southern Ontario and Quebec.

The most effective way of protecting these plants and animals from further loss would be to set aside habitats representative of each of the various land and sea ecosystems in Canada.

I would remind you that the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity calls for the preservation of 12% of each country's land as protected spaces, a target that was formally adopted by the federal and provincial Environment ministries.

Neither federal nor provincial wildlife laws require habitat protection or restoration efforts when a species is found to be threatened.

The students from Zion Heights feel strongly that without positive government action, Ontario will continue to lose its natural wildlife. They wrote letters to the Premier expressing their concerns and they compiled a petition demanding a moratorium to protect all endangered species and their habitats.

Much of the legal responsibility for protecting plants and animals falls within the provincial government's jurisdiction. I strongly support my constituents' demands and I urge the government to take immediate action to protect our natural wildlife.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I wish to confirm my opposition to the North American free trade agreement and the negative impact this proposed deal will have on Ontario's agricultural industry.

The future viability of agriculture in this province and indeed the future of many of our family farms hangs in the balance as the federal government rushes towards the North American free trade agreement. That future is bleak if this deal is completed.

If the free trade agreement negotiated by the same federal government between Canada and the United States is an indication of how this wider agreement will be run, we risk losing much, especially on our farms and throughout our rural communities.

No one knows this better than many of my constituents in Lambton county. The pork producers in my riding, and across Ontario and Canada, are reeling from this latest decision made by the panel earlier this week that sided with the US Department of Commerce. The US claimed that live hogs exported from Canada to the US in 1989-90 were subject to countervailable duty rate because of our national tripartite system to the tune of some $20 million.

The constant harassment of our hog and pork industries has not been ended by the free trade deal. Indeed, there seems to be a flagrant disregard of this deal by many American industries and within the US government.

Now on the heels of that disastrous free trade agreement comes NAFTA. NAFTA will not end American trade harassment. It will only add to the devastation started by the free trade agreement. The negatives of NAFTA are too much for our farmers and food industries to bear.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to know where my Conservative colleagues stand on the social contract legislation.

When the NDP began its social contract negotiations, Mike Harris applauded the announcement. He told Bob Rae that he could count on his Tory party's support.

By the end of April, Mike Harris was saying, "I will support legislation -- bang, bang, bang, first, second, third reading."

But then, by the end of May, they changed their tune. Members of the Conservative caucus said: "This process is flawed, badly flawed, from the beginning. It's a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants process."

One week Mike Harris says, "I have supported social contract talks." The very next week Mike Harris says, "We have told you that the social contract talks could not possibly succeed."

Now the legislation is here, and on Monday, June 14, the Conservatives said two things: (1) They said they might support the legislation in principle and (2) Mike Harris, quoted on CHCH-TV, said he was going to try and defeat the legislation. I say to the Conservative caucus, which is it? I want to know and the people of Ontario want to know, where do the Conservatives stand on Bill 48, the social contract legislation?

We have a government, the NDP, which wakes up in the morning and creates party policy depending on where the wind blows. The Conservatives are no better. I say, do you support Bob Rae's draconian legislation or have you realized that it will not accomplish the goals that even this government says it wants to achieve?

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): If there were any doubts that the government is no longer listening to the concerns of the agricultural community, they no longer exist for farmers in the southern portion of my Simcoe West riding.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food or, as the farming community in my riding now refers to it, the ministry of aggravation and frustration, is coercing the town of New Tecumseth to rezone land from its current rural-agricultural designation to strictly an agricultural designation. Farmers in my riding know this single designation will sharply erode the value of their lands.

But instead of listening to my constituents and advocating on their behalf, ministry officials are strong-arming New Tecumseth farmers into agreeing to this rezoning.

I quote from a letter to the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food written by Ontario Federation of Agriculture President Roger George regarding the conduct displayed by a ministry official to my constituents at a recent meeting in the riding:

"I regret to report that Ms Johnston's attitude brought little credit to OMAF, the bureaucracy or the government of Ontario. Quite frankly it was seen as, 'My way or the doorway."'

As well, my constituents were left with the impression that any future support from the government would be linked to their surrender on this rezoning issue.

The minister and his officials know full well that this rezoning will erect another barrier to the viability and sustainability of agriculture in my riding.

Agriculture bureaucrats need to remember whom they represent. Without farmers there is no Ministry of Agriculture and Food. If the ministry is to be relevant, it needs to start pleading the case of farmers and not working against them and insulting them.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): When I think of the social contract, its purpose and the way it will help us achieve our economic goals, it brings to mind the success of the Spruce Falls mill in Kapuskasing. When it became public knowledge that the mill was in a difficult economic situation, the employees realized they had to participate. They became involved in negotiating a settlement that would protect as many jobs as possible.

A government deficit can be looked on in much the same way as private industry deficits. You can only go on borrowing for so long before your creditors withdraw and your investors spend elsewhere. We know that if our government continues to borrow and spend without controlling our spending, we will see massive transfers of wealth going to bondholders, much of it outside Canada. We will then have less money for job creation programs, economic renewal and services such as health and education.

Much the same way the employees of Spruce Falls had the option of being involved in creating a strategic buyout plan, public service employees too have a similar option. They have the option to be involved in decisions that will ultimately determine their own economic future as well as that of others.

1350

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): In April 1992, I asked the Ministry of Transportation for an early installation date of median barriers on the Conestoga Parkway in Kitchener. At that time I said it would be a move that would obviously prevent collisions, prevent accidents and would lives. This expressway was built over 26 years ago in my community, and certainly is due for some major improvements and changes.

Yesterday, three residents of my community were killed instantly in yet another crossover accident collision. Yesterday's triple fatality was the latest in a string of collisions that have occurred over the past three years leaving seven people dead and countless numbers injured.

A coroner's inquest into one of the deaths recommended that median barriers be installed to prevent similar accidents in the future. Twenty months have passed and median barriers have not yet been installed on this stretch of roadway.

Today, I call on the Minister of Transportation to move up the projected 1996 planned installation date of median barriers on the parkway so that lives will no longer be lost on this stretch of Ontario's highways.

I know that all of my colleagues join with me in extending our sincere sympathies to the families of the victims, Derek Fidler, Ryan Short and Herbert Hombach.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would like to invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, and indeed a former minister of the crown, Mr Alex Macdonald. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Today, I am pleased to release Putting People First, Ontario's framework for mental health reform. We can now move forward to create an effective mental health system that responds to the needs of each individual.

Our first priority is to meet the needs of people who need help most, those with severe mental illness. We know the most vulnerable require services that are consumer-oriented and sensitive to gender, culture, race and language.

The Ministry of Health spends more than $1.3 billion annually on mental health. We provide a number of excellent mental health programs, yet the vital links between them that would ensure we are reaching those most in need, and providing them with proper community support and a smooth transition from one service to another, are often missing.

Using the principles set out in Putting People First, we will transform a group of fragmented services to a strong coordinated system. We will see hospital and community-based services working together to build a better mental health system.

The reform process began in 1988 with the Graham report Building Community Supports for People. Reform continued with an extensive consultation process and detailed planning by district health councils and provincial psychiatric hospitals.

This government has already passed legislation dealing with key issues for mental health reform, the Consent to Treatment Act, Substitute Decisions Act and the Advocacy Act.

These acts reinforce the right of people in all settings to make decisions if they are mentally capable of doing so, and enable them to designate someone they trust to make decisions for them if they become incapable.

These acts also provide new ways to protect the wellbeing and rights of people when they lack mental capacity by correcting significant gaps and inconsistencies in our present laws.

As we turn our attention to the necessary system changes, let me state for this House our government's commitment to providing the necessary community services, just as we have for long-term care. In 1978, I was a member of Etobicoke city council when Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital was closed without any alternative services in place in my community. That experience will not be repeated.

Community-based mental health programs and services have grown from $42.9 million in 1985-86 to over $170 million in 1993-94, a growth of 400%. This expansion of community mental health programs will continue as we reallocate funding within our mental health budget.

Our long-term care reform will also provide more support in the community to elderly people with mental health problems who can now receive treatment in the community rather than being institutionalized.

In some places, reform is already in action. In Hamilton, for example, the psychiatric hospital runs the Annex, a supportive housing program for people with schizophrenia. Abel Enterprises, a business cooperative in Simcoe, helps consumers-survivors live in the community and maintain stable jobs. Programs like these are building blocks of our mental health reform.

To achieve our vision for the mental health system, we will focus on four key services and supports, namely, case management, 24-hour crisis intervention, housing, and consumer-survivor and family supports to help people manage their illness and reduce hospitalization.

Strong local and regional planning under the leadership of district health councils will allow people to move easily within the system and ensure that no part of the province is left unserviced. Each part of the system will be clearly defined and realigned to provide a mix of services and avoid gaps and duplication.

We will determine the appropriate role for hospitals, community-based programs, homes for special care and services run by consumers-survivors.

Special programs will be developed to meet the needs of those with severe mental illness and the unique needs of women, children, people with developmental disabilities, francophones, elderly people, members of ethnocultural groups and mentally disordered offenders and accused persons.

The ministry will develop a human resources strategy to support this reform. The strategy will reflect collective agreements and legislation. We will ensure that workers who provide direct care in the provincial psychiatric hospitals will have the opportunity to work in the community, and we will provide opportunities for retaining as necessary.

In 1993, institutional care, excluding services covered by the Ontario health insurance plan, took about 80% of the mental health budget, with the remainder going to community services. By the year 2003, Ontario will be spending 60% on community care.

Despite the focus on community services, the government, as always, recognizes the importance of hospital services in the treatment of mental illness. To demonstrate this, I'm pleased to announce that this fall we will start the construction of a new 325-bed psychiatric hospital in Whitby.

We have committed $133.5 million to this project which will create 2,200 construction-related jobs per year and stimulate the local economy. The hospital is expected to open in December 1996.

This new hospital will reflect our new vision of reform in many ways. It will increase its ties with the community and general hospitals, and expand its outpatient and day hospital programs so that people can receive treatment in their own community. As well, it will serve as a tertiary care facility offering specialized programs for the seriously mentally ill in the area.

Today is a proud day for the mental health community in this province. For the first time, Ontario has a clearly defined framework for a mental health system, a framework that reflects the thinking of those directly involved in the system, a framework that has government support and commitment, a framework that puts people first.

It's a day that's been a long time coming and that a lot of people have worked for for a long time, and there are some people in the gallery today whose names I would like to read into the record so that they could stand when I've finished and be recognized. We have Steve Pierce, Carole Roup, Chris Higgins, Don Wasylenki, Pat Capponi, Steve Lurie, Brian Davidson, Jessica Hill, Glen Thompson and Larry Corea, and I'd like to acknowledge their work in making this a reality.

1400

NATIVE INFORMATION SERVICES

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I am pleased to report today that my ministry has concluded its consultations with the aboriginal community in response to the native information services task force report.

We have found a strong consensus in support of task force recommendations and, as a result, are pleased to announce today two key initiatives in support of first nation library and information services.

As my colleagues are aware, the task force was established two years ago in response to an urgent need for equitable and culturally appropriate information services to the aboriginal community. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the task force for their commitment and determination, as well as all the aboriginal groups and organizations that we've consulted with over the past year.

Our government is deeply committed to the idea that all people and all regions of the province should be fairly represented and given the opportunity to reach their full potential. We believe that all Ontarians must have equity of access to information to help them understand and deal with the changes and challenges of our society.

In first nation communities, the library is often the only resource for disseminating information and articulating and preserving heritage. Equal access to quality library service is critical. Yet, unlike municipal public libraries, first nation libraries have no local tax base from which to draw funding support. Even though my ministry provides funding through various programs, these libraries remain chronically underfunded, resulting in an inequity in library service to first nation communities.

The initiatives I'm announcing today are historically long overdue. They support our government's commitment to the principle of aboriginal self-determination in meeting the current and future needs of aboriginal communities.

First, I am pleased to announce $234,000 in salary subsidy grants to first nation libraries in southern Ontario. Added to funding already in place for first nation libraries in northern Ontario, this brings my ministry's total support for the program to $572,000 for this fiscal year. This initiative will help to stabilize the operations of first nation libraries and improve services to first nation communities right across Ontario.

Our second initiative is the creation of a steering committee to work with my ministry to develop a framework for a province-wide native library and information service. The committee will be made up of representatives from the aboriginal community. These initiatives support the task force recommendations.

I am pleased we have been able to tackle some of the pressing information needs of first nation communities within the context of today's tough economic climate. Now, more than ever, we need services that provide timely, accurate and relevant information to help us become more knowledgeable, better trained and more competitive. By bringing stability to native library and information services, we are contributing immensely to the quality of life of all Ontarians.

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): We were pleased to see that the minister finally made a statement in the House with respect to health care policy, rather than outside of the House. However, it has just come to my attention that the minister also announced today, outside of the House, a review of all Metro health services which she said may result in the closure of facilities, including hospitals. That material and that information should have been brought here to us today. If she can make that announcement outside the House, she can make it inside the House.

I want to turn to The Reform of Mental Health Services in Ontario, the report the minister put on our desks today. This is an area that has been of concern to us for some time, and I want to refer back to the Graham report, which indicated in 1988, when it was first presented, that about "one and one half million people living in Ontario have some form of mental illness; 38,000 are severely disabled by schizophrenia, affective disorders and other mental illnesses." That comes to about 4.1 per 1,000 population. This is not an insignificant portion of our population requiring services.

None the less, as I look at the report which has been put forward today, what I see is a return, in my view at this point of analysis, to a position we were in before the Graham report was introduced in 1988. In other words, what we have is a framework for developing strategies, for putting forward ideas. We do not have an action plan, which is something that everybody in the province has demanded.

Once again, I want to move back to the Graham report, which talked about what the priorities should be in an action plan that was laid forward, in terms of its final recommendations, five years ago. The priority that the Graham report identified was for crisis and residential support, case management, self-help and family support, social and vocational support and the coordination of local services.

Instead of addressing those particular issues, what we have in this report today is a strategy which reads as follows: establish a system, create a structure, define roles, develop programs, develop a strategy, establish targets. There is no action plan involved here. There is a planning process put before us when what is needed is something much more significant than that.

I want to turn to a page in the document towards the end which describes the ministry's plan to cut what are now psychiatric beds in Ontario from 58 to 30. The minister says that will bring us in line with targets in other communities.

One of the areas of serious concern with respect to this decision is that as that cut is made, there is no new money allocated or included in a long-term plan for increasing community-based services for mental health care delivery. Indeed, we know now that the entire system is underfunded. That has been a problem that did not start with this government, that was a problem in the past, but we do not see any new funds entering the system to support the shift to community-based care which the Graham report and clearly the government strategy envisages and that every organization in the community demands.

Further, in conclusion, I want to say that I welcome the news about the expansion of the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital. I think that will be a useful addition to the health system.

However, I want to raise and bring to the House's attention other decisions the government has made with respect to psychiatric patients. Buried in the back pages of this year's budget is a decision that the government will be charging psychiatric patients who are residents in psychiatric hospitals for the use of that space, a clear attack on one of the most vulnerable groups of people in our society.

NATIVE INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I know that the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation stood up today and made some comments in regard to the native information services task force. I thought maybe the minister was going to stand up today and give us a report on the announcement she made to the tourism people yesterday, a report that was very short in funding and very lacking in doing something to assist the tourism industry, but I guess that report is not coming forth.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm pleased to stand in response to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and her announcement on native library information services. Certainly, no resident of Ontario should be denied access to library services. No resident of Ontario, no matter where they live or who they are, should be denied access to library services, although we have seen in the past the funding for the library service in northern Ontario as a whole in a situation of steady decline in terms of real dollars since 1986. That's an additional concern, that has not been addressed by this announcement. Certainly, our party is supportive of efforts to ensure access to libraries all across the province with respect to education and with respect to heritage in all communities. Our PC caucus is supportive of this principle.

1410

MENTAL HEALTH REFORM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise for a brief moment and comment upon the announcement that was made and the paper put forward by the Minister of Health concerning mental health services in Ontario.

I want to say at the beginning that I think the paper is quite vague. There are no time lines for actions being laid out. We're told once again by this government that it's come out with another 10-year strategy. Frankly, this government won't be around in 10 years to implement some of the suggestions in this report.

The minister talks about benchmarks and goals that will be used to ensure progress and measure the success of the reform that the government says it is launching, yet there is no detail of what these benchmarks are and where they are to be applied. There are loose details on the transition period that's discussed in the report. There's a lot of talk about district health councils and contributions of regional psychiatric hospitals, but there's no clear agenda or guidelines of how to proceed with this reform.

There are no new dollars, as has been pointed out earlier. If there's one thing that's become clear to me and clear to my party with respect to money, as we move from institutional services to community-based services in health care, it is that there's going to have to be a reallocation within existing government budgets of significant dollars to move us towards a community-based system. I have said for some two years that we're going to have to stop building roads for a year or something to ensure that there is money put into building up community-based services, because the fact is that far too many politicians -- and this government is particularly guilty on this matter -- have spoken about the move towards community-based services, but in fact we've seen a cut in community-based services across this province. It's time to stop misleading the public when it comes to community-based care.

This document today does nothing to dispel the myths out there and simply promotes the propaganda of the NDP when it comes to mental health reform and the move towards community-based services. There are substantial mental health needs across this province, which are not being met and which are not being met once again in this report.

In May of last year, I stood in this House and urged the government to take action on reforming mental health: 75,000 Ontarians have a serious mental illness, 1.5 million Ontarians seek mental health care each year, 140 people with psychiatric problems are discharged from hospitals each and every day in this province, and the community-based services are not in place to help them with their problems and to help them to become fully productive citizens of this province. Between 30% and 40% of homeless people -- those are the people we see as we walk to work, as we walk to this palace, the people on the streets of Toronto and across this province -- 30% to 40% of them have mental illness problems. That is the root of their homelessness, it is the root of their problems, and this government does nothing but once again pay lipservice.

In Peterborough there are more than 70 people on waiting lists for community mental health housing, including 13 young adults.

In summation, I'm extremely disappointed with the minister's announcement today. I don't think it furthers the cause my party has fought for or that the Canadian Mental Health Association has fought for. It leaves people with mental illness still in the dark ages and does nothing to truly reform our health care system. It's a slash-and-burn approach. On one hand, the government announced just before this announcement that it was going to gut mental health services and then has the gall to come into the House and says it's beefing up mental health services with a new community approach.

There's nothing new, there's no new money and there's very clear evidence that mental health reform is not a priority of this government. I'm disappointed, and I would ask the minister to save the paper: Don't bother distributing this to the thousands of groups out there who are interested in mental health reform. Go back to the drawing board. Take some of our suggestions. Use some common sense and deal with the real problems of people with mental health in this province.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I have in front of me a letter to the editor published in the Toronto Star on June 14. This letter is from the assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation, Kim Devooght. In her letter to the Star, the ADM says that "an all-party committee" will hold public hearings this summer on the graduated licensing project.

My point is, how can the ADM direct the affairs of this House? As late as this morning, there has been no consultation with my House leader or with me, as the Liberal Transportation critic. How are we to have an all-party committee if there's no consultation with the two other parties on when and how these consultations are to take place?

Mr Speaker, I think the privileges of this House are being infringed when senior civil servants start to dictate the agenda of this House, and I'd ask you to investigate this matter.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Nepean, I appreciate the concern which he raises. Indeed, he is correct. The House determines its business.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre please come to order.

The member does not have a point of privilege, but he's expressed his concerns quite well.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order of some grave concern about how this government is treating the opposition parties these days and making it very difficult for us to function.

Under section 32(a) relating to ministerial statements, "A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.

"(b) The time allotted to ministerial statements shall not exceed 20 minutes without the unanimous consent of the House."

And the operative clause for my point of order: "(c) Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House."

We just heard a statement made under this section by the Honourable Anne Swarbrick, Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. That was a statement about native library and information services which was delivered to my leader in an envelope on her desk.

Clause (c) goes on to say that the representatives shall also receive a second copy -- presumably, you would assume, of the same statement. Presumably, you would get two copies of the same statement by the same minister being read on the same day. We had delivered to our representatives, to give to our critic, a statement by the minister on an enhanced $10-million financial assistance package for Ontario tourism. As a result, we had our critic and our people working on responding to a statement announcing a $10-million juggling of the books; it's not even new money, but a $10-million juggling of the books.

So we had our critic responding, our staff being given one piece of information and the minister reading another. These people couldn't run a hot dog stand. When are they going to get it right?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the member's point of order. Can the minister be of some assistance in this regard?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I'd certainly like to apologize if the statement that I made did not get to you on time, because that obviously is totally unacceptable.

In terms of the one that you did receive, that was a media release that we sent out this morning which I had indicated to the critic in your party in a note yesterday, since I missed him in person, that we would be making and indicated in person to the opposition critic in the Conservatives that we'd be making.

We were not making that as a statement in the House because, as you pointed out, in fact it is existing money. On the other hand, it is money that Tourism Ontario, I know, and the tourism operators I met with yesterday were quite happy to have redirected into the needs that they face now in the 1990s instead of what the --

The Speaker: Would the minister take her seat, please.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: You raised a point of order. If you wish to raise a new and different one, fine, but I'll deal with this one first. In fact, the member has a point of order. Indeed, the standing order calls for two copies. As the minister has indicated, there was an error for which she has taken responsibility. Hopefully, that type of error will not occur again.

The member has a new point of order?

Mr Mahoney: The point of order would be, and I appreciate the apology, that the minister has taken an opportunity to now in fact make a ministerial statement announcing this $10-million adjustment of funds. I just heard her. It will be in Hansard. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for five minutes' response time for each party.

The Speaker: The member will know that at the moment that I was aware that the minister was not sticking to a point of order, but indeed straying beyond that, I stood. The moment the Speaker stands, the microphones are cut off; there is no taping and the camera is on the Speaker. In fact, whatever the minister wishes to announce was in fact not announced.

1420

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, on another point of order, and I normally wouldn't raise a point of order before question period, but I'd like to give you some time to consider this point of order, which will arise immediately when we get to orders of the day today: If you will note on today's business sheet for Wednesday, June 16, under "Orders of the day," the first item of business is order number 22, which in fact is a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 38.

The second item of business is number 9, committee of the whole House on Bill 96, which is OTAB. That is being done pursuant to a time allocation motion which the government passed last week.

If I might read just very briefly, in part, from that time allocation motion, it goes on to say, "In relation to Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the period of time following routine proceedings when Bill 96 is called as the first order of business until 5 pm on that same sessional day shall be allotted to further consideration of this bill in committee of the whole House."

I requested earlier today that the government House leader consider deferring the vote on Bill 38 until later in the day, perhaps after we vote on Bill 96, which we will have to do at 5 pm in any event, because if he does not agree to do that, and so far he has not, in my opinion it would appear -- and I'm asking you for guidance on this -- that it will not be the first order of the day. It will be the second order of the day and Bill 96 can't be dealt with today then.

I would ask you for your consideration of that, and when we get to orders of the day later on, I'd appreciate an interpretation from you on whether we can deal with OTAB in committee of the whole this afternoon.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound raises a serious point of procedure. May I say first that I appreciate the fact that he has raised it now and that I indeed will deliberate on the matter and be able to provide an answer by the end of routine proceedings.

In the interim, of course, there's always the opportunity for the three House leaders to discuss the business of the House and perhaps come to some agreement that would accommodate the wishes on both sides of the House. But I will have a response for you before we reach orders of the day.

I would like to return to the member from Mississauga West. Although there was not a statement made, if the member was asking for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement, indeed that's perfectly in order and I will now put that question.

Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? I heard at least one negative voice.

Mr Mahoney: I'm curious towards your ruling. Maybe you could help me. Did you say that there indeed was a ministerial statement made? Clearly, Hansard will show that before you stood up and turned off the microphone, comments were made by the minister. I would ask the government to at least allow a couple of minutes for each opposition party to respond in this place to this announcement.

The Speaker: I apologize if I did not make myself clear. There was not a ministerial statement. I interrupted the minister at the moment that she had strayed from the point of order. I then put a question to the House allowing for unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement. That has been denied. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My questions will be to the Premier. We all support responsible restraint. I want to tell you today that we do not believe that Bill 48, your social contract legislation, saves the taxpayers money. It simply puts off costs until the future. I want to give you some specifics of that.

The legislation very specifically states that employees who perform critical functions -- and this would likely include at least health care workers, police and firefighters -- could be required to take up to 36 days of their normal vacation time as unpaid leave over three years. Yesterday, the Minister of Finance denied that this provision would cost transfer partners any additional money in the future. But, Premier, I bring to your attention section 26 of Bill 48, which deals with special leave and which states very clearly, "The employer shall grant to the employee the same number of compensating days off," and, "The compensating days off...may be carried forward to future years...after March 31, 1996."

That simply means either you don't save the costs today or you put them off until tomorrow. I ask you how you can possibly defer these kinds of costs until some distant point in the future. I ask whether you have looked at how many people will be affected by this special leave category. Have you even begun to assess the impact of future costs that this provision will bring?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think the member, frankly, on this occasion is just wrong. The purpose of this section is to allow for flexibility in scheduling matters. I think it's important to emphasize as well that the member has already turned her attention to what happens where there are no agreements after August 1. We remain optimistic that in fact agreements can be achieved in sectors and that this can happen.

When she talks about this question of compensating days, what it says is:

"The compensating days off,

"(a)" -- she didn't read this part -- "shall be paid days off, taken on mutually convenient dates;

"(b) may be carried forward to future years...after March 31, 1996; and

"(c)" -- listen to this one, because you might not have heard this one -- "may not be converted to money."

What we are talking about here is time off. We're talking about recognizing that there has to be some flexibility with respect to scheduling in those areas where simply providing for unpaid leaves of absence may not be possible. That's all it does.

Mrs McLeod: Premier, let me try and explain the legislation to you, and we have read it in some detail. The legislation says "shall." Now, I do not have legal training, but I would understand that that would be interpreted as being mandatory -- no choice, no flexibility, no mutual agreement other than perhaps when those days are to be taken off. This is for a category of workers called "essential services." That's why they need some special consideration. They cannot leave their work without having somebody else take their place at a cost to the employer. This is a deferred cost, and I am appalled that you do not understand that and have done no assessment of the impact of this cost.

Premier, the bottom line is that this clause, and many other parts of this bill, ensure that your bill is not going to accomplish the kind of spending restraint that you set out to achieve. I want to give you more evidence of that.

When you released your final social contract proposal, it included a provision to protect people who were earning less than $30,000. At that time, you said you could bump up that threshold from $25,000 to $30,000 by using $400 million in pension savings. We are now told that this same $400 million in pension savings will be used as an incentive to encourage municipalities, school boards, hospitals and colleges and universities to reach a deal.

Premier, I'm asking you how you can use the same $400 million twice. Are you going to use it to protect workers earning less than $30,000 or are you going to use it to reduce the cuts the transfer partners are going to have to make? You can only use it once. Which is it going to be?

Hon Mr Rae: I would just say to the honourable member again, we are of the view -- we are determined to negotiate this with our partners -- that there can be savings with respect to pension contributions for future years on an actuarial basis. That's true, that's reasonable and we think that is a perfectly reasonable assumption.

I also want to stress, since the member has raised the issue of pensions, that the legislation makes it very clear that nothing in this bill authorizes the government to take any money out of a pension plan, which is a canard that is being spread by some people. I think the member, in terms of her approach to the numbers, is simply wrong. I think she's misinterpreted the first question and I think she has the second one as well.

Mrs McLeod: I think quite frankly that you don't understand the legislation you presented in this House earlier this week. I would say to you that this is not responsible and that it means one of two things: either you don't plan to bring this legislation forward or you live in a dream world and don't ever think you're going to have to implement it. This is completely irresponsible action.

One more example, one more question, Premier: Last week you were quoted -- I heard the quote directly -- finally acknowledging that comprehensive solutions will not work and that's why you were bringing in the legislation.

I believe you should have realized that last April when you told workers in the city of Hamilton that they should be exempt from any provisions that would be reached in a social contract because they had done enough.

I would think you would surely realize that if this legislation is to be fair and equitable, as you want to keep describing it, there would have to be many exemptions. You must be aware that there are many municipalities and school boards and hospitals and colleges and universities across this province that have already implemented wage freezes or unpaid leaves.

Those Hamilton workers, who, you'll remember, you were prepared to exempt, had already taken unpaid leave. Metropolitan Toronto already has imposed a wage freeze and unpaid leave. I ask you today, will employers that have already implemented wage freezes or unpaid leave be exempt from the provisions of Bill 48 or will their workers have to make extra sacrifices? What are you going to say to the Hamilton workers now?

1430

Hon Mr Rae: The member says she heard the quote. I can only say to her that the word saying there would be a blanket exemption for any group of people or for any municipality, to suggest that, is not something that I would say. So I would say, you got the first question wrong, you got the second question wrong and the assumption of the third question is wrong as well. You're batting zero for three, as I count it. I say that with the deepest of respect.

I would simply say directly to the honourable member, obviously -- and this again is where the legislation is intended to provide a degree of flexibility and so are the negotiations intended to provide a degree of flexibility -- the purpose is to recognize that where people have already made a substantial sacrifice or where they have already taken steps, such as the ones that have been suggested, obviously that is a factor that would be taken into account; no blanket exemption, but obviously a factor that would be taken into account.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: Be careful, Premier, because I believe it is you who have got it wrong, and zero out of three means "out." I say to you, Premier, in utter frustration, if you really believe this is good legislation, bring it in and let us vote on it now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It's nice that this is a popular place, but perhaps we could also have some questions. The Leader of the Opposition.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Again to the Premier, over the past couple of days we've been concentrating all of our energies on one of the worst pieces of legislation ever presented in Ontario. Now we've discovered that the Health minister has just quietly introduced another bill that is equally shocking. I might describe it as another Michael Decter marvel. This Minister of Health has been making up health care policy on the run and the bill that she has introduced now gives her the legal power to keep doing that.

Premier, for your awareness, the expenditure control plan act that this minister introduced on Monday gives the minister and her bureaucrats the power to determine what medical services will be delivered, how often a patient can receive a specific medical service and how often a doctor can provide a particular medical service to a patient.

Bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health are not qualified to make these kinds of decisions and I ask you whether you really believe that the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health are the best ones qualified to decide what kind of care a patient gets?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I think members of the House are aware, this ministry, under the leadership of my predecessor and again this year, has been making remarkable attempts and success in reducing health care costs. This year we have clearly outlined in the budget presented by the Minister of Finance some expenditure control measures that need to be taken if we are in fact to contain costs this year. In order to achieve that, we are actively, as we speak, negotiating with the Ontario Medical Association.

As in the case of the social contract legislation, we have introduced legislation that will ensure that we in fact meet those financial targets whether or not we can succeed in the negotiations, and I am confident that we will succeed. But to suggest that anything we have suggested as a way of controlling our expenditures is going to have the effect of diminishing the quality of health care services in this province is in fact not the case.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the powers that you have taken unto yourself with this legislation are incredibly sweeping. You have already referenced in your answer the work, the leadership, of your predecessor in the Ministry of Health, and I would, quite frankly, today agree with you.

I would express my dismay that the action that you have taken in bringing forward this legislation has destroyed those very positive steps that the previous Minister of Health was taking: to work jointly with the medical profession, to get health care costs under control and still provide quality care to patients.

I ask you why you have abandoned the efforts that were being made by your own government to determine how we can provide effective and high-quality health care in a cost-effective way. If you planned to negotiate, why did you need this legislation to give you these kinds of sweeping powers?

Hon Mrs Grier: This government set out to negotiate a social contract that would enable us to achieve our budgetary targets and at the same time ensure that a contribution to achieving those targets was made fairly by all people who received remuneration from the public taxpayers.

Part of that was to increase our efforts to work with the medical profession and other stakeholders in the health care system to better manage the resources that we now have and to ensure that we protect medicare and maintain it as a high-quality, affordable and accessible system. If we are unable through negotiation to contain those costs, we have introduced legislation that enables us to obtain those savings without negotiation.

I remain fully confident that because of the desire of the medical profession to maintain the negotiated status that has been achieved through the framework agreement, we'll be successful, but we cannot put a health care system at risk by not making it very clear that there are savings that have to be obtained.

Mrs McLeod: It is absolutely crucial that we all understand what this bill does: that this bill gives this minister, gives any minister, far too much power to make medical decisions on the patient's behalf.

The Minister of Health has said that she hopes to negotiate the savings targets that the Minister of Finance has set out, savings targets that are going to be achieved by clearly restricting the medical services that patients can receive. She needs this bill to give her the power to make unilateral decisions about those medical services, and there is nobody who has confidence in this minister's ability, or any minister's ability, to make those kinds of decisions about what constitutes effective medical care.

I want to know how this minister and this government plan to use the powers that this legislation gives. How will the minister and her bureaucrats decide what kinds of services are going to be cut from medicare? How are they going to decide what services should be limited? On what basis will you decide what services are medically necessary? When did Ruth Grier and the Ministry of Health bureaucrats become qualified to make these kinds of decisions?

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, let me make it very plain that none of the expenditure control measures that we have discussed relate to medically necessary services. When you ask the question of how in fact decisions will be made with respect to those expenditure control measures, let me say to you that all of the suggestions we have made are entirely consistent with our goals of reducing the growth of expenditures and maintaining the system, and it is our intent, it is our desire and it is our expectation that we will continue to make those decisions in consultation with all of the people involved.

1440

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question's to the Premier, on the first chance we've had to ask him about his social contract legislation. Premier, on Monday I set out six guidelines that we hoped to see in your social contract legislation. They weren't there. Our proposals are designed to assist with permanently downsizing the cost and the scope of government without creating chaos. Our six points were a sound, constructive addition, I believe, to your legislation.

I know you're looking for solutions to downsize the size and cost of government, goals that only two parties in this province agree with, and we are supportive of those goals. But given that your bill was rather hastily drafted and given that it has some flaws, I believe, because of that, I would ask you this: Are you prepared to look at the types of amendments that we are putting forward that we believe will, without as much chaos, lead to a more permanent downsizing of the size and cost of government?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would say to the honourable member that of course we would consider any reasonable amendments. I've seen a number of the proposals that the honourable member has put forward and I would say of the six points that he makes that there's much merit in the House having an opportunity to discuss those.

I was intrigued by the Liberal leader suggesting that we have a vote right away. Certainly we're ready for one and happy to have one. We're also happy to have amendments moved in committee of the whole and for that discussion to take place. But look, I would say without any hesitation that any reasonable amendments that are put forward by any member of the House would be considered by a reasonable government, which we certainly are.

Mr Harris: Mr Premier, we too are ready to begin the debate today or a vote today on second reading, getting on with the amendments.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I hear the Liberal interjections, but clearly the lines are being drawn between those who seek change and reform --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for York Centre.

Mr Harris: -- and those who don't, who want to play the old politics of the past. We understand that, and if those are the politics they wish to play, I wish them luck.

One of the components of our plan is an immediate three-year public sector hiring freeze. When coupled with a wage freeze that would commence on the anniversary date of all contracts, this will assist in leading to a long-term structural downsizing in both the cost and the size of government -- not the only answer but an assist. With some flexibility for essential programs we all agree with, with retraining, which we think should be a strong component as well, I believe this is a very constructive, permanent plan, an amendment that should be acceptable to you.

I would ask you, since I've raised this before, and then we detailed it a little more on Monday, will you agree to consider this proposal that, unlike the legislation you've put forward, does not gut existing contracts and does not lead to unnecessary layoffs?

Hon Mr Rae: We don't think our legislation either guts anything or should lead to layoffs. Our view is that we are giving a six-week period during which there need to be extensive discussions and extensive negotiations. There is that provision in the legislation specifically to allow and to provide for that.

Obviously we looked at some of the proposals that the honourable member has put forward. At the senior management group level there is a freeze. In what we call the common services policy areas there is already a freeze in place. We've severely restricted access to external hiring within the public service for several months now.

We're also finding that through the voluntary exit programs and through the early retirement programs that we've put in place, there will in fact be a major, serious reduction in the size of the public service to achieve the objective which the member has put forward.

I've been asking for several months now about the relative merits of a complete freeze versus some flexibility that allows you to deal with special circumstances. If you just have a freeze, you then end up hiring people on contract all the time, which is what your previous administration did whenever we went into those areas. I want to avoid that kind of a fake numbers game. We want to get the real numbers down.

We also have to recognize that if we --

The Speaker: Will the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: -- simply said, "Well, we'll carry on all contracts until they expire and then add on," you could be looking at a freeze in some instances that could extend until 1998, which struck us as really quite unfair and unrealistic in the circumstances.

I would say to the member that we're looking hard at the proposals that he's bringing forward and that others are bringing forward --

The Speaker: Will the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: -- and I'm quite happy if we have the debate and the vote today, tomorrow, whenever the opposition is ready to vote and debate, so are we, and we're ready to get on with getting it into committee as soon as possible. The --

The Speaker: Will the Premier please take his seat. Final supplementary.

Mr Harris: Premier, I want to be very clear so that you know that unlike the Liberals, who in government and in opposition dismissed restraint out of hand -- we've seen that -- we are trying to offer constructive proposals.

I'm prepared to work with you to improve legislation that all Ontarians can live with. We need legislation that encourages leaner, more efficient government, and your legislation, Premier, does do that. We agree with that. But your bill also penalizes municipalities, school boards, unions and groups from permanently downsizing, and in some cases only puts off the inevitable until 1996.

For example, Premier, when we talked to George Thomson at the briefing on this legislation, I gave him an example that if a municipality came to an agreement with its employees that permanently downsized at the end of three years by 10% -- double the achieving that you were hoping to achieve, but it took three years to do it -- that would not be acceptable. In fact, under this legislation, he confirmed to me that wouldn't be acceptable.

What we are trying to, by way of amendment, allow in your legislation is, instead of thwarting the long-term downsizing and then rewarding it -- encouraging the short-term days off, which will only have to come back to us -- we're trying to look for a permanent solution. Would you agree that if we can find permanent long-term solutions to reduce more than you're after, that would be preferable to short-term solutions that are going to have to be picked up again perhaps in legislation?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say to the member that I'm delighted to hear some of the suggestions he has. I must say that we're trying to find --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Your office is shuddering.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I don't see that. I think you're all quite relaxed, from what I can tell.

I would say to the honourable member that we're obviously interested in the kinds of solutions he's putting forward and the kinds of proposals that have been put forward as we would from anyone else, as we would from municipalities, from colleges and universities and others who would be putting forward ideas, and others in the public sector and in the private sector.

We do have to get on with it, however. We do have to set clearly some kind of framework that will truly encourage negotiations, which is why in particular I accept his offer to get on with the debate and to get on with the vote on second reading. That's fine with me and fine with our party. Get it into committee of the whole and get some real discussion on the amendments on a practical basis. I'm delighted to do that, delighted.

TAX INCREASES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question's for the Premier, a question on your taxation policy. Tomorrow, around noon, we're going to see angry taxpayers again making their annual pilgrimage to Queen's Park to express their concern about your taxation policy. Once again, they want to tell you just what they think of your budget. They're fed up with having to shoulder the high cost of government, that they're having to pay more than their fair share of the New Democratic Party's policies and platform costs and the high spending they inherited from the Liberals before them.

It's high time for you, as a government, to understand the very negative impact that your taxation policy is having on the people in Ontario. The damage it's causing is long term: the loss in jobs to those people who are losing their jobs because of the high taxes, the curse that you're placing on businesses that is causing them to lose confidence in Ontario, the lack of competitive advantage that we have in Ontario over what we used to have, the need for a government to give encouragement and hope rather than take it away.

1450

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Cousens: How will you explain, Mr Premier, to the people at Queen's Park tomorrow that despite your rhetoric on the budget and despite the fact that you've increased your spending this year, how you can ask them to fork over another $2 billion?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm listening carefully and I'm locked in concentration as I listen to the honourable member. I would say to the honourable member that I think what he's suggesting is really quite out of keeping with the facts as I think most people understand them. The fact of the matter is, programs have to be paid for. Your philosopher king in the United States, Ronald Reagan, simply reduced revenues, raised expenditure dramatically and left his country with an enormous, huge, structural deficit, and we're not advocating that kind of a program --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Is that what your Rhodes scholar friends told you?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: It may not be the message the member wants to hear, but we are intending to pay for current programs more and more out of current revenues and that has to be the direction that we take. We believe strongly in a good health care system and a good education system, good roads, good highways, good social services, and we believe in paying our bills and we don't believe in putting it off for ever and ever. That's the approach we have to take as a province and that's the approach we have to take as a country.

Those of you over there who preach, "You can have it all and you'll never have to pay any taxes," that is one of the great modern myths of the 20th century and you are the really fiscally irresponsible people leaving future generations with a debt which they will not be able to afford. That's what your legacy will be.

The Speaker: Will the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the legacy of irresponsible Tory philosophy and Tory tax policies. That's the legacy.

Mr Cousens: I can't believe it. I think you had too much time in Washington with the Rhodes scholars and you couldn't find out what the real people were thinking. You're almost assuming that the people who are coming here tomorrow are stupid, as if they're ignorant and they don't understand what it means, and by our asking the question we're stupid and ignorant. We're not. We're concerned; we're angry; we're upset. The tax wall has been hit in the province of Ontario. We've reached the point where you've got to stop taxing the life out of the people of Ontario.

The Liberals raised 33 taxes and they had a great policy: Tax and spend, tax and spend. Well, you're coming along with the same kind of high tax policy and the public are saying: "Stop it. Stop trying to bleed us so that there is no life left in our corpse."

Don't con the people of Ontario into believing that there is too little revenue in the province of Ontario. That's flat-out nonsense. You have the revenue. You've got more money this year than last year. You're spending more money this year than last year. The problem you have is that you as a government are still spending too much.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Cousens: When will you stop bankrupting the province of Ontario and the taxpayer?

Hon Mr Rae: John Robarts, year over year, never spent less on programs in a subsequent year than in the previous year. Bill Davis never spent less in one year than he did the year before. Neither did David Peterson. The first government that has done this in 50 years on program spending is the New Democratic Party government of Ontario. If there's one group of individuals who talk out of both sides of their mouth and who preach fiscal responsibility but practise the opposite when they're in office, it's the Tory party of this province, and I think it's time we called their bluff.

Mr Cousens: It's one big shell game and what a sham it is now, because the way the taxes are now being spread out to the local taxpayer, where the province has downloaded so much to them, with only one taxpayer in the province and you're hitting him, the Liberals hit him, and then you've made the regions and municipalities hit him, there's only so much money and you're taking too much.

I started by asking the Premier about the rally tomorrow. When the people make their pilgrimage, you know, in the past -- I asked him, expecting he'd be there, but he's probably not even going to come, because most of those cabinet ministers, when there's a rally, they used to run to the head of the parade. Now when the parade comes, you can't even find them. They're not even around. So I challenge the Speaker and ask him, come to that group and explain to them the vicious tax circle.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy: You're challenging the Speaker?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What's your question?

Mr Cousens: I'm coming to it, honourable friend. I want you to explain how the vicious circle works. You increase taxes, then people have less money to spend. Then prices go up. When prices go up, people spend less, and then when they spend less, business has to cut back because they don't have as much business to generate. Then Ontarians start to lose their jobs. Then the government has to increase the amount of social services to those who lost their jobs, and then taxes go up again.

How do you explain this vicious tax circle to the people who are going to be coming tomorrow, and will you come out tomorrow and talk to them when they come here to Queen's Park?

Hon Mr Rae: When I hear someone from the Conservative Party talk about downloading -- you were at the convention on the weekend. I wonder, did you turn to any of your federal friends and say, "Why have you ripped $4.5 billion out of the guts of the provincial budget of this province?" Did you do that? Well, I wonder. I wonder, where were you? Where were you, when the federal government has taken $4.5 billion in transfer payments on the CAP alone? What they've done on the Canada assistance plan has been as bad and serious for Ontario as the national energy program was for the province of Alberta, and look how they quickly they fixed that problem for Alberta. They're ready to respond to other governments. They're not ready to respond to the needs of 10 million people in the province of Ontario. The Tory party's got a lot to answer for when it comes to the state of finances in the province of Ontario, a lot to answer for.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga West. The member for Markham, a point of order?

Mr Cousens: I want to answer the Premier's question he was asking me on what I was doing in Ottawa --

The Speaker: No, no, no, no, the member for Markham, questions on this side, replies on this side. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I was listening. Did the cock just crow three times, did I hear? I wasn't sure.

The Speaker: Does the member for Mississauga West have a question?

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Bob Mackenzie. I have a bill here. It's Bill 48, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program.

My question to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour, sir, is, do you support this legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): To the opposition critic, I support the legislation.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Let's try a supplementary.

Mr Mahoney: Some guys will do anything for a limo, I'll tell you.

Mr Speaker, I'd like to you read you some quotes, if I might. I will be brief. October 1, 1992, who said this?

"We don't think this country can go down a low-wage route.... We think there has to be an involvement, in the province of Ontario, with workers as well as business, and that is essential if we're ever going to begin to turn around the kind of economic situation we have."

Guess again, a quote:

"I want you to know that I agree with my Premier's position" -- that's a good decision -- "I think one of the things that's wrong in this province is that in a very tough economic situation we have not decided that one of the important things we have to do is involve the workers themselves in the decisions that affect them."

July 6, 1992:

"The need for labour and management to work together in a spirit of cooperation, involvement and trust is greater now than at any time in Ontario's history....

"Finally...we hope to usher in a new era of peace and non-confrontation in labour disputes. We intend to introduce a number of measures to promote the smooth operation" --

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Mahoney: -- "of the collective bargaining process and to offer protection for the jobs of workers involved in labour disputes."

1500

And finally, this quote --

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- saying that we are "encouraging more participation and cooperation between labour and management, reducing the level of industrial conflict and streamlining the process of collective bargaining."

All those quotes, sir, appears in Hansard, attributed to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie.

How can you consider that this bill in any way whatsoever streamlines the collective bargaining process and involves the workers in issues of concern that directly affect them? Have you not abdicated your responsibilities to the workers of this province?

Interjection.

The Speaker: The question has been placed, and I ask the member for Chatham-Kent to come to order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If I thought I were abdicating my responsibilities to working people in the province, I would not remain in this position. I'm in this position and I'm supporting them. I'm supporting this legislation for all the reasons that were outlined by the member across the way. We either are going to involve workers in the decisions that affect them, we are going to protect the economic status of our province, or we're not going to be able to supply and provide the services that we've given workers in this province, and we've got to recognize that very clearly.

The Speaker: New question? The leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The leader of the third party has the floor.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Thanks very much, Mr Speaker. I have another question for the Premier. Along with the concerns we have about some things missing in your legislation, we have some real concerns about one specific aspect I'd like to raise today, that is, the awesome, unprecedented powers, that have been given to the Finance minister under Bill 48.

Premier, I would ask you this: Given the current level of cynicism about your government's handling of spending your way out of deficits and now this about your handling of the social contract process, and indeed, I say with great sincerity, cynicism about all politicians and about the whole lot of us in general, would you not agree with me, upon second look at the legislation, that it would make more sense to have a neutral third party make the decisions that under your legislation appear to be exclusively left to the Minister of Finance?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I guess the reasoning behind the bill is simply the need to provide for some flexibility in the course of these negotiations. For example, I noticed that there was some criticism today of the fact that the minister was going to be allowed to say, "These are the structures of the sectors." The point is, we've had a long period of negotiation. There's been a substantial consensus reached on all those things. We didn't want to get too bureaucratic and we wanted to allow for an element of flexibility. I think that's the philosophy that's behind the act.

Mr Harris: I agree with you that this is a very unusual bill and circumstance, and I agree with you that you are trying to provide more flexibility than previous governments have brought in: Progressive Conservative here and Liberal in Ottawa, because we've never had a Liberal one here try to actually control spending. I've supported that extra degree of flexibility, that extra discussion. But we can do that without giving all the power to the political appointee, to the Minister of Finance. When former governments brought in legislation that, let's all admit, infringed upon the collective bargaining process to flow in its normal way, it did a couple of things.

Number one, which I've already talked about today, it respected the anniversary date of contracts, which is one of the things I think we have to talk about in your legislation. But secondly, it set up independent bodies to adjudicate, if you like, or to arbitrate, the legislation or those things.

So I would ask you directly, Premier: Given that it's an awesome power never before in any legislation -- I appreciate the flexibility you're looking for -- will you agree to look at amending Bill 48 to empower an independent third party instead of the minister, to put more impartiality in allowing that flexibility?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say in general that of course if you have amendments, we will consider them.

The first part of your questioning today was about the size of the bureaucracy and the need for us to avoid large bureaucracies. It wouldn't be difficult for a government to create a huge bureaucracy to deal with an issue like this.

There's provision there for a process of adjudication with respect to agreements and how they're operated. That's clearly set out, so the minister is not exercising an adjudicative role. The minister is exercising his role and responsibilities as minister. He is fully accountable to the House for the judgements he makes.

BICYCLING POLICY

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. It's about bicycles, which as he knows are an increasingly popular form of transportation and recreation. I'd like to ask some questions about how he can encourage this.

As he knows, the Rouge Valley Park will likely be a popular spot for cycling, and there is a lot of satisfaction with the development of the Rouge park in my riding. Can the minister indicate how his ministry will be helping to make the roads of Scarborough East safe and accessible for the growing number of cyclists?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member for Scarborough East will be aware that at Transportation, we're spending more than $3.5 million annually to create new bike routes, bike paths, and we're presently working with the people of Scarborough to create a waterfront trail for cyclists between the communities of Burlington and Trenton.

The member of course is aware that we are dedicated at the Ministry of Transportation to better education. We're spending more money than ever before to inform cyclists, and of course we do support wholeheartedly the safe cycling initiative as well.

Mr Frankford: GO Transit is an important provincial service, with the Guildwood and Rouge Hill stations in my riding. Can the minister tell us what steps will be taken to make the use of GO more effective to cyclists?

Hon Mr Pouliot: A twist of political fate: The timing from my friend and colleague couldn't be any better. I have just received a note, and I'm quoting: "New secure bike racks," brand-new, "at Rouge Hill and Guildwood this summer." I want to thank you for your interest and indeed the focus of the question.

In terms of GO Transit, when we're talking about integration, we will include cyclists and we will make it possible for people to bring their bikes on the GO buses. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank my colleague for his interest.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training. As might be expected, at a time when there are simply no jobs for our young people and when it is now universally recognized that education holds the key to our future, more and more young people are deciding to pursue a post-secondary education. Here are some of the numbers: for our colleges, 118,000 students have applied for 70,000 spaces; for our universities, 88,660 students have applied for 45,000 spaces. This means that over 91,000 students will be refused admission to our post-secondary institutions in September. I want to repeat that because it's very important. Over 91,000 students are going to be refused admission into our colleges and universities this September.

Given these numbers, how can you possibly have us believe that you're doing anything other than quietly presiding over the greatest decline in accessibility to our colleges and universities this province has ever witnessed?

1510

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly share the concerns of the member and everybody else that the numbers and the applications to go to community colleges and universities have increased considerably over the last few years and that the infrastructure to deal with those applications has not increased rapidly enough.

The numbers will go up considerably for first-year enrolment this year. As the critic for the Liberal Party will know, with the acceptance of 70,000 for first year, that will be a considerable increase in first-year enrolment at our colleges.

I would agree with the member that we're going to need to do better, to work with the college system to see what additional numbers we can increase in the future. I know there are already a couple of community colleges that have decided to operate and provide year-round education. Instead of slowing down and decreasing the operations of the colleges in the summer, some are moving to year-round education. I think that's appropriate. We need to look at more of that type of action in order to increase accessibility and increase enrolment to the best we can, given our financial constraints.

Mr McGuinty: I hear the minister's expression of concern, but I want to tell him that this government's policies are not only not helping the situation; they're actually making things worse. Let me tell you about the real impact that this government's policies are having on accessibility. When applications are at an all-time high this year, Ontario universities have reduced their spaces by 5.6%. Taken alone, Toronto's two universities have reduced their spaces by 14%. But the worst may be yet to come. People in the colleges and universities sector are telling me that this social contract legislation might reduce spaces even further.

Given that everyone in this Legislature, without exception -- I'm very comfortable saying that -- agrees that the key to our future lies in educating and training more and more Ontarians, why are your government's policies keeping over 91,000 students out of our colleges and universities?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member obviously knows that with the huge increase in applications for post-secondary institutions it would be impossible physically to deal with the entire demand. You know that and I know that. It makes a good question, but he knows the practical difficulties.

It's also interesting to note that full-time post-secondary enrolments in colleges increased by 7.3% in 1992-93. Over the period from 1989-90 to 1992-93 college full-time enrolments have risen by 25.2%. The government is doing everything it can, given the financial constraints we all live under, to increase enrolment and, at the same time, do that with very limited increases in dollars.

The member points to a very difficult problem. We're doing the best we can. We want to work with the Council of Regents and all the colleges' boards of directors to do the best we can to increase accessibility in our college and university system.

If the member really were concerned, what should have happened is that when the money was pouring in, in the 1980s, we should have been increasing the infrastructure, adding to the size of our colleges and dealing with some real problems. But you ignored the problem when all the money was pouring in from 1985 to 1990.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Cooke: You know that's the case. Now we're having to deal with another mess that you left us.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Citizenship. This morning the regulations to accompany Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, were introduced. Unfortunately, they're being released today at the same time as second reading on this bill begins. It's unfortunate because many people had been led to believe that there would be about a two-week time period between the regulations and the second reading of the bill. Now, unfortunately, there's absolutely no time for people to take a look at the regulations and come forward with their opinions.

However, as I've only had a cursory glance at the legislation, I am very concerned that the regulations deal very differently with organized and unorganized workers. The legislation states that if the workers are unorganized, you consult. If the workers are organized, they are part of the process and they have a membership on the coordinating committee.

In fact, it goes further, to say that in reference to employer, it shall be deemed to be the employer and bargaining agent that are being referred to. It appears that this is going to be as skewed and as much in favour of unionized employees as was Bill 40.

Mr Minister, if this bill is really about fairness and equity, as you keep saying it is, why is there a double standard and why is the treatment for unorganized and organized workers so very different?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): First of all, I'd like to clarify that I'm not a Mr Minister, but I'm a Madam Minister. I just would like to clarify that.

Interjection: It's an employment equity issue.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It is an employment equity issue, it certainly is.

I also want to make just one clarification for you. First of all, the regulations are a very important part of the legislation and we all recognize that. This is one of the very first times that regulations have been released before second reading. The usual way of doing things is that the regulations are done after third reading. I think we've given people a good opportunity to take a look at the regulations, to give us their opinions, and we've given them till October 29 if they want to come in with a formal position. I think this is a very open process and I know that we have spoken together and we want to keep that open process going.

I know there have been several points put on the table today, Mr Speaker, and I did want to clarify this. But I also want to say to the member, we're very pleased about Bill 40 and we want to continue to make sure that we do have a good process in place with employment equity as well, with our friends in the labour movement. It's very important to us, but we also recognize that in unorganized workplaces there has to be a concern to make sure that people are part of the process as well and that we have put that into the regulations.

Mrs Witmer: The minister has totally, totally neglected or chosen to ignore responding to the question I asked, which is, why is the treatment different? I'd like to ask you, Madam Minister, how is the employer to deal with the union and non-unionized employees fairly?

Hon Ms Ziemba: The regulations very clearly put into place a process where both the employer and the employees are part of not only the consultation process but also setting up the equity plans. This is very important because if we are going to have legislation that works and if we're going to have regulations that work and are effective, we have to make sure that not only the employer but the employee are part of the process to make sure that this is really done in a fair way and that there's no resentment built up on either side, and I think the regulations very clearly spell that out.

These are draft regulations and there's plenty of opportunity before the final setup of the commission to have input to further strengthen those regulations, to further make sure that refinements are made to make this the best and most practical, workable and effective piece of regulations that we can have in the province of Ontario.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. The Ontario Heritage Act requires municipalities to publish a notice in local newspapers on six occasions announcing the designation of heritage property.

However, in my riding, East York has the distinction of being the only borough in Canada, and it does not have a local paper serving its community. The Ontario Heritage Act does not recognize a borough as a municipality. Will East York be required to advertise in the larger municipality of Metro Toronto? This would be a costly procedure for a community with a population of only 101,000.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I want to thank the member for raising this matter with me on behalf of the people who are working to preserve heritage sites in East York, and I know that the member himself has been in fact very active in helping to lead the protection of that community's history and heritage.

The member's absolutely correct that the Ontario Heritage Act, as it now reads, leaves East York in a difficult situation and in fact there are other communities throughout Ontario who have raised the same kinds of concerns.

The notice provision is in fact costly and outdated in its implications to municipalities. It's something that the ministry's advisory committee on heritage recommendations has made a recommendation to me to have changed.

Our new legislation is now being drafted. I'm very hopeful that when we are able to introduce it in the House, we'll be able to get the support of all parties to remedy the kinds of problems that the member for York East has pointed out. I'm sorry that I can't immediately solve his problem, but I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future new heritage legislation will be able to do so.

1520

INVESTMENT IN ONTARIO

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. The minister will know that we in Ontario are in a competitive situation for investment, and I think that the minister will acknowledge that any recovery we're going to have is going to be an investment-led recovery. The minister will remember that last week I questioned the Minister of Finance as to the corporate minimum tax, and now I'd like to ask the minister her opinion as to what the impact of this Bill 48 is going to be.

We know that there are unsettled financial markets. The financial markets are waiting to see whether or not this government can in fact implement this bill. We also know that one of the great competitive advantages that we in Ontario have is our quality of life and our labour stability.

I'd like to quote from a statement made by Mr Barry Weisleder, president of Local 595 of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, in which he says:

"Do the 10 million or 11 million residents of Ontario use hospitals? Do they seek education for themselves, for their children? Do they need to use the roads? All of these services are delivered by public service workers and I can only surmise that all of those services are at risk."

We also have a situation where the Minister of Health has made a statement, and again one of our strong, competitive advantages has been the fact that we have a great health care system which is in peril.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Kwinter: The question that I have for the minister is this: Do you not feel that this legislation is going to impair our competitive advantage and, more importantly and more personally, as a former negotiator for OPSEU and the minister responsible for attracting investment to this province, are you personally going to be supporting Bill 48?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I've had the occasion over the last number of weeks to meet on numerous occasions with representatives of the business community with respect to the issue of confidence in Ontario: with respect to attracting investments, with respect to increasing in fact what is already an export-led recovery of our economic situation and also with respect to consumer confidence, a number of issues that are of concern of course to the government and to all Ontarians.

During the course of those discussions, we've had very specific discussions around government fiscal policy and the importance of government addressing the issue of the debt and deficit. There has been tremendous support expressed by those individual business leaders I've spoken to for a direction of ongoing debt reduction, deficit reduction, and understanding the importance of that to capital markets and to the competitiveness of our province.

Combined and within that are issues like Ontario Hydro rates, which are being addressed by restructuring of Ontario Hydro, health care costs, which of course is an important cost driver overall within government. I think that all of these issues with respect to the ability of the government to achieve its fiscal directions are critically important to the competitiveness of Ontario and to building our economy. It's one of the reasons why the government has taken a very strong stand with respect to our fiscal directions.

Bill 48 is an important part of achieving the goals that have been set out by the Treasurer in the budget, and I will be supporting the bill when it comes to a vote.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to refer to the standing orders, section 23(j), which indicates that the Speaker may call a member to order if that member has charged another member with uttering a deliberate falsehood. I am looking for a place in the standing orders, and cannot find one, that would require the Speaker or the House to direct a member to correct the record when issues have been presented that aren't correct, although there may be a situation in the one that I'm going to relate to you where the Minister of Health indeed does not have full factual detail with respect to an issue.

On several occasions recently, the Minister of Health has indicated to the House that negotiations with medical practitioners are proceeding and that the content -- Mr Speaker, this is very important and please do not call me to order until I've completed my point -- of those negotiations includes such issues as physician resources, determining appropriate medical services and other methods that will ensure that people receive services that will contribute to better health care.

The minister said today that as we speak those issues were on the table in negotiation. Mr Speaker, that is not true. Those issues are not on the table, and the --

The Speaker: Sorry, would the member please take her seat. The member knows that she does not have a point of order. There is nothing in the standing orders which addresses the situation that she raises. Members may rise to correct their own record indeed.

What the member has brought to my attention is a dispute between herself and the Minister of Health, a difference of opinion, and often we find those differences on the floor of the House during oral questions. Indeed, I think the matter to which she referred was part of the subject matter which she addressed earlier today. I'm afraid that there is nothing in the standing orders which will be of assistance to her.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In view of your response then, I would like to ask for the consent of the House to ask the minister, after consultation with her officials, to bring a report to the House tomorrow that accurately reflects what in fact is on the negotiating table which does not include the pieces of information that she provided to the House today and on previous days. The information that she has brought to the House is not true.

The Speaker: The member in fact is asking for unanimous consent for a minister to make a statement. Is there unanimous consent for the minister to make a statement? No, there isn't. The member for Parry Sound.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Mr Speaker, I just wanted to add one more point to the point of order I made briefly, because I know you're going to be considering it shortly.

The only other point I wish to make, other than the fact that the orders of the day, the business sheet, says that the deferred vote on Bill 38 is indeed the first order and that committee of the whole House on Bill 96 is the second order, which of course would be in contravention of the time allocation motion, in that if indeed, I would submit to you, a vote is regarded as an order of the day, and the first order of the day in this case, if it's so done -- I want to make it clear that I'm not saying the government did this -- but a government could in the future deliberately have its whip defer a vote to eat into time set aside or allocated by a time allocation motion. I don't think -- in fact, I know that is not what was intended by the three parties when the rules were negotiated in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I would defer to the government House leader if he wants to respond to that point.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I've already passed a few comments to you. There are a couple of additional comments I'd like to make on this particular point as well.

First of all, let me reiterate what I've already said, which is that the matter which the member has raised is a procedural matter. It is a procedural technique in the rules that was agreed to by the three House leaders and ultimately passed by this House in order to safeguard all parties in certain circumstances around the taking of votes.

The deferred vote is not, as has been suggested by some, a called order. It's an automatic order of the House because of the nature of the standing orders and because of the nature of its existence as a procedural mechanism, which, as I repeat, was designed to protect all three of the parties in the House and, for that matter, any other party that might at some point exist here. It could be any one of the whips of any one of the three parties who moves that deferral motion.

In any event, that kind of deferral cannot be seen as a called government order, and in that respect I'd just like you to think that through very carefully in your consideration of this.

1530

Mr Mahoney: I appreciate the fact that the government House leader is saying that under the rules any one of the three party whips could have asked for the vote deferral. However, that was not indeed what happened: It was the government that ordered the business.

My concern is very much along the same lines as the member for Parry Sound in that the government is continually telling us, as it did yesterday in the debate -- I've lost track of time on debates so much, maybe it was the day before, but in the late-night sitting debate in which the government House leader refers to the rules and the traditions.

We have seen, I know you would agree -- in fact, this week alone I've raised two points of order based on the rules in this book and in both cases you have confirmed that indeed my points of order were valid, but there appears to be no remedy to these things. You simply say, "The member has a point of order and let's carry on with the debate" or "with the business."

If the government House leader is truly interested and concerned about following the rules and procedures outlined in the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly instead of selectively interpreting them to suit his own legislative agenda's purpose, or selectively saying that it could have been one of the opposition whips who submitted the request for a deferral of the vote, then I'd suggest, with due respect to you and to him, that the government House leader is being much too selective about interpreting these rules.

I believe the member for Parry Sound has raised a point of order. We did not draft the time allocation motion; the government drafted it. It clearly says the first order of business on that particular sessional day. It doesn't say that maybe you can have a vote thrown in, in front of it.

I believe the point of order is valid. Mr Speaker, I'd like your ruling, and I'd particularly like you to tell us what the remedy for this is.

The Speaker: To the member for Mississauga West, I trust he recalls that I said I would have a ruling for you before we reached orders of the day, and I intend to do that. I appreciate the contribution he has made, as well as the member for Parry Sound, the House leader for the third party and the government House leader.

I must say that in reaching a decision, it has to be around a matter of procedure and not a consideration of good intentions. I will do my best to come back as quickly as possible.

I believe the Deputy Speaker is prepared to carry on. We are at an order of routine proceedings, the presentation of petitions.

Mr Mahoney: Before petitions, I have a very brief point of order. Mr Speaker, I've looked in here, and it must be here somewhere, for the ruling that would guide you in instructing the government how to react to this, but I've just received a communication that MCTV television studios in Sudbury conducted a poll on whether or not the Premier should resign and 85% of the callers said he should.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario.

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That's signed by 52 signatures and I've also affixed my signature to this petition.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, compiled of scientists and government representatives, added seven species to their list, making a total of 236 plant and animal species endangered; and

"Whereas the above-noted further additions will make it difficult for Canada to meet its obligations as outlined in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity;

"Whereas as a result of the fact that Canadian spaces and species do not receive any lawful mandatory protection, we will quickly lose our beautiful, natural wildlife, upon which we place much pride;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ontario government declare a moratorium to protect all species and their habitat that are placed on the Canadian endangered list."

This petition is signed by 299 students at the Zion Heights school --

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Have you affixed your signature?

Mr Harnick: -- and I have affixed my signature at the top.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many hundreds of residents in my riding. They're very concerned about the legislation, the OMPP, which has eliminated the right of innocent accident victims to sue for economic loss. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the OMPP" fails to deliver cost-effective -- oh, excuse me -- "currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits;" no, it must be a mistake here.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario."

CONTRAT SOCIAL

M. Jean Poirier (Prescott et Russell) : J'ai une pétition adressée à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

«Attendu que nous sommes en désaccord avec la façon de procéder de Monsieur Rae face à la coalition ;

«Nous, soussignés, adressons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario la pétition suivante», une pétition ou une protestation justement du contrat social.

C'est commandé par M^me Nicole St-Jean de l'AEFO de la section catholique de Prescott et Russell à Casselman. J'ai apposé ma signature et j'appuie à 100 % cette pétition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Mr Speaker, 266 constituents from my riding of Oakville South and the surrounding area have asked me to table a petition which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 164."

GAMBLING

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Mr Speaker, as you know, the rules of this House will not allow a member of cabinet to read a petition, so I'm reading this petition on behalf of the member for Frontenac-Addington, Fred Wilson:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On behalf of Mr Doug MacDonald, a good citizen of Mississauga, I'd like to present a petition of 150 names he managed to collect:

"To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have affixed my signature thereto.

1540

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

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

"Whereas the Ontario Film Review Board at its May 6, 1993, policy committee meeting decided to loosen the guidelines for films and videos for Ontario; and

"Whereas the loosening will result in permitting some very gross and indecent acts in films and videos; and

"Whereas these acts include bondage, ejaculation on the face and insertion of foreign objects; and

"Whereas the aforementioned acts are not in any way part of true human sexual activity but rather belong in textbooks for case studies of deviants; and

"Whereas these activities not only violate community standards but parts of the Canadian Criminal Code;

"We, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Ontario Legislature to:

"(a) Cancel the new policy resolution of the Ontario Film Review Board, May 6, 1993, on adult sex films and videos;

"(b) Ask the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Honourable Marilyn Churley, to review the criteria for appointments of members to the Ontario Film Review Board; and

"(c) Ensure that prospective appointees reflect traditional and moral values of the people of Ontario."

I'm happy to add my support to this petition.

GAMBLING

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from 94 of the citizens of Niagara Falls, which petitions the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, "That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

MADAWASKA HIGHLANDS

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to submit a petition prepared and signed by Reeve Gilbert Welk and others in and around the township of Brudenell, all of which signatories are singularly unhappy with the Ministry of Natural Resources plans with respect to further controls on the Madawaska Highlands area in Renfrew county.

GAMBLING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activities invariably attract criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than ever before;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish casino gambling in Ontario."

That is from the Reverend Hunt at St Paul's United Church, on Rebecca Street in Oakville, Ontario.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many hardworking people from my riding, people like Dianne Johnson, Josie Guignard, Richard Davidson, Gene and Josephine Stozelecki. They petition us, sir, that:

"Whereas we feel that the Canada-US free trade deal has done more immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing the loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in a loss of not only more jobs but also in a reduction in our environmental standards, our labour standards, our workers' rights, the quality of our social life and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means is possible and we petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now."

CLOSURE OF AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): The saga continues. I have another petition continuing with the petition that I've been bringing on a daily basis, another 440 names addressing Premier Rae, Treasurer Laughren and Minister Buchanan.

"We, the undersigned, request that you seriously consider reversing your decision to close the New Liskeard College of Agricultural Technology."

I'll affix my signature to this too.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 439, employed at the Sherwood Park Manor in Brockville, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: Free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I've affixed my signature in support.

GAMBLING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition originating from the Centennial Rouge United Church in the Highland Creek area of my riding expressing opposition to gambling and calling on the government of Ontario to cease all moves to establish gambling casinos.

ABORTION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by more than 200 parishioners of St Theresa's parish in Cornwall who believe that the task force of abortion service providers is clearly opposed to social justice. The petition states that, "Human life begins at conception," and that "Abortion knowingly and willingly puts an end to human life."

I support this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

GAMBLING

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has not consulted with the citizens of the province regarding the expansion of gambling; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas creditable academic studies have shown that state-operated gambling is nothing more than a regressive tax on the poor; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the government has not attempted to address the very serious concerns that have been raised by groups and individuals regarding the potential growth in crime;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos and refrain from introducing video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario."

That's signed by a number of my constituents and by me.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

I have over 100 signatures and I have affixed mine.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario are undergoing economic hardship, high unemployment and are faced with the prospect of imminent tax increases; and

"Whereas the Ontario motorist protection plan currently delivers cost-effective insurance benefits to Ontario drivers; and

"Since the passing of Bill 164 into law will result in higher automobile insurance premiums for Ontario drivers;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That Bill 164 be withdrawn."

That is signed by a couple of hundred of my constituents and by me.

ORDER OF BUSINESS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I have a ruling with respect to the point of order raised by the honourable member for Parry Sound.

The vote was deferred last night to immediately following routine proceedings Wednesday, June 16, 1993. Standing order 28(g) refers to a vote being deferred to a specified time, no later than 6 pm on the next sessional day. The Speaker calls the items on the order paper in the order in which they appear and, therefore, following the introduction of bills, it is my duty to call orders of the day.

If it was a deferred vote by another party, it would still be entered under government business if it dealt with a government bill.

The deferred vote appears as order number 22 in today's order paper. It's my opinion that it is an order of the day and that because last night's deferral order refers to "immediately following routine proceedings," the first order of business today has to be government order number 22. Therefore, because the allocation of time order passed by this House last week refers to Bill 96 being called as the first order of business, I must find that the House cannot proceed with Bill 96 today according to the terms of the allocation of time motion.

I noted the comment earlier that what has occurred was not anyone's intention. Members will know that by unanimous consent they could proceed, if they so wish, with Bill 96. That's where it rests.

1550

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Huget from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report under standing order 108 on bicycle helmets and moved its adoption.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): No, Mr Speaker. I move adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr88, An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendments:

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive Aga Ming Property Owners Association

Bill Pr37, An Act to revive P.O.I.N.T. Incorporated

Bill Pr74, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Your committee recommends that the fees, and the actual costs of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Korean Canadian Cultural Association.

Your committee recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Your committee recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr37, An Act to revive P.O.I.N.T. Incorporated.

Your committee recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr88, An Act respecting the Cruickshank Elderly Persons Centre.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fifth report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the member wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Kormos, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 52, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This bill amends the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act by providing that members retiring on or after January 1, 1993, would not be entitled to be paid their pensions until they attain the age of 60. If a member dies on or after the day on which the bill becomes law and leaves a surviving spouse, the spouse would not be entitled to be paid survivor pension benefits until the day on which the member would have attained the age of 60 had he or she lived. However, if such a member leaves a surviving child or children but no spouse, the children would still be entitled to an immediate survivor benefit.

HELLENIC ORTHODOX COMMUNITY OF KINGSTON AND DISTRICT ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr Gary Wilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr42, An Act to revive Hellenic Orthodox Community of Kingston.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT (SUNDAY SHOPPING), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL (OUVERTURE DES COMMERCES LE DIMANCHE)

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail en ce qui concerne l'ouverture des commerces le dimanche.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, just before you proceed with the order, having listened to the two opposition leaders very carefully today, I would like to seek unanimous consent to hold the deferred vote from last evening; then to move to the 36th order, which is the second reading of Bill 79, to hear the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship for about 35 minutes; then, as the three parties had agreed, to have the official opposition adjourn the debate on that bill and to move to the 27th order, second reading of Bill 48, as has been suggested by the two opposition leaders, and that we debate that bill from that point until 11:50 tonight, at which time we would proceed to vote on second reading of Bill 48.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): The smugness over there is quite interesting. We're more than delighted to begin the debate on that bill. If the House leader would like to listen --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You're so screwed up.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Etobicoke West will come to order.

Mr Stockwell: You asked for this.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Etobicoke West to come to order immediately.

Mr Mahoney: Let me be clear -- this is called ordering the business of the House by the seat of your pants -- we are quite prepared to begin the debate. We are not prepared to agree to closure, which is in essence what the House leader is attempting to do. We will have a proper parliamentary debate. We will go by the rules for once around this place. We'll go by the rules and we'll vote on that bill when it's appropriate, after we've had a chance -- the Premier himself said he would consider amendments and changes to that legislation. This is nothing more than thuggery on the part of this government.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West was given an opportunity to put his points to the Chair, and I listened carefully. The member for Parry Sound now has the same opportunity.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the point made by the government House leader, that's a cute little political trick, but the reality is that on a piece of legislation that is probably the most significant this government has introduced to date, they're asking the opposition parties to close off debate at 11:50 this evening. Is that what I'm hearing over there? I would have thought that on this important piece of legislation, the government would want to give the public and other members in this place several days of debate until 12 am.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre is asked to come to order. The member for York Centre knows better. I would ask the member to temper his language.

The government House leader asked for unanimous consent for a number of items. Do we have unanimous consent? It's not necessary to rise.

No. The question was asked and there was at least one negative voice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: This is not a complicated matter. The government House leader asked a question for unanimous consent. I placed that and I heard one negative voice. So there is not unanimous consent.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr Speaker, to put forward a clarification of what in fact the government House leader put before this House without any prior notice whatsoever: The government House leader --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Right now we're not conducting any business. I would ask all members to come to order.

Mrs McLeod: The government House leader did not ask for unanimous consent to bring forward the legislation and have it debated according to the due procedures of this House. This is a government which has brought forward the most draconian measures ever seen in this House to be able to ram through the most unpopular pieces of legislation with very limited debate by members of the opposition. If this government thinks we will ever, ever --

The Speaker: Would the leader take her seat, please. What we do have is an order of the House which says --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

We have an order of the House which is a deferred vote on Bill 38. There is a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1603 to 1608.

The Speaker: This is a deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 38, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act in respect of Sunday Shopping, moved by Mr Christopherson.

Those in favour of the bill will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Caplan, Carr, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Curling, Dadamo, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon;

Mahoney, Malkowski, Martel, Mathyssen, McGuinty, McLeod, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, Offer, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Poirier, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Ramsay, Silipo, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Swarbrick, Villeneuve, Ward, Wark-Martyn, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to the bill will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carter, Cleary, Cordiano, Cunningham, Daigeler, Drainville, Eddy, Grandmaître, Hayes, Henderson, Jackson, Kormos, Marchese, Mammoliti, O'Neil (Quinte), Perruzza, Rizzo, Sola, Tilson, Wilson (Simcoe West), Wiseman, Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes being 72 and the nays 26, I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR L'ÉQUITÉ EN MATIÈRE D'EMPLOI

Ms Ziemba moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 79, An Act to provide for Employment Equity for Aboriginal People, People with Disabilities, Members of Racial Minorities and Women / Loi prévoyant l'équité en matière d'emploi pour les autochtones, les personnes handicapées, les membres des minorités raciales et les femmes.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): As we begin second reading of Bill 79, the Employment Equity Act, I would like to tell the House from the outset that this government remains unwavering in its commitment to this pioneering legislation. Bill 79, when it is enacted, will be critical in addressing employment discrimination faced by aboriginal people, people with disabilities, racial minorities and women, but in so doing it will also improve the working life of all employees.

Let me also say that I'm very proud indeed to be a member of the first provincial government in Canada to bring forward employment equity legislation. It will be the most progressive of its kind in North America, in fact in a lot of the world.

Perhaps even more important, however, is the fact that we are committed to legislation that is effective and workable. It will achieve the desired results in a practical and efficient manner. This is a testament to the comprehensive consultation process we have conducted before and since I introduced the bill in the House almost a year ago.

Since that time, we have had the opportunity to consult on the legislation and the draft regulation with hundreds of people, including designated groups, employers and organized labour. The enormous amount of work that has been accomplished by the Employment Equity Commissioner, Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, has been of inestimable value to us and I'd like to recognize the first Employment Equity Commissioner of Ontario.

Applause.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Thank you very much, commissioner. The commissioner's two technical regulation committees and my technical advisory group have also provided us with invaluable input. Many of these same people also made a significant contribution to the development of the draft regulation which, as promised, has now been released. We have consulted on it with more than 50 employers and we have conducted onsite testing of it with employers and bargaining agents. I want to take this opportunity to thank all who have consulted with us for their participation to date. I look forward to continuing the consultation process as we move through the next stages in the bill's development.

As I've talked to people across the province in the past year, it has become clear that there is considerable concern about the discrimination so many people have suffered for so long, and there's recognition that something must be done. As the Ontario Federation of Labour has said, "We cannot continue to ignore these injustices and must act now to correct these historical wrongs."

People who support the thrust of Bill 79 understand that equity is not just a basic tenet of democratic society. They are pragmatists. They know that when people are treated fairly, they are active and productive members of society and that we all reap the rewards.

In my remarks today I want to focus on three key issues: why employment equity is essential, how it will work and what it will achieve. But first I want to explain what employment equity is really about.

Employment equity is designed to bring fairness into the workplace. It is designed to ensure that people are not denied opportunities and advancement in employment for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability. It gives people an equal chance to participate in the workforce and to achieve their potential. If employment equity is about anything, it's about people.

I should say at this point that some people question why we are proceeding with Bill 79 in these difficult times. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how much I believe this is exactly the right time. Employment equity is at the heart of the government's economic renewal agenda. It is an essential component of our strategy to secure future prosperity in Ontario. Let me explain why.

Current economic conditions have forced organizations, institutions and governments worldwide to undertake a serious re-evaluation of their operations, to restructure and to begin to build more solid economic foundations. One of the key components of organizational change is an analysis of external and internal forces and what impact they have now and will have in the future.

In Ontario one of the external forces that has changed dramatically over the past decade is the demographic picture of our population. For example, it is estimated that in just 10 years' time more than 80% of new entrants to the workforce will come from the four employment equity designated groups -- in just 10 years' time.

1620

The potential impact of this significant shift in demographics cannot be ignored. We have to ask ourselves whether we understand what it will mean to research and development, product planning, the services we will need or advertising campaigns. Particularly important, we must ask whether we are ready to maximize the potential of the entire workforce to use its experience and knowledge to the full. We must have answers to these kinds of questions if our organizations and our economy are to flourish.

We surely all agree that now more than ever before we have to make the best of all our human resources. We literally cannot afford to underutilize the training, skills, talent and experience of those who work and those who want to work, particularly if we want to gain a competitive edge in a global economy. To do so is not only unjust; it would be economically disastrous.

Not very long ago job advertisements in newspapers were segregated into "Jobs Wanted -- Male" and "Jobs Wanted -- Female." This was a simple but effective way of discriminating against a large segment of the population, in fact I might say the majority of our population. Many overt methods of employment discrimination have disappeared. Less blatant but equally damaging discrimination, what is known as systemic discrimination, has not.

How do we know that discriminatory employment practices still exist? Let me share a few facts and figures with you. Year after year, study after study has shown that the four designated groups continue to face persistent employment discrimination. Those who do get hired are frequently frozen in low-level jobs at low pay. They tend to be clustered in a small number of occupational groups. For the sake of brevity, I'll give you a few examples of what I'm talking about, but there are many, many more available.

Aboriginal people have an unemployment rate more than twice that of other workers.

People with disabilities have the same rate of unemployment, but half of them are not even included in labour force statistics, because they are disenchanted by past experience and have given up looking for work.

Racial minorities experience higher rates of unemployment, are less likely to find work in their chosen fields and, despite high levels of education, still earn less than their white counterparts.

While there are more women in the labour force than ever before, they still remain concentrated in a very small percentage of occupational groups and in traditional areas such as teaching, health and social services, and clerical work. The average full-time wage for a woman is still less than 68% of that earned by a man.

These figures are very telling, but they mask the fact that behind the statistics stand real people whose lives, hopes and dreams are affected by them. Throughout the consultation process we have heard many, many haunting stories about the devastating impact that discrimination has. If there's still anyone in this House who doubts that employment discrimination still exists, I urge you to go out in the community and ask members of a designated group if they have ever faced discrimination, either intentional or unintentional, and how it has felt.

You'll meet people like the aboriginal woman who said that as a child she got "iron in her blood" from following behind her father, an iron worker, as he worked. It became her ambition to keep following his steps in a career, but it was a fight every step of the way. She faced the double disadvantage of being a woman and an aboriginal person.

You'll discover how the life of a disabled person can be transformed by a simple purchase, an inexpensive software device which allows a one-handed person to access a full computer keyboard and to work at a fully functional speed.

You'll hear how racial minorities have been told on the telephone that their qualifications are just what the employer is looking for but how these qualifications suddenly seem irrelevant when the person turns up for an interview.

Or you might meet a gutsy woman who is now a top-ranking sales manager. She was once told, because of her consistently high-quality work in the office, "Gee, if only you were a man, we'd give you a briefcase and put you in sales." She got her first sales job 15 years later.

The painfully slow advances that women have made in the workplace, in spite of nearly two decades of affirmative action and employment equity programs, have convinced this government that voluntary employment equity just does not work.

In spite of good intentions, voluntary attempts to meet the challenge of an increasingly diverse population have had only limited success. They have not changed the pattern of unemployment and underemployment that follows designated groups, particularly those persons who are doubly disadvantaged because they are members of more than one group.

This does not diminish the efforts that business, trade unions and equity-seeking groups have been making to implement employment equity. On the contrary, we should recognize and applaud the organizations that have been working on equity issues, for example, General Motors and the Canadian Auto Workers, National Grocers and the United Food and Commercial Workers, Ontario Hydro and CUPE, Royal Insurance, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Alliance for Employment Equity, the Ontario Coalition of Visible Minority Women and Disabled People for Employment Equity, to name just a few.

Our conviction that employment equity has to be mandatory is simply a realization that while some progressive organizations understand the importance of employment equity, there are still many that do not. The lives of thousands of people cannot be put on hold until everyone catches on and catches up.

Employment equity isn't a new concept. The first affirmative action step of which we are aware was taken in 1941 when US President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order ordering defence plants to show that they are opening jobs to black workers.

The term "employment equity" was first coined by Judge Rosalie Abella during her term as sole commissioner on the royal commission on equality in employment. There has been a federal employment equity act since 1986, and provincially regulated companies in Ontario that have contracts with the federal government fall under a contract compliance program. So there is a considerable body of knowledge about employment equity that we can learn from, work with and improve upon.

The organizations that have been working on employment equity for some time have recognized that the province's demographics have changed significantly in the last decade. As a consequence, so too has the composition of the labour force, the pool of people who are working or looking for work. It has therefore become critical for employers to evaluate their hiring, training and promotion practices to ensure that they are recruiting from the widest available pool of qualified people.

If unintentional discriminatory employment practices screen out certain groups of people, then employers are not benefiting from the biggest available pool and a tremendous amount of potential is being wasted. Some employers have recognized the benefits to be gained by addressing systemic discrimination and that is why they have been working on employment equity programs. They have already accepted that employment equity makes good business sense. They would not have invested time and resources in it if it did not.

I said earlier that I would outline how employment equity will work. The key elements of Bill 79 are that it requires all workplace barriers that discriminate against designated groups to be removed and it requires employers to implement qualitative and quantitative measures for hiring, retaining and promoting designated group members in order to achieve the long-term goal of workplaces that are representative of the community.

The legislation applies to all of the Ontario public service, to broader public sector employers like school boards, hospitals and other agencies with more than 10 employees and to private sector firms that have more than 50 employees. There are modified requirements for smaller employers, that is, those in the private sector with 50 to 99 employees and those in the broader public sector with 10 to 49 employees.

Once the legislation is passed, employers will have from a year to three years to develop their first employment equity plan, depending on their size and to which sector they belong. Employers and their bargaining agents will take three steps to implement employment equity:

In the first step, they will conduct a workforce survey to identify how many workers are members of designated groups and in which occupations they work.

In the second step an employment systems review will be conducted to see what policies and practices need to be implemented or changed to remove barriers to the full hiring, retention and promotion of designated groups.

In the third step they will set goals and timetables for hiring and promoting designated groups and will establish measures to eliminate employment barriers to achieve a more representative workforce.

Certain aspects of Ontario's legislation make it unique in North America. In our bill, for example, both employers and labour unions have been assigned joint responsibility for employment equity.

1630

In unionized workplaces, employers and bargaining agents will work in partnership on the workforce survey, the employment systems review and plan development, and will together be responsible for reviewing their progress and revising their plans. In non-unionized workplaces, employers must consult with their employees on employment equity implementation.

A further important provision in the bill ensures that designated group members are consulted and play an integral role in employment equity. In workplaces where there are no designated group members, employers and bargaining agents will be required to contact the Employment Equity Commission for information, advice and possible referral to representatives of such groups so that their needs and concerns can be addressed in the employment equity plan.

These unique provisions in the legislation enshrine such workplace partnerships in law, thus making the bill stronger and ultimately more effective. We have striven hard to attain strong, effective legislation which is workable and recognizes the realities of different workplaces.

One of the key components of Bill 79 is that it gives employers, in partnership with employees, the flexibility to establish and manage their own employment equity plan. This includes setting goals and timetables based on intimate knowledge of their particular organizations and communities.

Employers and designated groups share the view that the focus must be on achieving results rather than on unduly onerous and costly paperwork requirements. That is why the bill will only require employers to submit copies of their employment equity reports if requested by the Employment Equity Commission. Instead, employers will submit a certificate stating that they have done everything required under the act and the regulation, and will provide the basic data necessary for the monitoring of progress.

We are committed to working with the federal government towards coordinating federal and provincial employment equity programs. Staff from both governments are working to ensure that employers covered by the federal contract compliance program will spend their efforts on achieving equity, not on reporting to two levels of government. We intend, for example, to avoid duplication in recordkeeping, reporting and audit requirements.

Throughout the process of developing Bill 79 and the draft regulation that we released today, we have kept uppermost in our minds that we wanted a legislative package that achieved the desired goal: a workforce that is representative of the community. We wanted to enable employers to implement the legislation in a manner that is workable and possible.

We have listened very carefully to the opinions of all the individuals and groups we have consulted with, we have considered what impact their suggestions will have on what we want to achieve and we have made every effort to develop an approach that is effective, balanced, reasonable and fair.

One of the questions I'm most often asked when I talk to people about employment equity is, "What will be achieved with this legislation and what will the benefits be?" The answer is simple: fairness.

Canadians have always prided themselves on being a just people. To admit that we still have employment policies and practices that discriminate against people is to acknowledge a serious failing; understandably, something no one wants to do. But until we come to terms with the fact that we do discriminate against certain groups of people, we will never get to the bottom of this problem.

Employment equity recognizes that discrimination does exist, even though it may be unintentional, and addresses it head on.

When companies identify discriminatory workplace practices and policies and remove them, everyone in the workplace benefits. For example, when companies have outdated and unnecessary height and weight restrictions attached to certain jobs, a lot of people are screened out of the application process, no matter what other pertinent qualifications they may have.

When organizations implement measures to accommodate persons with disabilities, other employees find that such measures assist them too. For example, employers who have installed ramps for employees who use wheelchairs have often found that they have been welcomed by other employees who use trolleys and by customers and clients as well.

Qualitative workforce policies that might have originally been implemented to address the needs of working women often result in benefits for every other employee. For example, flex-time can help parents attend to child care duties, but single people can use that flexibility in working hours as well.

If a company changes its recruitment policy so that hiring is no longer done purely by word of mouth, but involves broader outreach, a large number of people benefit. They're made aware of opportunities they would otherwise never know about.

Employment equity also improves employers' ability to recruit the best-qualified people for the job. A number of factors are taken into consideration when an employer makes a decision about who gets hired, but some have nothing to do with requirements of the job.

When employers follow the principles of employment equity, they focus on skills and abilities and consequently they are able to choose qualified people from a larger labour pool. Let me be very clear about this: Employment equity is not about hiring unqualified people. It just ensures that all Ontarians with the qualifications for a job are given the same opportunity as everyone else.

Employment equity improves employers' workplace policies and practices and assists with human resource planning exercises, which in turn keep organizations abreast of change. Designated group members gain specific benefits from particular measures that overcome disadvantage. This is recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in Ontario's Human Rights Code.

Over and above the more concrete benefits that I have outlined, of course, are those that are less tangible but equally important. They are the benefits that will specifically accrue to the designated groups in which we, once again, will all share. They include pride, respect, recognition and hope.

The Alliance for Employment Equity expressed this sentiment most succinctly when it said, and I want to quote:

"In terms of dignity and self-worth, the value to designated group members of being able to work at levels commensurate with one's abilities is immeasurable."

The cooperation with stakeholders that has achieved what we have to date must continue as we go through the next stages in the bill's development.

Following second reading, Bill 79 will be discussed during legislative committee hearings. We will be conducting a separate but concurrent consultation process on the draft regulation, which will include further testing with employers and bargaining agents and designated groups.

Once Bill 79 becomes law, each workplace partner must accept the responsibility for making employment equity work. On the government's part, we are determined that assistance will be given to the partners -- employers, bargaining agents, employees and designated groups -- as employment equity becomes a reality around the province.

We'll be establishing the Employment Equity Commission. It will be an arm's-length agency which will act as a facilitator and information provider, and will provide data from Statistics Canada on designated and occupational groups to assist the employment equity partners with the goal-setting process.

The commission will also monitor and audit employment equity progress in the province to ensure that we achieve our goal of a workforce representative of the community.

We look forward to receiving further input on Bill 79 as the legislative process continues. A number of issues have already been brought to my attention for further consideration. Seniority is one, for example.

I feel the current bill is clear on the issues of layoff and recall. But further clarification might be necessary to acknowledge that any seniority provisions in collective bargaining agreements can remain intact and are not considered barriers to employment equity, providing there is no adverse impact on designated groups.

Some groups have already suggested that we move some of the things currently in the regulation into the legislation, and others have asked that we ensure that the confidentiality of sensitive information is fully protected.

I'm certainly open to considering these and other issues further. As the summer consultation process and hearings proceed, I will be suggesting to my colleagues some proposals for amendments to clarify and refine the effectiveness and workability of Bill 79 and the draft regulation package.

It is in everyone's best interests to continue to work together, for there is much at stake if we do not.

Continued employment discrimination against aboriginal people, persons with disability, racial minorities and women will exact an enormous toll in both human and financial terms.

As one of Ontario's employers, Manulife Financial has said, and I quote: "Employment equity is not only a legal, social and moral obligation. It is also a commonsense business policy designed to increase productivity, improve our ability to attract and retain talented employees and enhance our position in both domestic and international markets."

I would add that employment equity also means no Ontarian will ever feel that doors are closed to him or her because of aboriginal status, disability, race or gender, and that each and every one of us will have the opportunity to aspire to and work towards fulfilling employment.

That is how employment equity will affect our lives; that is the legacy we are leaving to our children. I think we have good reason to be proud of that achievement today.

1640

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable minister for her contribution and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): We have been long awaiting this bill to reach this stage, and I am happy to see that it is here. I can't say I'm ecstatically happy about the way it has been done; however, now that it is here to be debated, I welcome that opportunity.

I had no time to read the regulation, because it was presented to us about 12 o'clock and I had no time to read it in its entirety, but we have an opportunity later on to comment on it.

As you know, this bill is a far cry from Bob Rae's opposition bill that he had put forward when he was in opposition. My, my, how things have changed when we got to Damascus. The fact is that we have changed our tune completely.

I'll just put my concern on the record for the minister, who has worked very hard on this. I am concerned that this bill is being sold as a benefit to women. I tell you, there are other people who are being discriminated against, and I'd like to see the same fanfare that is put forward with regard to women put towards visible minorities, the aboriginal people and the disabled. I didn't see that kind of stuff. If we start on the wrong foot, I'm sure we're going to end up without any feet at all.

It seems to me that the unions have cut a deal and have gotten their way somehow with regard to the layoff and callback and seniority in this bill. We just hope that when we are given the opportunity to amend the regulations we will address that concern. We have a very intelligent, capable Employment Equity Commissioner. I appeal to the minister: Use that individual and don't put that individual in the back. I hope she had some opportunity to participate in the regulations. We've got a lot more to say when the time comes for me to debate this issue.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I want to thank and congratulate the minister today for presenting the employment equity legislation for second reading. I think the minister has pointed out quite accurately, and in a manner that I want to embrace, the benefits of this legislation. As I look around the galleries, looking over to the members' gallery I see Juanita Westmoreland-Traoré, whose confirmation hearing I had the pleasure of sitting in on not all that long ago, and we've come even further since that day.

The employment equity legislation, as the minister has outlined, addresses issues of equality, justice, dignity and excellence. We are not talking about pandering to the lowest common denominator. We are not talking about going out and hiring people simply because they happen to represent a designated group. We're talking about promoting excellence; we're talking about equality in the workplace.

I want to say that I will stand proudly and support this legislation. If it's the will of the House leader, I will certainly be able to participate on committee hearings and to take this piece of legislation and give it the kind of just hearing it deserves, to take it around the province, to get the kinds of input it needs.

The member for Scarborough North made some comments with respect to the usual too little, too late, too slow. I ask the member for Scarborough North: Where was he, where was his government, in terms of employment equity? I can even answer my own question by simply stating "nowhere." Nowhere, and it's taken our government and it's taken our minister, the Honourable Elaine Ziemba, in terms of intensive consultation with business and labour groups, to bring forward a bill that will redress generations and generations of discrimination and inequities in the workplace.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Thank you. Further questions and/or comments? The honourable Minister of Citizenship has two minutes in response.

Hon Ms Ziemba: It's been a very proud day to come back to the House for second reading and to say to all of my colleagues that I'm very pleased with their participation as well.

Employment equity is a fundamental goal and a dream that we must attain, because it means that not only will we have fairness in the workplace but we also will have the benefits, the social benefits and the economic benefits, of the most talented people in our society. For too long we have witnessed the fact that those people have been shut out and we have not had the opportunity for their expertise, their talents to be part of the workplace.

Employment equity is also, though, about joint partnership. It's about making sure that all the employees in the workplace share together in those goals and those dreams and work together to make sure that it is effective. I think that the joint responsibility in Bill 79 and in the regulations makes sure that we will have a much better, effective piece of legislation and that the dream of recognizing that all of our citizens are included in the workplace will come to a reality.

Today, as we released the regulation, I looked around the room. I have to mention this little private thought I had. I looked around the room and there were about 200 people who shared in that dream, 200 people who were representative designated groups of employers -- yes, of employers -- who believe very strongly in employment equity because of its fairness, because of its justice and because of its good economic business sense. But I also saw the labour movement there too, willing to be a joint partner in this great piece of legislation.

So I want to take the opportunity to thank my colleagues and to thank the Employment Equity Commissioner, because she has played a very significant role and continues to do so. I also want in just a very special moment to thank the deputy minister, because without her work and her hard dedication as well, this would not have come about today. So to all of the staff and to everybody who's worked so hard, thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the Honourable Minister of Citizenship for her participation and for her response. Further debate?

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, may I ask that this debate be adjourned until a latter date?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough North is moving adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE PLAN D'INVESTISSEMENT

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 17, An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario and for certain other matters related to financial administration / Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The minister of government services? Any member on the government side? Further debate.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. For the benefit of the people who are watching, I'm sure they must be confused, because today we've jumped from the Sunday shopping vote to employment equity and now to Bill 17. I think this is one of the problems with this government, that we don't seem to be able to stick to one subject, discuss it, then debate it and --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. On a point of order, the honourable member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The issue under debate at this point is the bill with respect to capital corporations, not the government and not the orders of the day.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It's an opinion. The member for Nepean.

Mr Daigeler: If the member insists that we prolong the debate further beyond what is necessary, then he should just keep doing what he's doing, because I think the public has a right to know what we're discussing in this House, and I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who are rather confused about the agenda.

Frankly, we were confused. On the order paper today there was no mention whatsoever about employment equity. We were supposed to discuss right now OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. But for the public's benefit, what we're discussing at this point is an issue that could be of great importance to the province, and frankly, I'm open to look at the issue with a fair and unbiased mind.

What we are discussing is a new way of financing major capital expenditures in the province. That would include education facilities, schools, colleges and universities. We're also talking about sewer and water works and we're talking about road construction. This Bill 17 has actually several sections that establish different corporations, sort of semi-private. They aren't really private corporations because in the end the province will still be responsible for all the debt. However, there will be sort of a private/public sector corporation to try and levy more money for capital construction.

1650

Frankly, I think that's a sound idea. I think we would all agree that if we can find more private sector money to do more capital construction, that's just what we need, especially at this time right now when there are so many people unemployed. I have been arguing with the government for a long time, especially surrounding the 416, and Mr Speaker, you're from this area as well, how important it would be to put in place, to get going, to put a shovel in the ground right now to show the people out there that the economy is moving again, that we're building and that we're improving the situation.

On principle I think it's a great idea to try and leverage more money for capital construction, be that for the schools. I come from a growing area fortunately in my riding of Nepean. There's still housing construction going on, but that means of course the school facilities are lagging behind. That's a way to get the schools a bit faster.

However, I think there are some serious questions whether what we're doing here is in fact going to leverage new money or whether this isn't just an accounting measure, and perhaps I should say trick, to load off the expenditures of the budgetary document of the Treasurer so that he can say, "Okay, we have reduced our expenditures dramatically." His books look much better. That's a serious concern that we have on this side of the House.

Frankly, it isn't just a concern that I have or a concern that the Liberals have. It is a concern by very reputable sources, including the Bank of Nova Scotia. I have in front of me here -- I guess it's the latest newsletter -- of the Bank of Nova Scotia, dated May 19, 1993. In this newsletter the bank is analysing the most recent provincial budget that we have just seen introduced in this House. Guess what they are saying in here? I quote now.

"New financial arrangements are being implemented that will transfer $1.7 billion" -- so it's a lot of money we're talking about -- "of capital spending off budget" -- off the public books of the province -- "by fiscal year 1995-96."

The newsletter of the Scotia Bank goes on to say:

"While this accounting shift increasingly reduces the reported deficit, it locks the government into higher spending in subsequent years. Under the new procedures the province provides no upfront money, but is committed to repay the project loans initially incurred by school boards, colleges, universities, hospitals and so on."

That is the Bank of Nova Scotia talking. It isn't just the Liberals. There are some obvious financial experts who are also raising questions about this method.

Frankly, when I read here about burdening subsequent governments and putting a fiscal burden on future generations and future members of this House, we know that with the social contract that was just introduced, with the legislation on Monday, my leader Lyn McLeod has made that very point as well, that she is so concerned about: Are we, in the way we are putting measures forward, harming the future rather than helping the future?

With their social contract idea, I think they had a reasonable and a good idea. We agree and we've made that very clear. We agree that the finances of this province have to be put back into order. My leader has clearly said that. But we certainly don't want to do this by simply postponing the day of reckoning.

That's what we're so concerned about regarding the social contract negotiations and that's what we're concerned about with regard to the bill that's before us, Bill 17, the bill to establish crown capital corporations. Are we just offloading expenditures off the books of the province and leaving a tremendous debt burden to be paid back, with perhaps relatively high mortgage rates, as it were, for future generations? I think that is a very serious concern.

I want to talk in particular about the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. As I indicated, there are various sections. One gives the general framework for the corporations. There's one that establishes the Ontario Financing Authority. There's one that establishes the Ontario Clean Water Agency. Another one establishes the Ontario Realty Corp. Then there's another section, part III actually, that establishes the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp.

Since I happen to be the Liberal critic for Transportation, obviously I have a special interest in this particular section of the bill, even though of course I'm also interested and concerned about the overall framework which we're putting forward. Essentially what this section, part III, the establishment of the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, makes possible is the use of road tolls.

To make the whole thing a bit simpler, the idea here is that perhaps we could get private funding, be that pension funds, some interests from other countries as well, insurance companies, any kind of rather well-heeled funding agencies, that would put money up front to build new roads. Then, since of course we're talking about private interests, they want to see a return on their money. They're not just going to give it to the province, as it were, for free and be generous. They'll want a return, and that return would come in through tolls.

It is true that we had, I think in the early 1950s, some of these toll roads in Ontario as well. We've moved away from them. But as an idea, knowing full well that through the normal taxing effort it is probably going to be very difficult to find the billions of dollars that are required for major new roads, such as, for example, Highway 407, I think it's worthwhile to look at the possibility whether there's enough interest in the private sector, in the North American or international private sector, to invest in the building of major roads.

1700

I think it's worth taking a serious look at. I accept that, and I'm quite prepared to hear from the private sector and to see whether it is possible to in fact interest the private sector and -- and I think that "and" is very important -- under what conditions. I'll come back to those conditions shortly.

I should say that this basic willingness to consider road tolls as a means to fund major transportation projects is supported by people in my own riding. I did a telephone survey in March of this year and I asked my people. The question was: "It's been proposed to use road tolls for major new highway projects," such as the 416, for example, in my riding in eastern Ontario, and of course in the Speaker's riding as well. "How do you feel about paying for major new roads through user fees? Do you agree very much, agree somewhat, disagree somewhat, disagree very much?"

I should tell you that the opinions were divided. The distribution was as follows: agree very much, about 30%, or 29.5; agree somewhat, 26%. So almost 60% of the people in my riding are prepared to look at the possibility of road tolls. Now, disagree somewhat was 12% and disagree very much was 32%. So while there's overall support for the idea, there are also --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think the points that are being made are very good. In fact, I think we should have a quorum to hear them.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Nepean may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Daigeler: I'm pleased that the seats are filling up here to listen to what I have to say. At least, I hope the members will be listening. But whether they are listening or not, I think the important point that I was trying to make was that the people in my riding are in fact willing to take a look, to examine the idea of road tolls.

As I said, the possibility of using road tolls will be a reality through this bill before us, through the section that deals with the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp.

In the survey that I did in my riding, I just indicated to you that about 60% said, "I agree with the idea," or, "I agree somewhat." I should say that there was a clear division between the younger people and the older people. Very clearly, the younger people were a lot less likely to support the idea of toll roads than the older people. I'll just give you an example. Of those between 18 and 24 years of age, there were only 14% who agreed very much with this idea, whereas of those 65 years and over, about 39% of those people said, "Yes, we agree with the idea of using road tolls for the construction of major new highways."

I should say, though, that the people, when they were contacted by the student who did the phoning on my behalf, even though they may have been supportive, did put forward some qualifiers. For example, they said: "Okay, that's fine but only for new roads. We certainly don't want to move to the maintenance, as it were, of our road system through the toll system."

Also, and I think that's important to remember, quite a few said, "As long as our taxes are adjusted." So they are really concerned that this is just another way to raise taxes. Frankly, I think that is an extremely important point and that's what I'm so concerned about as well, that while we are moving these costs off the books of the province and while the government may avoid the always unpleasant task of raising taxes through the normal legislative process, it would in fact be raising taxes the indirect way through those road tolls.

Frankly, the profit then for those road tolls, rather than going to all the people of the province, as they would with taxes, go to private interests. I think that's what some of my people are concerned about as well, and that's why I think it is so important to know what the conditions are under which the private sector would be permitted to use the income of the road tolls for the funding of major roads.

I understand that there are negotiations under way. I understand that there are two consortia being formed to put forward a proposal to the government, two consortia from the private sector bringing together different financial interests and that they are preparing a submission to the government to say, "Okay, here's the kind of money that we would be willing to invest and here's what we'd want to see in return."

Frankly, I've asked for a briefing from the Ministry of Transportation on how these negotiations and how these briefs are being shaped and I look forward to hearing more from the ministry on what's happening there because, as I said, in principle, I'm willing to look at it, but I want to see the details. I think especially with this government, we want to make sure the details are covered. As we have seen yesterday with the social contract negotiations, the legislation is very different from what we had expected and hoped for, and so I certainly will want to know in great detail what these arrangements will be with the private sector to build the highways.

I see here, in the Financial Times of May 29, that there was actually an editorial on this whole question and it was entitled, "Socialism and Private Enterprise Build a Highway." Whether it's socialism or the NDP -- some NDP members, I think, are rather nervous to be identified with the socialists. Anyway, that's what the Financial Times used as the headline, and it quoted one of the provincial ministry officials and said, "We're going to find out whether the private sector can build roads faster and more cheaply than the government."

As I said, I think it's worth the experiment. We all are agreed that government is big and that we should try -- I think the famous word these days is "out-source" -- to use the private sector as much as we can to provide the services we want for the public.

1710

However, this is a very dangerous undertaking at the same time, as government traditionally has provided the services because no one else in the private sector was willing to take the risk or was only willing to do it in a way that wouldn't be fair and just across the board. That's what concerns me.

That's another concern I have with regard to the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. Are we setting up something here that may, in the end, favour only those areas of the province where the funding and the financing of roads is profitable for the private sector? And guess where that's going to be: obviously, the area where there are the most people using the roads and therefore paying more tolls, and that obviously would be in the greater Toronto area.

What about northern Ontario? What about eastern Ontario? Would there be enough private sector interest in building the roads there? Will the Treasurer, will the Minister of Transportation still have enough capital through the normal tax sources to build the roads in these other parts of the province, to build the infrastructure not just in the greater Metro area? And the greater Metro area needs the roads as well. I think the 407 is a much-needed project, and a lot of people would like to see this built faster rather than farther down the road.

Again, my point is simply this: We must make sure that with the setting up of this corporation and of the other corporations, we're not going to fall into what may be called the trap of the private sector and give the benefit only to those who can pay for it.

I certainly would hope that the NDP government in particular, which always prided itself on representing and working for the interests of the underprivileged, would take that into consideration and would make absolutely certain that the distribution and the assignment of road construction is not done across the province on the basis of where it brings in the most money.

I'd like to conclude at this point by simply repeating again that I am prepared to look at this legislation to see whether there is in fact enough private sector interest out there to start some of the very capital-intensive projects we need in terms of roadbuilding in this province. I'd certainly want to know and have a better assurance that, first of all, the private sector interest is there, that we're not building another new, major bureaucracy with these corporations. That's another concern I haven't even spoken much about, but seeing that the time is running on, I certainly don't want to create another WCB with these corporations.

The third point is that the funding that will be going to these corporations --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The concluding remarks I think are equally as important as the middle remarks, so there should be a quorum here to hear them.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum is now present. The honourable member for Nepean may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Daigeler: Thank you very much. I appreciate that the member for Etobicoke West has great interest in what I have to say and wants to make sure that the members opposite as well hear the conclusion of my speech and not only the middle and the beginning.

To resume with the final points I wished to make, we must make sure that the financing that will happen through these private/government-related capital corporations, private/public sector combined corporations -- that in their funding they will provide just and equitable distribution of their projects throughout the province and not just on the basis of where there would be the greatest return and that therefore the infrastructure investment would only be in the population-rich areas of this province. I think this is very, very important.

My final point, and I think this is perhaps the most important one, is that this shift of all the capital construction out of the budget books of the Treasurer and of the provincial government must not become just a smokescreen to hide, as it were, the real debt of this province, because one thing that we must remember -- I haven't mentioned this yet, but it's certainly time to mention this now -- is that the debt that these corporations will carry will in fact stay with the province. In the end the province is still responsible for any debt that may have been accumulated, and will have been accumulated, the long-term debt, by these corporations. While it may not appear on the books of the province, as the WCB debt, for example, does not appear on the books of the province, it's still a major burden on the global fiscal shoulders of the province. It's the same thing with Ontario Hydro: The figures and the finances of Ontario Hydro do not appear in the budget book of the Treasurer, but nevertheless there's still a debt and a burden, and a great burden, I would say, on all of our shoulders and on all of the shoulders of all the people of Ontario.

With these observations and with these concerns that I've been able to express, I would like to conclude now, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to comment.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

1720

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I want to be clear on something here, and I'm going to touch on a couple of points the member for Nepean has made.

The federal government, right after our provincial election in 1990, had neglected its responsibilities. That was clear. The federal government said, basically: "We don't care about Ontario. We don't care about the fact that most of your constituents want jobs. We're not going to deal with capital. We're not going to deal with any of the stuff that matters at the grass roots." They didn't do that. They didn't care and they don't care now.

We had a responsibility and we realized it. The Premier realized it and the Treasurer realized it. The responsibility was and still is that this government should be committed to creating jobs, and what the member has just finished talking about was, in all essence, jobs. The provincial government had committed to creating jobs.

He mentioned things like the toll booths, Highway 407, capital, things that would not have happened if this government weren't in place. This is a commitment that was made, it was an announcement, and I'm confident that this will create jobs that people are waiting for in the construction industry.

Mr Speaker, I don't have much time, but I've got to tell you, the stuff that he talked about, the jobs that he talked about we are committed to and this proves it.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I'd like to take a few moments just to congratulate the member from Nepean for his very thoughtful comments on a very important piece of legislation. I think that if anyone, and most importantly the previous individual who has spoken, had listened to the comments from the member from Nepean, he would have heard that there were some concerns raised by the member.

I think the member brought forward to this Legislature in a very real and telling way some of the mindset of his constituents. I think that's some of the opportunity and responsibility that we in this Legislature have and I think the member from Nepean has done so. He has taken some of the thoughts of his constituents and rolled them into what is a very important, potentially dramatically impacting piece of legislation.

I think that all of us in this Legislature share, or should share, the real possibility that this particular piece of legislation will be used as a vehicle, where the government can move $600 million, $700 million or $800 million of debt off its books on to the books of these capital corporations. What will happen as a result of that is that the public in this province will not be able to see the true financial status of the treasury of the province. They will not be able to see where their tax dollars are or are not going or where they should be going. That's one of the dangers of legislation of this kind which seeks to set up these types of capital corporations.

Again, I would just like to congratulate the member for Nepean for speaking so eloquently about this legislation and for bringing to this Legislature the thoughts, concerns and opinions of his constituents.

Mr Owens: I want to thank the member for Nepean for his considered comments and his thoughtful input in this matter. In terms of the member from Mississauga North's comments, I understand that the member for Nepean cares about his constituents and represents them in an able manner, although an NDP member could probably do better, but we'll give the other member credit where credit is due.

The member asks questions like why do we need these corporations, but then also suggests that these corporations are a good idea in terms of the building of schools, particularly in the area of Nepean, which, as the member indicated, is thriving and growing and in need of capital investment.

What the creating of these corporations will do, particularly the Ontario Financing Authority, will be to allow the long-term commitment of capital to regions like the honourable member's, so that in fact the schools can be built a lot sooner, can take advantage of countercyclical financing, and in terms of lower borrowing costs and continued capital.

I think the message here is that we simply cannot continue business as usual in terms of how governments have relied on flowing capital from year to year. This government has made a strong commitment and we've demonstrated our commitment to capital investment in the two and a half years that we've been here.

We simply have come to the conclusion that we need to do things in a different way, and the capital corporations legislation allows us to do things in a better way, a more nimble way and a more accountable way by keeping our commitment to the people of Ontario.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I listened attentively to my colleague from Nepean, who has done an excellent job. His thoughtful comments were being listened to, and I just hope that the government listened and took notes of what he said, because in that direction, I'm sure you can have an improved bill to be presented to the people of Ontario.

I want to say that he continues to make this contribution to this House, but I am concerned really about the direction this government is going. You have a last-minute repentance now to say to yourself, "Yes, I have listened and I will take what he has said under consideration," and make sure this is done.

With that in mind, again thanks to the member from Nepean for his excellent comments.

Mr Daigeler: Let me thank all the members who have spoken in response to my speech. Obviously, the member from Scarborough North, the member from Mississauga North, but also the other members of the House opposite I think have realized that I tried to put on the record some thoughts from the people of my own riding, and I have taken, frankly, this step of asking the opinion of my own constituents.

But I did want to say that I very much agreed with the member from Yorkview when he said what this is all about and what he wants to do is create jobs. Frankly, if that's where we're going to end up, I'm all in favour. I certainly agree with him that we want to get rid of the unemployment. That's the scourge that we'll hopefully all unite to try and eradicate from this province. I think there's nothing worse than people who are for years without income and without work, and capital construction has traditionally been one way -- not the only way, but an important way to get the economy moving to provide employment.

However, the member from Yorkview also said Highway 407 wouldn't have come about if it weren't for this particular bill. Well, we haven't seen the 407 yet. There's nothing in the ground yet, and frankly that's the concern I have, as I had with OTAB, that it will take so long to set up this corporation and these corporations; it will take so long to arrive at a negotiated solution with the private sector to finance these roads that frankly, by the time all of this stuff is set up legally, we will be through the recession, and that's another concern that I have.

Mr Stockwell: I'm pleased to rise today and discuss this bit of jiggery-pokery on the financial end of the NDP's last financial statement, or their budget.

Any unbiased third party would read this piece of legislation and know full well what exactly the government is trying to do. Everyone understands that there's more than meets the eye to this piece of legislation. They can spout on about --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Have you read it, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: As usual, I have my friends the View Brothers down in York here today. Without missing a beat, I got heckled before I got started. But down in York, anyone would see exactly what is taking place with this piece of legislation.

This government has a very serious financial problem. It's well known they went to great lengths to point it out to anyone who would listen during the previous five or six months. They inflated their deficit number to some $17 billion, then miraculously brought it down to some $9 billion. That's why it was inflated: It was never $17 billion in the first place. I guess everyone knows that, including their union friends Sid Ryan, Liz Barkley and so on, who pointed that out in very direct terms to them during the social contract discussions.

1730

None the less, they had a significant problem with respect to the deficit. Whether it was $12 billion or $13 billion or so, they had a problem, so they had to figure out advanced, new, smoke and mirror methods to somehow show the constituents out there, the taxpayers, that they were financially solvent and financially responsible, without really having to be that. So that's how we get the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993.

I'm glad to see a number of members have stuck around to hear my comments. They're applauding now. I'm pleased, because I don't even think the backbenchers in the government party, once they hear the enlightening comments I'm going to give them, will even think themselves to start second-guessing this piece of legislation.

Imagine, if you can, cabinet sitting around one day, finishing up their rice pudding. They're trying to say, "Okay, what are we going to do to get this deficit down?" Somebody had the bright idea someplace and said, "Why don't we do something that we were completely and thoroughly opposed to when we were in opposition?" Of course, those ideas go over well over there. So that person said, "Why don't we start quasi-crown corporations, things that we were really diametrically opposed to because it's nothing more than really the first step to contracting out, thereby set up crown corporations for a number of agencies, create paper transfers and in fact don't reduce the debt at all but simply shift it?" Of course, there was a huge round of applause in cabinet that day when that person came up with this bit of jiggery-pokery.

So we had the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, and it was roundly endorsed by cabinet. They sold it to caucus -- probably three or four salient questions were asked, no doubt -- and they processed it on to this Legislature.

What have they done? We know this: They're going to start these quasi-crown corporations -- the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Clean Water Agency, the Ontario Realty Corp -- and they're going to be overseen by the Ontario Financing Authority.

Who and what does this mean? Let's start at the last one and work our way up.

The Ontario Realty Corp: Here's a gas, folks. This is a real good one. This had the deep thinkers in deep thought, no doubt, for probably a couple of months over there. "What can we do to generate more revenue for the coffers?" They said, "What we should do is, we should package up all the surplus land that we own in the province of Ontario and sell it to ourselves, take that money we had to borrow to buy from ourselves and apply it against our debt and call ourselves financial wizards."

So we had the makings of the Ontario Realty Corp. That's what they did. Just to say, "We're not just doing it with land," they sold themselves the domed stadium for the third time again, just to round out the thinking on that group.

Here's the Ontario Realty Corp: A group of cabinet ministers taking the surplus land in their own ministries, striking the Ontario Realty Corp, giving it authorization to go out and borrow. They go and borrow the money. They buy the land from the government. The government guarantees the loan. They haven't reduced the deficit by one nickel, yet on their financial statements the deficit comes down by the appropriate amount that they borrowed to buy the land from their right pocket, as opposed to their left. That's the deep thinking that went into this piece of legislation. That was the reason this legislation was adopted.

It was a cosy place to put the domed stadium, because I guess they thought at this time: "We've already sold the domed stadium twice. I don't think anyone's going to believe we could sell it a third time. Let's move it over to the Ontario Land Corp." That was a nice, comfortable place to put the domed stadium. They've taken credit for the sale of the domed stadium twice before, I might add, in both their previous budgets. Of course, it was never bought, so they've been reduced to selling it to themselves, which is curious, to say the least.

That wasn't it. They thought: "The Ontario Realty Corp. Jeez, they're going to need some employees. We want to pretend that we're cutting the staff of this province, so why don't we do this?" A brainwave -- you could see it shaking the table around that cabinet. "Why don't we take some employees from the provincial government, move them to this Ontario Realty Corp and tell everybody we've reduced the staff complement?" Aren't they special? Here they are, at cabinet once again, reducing the staff complement by moving these people over to a realty corporation that they guarantee the debt and also the wages for. The jiggery-pokery continues.

Clearly, at this meeting they thought this was such a special idea, such a great idea, such a wonderful idea, that they said: "Why stop there? We don't need to stop with land. For goodness' sake, we could do the same with, say, water." Lo and behold, probably at the same meeting, maybe the meeting after, somebody said, "The Ontario Clean Water Agency," and lo and behold, not just land; they were doing it with water. These people don't stop thinking, do they? They're just always on the ball, for ever and ever thinking of new and effective ways to pull the wool over the taxpayers' eyes.

No doubt after they thought of that, the Minister of Transportation shook with fear when this came to him, I'm sure, and he said, "Gee, if they can do it with land and they can do it with water, why don't we do it with roads?" Lo and behold, poof, one magic day in cabinet: the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp.

But you've got to understand what are the two prerequisites of starting a crown corporation in this government: (1) They remove some debt that's properly on the books of the provincial government off book, hide it, so they don't have to show it to the taxpayers, and (2) they move some employees who are truly on the government payroll off to this crown corporation, so they don't have to say they have the employees.

Then they can go back to the electorate in 1995 and say, "We reduced the debt by this much," which they moved, and, "We reduced the staff by this much," which they moved. That was the rationale, reasoning and deep thinking that went into this at the cabinet level.

Oh, we all must remember, we all must keep one very simple point in mind: This party is fundamentally and structurally for ever opposed to exactly this. If some of those backbenchers who never sat in this place during previous years would like to get some clarification, you should probably go look at the sewer corporation. Remember that? You guys were opposed to that, because you said that's taking responsible processes that should be with government out of government's control and thereby leaving them in the private sector's or non-taxpayers' capacity.

You opposed all those specific regulations. Of course, that was then and this is now. You know that statement. We saw it very early on Sunday shopping, exactly how "then" and "now" have no relationship to each other.

Here's what we have; we have this. But they thought to themselves: "My goodness, we're very cunning, aren't we? We're very sly. We're very smart. We haven't gone far enough. We haven't done enough. What should we do now?" They said to themselves, "Gee, don't we grant money to municipalities and school boards for capital projects?" Someone said yes, probably the Premier. That's a tough question only a Rhodes scholar could answer.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Wasn't there a Rhodes scholars' convention?

Mr Stockwell: He was at a Rhodes scholars' convention in Washington. He'd have to answer the tough questions, like, "Do we grant money?"

What did they do? They said, "Let's think of a new way of doing this." Floyd must have come up with this one, because this has got an economics professor earmark stamped all over it. He said: "We used to grant money, didn't we? We used to grant money for roads and schools." Mr Owens, you probably don't remember that, but that's in the old days when provincial governments were responsible and did things they were supposed to.

But what happened was that municipalities gave a priority list for schools and roads, and they granted the proper amount of money to build those. Of course, Floyd thought, or someone a lot like Floyd thought, "That's not a good way to do it any more." "Why is that, Floyd?" "Because I've borrowed so much money in the last two years to run this province, nobody will lend me any more."

"So what do you think you should do, Floyd?" Floyd thought for probably a month, and then he said: "Why don't we do this? Why don't we tell municipalities: 'You borrow the money? You use your good credit rating. You use your good capacity to borrow. You use your responsible managerial approach, and you blow it, you put it on the line. You mess up like we did."'

Mr Bradley: And then it won't show in the provincial books.

Mr Stockwell: And then it won't show in the provincial books. My friend from St Catharines puts a very interesting spin on that, one that I'm certain I thought of, and you did. But I'm quite certain they didn't think of this when this was happening because they are solid and up front and wouldn't do this jiggery-pokery, would they? But they did.

1720

So what did they do? They told their transfer partners -- it's funny, as I've said before, that you call them your partners. They are calling you a lot of names, but "partner" is not one of them. You said, "Why don't you go out and borrow the money over 20 years and then we'll pay you back every year for the 20 years." And what are the partners saying, of course? "Gee, we don't trust you." They don't trust them to pay the money back over 20 years. Why is that? Probably because you've changed your mind on some very important issues in the last couple of years and your word is worth mud.

Your partners are saying, "No, you want me to borrow the money because you're going to make one instalment and then you're going to cut me off as part of a new austerity program." This government is full of good ideas for this government, but they're not full of fair ideas for their partners.

So that's how we got to this date, stage and time when we get to debate the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993. The jiggery-pokery act is how I like to refer to it.

And that's not all. They were deep thinkers over there so they decided: "Boy, if we are going to have to start this particular authorizing agency, the Ontario Financing Authority, because now we have three corporations at work -- the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Clean Water Agency and the Ontario Realty Corp -- then we'll have to strike a whole bureaucracy that oversees them. Then we can move a whole bunch more employees off the books." They came up with a corporation to oversee the three corporations that were buying land from them for assessed values to sell to nobody, and they needed bureaucrats to manage bureaucrats to negotiate with themselves.

Mr Bradley: Weren't they opposed to the water corporation?

Mr Stockwell: Gee, it's funny. I did mention that not long ago in my speech, about when they were in opposition and how they were opposed to that because they said it was a capital infringement on the true democratic rights of the public service and the taxpayers' ability to govern their own affairs.

Mr Bradley: It was a tool for developers as well, I thought.

Mr Stockwell: It was a tool for developers. That's the kind of thing they said; my friend the member for St Catharines makes a very valid point. But that was then and this is now. This is why we got the jiggery-pokery act.

They've decided that since they've got these three corporations they now need a bureaucracy established under the Minister of Finance, the brainstormer on this one, to oversee the bureaucrats who are going to manage what we all used to do in the old days, which was simply to grant money; in fact, to ask local authorities to borrow and then you'll pay them back. You'll probably never pay them back and that's why they don't trust you.

We have defences coming forward from municipalities like the one in Nepean. His complaints were rather serious and reasonable. Look, they're probably going to stand in line in Metropolitan Toronto for certain transit improvements. The View Brothers know that in Yorkview and Downsview. You would know very clearly that on some of those transit corridors you have been working on, they are going to have some private input; we know there is going to be some private. But in the hinterlands, out of Toronto, such as any number of ridings around the province, there's not going to be any private commitment for road improvements, there's not going to be any capital money being invested by the private sector.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Name four rural ridings.

Mr Stockwell: Four rural ridings? Yours.

Mr Bradley: That's Hastings-Peterborough.

Mr Stockwell: I know four rural ridings. I'll just look down here: Huron and a few others.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Two more.

Mr Stockwell: Well, yours would have been rural, but dump sites are zoned commercial, aren't they?

Places like Nepean and Huron and Elgin and -- I know it and I forget it. These kinds of ridings don't have the capital investment. Why? Because there's no zoning next to these roads. There's no huge money to be made for roads to go through, for development application in the middle of the woods. I mean, who's going to build an office tower in the middle of the woods? They didn't think of that when they struck this up, because the only thing they were thinking about was moving debt off the province on to a private crown corporation and moving employees out, so when they go back to the people in 1995 they can claim they reduced staff and retired some debt when they did neither. But you weren't thinking about building office towers in the woods. That's the kind of thing this means to the rural ridings around the province of Ontario.

Mr Bradley: An office tower like the WCB building?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, that's an office tower. It's a shame that one went ahead, because it's cost them a significant amount of money. I was very interested to see the member from Hamilton, who is now the Minister of Labour, stand up and defend that decision.

But I was equally shocked -- my friend from St Catharines I'm certain was -- to see that on the Sunday shopping bill that was debated today and voted on, the same member who represents Hamilton voted in favour of Sunday shopping. I thought he was the defender of the common pause day. I must have been mistaken, as well as about 10 million other Ontarians.

We now have this government's position on quasi-crown corporations established under the jiggery-pokery act, 1993.

What is this party's position? Our party's position is I think reasonable and fair. We think this legislation -- I've lost my friend from St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I'm just going to my own seat.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: Tories sit over there now, don't they?

Mr Stockwell: I used to recognize them as socialists. They're unrecognizable today, specifically after the Sunday shopping vote. My friend from Windsor, the Minister of Education and Training, who was a staunch defender of the common pause day, himself voted in favour of Sunday shopping, which left one breathless, I might add, breathless.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Not you. No one can leave you breathless.

Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Cooke, you left me breathless. Your Treasurer often leaves me breathless with some of his jiggery-pokery bills. This is one of them.

What do we say? As a party and as a caucus, we dismiss this. We dismiss it for what it is: blatant political gamesmanship. It's on the agenda for one reason and one reason only: to fool the taxpayers of the province of Ontario into thinking that you know what you're doing. That's all it's here for. It's here to convince the taxpayers in the province of Ontario that their debt isn't as high because they're moving it off-book and that they don't have as many employees because they're moving them into these crown corps. That is shameful.

If you think this is a good idea, implement it. You don't have to strike these corporations. Implement it. Show the debt on your book and show the employees on your book, and if you think you have too many employees, get rid of some.

But this? This is silly. This is a waste of time, effort and taxpayers' money. This is deceitful and this is dishonest, because you're going to go in 1995 before the tax-paying public, you sorry lot, and you're going to try and get yourself re-elected on this, the jiggery-pokery act of 1993, and that is shameful from a group who piously held such ponderous positions as opposing the water sewage corporation in opposition because of its attack on the public sector. You've gone them three better, all for the sake of a pretence that you have tried to manage the economy and the budget in this province of Ontario.

I don't know how you can let this through. I don't know how you can agree to this kind of stuff. You sold out so many times, it's offensive on every occasion, and each time a new piece of legislation comes through you can quote chapter and verse from Hansard of how you opposed this decade after decade, yet now you sit there in a sheepish, mouse-like fashion saying nothing other than, "We've got to do it because we messed up badly for a couple of years in the finances." Shame on you.

1750

We in this caucus and this party believe that the method that was in place was a good method. Granted, it made you make tough decisions. It didn't allow us to borrow too much money because it had to be shown on the books. Sometimes to local municipalities you had to say no to their capital improvements, but it's better to say no than spend money that you don't have, giving it to them for political purposes.

These corporations are going to run up huge debts that you won't be able to control, and I cite but one example -- this should send shudders down your spine -- WCB, the same kind of concept. And where are they? An $11-billion, $12-billion, $13-billion unfunded liability. Big mistake.

You've had an opportunity for nearly three years to fix the swamp, as Mr Mackenzie used to talk about. He refuses to get involved. He talks about an arm's-length position on that issue. You have no position any more. You've just washed your hands of it. Now you're setting up three more that can borrow money and bankrupt this province for future generations. Shame on you, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Did you hear what he said? Ask him to apologize.

Mr Stockwell: I apologize. It was shame on you, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Take your seat for a minute. I know you didn't mean that.

Mr Stockwell: No. I guess you didn't hear the comma.

Finally, I don't think the situation as it was set up before was too bad. I think it was a reasonable way to approach capital spending.

You know something? Those partners that refer to you by other names, they don't think it's a bad idea, the old process, either. They're not buying into Cooke's idea about education funding. They're not buying into it. He can tell you they are. They're not. He can tell you Metro Toronto's negotiating right now to send him a cheque for the social contract. This is the member from Never Never Land if he thinks that Metro Toronto's going to send him a cheque as part of the social contract for education funding. That's just nuts. They don't think the old method was so bad.

You know something else? I don't necessarily think that toll booths are a bad idea, if that's what you want to do.

Mr David Winninger (London South): You don't necessarily think at all.

Mr Stockwell: Good one. There's London again, piping up. Good. Keep it going. You're on a roll.

I don't think toll booths are a bad idea either, but I don't know why you have to set this crown corporation up to put a toll booth up on Highway 407. Why do you have to do that? What's the point? You can do it right now. It was done in Hamilton some number of years ago. You can do it without starting these crown companies.

The ultimate insult to the people of this province is your Ontario Realty Corp. That is an absolute joke. You're selling property that you own to yourselves and claiming to write down the debt that you just paid yourselves, that you borrowed, for heaven's sake. What kind of logic is there in that, claiming you don't owe this money any more because you borrowed it from another bank? You still have to pay it.

That's how you're claiming you're writing down your deficit targets. If you don't think I'm right, read the legislation. You're borrowing $800 million this year, $1.2 billion next year and $1.7 billion the year after, and every year you're going to claim your deficit's under $10 billion because you're moving debts off the books.

We won't support this jiggery-pokery. We won't support this for all the right reasons. We won't support it for the children of this province who have to pay the bills. We won't support it because I fundamentally believe that the position they took in opposition opposing these crown corporations was a good position. I believed in that position that you used to enunciate and I believe in it today.

I don't care whether the Liberals tried it, the Conservatives tried it or you tried it. It's wrong. It's trying to fool the folks. When any government is involved in this kind of legislation, trying to fool the folks, you can count me out.

Mr Perruzza: Just to respond very briefly to the member from Etobicoke, we haven't had any real, major road construction or sewer construction in this province I guess since about the mid-1960s in any meaningful way. They were voted out of office I guess it would be in 1985. I can tell you from our own experience in Downsview that we need subways, we need sewers, we need water services and we need roads. We need all of these kinds of things.

We all know that the province is broke, that there's no money. So the great fiscal managers, the Conservatives, are telling us: "Since we're broke and we're probably going to be broke for the next 20 or 30 years, essentially, and we're going to be borrowing money to make ends meet, don't do any of these things. Don't do the kinds of things that are technically investments in our communities, that attract investment, that create jobs, that create progress, that get things moving."

The great fiscal managers are preaching to us today and they're saying: "Don't do any of these things. Don't use your land wealth. Don't be creative in trying to generate capital to build infrastructure, to build roads, to build sewers, to expand on water services and to get this province moving again."

That's what the great fiscal managers are telling us, the same great fiscal managers, the Conservatives, the Reaganites, who doubled the American debt, the great Mulroneyites who doubled the Canadian debt when they took office, the great Conservatives here for 40 years who left this province with a $40-billion debt in 1985, the great fiscal managers.

Mr Bradley: I would simply like to comment on the previous speech and say that it was highly entertaining and very accurate in many parts of it, and certainly there are parts of that speech with which one could justifiably agree.

There's no question in my mind that the member has identified the real purpose of this legislation, that is, to take some things off the books and put them somewhere else, so the government looks as though it has significantly reduced its deficit and its debt.

Hon Mr Cooke: Sewer or water corporation, Jim Bradley.

Mr Bradley: As the member for Windsor interjects, I can recall well the strong opposition of the New Democratic Party, which was very suspicious that the water corporation -- they used the words "clean water corporation" because they wanted to be appealing to everyone -- was going to be a tool for the developers to develop every last piece of land in the province of Ontario.

At the time I had a long discussion with the then Treasurer of the province and indicated clearly my concern about taking this out of the hands of the Ministry of the Environment and putting it in a separate corporation, because then there was at least a possibility that it would be a better tool for developers than if it were in the hands of the Ministry of the Environment, the main concern of the Ministry of the Environment being in fact that the water was clean and that the water was distributed in places it should be and that there were appropriate sewers being constructed at the same time.

There's no question in my mind that the present government has capitulated to that sell in the Ministry of the Treasury, that sell which was put in there to put down the Ministry of the Environment, and now we find that this government which was so opposed to it in years gone by is in fact now in favour of such a corporation, and it's yet one more flip-flop.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Mr Speaker, we seem to have the wrong loudspeakers on. Okay. Thank you. Would you reset the time, Mr Speaker, since the microphone wasn't on properly?

The Deputy Speaker: We'll make sure that you have your two minutes. You will have your two minutes.

Mr Turnbull: Excuse me, Mr Speaker, we're given two minutes. He put the wrong microphone on.

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. You will have your two minutes.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wanted to comment and congratulate the member for Etobicoke West on his speech. He's gone to the heart of the question. That is that this is financial tricks. It's sleight of hand. You don't need to establish crown corporations in order to do some of the things that you're saying you're going to do. If you want to sell land, fair enough, sell crown property, fair enough, but don't start selling it to yourself and claiming it as revenue.

1800

I want to say that if this government were to adopt normal accounting standards, and in fact I've got to say if all governments in Canada, including the federal government, were to adopt the accounting standards which are common in business, this would not be allowed, because this is a scam.

We've seen the example of mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board, and all we're doing is recreating another WCB with these crown corporations. We are moving civil servants into these crown corporations. We're creating a whole new category of crown corporations so that they have the same guarantees of jobs as people who work for the civil service. They have all that security, and yet we are not doing anything other than trying to move it off-book so that this government looks a little bit better than in reality it is.

It's a lousy government that doesn't know how to run the economy, and the people of Canada are looking at this province and saying, "This is disgraceful." This weekend at the federal Conservative convention, people were coming up to me from all across Canada and saying, "What on earth is happening in your province?"

This is what the government is reduced to, doing financial tricks, the kind of thing that if you were doing it on an orange box at a corner, you would be arrested for it. That's what is happening. There is a complete lack of fiscal restraint.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre. I would ask the House to simmer down a bit, please.

Mr Owens: The member for Etobicoke West talked about a meeting. Well, I'd like to reflect on a meeting of the caucus of the third party. If we could just quiet down for a minute, we could listen to the sound of the brain pattern when it comes to creativity.

Laughter.

Mr Owens: We hear laughter. The closest that this member has come to an idea with respect to the capital corporations, the closest this member has come to a brainstorm, is clearly a slight drizzle.

He alleges that in times of austerity the principal and interest payments will be cut off to municipalities, which is simply not true. He talks about this as a process of hiding debt. This is not true. Only members of the third party, the member for Etobicoke West, could even begin to think that you could hide 3,000 workers. Maybe this is how his federal friends conduct business, but this is clearly not what we're in the process of doing.

The accountability features of this legislation make these crown corporations accountable to the Legislature, accountable to the Provincial Auditor, through memos of understanding. These corporations are transparent.

Mr Stockwell: Just like your motives.

Mr Owens: We are simply not hiding.

How are we going to impact the municipal credit rating? The municipalities will not be doing the borrowing. The borrowing will be coordinated through the Ontario Financing Authority.

Mr Stockwell: You are so simple.

Mr Owens: Mr Speaker, the member for Etobicoke West is continuing to interrupt. I gave him his full 30 minutes. He is making allegations that this is a shell game, that this is smoke and mirrors. The member simply has not read the bill. The member does not understand what we are trying to do. The government is committed to capital financing in a new and creative manner that this member is not understanding.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, you have two minutes.

Mr Stockwell: Well, apparently since the 1960s nothing has been built. I invite the member from Downsview out to Mississauga. You'll be able to see the 410, the 403. Certainly, you can use the Parkholme subway station up at North York or the Kipling line, Scarborough rapid transit line. Heard of that one? How about the Spadina line that they're building up Spadina Road? Heard of any of those? Those were built when darn good Conservative governments were involved. I move on.

If he doesn't know these things were built, then I just don't think he gets around enough. He's too used to driving his imported Volkswagen rather than taking public transit. I move on, Mr Speaker.

I liked the comments from the member for St Catharines. He brings a lot of wisdom to the debate that was --

Mr Perruzza: That's why we've got sewer backups, that's why the water's yellow.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview.

Mr Stockwell: -- rather interesting during the 1985 to 1990 period of time, when the NDP was truly socialist. They're no longer socialists.

The member from Scarborough -- this is hilarious. You don't even know how you're going to borrow the money to these crown corporations. You're telling me you're borrowing the money. Go talk to your Minister of Education and Training. He had to be enlightened the other day by the opposition and finally admits how you're borrowing the money. You have no idea how you're getting the money and you're supposed to be carrying this bill.

I'm not shocked, because they have meetings about creative financing. They're the best, bar none. You're far better than we are at creative financing, jiggery-pokery, smoke and mirrors, because that's what this is. It's so obvious and transparent, everybody sees through it. Your partners see through it; we see through it. For goodness' sake, you must know it's transparent because even the Liberals see through it.

I'll bring that Hansard back in a year or two and then I'll show him the books. I'll show you how you're going to borrow the money, I'll show you how you're going to make your repayments, I'll show you how you're selling the land to yourself and not out to the private sector, and I'll show you point-blank that once again, without debate, you couldn't be any more wrong than if you bet on the Ottawa Senators to win the Stanley Cup this year.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Bradley: I want to address just a few remarks to this particular piece of legislation, some of which I've already alluded to in my response to the member for Etobicoke West. I want to look first at the Ontario so-called Clean Water Agency and deal in a little more depth with what the real situation is in Ontario.

I listened to the Premier, with a lot of fanfare, make some announcement about long-term commitments, capital commitments. I happen to know, having had the pleasure and opportunity to be the Minister of the Environment for five years, three months and four days, that in fact we used to spend a lot more on water and sewer projects in years gone by.

The Premier made an announcement that was a multi-year announcement. In fact, he even alluded to some 10 years in terms of the capital commitment. I can tell you that the amount of money they are spending year by year -- if you go to the individual municipalities, they will certainly tell you this -- on providing clean water, on providing necessary pollution control plants, is significantly diminished from what it used to be.

I met, along with the other members from the Niagara region, with the regional municipality of Niagara, which was looking back to the good old days when it used to be able to construct and improve sewage treatment plants and thereby improve the water quality in our part of the province. They find today that it's virtually impossible to get any money out of this government for projects of that kind. These are projects which are environmentally desirable, projects which are going to improve the ecology in all parts of this province and even beyond our borders, yet we're seeing a retrenchment in this regard.

I wouldn't mind so much if the Premier would concede that this was the case, but he endeavours to disguise it with some so-called multi-year commitment to capital funding, a commitment which, of course, can be abrogated at any point in time.

The Ontario Clean Water Agency, as it is termed in this particular legislation, is in fact what used to exist within the Ministry of the Environment. It has been my view consistently, not always a view which has prevailed over the years, that this should rest with the Ministry of the Environment. I can recall that during the last election campaign, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union had expressed great concern that this was going to be taken away from the Ministry of the Environment and placed in a separate agency.

I expressed the view that the agency, at the very least, should report to the Ministry of the Environment and I expressed the view within cabinet -- and I can certainly share that with members of this House at this time -- that in fact the entire responsibility should lie with the Ministry of the Environment, because the Ministry of Environment has, as its first obligation, a desire and a responsibility to protect the environment and not simply to allow for unfettered development across Ontario, often using up some of the best farm land and often using up land which was not suitable for development for various purposes. But the government has decided to embark upon this, the attractiveness being, as I've indicated in the past, that it can take this off the books and place it on some other books that don't show up on the government ledger.

This isn't something new. The member for Windsor-Riverside would remember W.A.C. Bennett, a gentleman who ruled British Columbia. I'm not talking about Bill Bennett Jr; I'm talking about his father.

1810

Hon Mr Cooke: What about Homes Now?

Mr Bradley: He used to take things off the provincial debt, place them on provincial crown corporations and declare to everyone that he had a balanced budget and portrayed himself as a fiscal conservative when in fact he was anything but a fiscal conservative.

Hon Mr Cooke: Come on, Jim. Just answer the question. What about Homes Now and Bob Nixon?

Mr Bradley: I'm going to get the assistance of the Speaker in quieting down the member for Riverside, who is very exercised because I am revealing truths to him that he knows are absolutely impeccable in terms of the sources in the province that could confirm this.

So we have them doing all of these things which in effect are going to have a detrimental effect on the environment and of course are going to be a ruse in dealing with the people of Ontario.

I'm concerned, because I've looked at different corporations that are crown corporations, and members who are now on the government side, the member for Riverside who was elected at the same time I was, on June 9, 1977 -- I notice there was no celebration in this House that particular date. I think there was a row going on in the House that day and all that was put aside. But I want to congratulate him on his election in that particular election campaign. He succeeded in a heavily NDP seat and he's maintained that over the years.

He's a voice in cabinet that I would have thought would have been arguing against this, because in the past he was known, I think in his riding and in this House, as a person concerned about the environment, a person concerned that there would be unfettered development in Ontario and a person who was concerned that there should be accountability in terms of how things are shown on the books or in crown corporations.

He sat as well on committees that dealt with Ontario Hydro, and I must say that though I don't agree with everything that is happening at Ontario Hydro now, there are and have been for a number of years some developments which are quite positive in terms of accountability.

But what happens when you take this out of the Ministry of Environment, where it's accountable to the policy and priorities board of cabinet, the treasury board of cabinet, Management Board of Cabinet, all of the committees of cabinet where it's directly accountable? We've now put it off into a corner where it will not show on the books, so that Bob Rae, when he goes to the electorate at the very last day in 1995, if he can survive all the votes in the House with his dissenting members, when he goes at the very last minute, can say: "Look what we have done. We have taken all this debt away. We have reduced the deficit considerably." In fact, it will simply be a sign to other corporations --

Hon Mr Cooke: What about Homes Now and what Bob Nixon did?

Mr Bradley: The member keeps interrupting. For a number of years he had a chance to ask the questions. Now he's got the limousine and the high salary, and I'm the one living on a meagre salary, with no limousine, who now gets a chance to ask the questions. If the member wishes to ask questions, I ask him to wait another two years and he might have that opportunity. He will be endeavouring to get a response out of me to those questions, maybe, if things happen to break that way.

I'm also concerned for my local school boards and also for the municipality because of the loan mechanism. In the past, the province used to assume that debt on its ledger. Now they're simply going to go to the Lincoln County Board of Education or the Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board and say, "If you want to construct some new schools or some new facilities, you can do the borrowing now and we will guarantee that money, and of course we will ensure that it is paid back," that is, the portion that used to come from the provincial government.

Well, that serves to place it clearly on the debt of the local organization instead of on the province, where it justifiably belongs, and it also places in jeopardy the individual boards of education and municipalities, which then have to take the word of the provincial government that somehow that money is going to be repaid.

I would suggest that one shouldn't always place that kind of faith in the fact that the provincial government will return that money, because this government has shown that it is prepared to renege on many of its commitments to municipalities, the Premier and the Treasurer would say because of changing economic circumstances.

So I worry about those local agencies, the boards of education, that have no doubt expressed some concerns directly to the government in this regard.

My colleagues have mentioned another problem which exists, the Ontario Realty Corp, and we've watched them selling things off left and right. A fire sale is called for and we see the assets being sold off. There's a bizarre case going on with GO Transit where they sell it to somebody and then lease it back.

I think people would rather have them be up front and say, "Yes, there is a considerable debt problem, yes, we are in the midst of a very difficult recession, and we have to do these things for the following purposes." But simply to shuffle them from one ledger to the other does not accomplish anything positive and it serves to be deceitful. I'm not making an accusation, but that's what comes out of it. It gives the idea of being deceitful to people. I think today people are prepared to see what's on the books, understand why the government's running a deficit; there are some people who are sympathetic to the fact that the government cannot now run a balanced budget. I must say, in the midst of a recession it is extremely difficult for a government to run anything near a balanced budget, because the revenues are obviously not going to come in and many of the non-controllable expenditures continue to rise dramatically.

We can quarrel over the amount of the deficit; certainly, on this side of the House we are prepared to do that. We can quarrel over how to tackle it in the early stages so that it doesn't compound itself, and those debates have gone on in this House. But I think one thing we can agree upon is that these are difficult economic times and there's going to be some kind of deficit until such time as we get our economy going again, and that's going to be the key to getting out of this deficit situation. I don't think there's any advantage to, in the short term, moving figures from one column to another to try to give the appearance of fiscal responsibility.

I must say as well that I can't figure out why an NDP government is so obsessed with this particular issue. I would have thought that the NDP would have been obsessed with creating jobs, and I don't see in this particular bill, and I looked for this through most of the legislation, anything that would create new jobs in the province of Ontario. I know that has been a commitment in years gone by of the New Democratic Party who sat in opposition. If I wanted to talk to the people in my constituency on a daily basis, and I do, and ask them what the number one problem is that they're confronted with, it's lack of employment. It's the unemployment in the province, disadvantages that they have, and one of the reasons is that I have to come to Queen's Park and fight Tory policies at Queen's Park.

We had a meeting of our coalition, the Future of Hamilton-Niagara, a coalition we put together of labour and business and people from the community. I had to go to the meeting, and we were quarrelling one day over whether people, when they went to Ottawa to protest federal government policies, could carry the coalition signs, because they wanted to fight Tory policies. I said to them at the time, "Well, I don't feel any reluctance to take the signs to Queen's Park when I'm fighting the Tory policies of the Bob Rae government, so I don't think you people should have to worry about taking signs or taking buttons when you're fighting the Tory policies at Ottawa."

It's interesting to see. It must be difficult for some of the members opposite to be defending Tory policies. As the member for York Centre says, unfortunately, no matter how we vote in Ontario we seem to get a Tory government, and that's certainly what we have today, because the brothers and sisters who talk to me say, if you took the names away and put a blank face in and new names, you'd think you had a Tory government. Now, the present Tories think it perhaps doesn't go far enough, but they are close to Reform right now, my friends on the Tory side.

1820

Anyway, I don't think this bill is going to solve the problem. I don't think it's going to create new jobs. I think it's simply going to be a source of deception to the people of this province. I must say I'm particularly concerned about the so-called clean water agency, because I think that has the potential for directing development where it doesn't belong instead of having the Ministry of Environment and Energy determining what is the best environmental expenditure of dollars by the provincial government.

I can recall when being Minister of the Environment, when this was under the Ministry of the Environment, that it very carefully assessed, when putting out the money for various projects, what was most important environmentally. I had many of my own members who would come to me and would want a lot of money. Some, on a political basis, would say: "Look, we're the government. We should have it in our riding." I would say to them, "I'm sorry, but our ministry makes its determinations based on the environmental needs in the province: not on the political needs, not on the development needs, but on the environmental needs of this province."

I think when you take that out of the purview of the Ministry of Environment and place it in the purview of a non-accountable crown corporation, you're going to find, if not during your reign of office, because nothing seems to be happening in terms of job creation activity anyway, but in the future -- and you have to remember the legacy that you leave for future governments, if you happen not to be re-elected. Certainly Alberta is some kind of indication that this might happen.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Come on now.

Mr Bradley: The member for Chatham-Kent suggests not, but I'll tell you, the people most happy with having Bob Rae and his government in Ontario were the leaders of the Conservative Party and Liberal Party in Alberta, who spent most of their time running against the government of Ontario, unfortunately in many cases, but that was nevertheless a fact.

I appeal, as I always do, to the good sense of individual members on the government side, because you have the majority, to go back to the caucus, to go back to the Premier, to talk to the people who have all of the power, and that is the people who reside in the Office of the Premier, who are the unelected people who don't have to go back to the constituents and face them on a daily or a weekly basis.

These are the people who always have the bright ideas in every government, but they do not have to talk to what I call the regular people on the street. What did Ed Broadbent used to call them? "The average Canadian." They don't have to speak to the average Canadian. They don't have to speak to Main Street.

I think it's important that we, as a Legislature, re-evaluate these bills. I call upon the open-minded members of the government to go to the minister, to go to the Premier and others and try to persuade them to either remove these bills or make significant alterations to them so that they are acceptable to all and will be beneficial to the province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for St Catharines for his contribution to this debate and invite questions and/or comments. The member for Oakville South, for up to two minutes.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I just wanted to comment on the member's speech. As usual, I enjoyed listening to it. We've become friends over the last little while. Usually our discussions have revolved around, as we sit here in the back, sometimes with the member from St Catharines, what's happening with the Buffalo Sabres on a yearly basis.

But when you do sit down and listen to somebody like the member, who has experience in government as a cabinet minister in a major portfolio, you can see exactly why some of the ideas are coming forward. I appreciate that for the first time members on the other side do sit and listen when the member for St Catharines is speaking, because while there are some occasions when you may not always agree with what he's saying, I think in most instances he's trying to lay it out very clearly, as he did here today.

What we're attempting to say to all of you out there -- I'm talking about on the other side now -- is that we can't continue the route we are going now. If you look at the debt that we have had in this province over the last little while, we realize that something has to be done, but the answer is not in this bill.

The answer is not lopping the borrowing capacity on to other transfer partners at a time when we're criticizing the federal government for doing the same thing. Essentially on a daily basis, we hear about the federal government creating all the problems for the provincial government with transfers, and yet what you've done to your transfer partners has been worse.

Mr Winninger: What is the answer, Gary? What's your answer?

Mr Carr: Now that the borrowing capacity of the province is gone, through many different reasons, not the least of which --

Mr Mammoliti: What's the answer?

Mr Carr: Actually, you are kind of lucky, because you'll get an answer. I'm the next speaker and you'll get a half-hour of answers. But I do believe that the member offered some constructive answers to some of the concerns that we have, so I thank the member and I appreciate his input.

Mr Wiseman: I am very pleased to respond to the member from St Catharines. A lot of the issues that he raised are very good issues and ones that I believe we have to take into consideration.

I agree with him that where you put a sewer pipe will really determine what kind of development you get. That has always greatly concerned me and that's a very valid point. It does lead to the exploitation and loss of prime agricultural land. I don't think there's anybody here who would doubt that I have a great concern for that.

One of the things about this water and sewer agency that I find appealing is that it does talk about the conservation of resources. It should move in that direction. A lot of the water treatment plants that are currently being built in this -- particularly, I'll talk about the one in Ajax, building a water treatment plant in Ajax for $70 million. But the point to be made here is that they don't need it. You could get the same amount of water capacity by doing something in the conservation area, by putting in toilet dividers or plungers.

I agree with him when he talks about being careful about where you spend the money. Unfortunately, the Ajax water treatment plant will not be part of the water and sewer agency because it's being done by the municipality. That's an important consideration to have in mind. I really feel the taxpayers in Durham who are going to pay for that water treatment plant are going to be paying out of their taxes. They don't need it. Water conservation would have accomplished the savings. Retrofits would have been a much better way to go.

The second thing is that this water and sewer agency will be directly related to the Ministry of Environment and Energy and you will not be able to hide the finances the way they are accusing us of.

Mr Offer: In the time available I'd like to take a few moments to underline much of what the member from St Catharines has said. I think it is clear that in his comments, which I know all were following very closely, he not only brought forward the salient aspects of the legislation, but also dealt with them in terms of how they relate to his constituents. I think the lesson is well told when we take a look at legislation in terms not only of how it appears here but of how it will impact outside of this place, in the community, throughout the province. The member has well done that.

There are concerns with this legislation. There are concerns with respect to what this legislation's tale will be. Will people be able to see the financial picture of the province in a clearer light or less than a clearer light after this legislation, and if this legislation is passed? I think it's becoming patently evident that this legislation may very well be used to move existing debt and future debt off the books of the treasury and on to the books of these particular capital corporations.

For that, there is an important lesson that has to be told, and that is, how are the people in this province going to be able to truly, accurately ascertain the standing of the province in terms of its debt load, in terms of its need for fiscal restraint and responsibility? These corporations may in fact impede in a very real way the ability of the general public to ascertain the reality of the province's debt.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): The member for St Catharines missed one major point in his address, and for one who should be concerned about it, I would just like to ask why you didn't get into the business of the toll roads. Do you realize that the QEW, when you travel home along it -- and you probably take the QEW to get back to good old St Catharines, which is a beautiful community -- that some day you'll have a toll on that road, because what this government's done in this bill is leave the scope wide open that every road in the province of Ontario --

1830

Mr Wiseman: That's not true and you know it.

Mr Cousens: It is true. Oh, Durham West, Wiseman again, thinks he's got the answers. He doesn't have any control over his lips or his head. If it rattles, you can hear it a mile away.

My point is that the QEW or any road that's already built in the province of Ontario can become a toll road -- not just new roads, any road -- and the government is leaving the scope wide open to this new agency to tax us another way. They have taxed us enough as it is through gas taxes, we know that, and now they're in the process of putting legislation in place that makes for this agency to have the right to make any road a toll road.

I'm opposed to that and I think there should be some integrity on the part of the government to face up to it. In all their press releases, they've said, "Oh, well, we want the right to be able to levy a toll on new roads," and the people up our way, for Highway 407, are willing to accept that as possibly a reasonable way of paying for a highway and accelerating the construction of it.

But to come along within this bill and have the right to implement and institute tolls on any road in the province -- and by the way, that might be a very clever way on the part of the New Democrats, because then they'll use that money to pay for other things. Who knows whether it will go to better roads or new roads, but they'll use it as a source of revenue.

They're thieves. We've seen that in the last while when they came out with the heavy taxes, $2 billion a year this year and more taxes, and that's all these road tolls are, just another tax on the people of Ontario. Would you comment on that, St Catharines?

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr Bradley: I am pleased to respond, in the limited two minutes that I have, to the various points that have been made. The member for Oakville South, who members of this House should know was a very capable professional hockey player in his day, a very good goaltender -- a lot of people don't know that, but he certainly was that -- is a person who understands the need for accountability. I appreciate the remarks from the member for Oakville South, again underlining the need for accountability and where that accountability can best be reached.

The member for Durham West, I thought, offered a good suggestion in terms of conservation. We always have had the feeling, in years gone by, that somehow if we built something bigger, it was automatically better, and we are finding, part of it because of economic circumstance but part of it because of new thinking which is sweeping the world, that in fact conservation can achieve a lot of this as well.

For instance, I know of shower heads that can limit the amount of water coming out. I know that a good example is toilets. We have five-gallon toilets in so many cases, that have too large a flush. Very simply, we can reduce the amount of water with each flush and avoid the need for huge new plants.

The member for Mississauga North talked about accountability and why it is best to place the accountability where it is most visible.

Last, the member for Markham did raise the issue of toll roads. One doesn't have the time to address all of these. I am concerned. I am opposed to toll roads, first of all, anywhere in the province, but second, I become concerned that the money will not be used for those purposes. Every tax I've ever seen, every toll I've ever seen, every levy I've ever seen goes into the consolidated revenue fund and does not go anywhere else. I've always contended that you're never going to see those kinds of designated taxes.

I appreciate the remarks of each of the members and look forward to further debate on this legislation.

The Speaker: Is there further debate? I recognize the honourable member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: I'm pleased to add a few thoughts on this bill. I think what I'll do in a nutshell is try to tell you what my feeling is of this bill, and then I want to get a little bit into what I propose to do and where our debt is.

Essentially, as we all know, the federal government is now bankrupt. Our debt now is about --

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Morally, intellectually.

Mr Carr: I'm going to get into that and I will say this: I'm not going to apportion any blame, even on our deficit here, to any political parties. We can get into long debates of whose fault it is -- it's Trudeau's, it's Mulroney's -- but I'm not going to do that, but I wanted to let you know where we're at, because I believe that's fundamental to this bill.

The accumulated deficit now works out to be, and I'm going to divide it up -- the federal deficit works out to be about $15,000 for every man, woman and child if you take the total debt and divide it by the number of people in this country. Provincially, as you know, we've had many debates on where the deficit is heading. The Premier says that a lot of what we have in the social contract needs to be done because the deficit was heading towards $120 billion. If you look at it that way, you can see that we're heading towards about $12,000 for every man, woman and child. We're not there yet. We're probably close to around $7,000.

If you combine those two totals, we are now facing, for every man, woman and child in this province, about $22,000 worth of debt, and as a result of that we are now in the situation where quite frankly, people don't want to lend us money in this country. Again, I'm not going to apportion any blame as to whose fault it is, at the federal level or the provincial level, but suffice it to say, we are in one heck of a financial crisis.

I might add that this debt doesn't include that deficit that I talked about on a per-person basis, because I think, quite frankly, when you look at it, people are saying, "Well, what is the debt total?" and we're talking of $400 billion and $120 billion.

People can't realistically look at it. But I look at it in my own terms, taking the total number of debt, per-person basis, $22,000 for every man, woman and child in this province, federal and provincial. I look at my family -- I have three kids; married, three kids, there's five of us -- and the accumulated total of our debt is well over $100,000. We owe more to the provincial and the federal governments as a family than we do to the people who own the mortgage on our home. That's the financial crisis we are in in this province and in this country.

I say to my friends across the way, that doesn't even include Ontario Hydro's debt, which is about $35 billion. Quite frankly, that's the reason they got in the situation they are with having to cut back, not because all of a sudden Bob Rae or Maurice Strong or even Marc Eliesen thought it was a great idea.

The problem is that they needed to go to the market to borrow money, and when they went out there to the bondholders, they said, "We're not going to lend you money," because what happens is that when that bond comes due, somebody has to pick up the bonds and buy them. People say: "Well, you shouldn't worry about the bondholders. They're running this province." The fact of the matter is that they're the ones who have the money. If they don't invest in the bonds, what do we do? The cheques bounce.

All of what we're talking about in Ontario Hydro is a result of the financial mismanagement that's gone on. Again, I'm not going to apportion any blame, but it's now at $35 billion.

It doesn't include the unfunded liability of WCB, which, I say to my friends opposite, is now $12 billion. Billion: When I'm talking, some people think I'm talking million; I'm talking billion. It goes up $100 million a month; $100 million a month it goes up. So next year when we have this debate over whether we were right about this corporation or not, it's going to be up.

The problem is that from an international standpoint, the people who own the money, and I know my friend from Durham had this debate during the pre-budget hearings, the worst part is that most of our debt is owed to foreigners. Most of our debt is owed to people in other countries, who have an option. They have an option where to put their money. It's the Japanese, the West German, the French, the Americans who own the debt. They're the ones who own the bonds, and when they come due, they're the ones we have to pay back, and quite frankly, they very easily can move their bonds.

The people who sell the bonds, if somebody is in Japan and an offering comes due, they don't need to buy Ontario bonds, whether it's Ontario Hydro or the government or the government of Canada's bonds. The financial situation of many of the provinces is even worse. As you know, for Saskatchewan and Newfoundland, and maybe some of you don't know, their credit ratings are one step above junk bond status because of the financial crisis that we're in. Again, I'm saying this not in a partisan way, because we can blame it on whomever in all of those provinces, but the facts are we are broke.

The government, in its wisdom, says, "Well, who has the borrowing capacity?" They look at municipalities, which have a lot of assets. What this bill has done is it has said: "They have some borrowing capacity, so let's use it. We're not content with having the federal government bankrupt. We're not content with having the provincial government bankrupt." We are now going to get into a situation, when you read this bill, where municipalities are going to be on the hook for this.

The people in municipalities in the past, the ratepayers and the taxpayers out there, have been very lucky in a way, because municipalities haven't been able to run up debts. I suspect that had they, whether a politician's of any political stripe municipally, they probably would have, but through the OMB and various other functions, they've had to be restrained in the amount of borrowing. This lets them override that.

As the member from Windsor said, the Education minister, they think there's going to be a corporation out there that's going to borrow. Where this money's going to come from is that the provincial government, which is now giving it to them in terms of grants, is now going to ask them to use their borrowing capacity to pay for things the province used to pay for.

When I talk to people in education and municipalities over this, the reason there isn't as much excitement is quite frankly we're in the middle of one crisis with the whole social contract and most of them, whether they're trustees or municipal officials, really haven't had time to let this Bill 17 sink in.

But when they do, I think they're going to be as frightened and as discouraged as we on this side of the House are. Some of them may like the additional borrowing capacity, but I think the taxpayers and the people of this province will say that we should not be going down a road which we have gone down which has created chaos federally and provincially.

1840

What I did, going way back in February of this year after we had our pre-budget hearings, is I talked about that very question in our minority report. We talked about what we should be doing with a clear set of books, and that's why we're so discouraged with this bill, because we talked at length, as did many of the presenters, about having a clear set of books. All this will do is allow the government to push off a number of employees and the total amount of debt on to a corporation which they hope the people won't see. They've attempted to do this in the past.

We've attempted to break the spending down. We call it capital spending versus operating and we divide it into two in hopes that it will confuse the people, and the deficit, which is $10 billion, will now become only $6 billion on the operating side because we're spending $3 billion on the capital.

I say to my friend from Yorkview, the ironic thing is that in the last budget, if you look at it, this government broke out capital spending going way back into the early 1980s, and during that period of time we were spending, on a capital basis, about $3.5 billion on capital. That's all we're spending this year. So in other words, in the early 1980s we were spending as much on capital. That's why we get a little excited when the member for Yorkview says we aren't building any infrastructure. He obviously hasn't driven on any of the new highways, the 403; he hasn't been to the new schools that have been built.

We had more capital construction during that period of the 1980s when we were building our infrastructure, and I say again -- and I don't say this to take credit for the government of the day, which was Conservative, because it made many mistakes. But when you break it down, we were spending more on capital, and we did have a deficit during that period of time.

Almost to a person we've had complaints about how bad the deficit was under the Conservative government, but when you look at it -- and I'm glad the government, at least in this area, broke down the capital spending in those early years -- from an operating standpoint, the deficit was only about $600 million in the early 1980s. That was during a recession, when many of the pressures were on for social programs and so on. Most of the debt came in terms of the capital.

In other words, what I'm getting at is, during that period of time the spending that was there -- and I might add the total was about $25 billion, or about half of what it is today -- during that period of time we were spending almost as much on capital and the infrastructure in this province as we are today. Now, I'm excluding the government's new introduction of the $6-billion fund on capital, but on an operating basis we only had about a $600-million deficit. We were putting the money in those days into the infrastructure: into the roads and the schools and the hospitals.

Today the ironic thing is, with close to $55 billion -- although with the cuts coming through we obviously won't hit that; that was the old projected number -- we are not building the infrastructure, and the reason we can't is we couldn't afford it. So some bureaucrat or some policy person way up said: "We've got an idea. We'll just hide it. We'll just spin it off into corporations and we will take as many corporations as it takes. We'll take the realty corporation, we'll take the transportation corporation, the clean water agency, and then we'll get this big umbrella, the Ontario Financing Authority, to oversee it and build another big bureaucracy" at a time when we should be looking at how we are going to scale back the operating costs in this province.

In other words, what we've done over the last 10 years is spend more and more on the operating side and less and less on capital, and I think certainly we're paying for it. It doesn't happen right away, but we are now seeing the deterioration of our roads, our schools, our hospitals. Most of the people that are members of this Legislature, the MPPs that are from high-growth areas, know what has happened with portables, the absolute explosion of portables in this province, and there is not enough money in the treasury to get rid of those portables right now.

What the government has said is, "We'll give more of the borrowing capacity to the municipalities, to the school boards, and they can borrow," which quite frankly scares me, because the responsibility for getting in debt in this country had only been the federal and the provincial governments' and we're seeing how poorly both of those institutions handled it. Now we're going to give more borrowing capacity to the municipalities and the school boards.

There are some in that area who like it, because they're saying: "Without it, we're going to get nothing. What the heck? We may as well run it up a little bit, because we're going to get nothing in terms of grants." I think that's a fair assumption. That's why, in our minority report, we talked about putting a clear set of books together. We spent about a page and a half talking about what we should be doing, because the general feeling was that governments of the day -- again I say this in a non-partisan way -- both the present government, the NDP, as well as Liberals and Conservatives, have attempted to hide what is actually happening with the books. Our unfunded liabilities at WCB and our great debt with Ontario Hydro continue to rise up.

Now we're in the situation where we're in trouble. We have no more capacity to borrow, so the government in its wisdom says, "We're going to come up with this act to provide for the capital investment plan," which, quite frankly, when some of the members get a chance to read through it, is a very scary piece of legislation. It gives a tremendous amount of power. It gives the power to override the Education Act.

For those members who want to follow along closely on page 26 of the bill, because it is a fairly long bill, it talks about that, and I'll read it out. It talks about the "sale of debentures would not cause the school board to exceed the limit prescribed under clause 235.3(1)(b) of the Education Act."

That's why that was put in there. It was put in there so that school boards and, in the same way, municipalities could not run up debts that would have to be paid. It was only the provincial and the federal governments that were allowed to do that. Now we're saying there are no controls in place. You're going to be able to run up the debt. There's going to be no appeal process. Nobody's going to look at it. We've got this agency that's out of control.

Quite frankly, when that happens, there's going to be nobody within the government who's going to be able to get a handle on it, because we're going to see, as we've seen many times here with the WCB and other things, "That's another corporation." We hear that with Ontario Hydro: "That's Ontario Hydro. We can't do anything other than appoint the chairperson. Other than that, it's hands off." But, quite frankly, if one is to look at the bill, these are going to be the most substantial changes that we've seen in the management of the finances of capital in this province's history.

I'm amazed that there has not been as much criticism of the government over it, but I think one of the reasons is that the municipalities, school boards, a lot of the people out there, are saying, with the crisis going on with the social contract: "We're not even thinking about how we're going to fund capital next year. We're trying to worry about how we're going to lay off teachers, how we're going to lay off municipalities. Are we going to have to roll back their wages? To heck with how we're going to finance things. Don't give us those details. We're worried by July 1 what happens, when we get our $225 million, our $450 million."

I think that's one of the reasons there has not been as much criticism of this government, because the people who are out there in the know, the people on municipalities and school boards, are too worried about what is happening tomorrow, let alone what happens when this bill comes in, because we won't feel it.

I know the member for Scarborough talked about what may or may not happen. The fact of the matter is, it won't be until we're down the road when we have the problems, and it's going to be too late then. We're going to end up as we did, and many of us on even this side of the House were shocked when we take a look at what happened to Ontario Hydro. How did that get out of control? There were no controls in place.

Mr Winninger: It started under Tory governments.

Mr Carr: Yes, and I said that earlier. We're not being partisan, whether it was $35 billion. I look at Ontario Hydro and say, yes, it needed to be done. Now what do we do to fix it? We weren't up that high when we were in and we can blame the Liberals during that period of time, but you see very clearly how the management of our resources can get out of control when you give corporations the power, without the elected officials having the power to be booted out.

Maybe if Ontario Hydro had been under the government, whoever's fault it was, going way back, would have been able to be booted out on that issue, but they were not, just like this government is going to be booted out because of its management and its overspending and its $10-billion deficits, which are now ingrained. But with Ontario Hydro, with WCB, these unfunded liabilities and these debts are racking up and there is no accountability within the system.

I think most politicians of all political stripes believe one thing. Regardless of whether you're with the NDP or the Liberals or Conservatives, I think we all believe in the provisions of accountability of the elected people. This is taking it away. It's putting over on to other corporations which, quite frankly, scares us.

I don't think we're going to see very much increase in the amount of spending being done in these agencies, because when people realize that the circumstances are that the municipalities are going to be on the hook and school boards are going to be on the hook, I just wonder how much borrowing capacity we're going to get out of these particular new corporations that have been put forward.

1850

We have presented a couple of our thoughts on the bill. If you look at the midterm financial plan of the government, it will move an increasing portion of the capital spending and debt off to these new corporations. I think that's what's behind the whole premise of this bill. The fact of the matter is that the ironic thing is that the people who write the bonds, the people who buy the bonds and the people who have to sell the bonds look at the entire picture. They lop Ontario Hydro and the unfunded liability of the WCB in with the government right now. You're not going to fool the people who are paying the bonds and who are buying the bonds with this smoke-and-mirrors act. It's going to go up. We're going to have $800 million in 1993-94. It's going to go to $1.2 billion in 1994-95 and $1.7 billion in 1995-96.

The government claims in a lot of its speeches that the crown corporations offer a number of advantages as compared to the government ministries in managing and financing capital works. That's interesting, how they feel that way. They call it a more focused mandate, more flexible, the ability to forge new partnerships with business and the private sector. That's interesting, how they believe there would be better partnership with an arm's-length agency than there is with the government. I suspect that in that regard they may be right, because with the way they've treated their transfer partners, maybe an arm's-length corporation will be best.

The corporations will be able to maintain accounts external to the consolidated revenue fund, but the Minister of Finance can appropriate surplus funds from the corporations for the consolidated revenue fund.

We aren't getting to the real root of how we're going to finance our infrastructure, which in the long term will create jobs. All we're doing with this particular piece of legislation is, "How are we going to hide it for the folks out in the province of Ontario so they don't see where our money is going to?" The ironic thing is that when people look at this and say, "What does that mean to me in terms of jobs?" there's nothing in here that's going to increase the infrastructure, that will allow businesses to say, "Hey, this is a good place to invest."

Our roads are deteriorating. In the past we used to fund our roads with our gasoline tax, but all that has been taken away to go to general revenue funds. Quite frankly, I think a lot of people would say that if you were going to use money to build a road, you should use the revenue from the gasoline tax. Every time there's an increase, we say, "That's why we're doing it. We're increasing the gasoline tax" -- and, again, I say this in a non-partisan way, going back to the Liberals and Conservatives and NDP -- "to replace the infrastructure of our roads." But I look back and I see that really, for the size of the economy, it was only going back to the 1970s and the 1980s where there was any major -- and quite frankly even going back further, to the 1960s -- infrastructure and capital development.

That was a good thing. I shudder to think where we would be in this country had Ontario Hydro -- I know my friends across shout about Ontario Hydro. You think of where we would have been if we did not have the foresight to set up Ontario Hydro, going way back to Leslie Frost, who wasn't looking to the short term. He was looking to the long term, the vision of where we need to be. What he did as Premier didn't really come about in a lot of areas until 20 years later, because Ontario Hydro was set up and developed.

You can argue that it got out of control and you can blame the last Conservative, Liberal or NDP government, whoever you want. The fact of the matter is that the corporation was set up and basically got out of control because of the fact that there was very little control by the provincial government.

Bill 17 is going to enable the government to run up debt that would not be reflected on its own books. This was troublesome during the most recent years, because we saw what happens. We're at ingrained $10-billion deficits every year. Now they're going to attempt to get it down. I wouldn't even mind so much if we were going to have $10 billion moved and have $5 billion in the corporations and $5 billion in the government, but I know what's going to happen with this government. They seem to be stuck around the $10 billion. All that's going to happen is they're going to move $5 billion over to the corporations and still keep it at $10 billion.

I wouldn't be as concerned if I thought it would be the total amount of debt going out there that you would accumulate. But I know that the Premier and the Minister of Finance seem to be stuck on $10 billion and I am afraid that what we're going to see over the next few years is $10 billion regardless. Whether it takes cuts, whatever it will be, it will be $10 billion. When we move $2 billion, $3 billion, $4 billion, whatever it turns out over the next few years, we're going to still have $10 billion on the government's books. I think that is the reason they're attempting to do it, so they can stick the public with the figures. I don't think even $10 billion is acceptable.

For those members who are interested in my minority report that was put together -- I know all members got a copy of the entire report, which is about an inch thick -- the PC minority report which outlines about 15 points of what we should be doing in the province, it is available, if you would like it. Or you can look at the big report where it's an appendage in the back.

One of the things we put in there is a clear set of books. What we said was, "The Ministry of Finance should commission an independent party to prepare an analysis of the cost and benefits of converting to accrual accounting, to provide an opinion as to whether such a conversion would result in more comprehensive" -- because these are the big points that we would like to see in any financial book -- "understandable, accessible and realistic description of the assets and liabilities of the province...."

I know the members have all had a chance to look at the minority report, but if they look at the appendage which was our report, we said that here are some principles of what we believe. It should be a "comprehensive, understandable, accessible and realistic description of the assets and liabilities," not what's in Bill 17, not by pushing it on to another corporation where you hope to hide it.

We believe in giving "an estimate of the dollar cost involved in making such a conversion and that this analysis should be tabled in the Legislature and referred to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs," because I will say about that committee that over the pre-budget hearings, believe it or not, there was a tremendous amount of cooperation.

I say to my friend from Durham, and he will remember this, that there was a great deal of cooperation from all members, saying: "We have a financial crisis. We're not here just to criticize. We're going to put some concrete proposals together." There was some agreement on what we should be doing. We didn't come to a consensus; hence the fact we had to do a minority report.

But we talk about some of the problems of the debt. I just want to give you a couple. I'll read it out and I won't name the people who were in. Actually it's on here. It's the Ontario Natural Gas Association. This is what they said:

"Canada and Ontario have a critical problem with public debt, one which will take strong actions to resolve. Sustained economic growth will not be achieved without substantial progress in reducing the debt burden. Moreover, even an average economic performance over the longer term will not in itself resolve the deficit/debt problem."

I think this government heard some of the people who presented. Instead of dealing with the debt, they decided to put this bill together now, to push it off into another corporation so they can hide it in hopes that the people who are now saying, "When the bonds come due, we're not going to buy Ontario bonds because of the financial situation in the province" -- I think it's foolish. I think they will regret it in the long run.

Some of the other comments that were made during that particular debate I think were very forceful and very powerful. People want to know the truth. You will get more out of your social contract talks if people realize where we're at. I know, even talking about the social contract, nobody knew during that period where our debt is. I remember watching some of the people come out, the Liz Barkleys and the Sid Ryans, saying: "We don't believe the government. We don't believe we're heading to $120 billion."

What do we do? We put in another corporation so no one will know. We won't know what's happening out there because it won't be on the government's books. When you make the tough choices they'll say: "It's really not that bad. The debt's not that bad because we've just lopped $5 billion over to the new corporations and our deficit has gone down."

I know that the member from the Liberal Party is ready to speak next, so I won't take too much time. I think he's looking at me, wondering why I took so much time as it was. I think I promised him a little bit shorter period of time.

If you look over the next little while, I believe honestly, truly, that when you get a chance to read this bill, you are going to be concerned with what is happening. I don't think that the municipalities and the school boards are going to like this. I think they're going to be appalled when they realize that a lot of the things they thought of in terms of the transfers are now going to be basically thrust upon them in terms of debt.

It's going to be scary, it's bad for the taxpayer and I hope the members will take a look at it because I honestly, truly believe that we're going to live to regret this. There are many things we can do in this province to straighten out the financial mess. This is not one of them.

1900

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Oakville South for his contribution to this debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Seeing none, is there further debate? There were no questions or comments, so there's no reply. I recognize the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: Let me say that I have been looking forward to taking part in this debate on this particular piece of legislation.

I've spoken during the two-minute wrapups after some members have spoken, and some of the points that I wanted to make on this legislation, I have made in that time spot. However, I would like to speak in generalities about the legislation and I will tell you why.

I believe this is a piece of legislation which requires some real in-depth examination. I understand and hope that this is a piece of legislation which will be going to a committee. I believe there are many people who want to talk about the legislation, the creation of these particular capital corporations, the concerns that they have, how they can be used, and in what manner they are going to be used.

I know that as I walk through my constituency, a great many people, though their first concern is always jobs, the security of their existing jobs and the creation of new jobs, do have a real concern about debt; they have a real concern about the need for restraint. What they are concerned about is being able to ascertain the debt position and the deficit position of the government at any particular point in time, and traditionally people have looked towards the budget in order to ascertain those answers.

How I see this legislation unfolding is that there will be the creation of certain capital corporations which will, without any question, move some of the debt, and I believe over time it could be quite substantial, off the books of the province to these particular corporations, where these corporations will be incurring debt, which of course in the end result will be in part largely financed by taxpayers. But the taxpayers of the province will not be able, as easily and readily, to ascertain what is the current fiscal position of the province.

That's a concern I have with respect to these particular capital corporations. I have a concern as to how these particular corporations may be used in the educational field. Coming from Mississauga, I think it's clear that we are in a growth area in the region of Peel. We have the Peel Board of Education, which I believe is the largest public board of education in the country. We have the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board which, if not the largest, is certainly extremely large and ranks as one of the largest, and both boards are continually growing.

There is the need for the building of schools for accommodating new growth, for additions to facilities. What I am concerned about with this particular piece of legislation is how it may affect and impact upon the boards of education in the area that I represent.

They have, through some comments, indicated some concerns they have with respect to how the legislation will potentially impact upon them. What guarantees are there in the legislation that the government will be able to continue to fully guarantee the debt obligation which they will incur on behalf of the government? You see, what this legislation will do is in the area of capital construction. In the past, the government has provided funds to boards of education. Those funds show up as a debt of the province. Under this legislation, it will enable the boards to borrow money, to be repaid or guaranteed back by the government.

In essence, it's a transference of debt from the province to the local boards, and the concern that I have is the guarantee that the debt that is incurred, with the approval of the province, will in fact be fully guaranteed and repaid by the province. This is a significant concern, especially in a growth area where we have very large boards that require a great deal of capital infusion into the areas because of the many people who are moving into areas such as the Peel region.

So my concern on this legislation is, firstly, that it does require some significant examination: examination as to how these particular corporations are going to be created, their purpose, their impact and how the control is going to be maintained by the government of the day. That is why I understand it will be going to committee, and I think it's absolutely essential that these particular questions be answered.

Also, I have as a secondary concern the fact that the debt of the province, the deficit of the province, will not be as clearly and readily ascertained by the taxpayers of the province because of this shifting of debt off-book. I think that there is some work that has to be done in making certain that taxpayers, that the residents of this province, will always have the availability at hand to ascertain what is the position the province has, because it is that position which in many ways dictates the type of service the government can provide and dictates the type of tax increases governments are going to incur and impose upon their citizens.

I look forward to this particular piece of legislation receiving a very thorough examination as it proceeds through this legislative process, and meeting some of the concerns of the people in my area, and certainly with respect to some of the concerns in some of the more significant growth boards, the Peel Board of Education and the Dufferin-Peel board of education, of course an area of which I have some representation, some responsibility for.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Mississauga North for his contribution to the debate and invite questions and/or comments. Seeing none, is there further debate? If not, I recognize the member for Scarborough Centre for his wrapup on the bill.

Mr Owens: We've had a good level of debate over the last number of hours, and I thank the members for their participation. In terms of the issues that have been raised, they have been numerous in number. However, I would like to say that we have heard support for the major purposes of the act with respect to sustained and accelerated capital investment.

In terms of some of the issues with respect to job creation, this is clearly a vehicle for job creation in times of need like this that provides for the building of strategic infrastructure and improvements on existing infrastructure. This is clearly crucial to our overall competitiveness. The act is important, and it's an important vehicle for the delivering on our investment in job creation commitments.

I think one of the things that concerns me is clearly the lack of understanding with respect to accountability coming from the other side. I think if one reads the legislation, clearly the messages with respect to accountability are clear and present.

In terms of how the capital corporations will be functioning, unlike some of the corporations that have been mentioned -- and clearly there's no relationship between the kind of corporation that Ontario Hydro is and these new capital corporations -- these corporations will be transparent and accountable to the government of Ontario. The government will maintain the policy formulation functions and the capital corporations will be a method to implement that policy.

In closing, I want to again thank members. I look forward to debating this issue in the finance and economics committee. I think this is a good piece of legislation. It's an omnibus piece of legislation that will provide for new and improved methods of capital financing in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker: In the absence of the Minister of Finance, the member for Scarborough Centre moves second reading of Bill 17. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr Owens: I would like to refer the bill to the finance and economics committee.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Fred Wilson (Chief Government Whip): I'd like to announce the business for tomorrow. It will be the debate on second reading of Bill 48. I move adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: The government whip moves adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried. This House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1912.