Journal des débats 1993-oct-14 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Bill 56, An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario / Projet de loi 56, Loi visant à protéger les droits civils des personnes en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to begin debate on this legislation by highlighting the reasons for its introduction. I was prompted to table this bill as a positive attempt to fight the drastic increase in the spread of hate propaganda in Ontario. The increase of intolerance and racially motivated crime demanded action.

I note that in dealing with this very subject the Attorney General of Ontario has said that the Criminal Code as it is written now is not adequate to allow us to deal with some of the issues, and there have been ongoing concerns on a federal-provincial-territorial basis about how to strengthen these provisions.

We, as provincial legislators, have no jurisdiction to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, but what I have done is tried to create an act that will provide a civil remedy to those persons aggrieved as a result of conduct or communications promoting hatred or promoting the superiority or inferiority of one race or class of persons over another. I feel personally very, very strongly about empowering people to be able to deal with these situations without the necessity of having to wait for an Attorney General to intervene. The Attorney General has indicated how difficult it is to intervene, and accordingly I am creating a civil right for those aggrieved to seek damages in the courts.

In the past year we have been witness to cross-burnings, organized hate rallies, racially motivated attacks, hate hotlines and the targeting of young students as potential recruits by white supremacist organizations. This bill deals with recognizing that that conduct is wrong and that that conduct needs to be stopped, and people who are aggrieved as a result of that conduct have to have a remedy. Bill 56, my act to protect the civil rights of persons in Ontario, does that.

There are undoubtedly, in dealing with issues such as these, difficulties in creating such an act, but I believe that this particular piece of legislation is a very good start. I believe that everyone has basic human rights, and one of those rights is the ability to live free from persecution and fear. Individuals who are members of minority groups are made to fear for the protection of their person and their property because of the increased violence that accompanies the spread of hate material. As legislators, we must act to guarantee the protection of members of our society from this fear.

Any legislation of this sort must be worded and enacted with particular care. It is a delicate balancing act that must be taken in order to continue to guarantee the right of free speech while prohibiting the spread of hatred. I believe that this legislation achieves that balance.

Of very particular note, I am trying to deal here with not just communication but actual conduct. I tell you, Mr Speaker, that the late Walter Tarnopolsky, a justice of the Ontario Court of Appeal and a renowned individual in dealing with civil rights, looked at these issues in a way that targeted conduct. It didn't just deal with communications, and what I am trying to do with this piece of legislation is to target conduct. That is the type of legislation that I believe we need in Ontario to protect people's civil rights. If they are aggrieved by someone's conduct that is racially motivated, this act permits a civil remedy to sue for damages.

Section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression as fundamental freedoms, but as a free and democratic society we must draw the line at allowing people to be attacked by hatred.

Again, I urge you, as members of the Legislature, to look at this bill as a start in providing aggrieved individuals with an opportunity to sue when conduct damages them; not just communications but conduct.

We don't have to look very far to see the kind of conduct I'm referring to. When high schools, and principals of high schools, are targeted as individuals by white supremacist groups to spread the message to enlarge those organizations and recruit, we have conduct that I believe is worthy of people being sued and prosecuted. Under the Criminal Code, as the Attorney General notes, it's very difficult to do that. Under my legislation, this can be done.

I believe that we have an opportunity, with this piece of legislation, to in fact protect the civil rights of all the people who live in the province of Ontario. This legislation will not limit vigorous debate or fair comment, but it will draw the line at allowing people to be attacked by hatred and contempt. Provincially, we can enact legislation that will provide additional means to further fight against racism. This legislation allows individuals who have been the victims of hatred to go before the courts and sue in order to protect their basic human rights.

1010

We have developing in our society certain things that are going on that have to be of major concern to every decent, law-abiding citizen in this province. We have situations where people are attacked because of their race or religion. We have situations where we have groups such as the Heritage Front and the Church of the Creator. It's interesting that for the Church of the Creator group, a gentleman by the name of George Burdie sums up the aims of the Church of the Creator as follows: "This time we will chase every dirty human rat down to the end of the earth and beat him to death if he is a traitor. This time, my white racial comrades, we shall conquer the world for our people. As Adolf Hitler once said, 'Today Germany; tomorrow the world.' White power."

We have people in our society who are going out and intimidating and causing damage to individuals because of their race, creed, background, sexual orientation, and when we have comments like this being made in a public sense, not in a private sense -- and when I'm talking about communication, I'm talking about public communication -- we as a society must deal with it.

I believe that the piece of legislation I have brought forward at least goes in some direction with dealing with that kind of conduct. That is why, very briefly, I have brought forward Bill 56, An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario. I have very much appreciated the support that many members of this Legislature have given me in bringing this piece of legislation forward. I know there are technical problems with it. I ask people to use their goodwill in viewing this piece of legislation. Help me correct it, keep it alive, and hopefully this can become the law in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I certainly agree with Mr Harnick that activities which promote hatred run contrary to the values of equity and inclusion, values that we as a democratic society stand for. The German writer Goethe observed some time ago that national hatred is something peculiar and most violent where there is the lowest degree of culture.

Hate activities affect us all, whether it's a cross burning in Hyde Park near my riding in London, the desecration of a synagogue in Toronto, a telephone recording of hate messages available to the public throughout Ontario, a public speech by the Heritage Front, beatings of gay people and racial minorities, or the extreme denigration of women in certain media. For those people targeted by hate, the impact can be devastating. The sad fact is that hate activities do exist in various forms in Ontario and I support our government in its firm commitment to combat the promotion of hatred in Ontario.

What's more difficult to agree on is just how far we can go in regulating hate activities and achieving the kind of balance that Mr Harnick speaks to between outlawing hate propaganda, while at the same time protecting freedom of expression, which we value so dearly in Canadian society. In curbing hatred, we must be careful not to place too great a limitation on the individual's right to free expression, one of the cornerstones of our democratic society. Some people may feel that unrelated activities are being censored under the guise of controlling hate activities.

Finally and most frightening, regulating hate activity may actually serve to afford a platform to those who propagate hatred and may choose to challenge this kind of legislation. Our challenge has to be to find that very delicate balance between democratic rights and freedoms and the very real need to ensure that Ontario remains a society where equity, inclusion and harmony can flourish. The curbing of hate activities can be accomplished by legislation, but it can also be accomplished by educational programs and social policies.

Mr Harnick has presented us today with a proposal for legislating against hate activities, and I'd like to acknowledge his efforts and commend him in dealing with an issue that concerns us all. In spirit and intent, this bill touches the heart of the matter, but there are a number of points which will need to be addressed if this bill is to withstand court challenges.

Should our government opt to take this legislative route, it would only be after full examination in committee and listening to the views of the various interested parties. Let me say that our government could be prepared to support this bill if major changes were made to bring it within the bounds of constitutionality.

I stress that this support could only be given if the following fundamental revisions were made.

First of all, the criminal offence provision would probably have to be removed since it is ultra vires and infringes on the federal criminal law jurisdiction. As a result, it is more than likely, in our opinion, to be held to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, one might well ask whether legislation can limit the content of private conversations. To do so would probably conflict with the freedom of expression enshrined in clause 2(b) of the Charter of Rights. At best, legislation may limit the content of public speech, but this issue certainly requires more study and we need to understand more exactly what the line is between propagating hatred and making a political statement.

Thirdly, the bill should also cover a more limited number of grounds. For example, Mr Harnick's bill covers grounds such as family status, which is included in the Human Rights Code but not included under section 15 of the Charter of Rights or in other parts of the charter. In order to justify such a restraint on public expression under section 1 of the charter, I suggest a more limited number of grounds would have to be covered. While grounds such as race and religion are clearly meritorious in deserving protection against hate activity, it would be more difficult to give justification to allowing protection to grounds such as family status.

To give a brief example, in the recent federal Conservative leadership race, a local federal member in London, the riding of London-Middlesex, Terry Clifford, said that he would be supporting Jean Charest for the leadership of the Tory party because he was a family man. This immediately led to some indignation and concern on the part of Kim Campbell and those supporting her because she was, as it were, a single mother.

Now I put it to you, Mr Speaker, if indeed we're legislating against the advocacy of superiority or the inferiority of a group based on family status, could it not be argued that this would attract the very sanctions that Mr Harnick has included in his bill?

Lastly, a more specific definition is needed in order to prevent activities from occurring which assert the superiority or inferiority of a particular group of people. There are already Supreme Court decisions -- Keegstra and Taylor come immediately to mind -- which require very specific definitions so that we don't unduly interfere with freedom of speech and intervene in the narrowest possible way.

Given the breadth of these kinds of concerns, our government would like to open up the issue further to public discussion. We're certainly promoting a free vote on the government's side, and it may be very valuable to have this matter go to committee.

1020

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): First, I would like to commend the member for Willowdale for bringing this forward. I think it is quite appropriate that we debate this and hear the views of all sides. I also want to commend the member for London South because, from what I'm hearing, he's supporting this bill. It's unfortunate, though, that he moved into some rather partisan bashing about the Conservatives and their views, because one of the things I want to commend my colleague from Willowdale for in bringing this about is that he seemed to have gotten the essence of taking the partisan out and looking at human issues. I want to do that and commend him very much.

The reason he has brought this forward is the obvious fact of the failure of other legislation, federal or provincial, to protect the rights of others with regard to hate literature. But whether or not legislation is adequate, I would feel a failure to enforce the violation may be one of the main issues. As soon as we find that we have legislation and we fail to enforce it, what happens is that we make new legislation. It seems to me I'm going to be in a sea of lawyers who will talk about this legislation, and I hope somehow the real issue will not be lost.

My party will be supporting this bill in principle, but we do have some rather serious concerns. When I spoke to my colleague from Willowdale, he said that he would like it to move forward but he understands that there are some concerns. The bill requires some rather careful review. The issue is one that demands immediate government action, and here we have a government that we had hoped would move on this and understand these issues. They have wrestled with these social issues for years. When we talk about government action, the cooperation on our side is there to move that forward. Given the recent acts of hate-based activities in our province and across the country, that is one of our primary reasons for supporting this bill.

We're hopeful, though, that the government will finally take the kind of serious action that is needed now. We know how a private member's bill can actually stay on the books and gradually die away. I think it's extremely important when we are talking about human lives and the kinds of things that happen to them through these kinds of situations that exist now.

However, we know that protecting one's human rights is always a delicate balancing act, and I think Mr Winninger spoke a little about that. With regard to protecting the rights of a group or the particular rights of an individual, of course we at times impinge on others by doing so. This brings to light, as a matter of fact, that this Parliament sometimes fails to debate, in the case of Show Boat, for instance; people are expressing their concerns, that it hits to the heart of them, and it is a sort of racial overtone that puts them in a poor light. That's the feeling of the human being who is saying that, and the other side feeling that it is entertainment, that the thing is not historic anyhow. That has to be taken into consideration seriously. Leaving it to the people out there brings about confrontation. We need proper legislation and a proper venue in order to deal with that.

According to this bill, persons have "the right to bring an action, without proof of damage, against any person or association of persons whose conduct or communication promotes hatred." As we read through that, it's very, very difficult to find out what is hate, and as I talk about Show Boat, it does promote hate towards us. Of course, if we have some proper investigation, it may show that.

My daughter was going to the University of Western Ontario in London at the time this issue came up. We don't have time to bring that up, but we know the issue about the professor who advocated superiority with regard to some sort of race. This professor continued to get his pay and demonstrate his racist attitude and be protected by academic privilege and expression, and it's left there for the suffering of those who were hurt on this, whether it was regarded as hate propaganda or not. But those individuals continue to struggle to prove themselves, in one way or the other, superior to the other. We need legislation emphatically to look at these things.

In this legislation, I'm concerned about the power to bring an injunction on an individual or an organization, and that is my concern, especially in the case where there is an area in respect to the accused. I'm not a lawyer and I will not speak as a legal mind, but I am concerned that an individual who has a concern about a company, malice somehow, will bring an injunction against an organization and shut that organization down because they have the power to do so, and in the long run find out that the individual was in fact in error. Who bears that cost? Does the company or the organization bear that cost, and the individual can go along on his or her way?

I would like to see, as we support this and it goes into second reading, that some of those concerns are addressed. Many of the lawyers we have here can put their legal minds to it. The very high-paid lawyers we have in the Attorney General's office can assist us in making sure that the group is protected as much as the individual is protected and that an injunction would not shut someone down.

Someone said to me the other day, when I was at the Employment Equity Commission, am I speaking and protecting companies and employers? I said: "Yes, that's what we're here for. We're here to protect the group as well as to protect the individual." That is what legislation is all about, to be fair to all, and this legislation should make sure it protects those people, whether in the event of a person or persons who are accused.

This is an important bill. The Liberal Party seeks to bring the right of all persons, and it is necessary to resort to such a drastic step as legislation of this kind. Is it that necessary? We don't know. Maybe it is. We talk about the fact that education will bring this about, and if we educate people, they will not project hatred. Somehow, yes, that will help, but not necessarily so.

We need legislation that is strong, whether it's in the Human Rights Code, the Charter of Rights -- of course we are protected there -- or whether we need new legislation. New legislation never surprises me, that we're going to do the thing and say, well, this is it. It will then bring the issue right up front and resolve the problem. Legislation sometimes, to me, makes the pockets of the lawyers a little bit fatter and the individuals it should serve are not properly served.

Let us for this time, as a private member's bill, make sure that this happens.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): First of all, I would like to give very special commendation to the member for Willowdale, Mr Harnick, for the leadership he's bringing to this issue. Ever since he became a member of our caucus he has been a real spokesperson for human rights and for the rights of all people and has become a conscience within our party for the things that are right and good. I commend him for his efforts in this regard.

What he's really bringing to the Legislature is an opportunity for us as legislators to deal with a much larger issue in a non-partisan way. Let's get rid of the party lines and the biases we have, this baggage we carry into the Legislature because of our different parties, and for once deal with an issue that is really touching all human beings and all residents of our province so that every person can truly have a sense of freedom and equality and a quality of life that might otherwise be taken away because of the hurt and the damage and the harm that others would bring to them.

It's a sensitivity to the needs of people, if you realize that in society there are people who are being abused and hurt and that the arrows of hate go to the very depth and heart of their being when others come along and malign them. It takes away their sense of freedom when others are able to inflict that sense of anger and hurt on them. Why can't we as a society come together in the spirit of goodwill that allows all of us to sit around a table, from all parties, which could be in the form of a committee hearing that would look at this bill, and try to work through the problems it brings with it, to have a sense of dedication to purpose and principle that overrides the exact wording, but through that process of thinking it through together, comes up with a bill that truly begins to touch the need we're talking about today?

1030

I appreciate, first of all, that Mr Harnick has brought this forward. The second thing is that I appreciate that he has opened up the willingness to study it further. By putting this stake in the ground, he has begun a process of debate and discussion that will allow us as legislators to move it forward. He has also expressed a willingness to be open for amendment, as long as it moves towards the target of ending the problems of hate.

In my recent publication on human rights, and I'm the critic for human rights for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, we delineated the chronology of racist activities in 1993. You couldn't believe, until you started taking item by item from the beginning of January -- and we recall them through into August -- the nasty, horrible things that are going on in our society. Unless you are the target of the abuse of these people, unless you're the target of the Heritage Front or the Ku Klux Klan or Equal Rights for Whites or any of these other racist, supremacist groups, you don't appreciate how hurtful and damaging these groups can be to other people's freedom and rights.

Therefore, what we're trying to do through Bill 56 is to address those grievances in such a way that if other parts of the law are not addressing it -- if the Human Rights Commission is not addressing it, if the Attorney General is not addressing it, if through our federal laws it's not being redressed -- then we have recourse through another bill, Bill 56, that will allow individuals to take forward their concerns in the courts of law in the province of Ontario.

The sensitivity of the member for London Centre, I think it was, who says, "Okay, there are issues" -- I can see us wanting to work them through, and then out of that developing a consensus. The consensus is based, first of all, on recognition of the problem that we continue to have in our society, and it's there. As long as it's there, we have the responsibility as legislators to fight to do our very best to eradicate it. We do it through education; we do it through example; we do it through the popular media; we do it through every device we can in order to encourage people to be responsible in all their actions to their fellow human beings. Then, when all those have failed, and there are still going to be the examples of the recent situation that the League For Human Rights has brought forward, then we're going to call upon the courts to act on it.

I wish I had more time. We are very, very tight for time in this bill. But there is an exciting judgement that was made by a federal judge that has closed down the Heritage Front hotline for the time being, and then they can open up again. What I'd like to see is a chance for those who are grieved by such acts as the Heritage Front to take it to court themselves and do something about it. Mr Harnick's bill is a good step in that direction.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I too want to commend Mr Harnick for bringing this bill. It's one of the reasons I sought election: to be a part of change, a change that's so desperately needed in this particular area.

Hate literature and hate activities cripple people in ways that some of us still don't understand, in ways in which children are prevented from becoming all they can according to their potential, all that they should be, because they have been made to believe they are somehow inferior or somehow less than others.

It threatens the security of people and property, and it creates a kind of climate of fear and intolerance. So many times we have had buildings defaced. People have been threatened. There are children who have come into schools and said, "You know, I'm being beaten on the way to school and so-and-so is calling me names," and not only another child but also that child's parents or that child's older siblings are hurting them or threatening to hurt them, all because of this kind of hatred.

It undermines self-esteem, and it is done in a way that in fact makes people feel their very souls are less than others'. It is done in a way that makes people embarrassed to say who they are and what they are. It is done in a way that actually promotes some people who are less visible as belonging to particular groups to change their names, to "pass," as we say in our community, because they feel that they will be limited. There are many ways in which it pressures individuals to abandon who they really are. It creates frustration and outrage and it disrupts social harmony.

Sometimes it is done overtly: It is done with signs and it is done with name calling and it is done with nasty sayings and it is done with threats. Sometimes it is done covertly: It is done with plays, it is done with musicals, it is done with evenings of entertainment where people seek to say, "It's just good fun," and yet it has the same effect.

So of course I commend Mr Harnick for bringing this bill to the House. I want to tell him that I feel he has done something really great, something that is very necessary. As it stands now, we must wait until police bring actions or cases to the Attorney General's attention, and there very often are many cases where we have found for some reason or other this is not done. Sometimes we believe there are reasons for this. Maybe they feel the case is not important enough. I often wonder, who best to assess the importance of the case if not the people who feel the hurt and suffer the pain and wipe children's tears and somehow bolster themselves for yet another day holding their head up high in spite of those actions?

So I commend Mr Harnick and I say that it is time we had the right to bring actions ourselves. It is time that the victims had the right to say: "I've had enough. I want this investigated. I want some retribution." I don't suggest for a moment that bringing this to the courts is the only way to do this. I know there are other things which must be done. I know that we must continue education and we must continue to strategize and to promote the acceptance of one another, but I also know that once something is law, people begin to behave in a way that is in concert with those laws, and once they behave that way, they began to speak in support of their actions. So I will be supporting this legislation.

1040

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I too am going to rise in support of the bill sponsored and put forward by the member for Willowdale. I thank him for doing this. I think it's an important initiative.

I was recently elected in a by-election some few months ago and it wasn't very long before situations like this presented themselves as real concerns in my riding. Over the summer, I'm sure many of the members in this House will remember that a number of members of the Tamil community were beaten, and in one case killed, in what I think were seen to be, and rightly so, hate-motivated attacks. Shortly thereafter, there was a march in my riding organized by the Tamil Ealam Society in which we marched through the riding and in the community as a form of solidarity, to use a sometimes maligned word, of coming together and saying, "This is wrong." I was glad to be there representing I guess the power structure to some degree. It was unfortunate. I'd hoped to see more members of this House there, but I think we can do what we can, and this bill is one step in doing that.

I think what we're really talking about is that core evil emotion of hatred directed at individuals for reasons entirely unrelated to their merit as human beings. In my riding, it's not just the Tamil community; for example, it's the gay and lesbian community. Gay-bashing is a real problem in the riding of St George-St David. There are attempts to deal with that, but there is that hatred directed at people for reasons that I don't quite fathom sometimes, that often arise at times when the economy is difficult and people tend to blame people who are different. We as a society have to work to eliminate that sense of separation between peoples as much as we can.

I think, for example, of the hurt and pain the Jewish community must feel every time a synagogue or a cemetery is defaced, every time they have to see the Heritage Front in the newspaper. The member for St Andrew-St Patrick and the member for Scarborough North both spoke eloquently about how sometimes even what others think is innocent, like Show Boat, can be a painful experience because of the message it conveys. We have to think about how this has to be part of a broader effort, about other things that we can do.

One of the things that concerns me greatly is the question of activities by organizations like the Heritage Front and RaHoWa, which is an ugly acronym for racial holy war, and their activities in our schools. That very much concerns me. In talking to police officers and others who have some sense of what's happening, they are very much concerned about the recruitment activities by these organizations in our schools, by the encouragement of hatred that these organizations are in the process of fomenting. I think we have to move towards getting rid of these organizations having access to our schools. We've got to keep them off the property, keep them away from our children. There is always that potential in schools for children to be very susceptible to those messages of disliking those who are different, even if it's sometimes as innocent as being the other school. I can remember, growing up, going to a separate school when I was a child, and we'd have to cross the street to pass by the public school; otherwise they'd be throwing rocks at us. It was innocent for the children at the time, but it was symptomatic of something that we have to be concerned about, that these groups like the Heritage Front and RaHoWa can take advantage of.

I think the member for Willowdale's bill is part of moving towards solving that. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a whole answer, but he deserves credit for at least taking some of the first steps. I hope the government is listening. I'm hearing good things from the member for St Andrew-St Patrick and the member for London South, Mr Winninger, and I hope the Attorney General is listening to that message from all parties, because I think it's something we can build on.

That's not to say this is a perfect bill. It has some improvements. One issue, and it was raised by the member for Scarborough North, was the professor at Western, for example -- Rushton, I believe his name was -- and his silly notions. My concern would be that this bill could possibly make the university liable for some of what he said if there was a damage award. Maybe that's appropriate, maybe not, but I think we should have a discussion about that.

This should go out to committee to have that discussion, because obviously there's a balance to be struck between academic integrity and the ability of a group of people who feel put upon by the kinds of silly things Rushton was saying to have some kind of redress. We need to discuss that balance, about how far we go to make organizations liable for the actions of individuals within it.

One of the things that may be unintended and not quite a direct consequence of this but may be a fruitful one is what this will mean for pornography, for example. I think, for example, the Human Rights Commission is currently considering the application of two women about a corner store and how its carrying Playboy and magazines like that created an environment they felt uncomfortable in and therefore was a violation of the Human Rights Code. I could see a similar argument being made in the circumstances of this bill.

Again, maybe that's appropriate, maybe not, but I think it's important we have that discussion, and I thank the member for Willowdale for bringing forward a bill that at least allows us to take those first steps.

I am, like the member for London South, concerned about the offence section, because I think it could create, not so much because of the ultra vires issue but more because the balance needs to be struck, a criminal liability indirectly. "Promoting hatred" is an imprecise term, and because of the vicarious liability of a corporation, you could be criminally liable for an action of someone you're not entirely responsible for, and that is of some concern to me.

The Deputy Speaker: Time, thank you.

Mr Murphy: I very much support the principle of the bill and I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I wish to join in the debate this morning on private member's Bill 56, An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario, and I wish to congratulate my colleague the PC Attorney General critic and member for Willowdale for bringing in this timely private member's legislation which will offer greater protection of the civil rights of all Ontario citizens.

As you know, this is also in response to the alarming increase in racial and religious hatred that we are seeing cropping up in our society today. My colleague's tireless efforts to fight discrimination in his community and throughout Ontario remind us of our common responsibility as legislators to be vigilant to stamp out hatred towards any group or individual in our society.

Incidents of racially inspired hatred, especially anti-Semitism, have been occurring here in Ontario with greater regularity while politicians have been unacceptably slow in responding to these. For example, last December a swastika was painted on the side of the Legislature. It was only removed eight full days later. In May a group of skinheads broke into a store in Kitchener and unmercifully beat the Jewish merchant who was there.

The one who has been encouraging and promoting anti-Semitism, the most insidious form of racism, perhaps the most, Ernst Zundel, has attained far too much notoriety in the media in this province, while we are informed, even in this Legislature, that not enough evidence exists to put a stop to his promotion of public hatred. I'm even led to believe now that he has secured a cable television channel in order to spread this form of hatred.

As I stated in this Legislature on June 3, the government's fear is that we won't win the case in court against this purveyor of hatred and that our laws against racially inspired hatred aren't strong enough. We must strengthen our commitment, therefore, and we must strengthen our resolve. For those of us in public life, regardless of our partisanship, to do nothing is in fact to condone anti-Semitism and other forms of racial and religious intolerance with our silence and with our inaction.

If it is not us, then who? If it is not now that we do this, then I don't know when, because now is the time to send a very clear message that neither anti-Semitism nor public hatred of any kind will be tolerated, not in this province, not in this country, not anywhere.

1050

The experience of victimization is as ugly as it is cruel. As someone who has promoted the rights of victims of crime for more than eight years in this Legislature, I believe that the greatest right anyone has in this province is the right not to be victimized.

The provisions of my colleague's Bill 56 having to do with hatred and the promotion of the superiority of one group over another also provide an important way to address hatred against women, as depicted in violent pornography such as triple X and slasher films as well as the serial killer cards. These are all expressions of male superiority over women, who are treated as objects for the gratification of men.

There is a strong causal link between pornography and violence against women. On April 26, 1989, I challenged the then Liberal minister for women's issues on his statement to the contrary. In response, I guess on reflection, that minister was obliged to admit that in fact a causal link does exist.

On April 11, 1991, I took the NDP Consumer and Commercial Relations minister to task in this House for her government's refusal to press charges against explicit sex video stores. During a number of police raids approved by the Solicitor General on such stores, video tapes showing sexual violence and bondage of women were seized. The police were undermined by the NDP Attorney General, who withdrew the direction to the crown attorneys to proceed with prosecutions.

Women in Ontario felt betrayed by the minister and her government, who refused to take a stand against sexually degrading and violent pornography which emphasizes and glorifies the superiority of men and dehumanizes and degrades women. As Robert Payne, the then Ontario Film Review Board chairman said, "Ultimately, the problem is a political one that needs to be addressed."

Since this NDP government has been unwilling to address it, opposition politicians and citizens' groups have taken the lead against violent pornography. On May 7, 1992, I raised the alarming situation of the marketing of serial killer cards in Canada, which featured serial killers and mass murderers. In addition to illustrating psychopathic killers, the cards also described the minute details of their perverse crimes.

Debbie Mahaffy, who heads Canadians Against Violence, led a massive campaign against the serial killer cards. Today we have learned that a new series of these cards will be put in Ontario stores this January.

The time to act is now. But the problem with fighting sexually violent pornography and the killer cards is that the law until now has been preoccupied in defining the causal link between violent pornography and violent acts themselves. However, under the provisions of my colleague's private member's Bill 56, individuals and groups can be empowered to take action against the purveyors and profiteers of violent pornography, since they are expressions of hatred against women and promote male superiority. This bill can provide better legal means by which women may defend themselves against the degrading victimization of violent pornography and serial killer cards that desensitize men, dehumanize women and promote the violent treatment of women.

I support unreservedly my colleague's private member's Bill 56, the Civil Rights Protection Act, and I would urge all members of this House to do the same.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Bill 56 raises many issues of importance that have not been properly addressed by today's society. The bill is aimed at curtailing hate activity in Ontario, activity which attempts to promote hatred against groups and members of groups on account of their race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, age or family status.

I am certain that we all share this goal and want to do everything we can to achieve it. Legislation may help to achieve these goals and it's something that I think we should consider very seriously. However, legislation works best only when the public is educated with respect to what it means and why it is needed.

In order for Mr Harnick's bill to be effective, a consensus will need to be developed which will enable us to be clear on the limits of tolerance with respect to hate activity and to educate the broader public on what those limits are. I think that listening to the public on this issue would be a good first step towards developing such a consensus and for that reason I would like to see Mr Harnick's bill get a public hearing.

I also think it will be important to develop educational programs and social policies that will sensitize the public to these issues and that will increase public awareness of what hate activity is, the various forms it takes and the necessity of nipping these activities in the bud.

There is growing concern that hate activities are increasing on a global level. I think we all agree that we should do everything we can to counter that trend here in Ontario. I think that education on anti-racism, anti-violence, gender equality, religious differences and sexual orientation needs to be taken seriously and given greater priority. Effective courses on these issues need to be developed and taught at all levels.

I think we should work with community groups to deal with hate-related issues as they arise and to develop programs to combat hate and to provide a forum for public complaints. We need to create a structure for dialogue within and among communities most vulnerable to hate activity. To demonstrate our commitment, I'd like to see that dialogue include representatives of the government.

The subject of hate activities is due to come before the cabinet round table in November, and a number of the concerns raised today will receive more detailed consultation there. In the meantime, it is vital that we continue to move forward with this very important subject. To do this, I suggest holding public hearings to determine whether the kind of bill proposed by Mr Harnick is appropriate and, if so, what changes are required to make it viable.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): In Ontario, in Metro Toronto, we are fortunate that people from many countries and many walks of life have come here for over a century and have worked hard together to develop our communities, our lifestyle and our method of government. This diversity has contributed immensely to the richness of our society from a cultural perspective but also in developing our economy and a better way of life in this province.

We need to ensure that there is fairness, equity and tolerance in our society so that people may contribute according to their ability. We need to fight against discrimination, bias and any restriction against any person. If a member of our society suffers discrimination, then not only that individual but our society as a whole loses.

I've had some experience in this regard, being the chair of the mayor's committee on multiculturalism and race relations in East York for 11 years, and I have in my possession a letter from the mayor of the city of Toronto that I think expresses some of the concerns that I have experienced through that period of time.

She expresses concerns about the increase in organized hate group activities of white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups. They've been on the rise for the last few years. These groups are exploiting in particular the recession and high unemployment, and they are aggressively recruiting the young people, going right into our schools and recruiting and poisoning the minds of the young people in our schools.

I know that in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto there have been a number of incidents of hate literature being circulated, being tucked in the windshields of cars, being distributed through apartment buildings, particularly buildings where there'd be people from many different countries, many different colours. We have attempted, through the police and through the various different government authorities, to have this issue addressed, but the laws don't seem to be satisfactory, don't seem to have teeth.

So I commend the member for Willowdale. I think it's time that legislation was brought forward to deal with groups like the Heritage Front that, frankly, we've had to deal with in the east end of Metropolitan Toronto, both through their hate literature and paper and through their telephone messages that crop up from time to time and that, unfortunately, people are subjected to.

My congratulations to the member for Willowdale, and I certainly hope that this legislation carries through.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Willowdale, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Harnick: I very much appreciate the sincere goodwill of all those who spoke on this bill this morning and I very much appreciate their commitment to see this bill continue and go forward and become law.

There's no question that someone who becomes embarrassed because of who they are, or is intimidated as a result of who they are, or feels threatened because of who they are, or feels pressure because of who they are, or frustration because of who they are is a person who is suffering damages, and people who suffer damages as a result of other people's conduct and behaviour deserve compensation. That is what this bill provides. At the same time, it provides a deterrent effect against those individuals whose conduct is reprehensible.

1100

I want to do this now and I want to do this together with my colleagues in this Legislature. I am delighted at the opportunity to take this to a standing committee. I am delighted to meet with the cabinet round table on race relations. I am anxious to work with those in the Attorney General's department to make this bill a workable bill. I am anxious to meet with those who are far more learned in the law than I am to create to a piece of legislation that will work. I am anxious to sit down and work with the people from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and my good friend Mr Borovoy. I believe we can make this a workable piece of legislation that will benefit all the people in the province of Ontario.

Let me again express my sincere thanks to all members who have supported this piece of legislation and to those who spoke so eloquently today.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for the first debate has ended.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Klopp moved private member's notice of motion number 26:

That, in the opinion of this House, since the federal government's announcement to sell surplus Pickering airport lands will lead to major changes in ownership and possible changes in land use, and

Since there is a stated federal government commitment to the preservation of agricultural lands, and

Since there could be adverse impacts on several provincial initiatives ongoing in the immediate area, such as the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve, the Rouge park, the Seaton community and the Oak Ridges moraine, and

Since there has been no meaningful consultation by the federal government on the issues of a strategy for the airport lands, the disposal of any surplus lands and any related infrastructure needs to service the area,

Therefore, this House calls on the federal government to stop this premature plan to dispose of surplus federal lands in the Pickering area until a comprehensive long-term strategy is developed for the whole federal holding, following extensive consultation with on-site tenants, owners of surrounding lands, other interested parties, local and regional governments and the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It is with privilege that I rise here today to talk on this issue. As a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and in my past number of years, I've come to a great appreciation that we need to preserve our land. As a party we've spoken many, many times over the last 20 years on the fact that we've seen our lands paved over in this province, and of course people said, "We've got lots of land; we don't need to worry about it." I think we do need to worry about it. So I am pleased to introduce this resolution calling on the federal government to stop the sale of the surplus Pickering airport lands.

This hasty and ill-considered action by Ottawa completely ignores the plans and wishes of local residents, community groups, local government and the province of Ontario. It's hard to imagine a more thoughtless and shortsighted approach than to sell some 5,000 acres of prime agricultural land, which is now used chiefly for food production, and to sell it with little or no consideration for the long-term implications of such an action.

Not only that, but it's quite possible that the federal government could sell the land in parcels too small for farming use but big enough to pave over and build residential subdivisions on, with little or no thought for the provision of services, access roads or the impacts on neighbouring properties.

As my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Elmer Buchanan, said in the news media last week, "The public wants Ontario prime food land protected for the long term." In consultations we have undertaken, and in my own experience, people have understood the vital importance of preserving our best food-producing land now, before it's developed for other uses. As the honourable members know, this government shares the view that prime food land should be maintained for food production. This government knows and appreciates the real value of good farm land.

What Ottawa appears to be doing in this case is creating a short-term gain that will ensure long-term pain. The lure of earning a few million dollars by selling this land is, I agree, hard to resist, especially for governments, and the federal government needs dollars. But it must be resisted, because once this land is sold and this farm land is sold, it's gone for ever, and in the long term the people of Ontario and Canada will be poorer for it.

Such a sale doesn't make any sense to me and is unwise. It doesn't make sense because it's at odds with the federal government's own commitment to the preservation of agricultural lands as expressed in the federal-provincial green plan agreement and other accords on soil and farm land preservation.

It also doesn't make sense because it is at odds with provincial governments' previous actions in the area. Here I'm referring to the setting aside of lands for the Rouge Valley Park and the Duffin-Rouge agricultural preserve, both of which lie just south of the federal airport land.

The federal action is unwise because once such lands are sold, they may be lost for ever to food production. They can be paved over, built upon -- in short, urbanized -- and never again used for farming or providing green spaces that city-bound people appreciate and value.

But I think what is one of the worst aspects of this situation is the surprise factor, the utter failure of the federal government to properly listen to those who live on the lands as to what effect such sales would have on them. What's at risk here are the people's livelihoods, their homes and their sense of belonging to a community. I ask, what will happen to the scores of our citizens displaced by the sale of this land?

Land use planning is a provincial and municipal responsibility. It is true that the federal government is exempt from provisions of our land use planning laws, but that in no way excuses Ottawa from acting in such a way as to threaten the province's land use plans.

In fact, as the senior government, Ottawa has a special responsibility, I believe, to act in harmony with the wishes of the provincial and local governments, unless, of course, there is some issue of national importance at stake. I'm sure we can all agree in this House that this is not the case here. What we have instead is a government acting in an expedient and autocratic manner without sufficient thought for the people living on the airport lands or for what the impact of the sale of these lands would be on adjacent communities and the environment.

We're not talking about asking to return to the status quo on this important issue; quite the opposite. We believe that if this land the federal government owns is not going to be used for an airport, another long-term solution should be found on this issue. On the other hand, if the federal property is to be used for an airport, I would doubt the final shape of an airport facility has yet been fully determined. Surely, therefore, now is not the time to sell what Ottawa considers surplus airport lands.

We don't need any more of this arbitrary, high-handed approach to problem-solving. Rather, let's sit down together and find a solution, a solution that suits the long-term needs of this vital area on the eastern doorstep of Metro Toronto. And if the airport lands are to be sold, it's important to remember that they are mostly class 1 and 2 prime agricultural lands. At the very least, then, let's make sure they are sold in parcels of sufficient size to be made into productive farms. Let's make sure the essential rural nature of these lands can be preserved.

I certainly hope the federal government can reverse its very unwise decision, a decision that flies in the face of common sense. We ask the federal government to sit down with us, with the affected municipalities and the community of interest, to plan the long-term future of the Pickering airport lands rather than pursue this wrongheaded policy any longer.

I ask that all members of this House join together to support this important resolution. It calls upon the federal government to cease its sales of the Pickering airport lands and instead develop a long-term strategy in consultation with all those affected, a plan that suits the needs and hopes of the Pickering community and the people who live there.

I have colleagues today who are directly affected. They are going to speak in support of this resolution and further put details of what has really gone on in that area over the last 10 years. There have been many communities of interest, and for sure we need to make a decision and do some long-term planning. But this decision was not done in consultation, and I think it would be unwise to move on this. We've seen the Pearson airport decision. I recognize the politics, but surely we need to not have this rammed through.

I really hope we can support this in a positive way in this House today to put pressure on the federal government so that we can have better planning.

I have had the privilege of driving through that area. In fact my father has memories of it. It's really sad to see the people in the limbo that has happened over the number of years there and we need to move, but we need to move in a far more open fashion, and that's the thrust of this resolution. I urge support.

I can think back not that long: well, 10 or 15 years ago; time flies now. But I remember just the west side of Toronto; many fields now are under pavement. We've had a bad history of allowing one area to go because we've got other lands and we'll worry about it in the next generation. So land gets changed and slowly but surely it gets paved. We have to stop that. This is what this resolution is about, is to start thinking now for the future. I urge everyone's support and I look forward to the debate today.

1110

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I appreciate the opportunity to address the motion. It's an area I'm quite familiar with. My constituency, as we say around here, is one of the Scarborough ridings. When I first ran for elected office, it was in 1969 for the school board and one of my platforms -- I looked at my old brochure -- was actually having an outdoor school for the Scarborough students in the Rouge area so that they could understand and study the Rouge. Actually, that came to pass, which I was fortunate to have played some small role in. So I think we should all, particularly those of us who may not be familiar with the area, recognize that the area is a bit of a treasure.

I bet I walk in the Rouge once a week, and I see many of the Rouge members here today. I know I've walked from the Markham town line down to the lake many times on each of the branches of the Rouge and it is quite an amazing piece of property. In fact, it probably was just about a year ago that I was out and saw a herd of 20 deer. I couldn't believe it. It was just north of the railroad tracks there. It was almost exactly a year ago, and nobody, I think, who lives outside of Metro Toronto would understand or appreciate that there could be a herd of 20 deer within the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto. But it's a bit of a magical place there and if you haven't had a chance to walk it, I'd suggest you take that opportunity.

The thing I've learned in politics is that many of the decisions we make around here are fairly short term. Governments come; governments go. Things that you fought to have part of the landscape in a legislative way change because another government comes along and believes it has a better idea. So I never get my expectations up too high about the permanent effect that we can have in politics.

There are a few exceptions and one only has to look around the world at some of the great cities to realize that either 100 years ago or 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago somebody made the decision to design and to plan an area in a certain way. Those decisions can be permanent, but if you make the wrong decision once, they're gone for ever. That's one of the reasons in politics you kind of chalk up some things that you are proud of and that you think will stay for a long while, and one of my proudest moments was the Rouge park.

Don't overestimate the role I played in it because I think it was the Save the Rouge group of volunteers and individuals who fought thousands and thousands of hours with thoughtful, rational, sometimes emotional but always important arguments. The reward belongs to them; they really did that. But those of us who are in government had to make part of that decision, so for me, it was one of the proudest moments and one of the moments that will live for ever, because it will stay there, the Rouge will stay for ever. As I say, legislation can change and all those things can change, but the park will stay for ever.

I think all of us in politics need to recognize the decisions that can't be changed. When you allow a piece of property to disappear, it's gone for ever. That's why the resolution has merit, and that's the resolution calling for a pause.

People can marshal their thinking and their energies to ask, what is the long-term goal here? Certainly that's the role the Rouge people played in the Rouge in Scarborough; it was to stop the decisions long enough for all of the evidence to be weighed and all of the information to become available. I think a rational decision then is made. I found the motion useful in that respect. It's not prescribing the end result; it's simply saying, "Let's pause and examine it." As I say, once the land is sold, it's sold for ever, so I think pausing and looking at the solution is important.

If I might put it in a bit of a broader context, governments at all levels right now are, for good reasons, preoccupied with finances, whether it be at the federal level, the provincial level or the municipal level. For those of us in opposition, and for those of you in government, one has to be particularly vigilant right now, because there is no doubt that in the interest of trying to make the finances look better there's a risk of some strange short-term decisions being made.

That may be what's happening at Pearson International Airport. It may be that in the interest of trying to make the books look better and finding creative ways to do capital infrastructure, what is conceptually an idea that has merit is badly executed.

It appears the federal government is obviously looking for money. I think there is support in the public for governments to look creatively at finding ways to reduce the debt, reduce the deficit, and to find other sources of funding. But within that general direction you find mistakes, and this may very well be a mistake.

I say to the Legislature, that's just another thing the people who are affected by the area will want to look at. Most people, I hope, are aware that the provincial government has sold -- probably the largest land sale in the history of the province was executed in March 1993. The province sold $450 million worth of provincial land. I'm not sure everyone's aware of that. I think the public is supportive of the sale of surplus lands, but I think all of us will want to be aware that the $450 million worth of land was sold by the provincial government six months ago, and among the sale of lands were some properties in this area.

I see that the Seaton golf course was sold, the Whitevale golf course was sold, 195 acres of open space in Pickering was sold, there were 1,355 acres of agricultural land in Whitby sold, and 1,300 acres in Markham east were sold to future development.

1120

The reason I raise these things is that just as the federal government is embarking on trying to sell off what it would regard as assets, the provincial government's embarked on the same thing. I've been unable to determine where some of that land is because the people responsible feel they don't have the maps to do it for me. But I would urge the people who are affected by all of this area to take a look at the provincial government's land sales as well, just to make certain that we aren't here in the Legislature talking out of both sides of our mouth, selling off at least two golf courses in the area and maybe some other open space. I can't tell from the documents.

I come back to my central point, and that is that there are certain decisions we make that are irreversible here. I learned from experience that the Rouge is a classic example. Had we made the decision to proceed with the original plans in the Rouge, that would have been an irreversible decision. Luckily, through the efforts of the community, we didn't. As I said, it's one of my prouder moments in politics and one of the few kind of permanent things that I feel good about having accomplished.

I support what I think is a responsible motion. It's an opportunity for all of us to pause and to allow the community, in its broadest sense, to look at this area and for some reflection on this decision. When the final decision's made, whatever it is, to deal with the land, all of us, particularly those who live there and those who are most keenly interested in it, will feel there's been a full and complete airing, and whatever the final decision is, it will have been made on the basis of a sensible, long-term decision.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm pleased to participate in this private member's resolution and to share in the concern we all have to preserve agricultural farm land and to continue to do all we can, from the provincial side of politics in Canada, to promote green areas and to see that they're developed and enhanced and protected. I share the concerns that are expressed by members of this House that anything we can do to maintain those lands and to expand them and develop them, we should do.

I give an awful lot of credit to all members of this House, and certainly to our federal members, in coming through and starting the whole Rouge Valley natural parkland. The community led the battle. Don't ever forget there were federal members involved, and I think Pauline Browes has to be attached to the success of that one. But it wasn't just one political party. She happened to be in power when we got the $10 million, but everyone has endorsed that to date and indeed it will be a reality. We have to continue to find ways of doing it, and I certainly want to be part of that long-term plan.

I have great concerns about the resolution that is before us. It reminds me that we've got so much government in this country that we're tripping over ourselves. Here the Ontario government's suing the federal government because of NAFTA. The provincial government comes along with a resolution like this and says: "Hey, the federal government is the one at fault for not doing something more on this. The federal government's rushing into something." Well, I'd just like to comment on a few of those points.

It isn't rushing into something; since 1987 what was going to happen with the surplus lands around Pickering has been widely known. A group known as PARC, the Pickering Airport Residents Committee, began and understood that there were surplus lands. A University of Guelph professor did a study on it, made recommendations that some of those lands be sold off, the surplus lands in particular, that some action be taken on it.

The federal government hasn't taken all the lands. They've taken 5,100 acres and are saying, let's do something with them, retaining another large section of that land for possible future development of an airport. Who knows if that's going to happen? If that happens, it's going to be when Pearson gets rid of some of its special status and so on.

In the meantime, since 1987 there's been an understanding that something was going to be done with the surplus lands. It's not realistic to think it's just happening all at once.

If the federal government is to be criticized, it's because it's doing it right in the middle of an election and everybody's saying, "Oh my gosh, isn't that something." I'd say what they've done right from the beginning is have open statements of their plans for these lands; the fact that they've been announced for sale gives the province, instead of throwing stones at the federal government, an opportunity to say, "How can we get involved with it?"

Instead, we've had a press conference in which our Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister of Natural Resources come out and say, "We're going to do something about it." Well, what are they doing? They're planning to put a dump in some of the valuable lands around the Rouge Valley, but they come out here and say, "The province will act to preserve farms and green space on any lands sold, unless the federal government commits to a process, which allows us to develop the best use of these lands."

It's one thing to say that and it's another to have Bill 143, where they're going to stuff one of the world's largest dumps in Durham region and they're looking at one in Markham on the same kind of lands we're talking about here. What hypocrisy. A government and a government member come along who, on the one hand, say, let's do something about these, and on the other can destroy the lands with the Bill 143 dump plans --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I listened very attentively. You accused the government of being hypocritical and you also referred to the member. I won't accept that.

Mr Cousens: I'll withdraw any reference to the member being hypocritical. The government itself is an independent body and is hypocritical in the way it's going about this action, so that stands. But as far as an individual member is concerned, he has the right to do a stupid thing if he wants to.

The only stupid thing I'm talking about is the fact that on the one hand the government says it's going to put a dump on those lands, and on the other hand it's saying, let's try to find some way of retaining them free of charge.

Here's a suggestion. Take your logic a step further. Instead of expecting a free trip from the federal government all the time, how can we in the province and the community buy the lands? How can you as a government influence Hampton and Philip and the other people who are blaming everyone else for it, and say to the federal government, "We in Ontario are prepared to make a commitment, a commitment of money"? What instead we get is that Ontario comes out with its machine guns and shoots away at the federal government every chance it gets. What a country we have.

The country is just falling down. Every layer of government fights every other layer and there isn't any understanding. What we want to do is get Durham involved, get the municipalities involved, get the people involved and see if there are ways in which we can negotiate something out of this.

It's not something that's just happened today or yesterday; it's been going on since 1987, and everybody knows that there's been a strategy and a plan to sell off those surplus lands.

The crime against society is that every level of government has a way of blaming the other and that is what's wrong with Canada today. Canada is just destroying itself. We're ripping ourselves apart because of all the ways in which governments -- you know, it's almost lunacy when you think that after the next federal election you could see the fleur-de-lis flying from Stornoway. It could well be that the opposition party's going to come from Quebec, and what is Canada all about?

We are so busy at war with one another within a country that's so great and wonderful. We have one of the most beautiful lands in the world. You just have to look at the beautiful parklands and all the things we've got, and yet we're so busy at working against each other.

If we could find a way where the province could be sitting down with the federal government, we would find ways in which those lands could be purchased. But to expect a free trip at this point is beyond what anyone can hope for. If there's a shared reciprocal arrangement where different levels find ways of making it happen, that becomes the magic of success.

Instead, what we have is the kind of resolution today that I think leads us down the path to say they're doing something very quickly; it's premature; they haven't really looked at all the things. I'm saying they're not sold yet. There's still an opportunity to do something about it, and if we're smart as a country we will begin to do something about it.

1130

But don't forget that this is the very government that comes forward and says, "Let's do something to protect these lands," that at the same time has shown callous disregard to the people of the province of Ontario by putting the dumps in York, Durham and Peel. The process they've followed is without a doubt the worst process I have ever seen any government do, and I despise them for it. I despise the way they have disregarded all previous laws.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to know about the airport.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Tell us about the airport. Tell us about Pearson.

Mr Cousens: Speak out when you have a chance, but as far as I'm concerned, I will never forgive the New Democratic Party and the way it has come about with its Bill 143 and tried to put dumps in the communities without looking at all options. What they have said is: "Hey, there's M6. There's one over in Pickering at Whitevale." Wherever they've chosen, they have still not said, "Let's look at other options," which could include rail haul, and opened up the whole environmental process to consider that. They've stripped away the rights of the communities and the people involved, to make it happen their way. This is a government that can stand up and say, "We want one thing, when it's our way."

It might well be that we can have those lands, which could continue to be used for farms or whatever. I don't know how many of them are being farmed. Maybe the honourable member who brings forward the motion could indicate, of the 5,000 acres, how many are being used for farming right now. But I would hope that even whoever buys them in the future could use them for farms and could use them for continuing work on that.

The fact of the matter is, here is a government which, when it's convenient to them, according to their religion, is able to say, "Hey, we're going to go and put a dump on the same land," or the same kind of land, about which they're trying to say on the other hand, "Oh, we want to protect these lands." It doesn't wash. The two don't mix. This is a government that can come along and do one thing one day and the opposite the next and forget that the two don't match. They can walk up and down both sides of the same street at the same time.

I find that the tremendous hypocrisy of government in Ontario, and it's the kind of thing that makes me say the intention behind the bill may be honourable: If we can do something to retain these lands, to keep them so that they're agricultural, to keep them so that they're parkland, to keep them so that people can continue to use them, let's do everything we possibly can to do it. To come along and take aim at the federal government and say it's all their fault without coming forward with some money from the province or from the communities to participate in solving the problem, just blaming someone else, isn't that the easy way of doing government?

Instead, let's do the responsible thing and stand up to the bar and see what we can do. I'm certainly prepared to help in any way possible to see that these lands stay open, can become part of our parkland, and to find some remedy to the problem. Don't just cast the blame on the federal government. Accept some of the responsibility at this level of government and at the municipal and regional governments so together we can sit around the table instead of fighting, as we're so good at. This is not the way Canada is going to be successful. This is exactly the way Canada keeps going further and further into the ground, because we don't know how to work together.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm sure that my colleague from Durham West is going to talk about the early 1970s and the airport lands and how he was involved earlier on. At that point, I guess I was still in high school. But I want to talk about today, because I know there have been decisions coming. People have been talking about this for a long time. But frankly, when we have a democratic society like we have here in this country, we expect a responsible government. In responsible governments, well, governments make decisions about land purchases for public reasons. Okay, that's fine. I can accept that. Whether you agree or disagree is one side or another side of an issue. But when there are then decisions made to dispose of lands -- that is, surplus lands -- then let's be responsible again. Let's talk to people.

The government in Ottawa has been deciding this for a long time, and some of these people have been affected for a long time. They go back to the late 1980s, when some of the rumours were starting: "We're going to sell off some of these lands." Let me tell you, it's got to be very difficult.

If you take a look in the rural parts of my riding, the southern parts that are being affected here, we've got some nice little communities, Altona and Glasgow. They're just crossroads, really. But those people have built a sense of community.

If we looked at TV from when we were children, people of my generation looked at the Cleaver family, Leave It to Beaver. Back in those days, you used to go and borrow a pint of milk from your neighbour and stuff. That's a sense of community that doesn't exist in a lot of places any more, but if you go back into rural Ontario, then we actually have that sense of community there. That sense of community is a pride --

Interjections.

Mr O'Connor: If these people don't have any pride in their communities, I can't help them with that. I just wish they'd allow me the opportunity to speak for my constituents. Their concern is that they are being affected by this.

The first letter in this latest round appeared on my desk in early January, and I called up the constituent, who was very concerned about the government selling off this land: "They're not talking to us." Then the next letter showed up, a tenant. I've got the letters here. They're in the rural part of Uxbridge township. Let me just read a little part of this:

"This takes in the two hamlets of Glasgow and Altona. To those of us that live in this area, these two hamlets are really just one whole community. There is still a fair number of original residents living there, and even more like my family that have been living there for a long time. My husband and I have been there for 15 years."

You've got to have a sense of community after 15 years of living in a community. So I was distressed. They came to me, and some of them are here today. I thank them for coming down.

I was distressed that they weren't getting consulted. I sent a letter off right away to the Minister of State (Transport). It's very simple, that I've received a number of letters of concern from constituents of mine regarding the sale of the airport lands, and if there's any news, would they please keep me up to date. Well, that didn't happen. From one government member to another, that didn't even happen. It just destroys faith between people if we as government members can't try to cooperate with people.

I received another letter in response to that: Yes, I'll be put on the mailing list. It's rather a form one. I appreciated the response, that I was going to get that. Well, I got a call that they had opened up a public information office and they're going to hold public information, but I found that out from one of my constituents. They opened up the information office, they closed the information office, and I didn't even hear anything from the Minister of State (Transport) in Ottawa. So I sent a letter. They sent a letter saying, "We're sorry that we didn't include you and let you know that this was happening."

I've stated the concerns that my constituents have, and I think that's what we have to do. We have to be responsible. When we talk about governments moving and doing something positive in saving green space, that's really positive.

If we take a look at the Walker property, for example, in part of Uxbridge, if we go back to the early 1920s, the Oak Ridges moraine ended up a desert, the reason being that people started farming in the south part of what was Ontario county at the time. The good farm land was gone quickly and then they moved up on to the moraine and started farming, but unfortunately it wasn't good farm land. It ended up like a desert.

Here we have Mr and Mrs Walker: They buy some of the land, start planting trees, and here we are seven years later, a year ago in the spring, and we had an opportunity, with cooperation of the Metro conservation authority, to protect some very valuable green space on the Oak Ridges moraine. That's cooperation. That's working with people. In fact, the Durham Environmental Network held a walk just through the woods, through the Walker property, opened it up to the public so the public could get a chance to stroll through some of the finest hardwood forest the province has, less than an hour from Toronto. It was because of cooperation: government being responsible and working with other agencies to have something happen.

Here was a tenant who had been a tenant for a long time on the property and had turned a desert wasteland on the Oak Ridges moraine, on the headwaters of the Duffin Creek, into a very good aquifer holding area for those valuable resources. We should never discount what one person can do. We should never discount the fact that, well, we've got some tenants here. "Let's sell the land off. We've got a fire sale. We've got to move quickly." Let's talk to these people. As I said in this Legislature on October 6, these people in some cases are young families. Some are seniors. Some are disabled people. These people are tenants and they deserve an opportunity to discuss and talk about an orderly sale. Let's include them in the process.

Including them in the process isn't opening up a public information centre, saying, "We want to talk to you," and then closing it up and saying, "Oh, sorry, we're not going to talk about it right now." I guess it doesn't make sense to talk about it; maybe there's a federal election on. I find that very disheartening.

1140

These people have been living this time, through this very difficult period, and I think there needs to be an opening up. That's why the government of Ontario had to move in: to try to ensure that there be some openness here.

I want to close with that. I've been involved in this process not nearly as long as some of my colleagues, but when we have a sense of community, of real community, of people, families that are sharing property together -- maybe they just live on the land and the farmer is using the rented property from the federal government to do some active farming. We shouldn't discourage good farm land. We shouldn't discourage it from being used for farm land.

I support this resolution. I appreciate my colleague bringing it forward. I think it's an important time. I think we have to protect our agricultural resources as well as our natural resources, and we need to include people as much as we can.

Mr Curling: I just want, in the short time I have, to commend Lois James and the Save the Rouge people, who have been advocating the protection of good, valuable lands and using them for proper purposes for a very, very long time. I want to welcome them here. Continue your struggle. I remember the time when the People or Planes struggle went on. That was quite an event and continued to be that the people's voice be heard. They have been an influence in protecting valuable lands.

I'm really impressed that the government has come forward on protecting this land. As a matter of fact, the Rouge Valley, as you know, one of the most beautiful places in the world, is situated in Scarborough North, my riding, which I'm proud to represent, the riding which this government at one stage was having some thoughts of putting a dump site near. Can you imagine that?

To say to them that they'll put a dump site there -- we were in shock. We were in complete disarray. As a matter of fact, the Tories have said, "We will put $10 million there in order to protect the Rouge," but there are of course a tremendous number of hurdles before they can get the $10 million for a park. No, it's government paying lipservice to the main and most important issue of protecting that land. So let us as politicians not continue to play this game.

I recall too the great Honourable Bob Rae, then the Leader of the Opposition, standing in the Rouge and calling the leader, David Peterson, a liar when he was trying, struggling, very much so, in order to protect the place. Then here we are now, coming in so holy that we want to protect that. Let's take them up on their word. Let's say yes, that the federal government, the Tories who want to sell these lands without having a concept of how we should use them, and the government here, which is also trying to speculate in all kinds of respects, saying, "Maybe we should put a dump site near there" -- of all the things, the hypocrisy in those kinds of statements.

We must make sure that we get our priorities right. The people themselves are saying to you, and listen to them carefully, "This valuable land around here must be used for good and proper usage." Of course, they are willing to sit down for proper consultation, something the NDP government hasn't any concept of, what the word "consultation" is about. If I had two hours here, I would tell you how they reneged in the consultative manner in which they have proceeded on many, many bills.

The federal government, of course, with its debt, repentant, sells off the airport, sells off that, gives its friends all kinds of jobs and now says that it wants to sell these lands.

Let us be consistent. Look at the people who live there, who understand the issue, who know what the purpose of the land should be. I remember our mayor, Joyce Trimmer, who wanted to build executive houses in the Rouge Valley and then found that the people said, "No, let us preserve that land." I commend them for coming here and fighting for their cause.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry and East Grenville.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Thank you, Mr Speaker, you got it all in. I am also pleased to participate in this debate for a very short period of time, in the time allotted in private members' hour.

The interesting thing that I find is that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food is bringing forth a resolution. It has a great deal of political overtones. Do you recall not too long ago the city of London annexed 64,000 acres of farm land from Middlesex county? The member for Middlesex stood up and fought it. Would you believe that she was a member of the government and she fought that annexation tooth and nail?

What do we have now? We have the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture bringing forth a very political resolution. But 5,100 acres are involved, when indeed he supported a 64,000-acre annexation, in spite of his own colleague from his own party being totally opposed.

I'll read just a little bit of information that might intimidate the government a little bit. It comes from the Middlesex Women for the Support of Agriculture, totally fighting Bill 75, the London annexation of 64,000 acres. Some of the points that were made I will repeat, just to make sure that this government remembers what happened only six months ago.

"We recognize and appreciate the importance of agriculture in the life and the economy of Ontario. The city of London has a record of land mismanagement. There is a lack of rural representation in the proposed new city.

"If Bill 75 is approved as is, 38% of Middlesex county's commercial and industrial tax base will be confiscated by the city.... Ultimately, this will take taxes away from all of southwestern Ontario's" rural "tax base."

This and numerous other comments were made against the London annexation. This government steamrollered it through 64,000 acres of Middlesex's finest rural property in an area where heat units will allow you to grow just about any crop in the 3,000 to 3,300 heat unit range. Yet this government comes up and the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture brings in a ballot item this morning to protect 5,100 acres that happen to be owned by the government of Canada -- a little bit political and a little bit cynical.

Yes, we must preserve farm land. We must also preserve the people who farm it, the farmers. Would you believe that in the last two years, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had a reduction of 10% of its budget on an annual basis? Yet this government wants to preserve agricultural land, at least it says so, in spite of the 64,000-acre annexation by the city of London.

I think, with all due respect to the member who brought this forward, it's way too political even to be debated. You've got to do what you say you're going to do. Don't go saying one thing and doing the opposite. I think this bill cannot be supported because of the inconsistency that this government has shown over its last year or two.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's my pleasure to rise on this occasion to speak to this because, quite frankly, for me this is not a political issue. This is an issue that I began in 1972 as a student belonging to no political party and fought against the expropriation of these lands because it was wrong then and it's wrong today for the federal government to continue in its policies of not including the residents in planning.

I think we have to stop this political rhetoric around this land and start to say what is most important. This issue is primarily a people issue in terms of the tenants and what's going to happen to them. It's an agricultural land preservation issue, because most of this land is class 1 agricultural land, with some class 2 and class 3 thrown in. It's also an environmental issue because it is adjacent to one of the largest parks in the world in terms of its urban proximity to a city.

1150

I think we need to have some idea of how big a parcel of land we're talking about. While I know it's not correct in terms of being able to use visual aids in this chamber, I would ask indulgence. This is a satellite photograph of the greater Toronto area. Toronto is here. The parcel of land that we're talking about, the parcel of land that we need to plan is 60 square miles, the size of the city of Toronto. When it overlays this area, you can see the size, you can see how important this piece of land is in terms of its size, its agricultural production and its agricultural capacity.

Just to give this chamber and others an idea of what this land was capable of producing at its height, I will read from a book that was spawned out of the mismanagement of the whole issue back in 1972. It's written by Walter Stewart and it's called Paper Juggernaut. I think it's important that we recognize that we're not just talking about preservation of agricultural land and people here; we can also say that this area can produce jobs. Just listen to the capacity that this land was capable of at that time. This is a quote from Walter Stewart.

"Once, four million gallons of milk were taken off this land every year, and every year the area poured out 200,000 eggs, over a million pounds of beef, 375,000 pounds of pork, 45,000 bushels of wheat and 30,000 chickens. But these were the crops of people who grew up here. Now what the area grows mostly is a hell of a lot of corn."

He goes on to say, "It was not a hurricane that devastated this area. Neither flood nor fire nor famine wreaked this havoc. The destruction was entirely man-made, the byproduct of misdirected memos."

I think we have to understand that what we're talking about here is a new phase in the issue of this land. With the sweetheart deal that was signed with the Tories for the Pearson International Airport, the airport in Pickering is dead. Now, more than ever, we need to have a planning process in place that allows us to plan not just for the 5,100 acres that are now to be sold but for all 18,600 acres of the federal land. It needs to be included with the 8,000 acres of the provincial land, where this provincial government is undergoing a process to determine what best that future is for those people who live there and for the land in its agricultural capacity.

Again, if you take a look at the map, we're talking about a line across here of the Oak Ridges moraine, where this government has instituted a study to determine what is best for this area and how to preserve its natural and agricultural and environmental heritage. But this study too will be ignored by the selling off of this land in small parcels that make no sense either environmentally or agriculturally, nor will it stem the urban sprawl that is costing the taxpayers of this province so mightily in terms of paying for the infrastructure that cannot be paid for out of the taxes.

In fact the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has indicated that the river valley systems -- Petticoat Creek, which has its roots in the middle of these lands, tributaries of the Rouge, tributaries of Duffin Creek, both east and west -- come out of these lands. These are important fish grounds. These are cold water spawning grounds and we need to preserve them. We need to plan in order to do this.

This land is adjacent to the Rouge park. There are wildlife corridors that can be planned to encourage and enhance the genetic diversity of the species in this area, but all of this will be lost if this land is sold off in a way that makes no economic sense.

The federal government has promised that it will participate in the creation of the Rouge park to the tune of $10 million. We are still waiting for some of that money to be allocated into this park and in this place at this time so that we can preserve the land.

I think it's important to recognize that the municipalities in this area do not support this premature selling off of the land, and we need to recognize that this land needs to be preserved.

In the closing minutes that I have, with the death of this airport, I reiterate that we need to plan and we need to do it in a way that makes sense.

David Crombie, in his early years as the mayor of Toronto passed a resolution, in 1972, saying that it was a mistake to take this land. Again, in the watershed report of the royal commission on the waterfront he made two recommendations, number 79 and number 80, that indicated that this area should be planned jointly.

The train went on the track. The feds put the train on the track when they told the residents that they had 30-day leases, and then they gave the province and the municipality 30 days to make an indication as to whether they were going to buy it or not. That's what got this process going and that's why it was short-circuited.

I would just like to quote from Isobel Thompson in the closing moments I have:

"What this did socially will never be measured. The families that were broken up, the neighbours who turned against each other, the friends who fell out, the people who took to drink, the hearts that went, the way it affected people. How many moved, how many gave up, how many turned against government, any government? There was no humanity in them. Old people would call at 11 o'clock at night, frightened out of their wits, and we would have to go over and calm them. To the government, they were just so many bodies to be moved."

I submit to you that they aren't so many bodies to be moved; they need to be protected, and this Legislature should do so.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Huron has two minutes to reply.

Mr Klopp: I'd like to thank all the members who participated today. I think Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, made a very good opening remark when he said there are some decisions in this House that you can reverse, as different governments come and go, but there are others that you make a decision on and there is no reversing. I think those are wise words.

I'd like to thank the Durham-York and Durham West members who have done a lot, since their election in the fall of 1990, on this issue. In fact, if I can go back to the member for Markham and his comments about how the federal government announced in 1978 that it was going to sell, so what's the surprise, well, the surprise is that it never consulted properly. In fact, since we've been here in 1990 our government has pushed, along with the groups that are here today, to get some discussion going, and it hasn't been done. It's a little bit like telling someone, "Get ready, there's going to be a race," and then all of a sudden yelling, "Start." You're told, "Well, I told you there's going to be a race," but you were never given any good planning. That's what this is about.

Mr Cousens touched a little bit on Bill 143. Well, I find that just sad. The members in the area of the GTA would like to have it both ways, some of the members. They want the waste to go my riding, to Huron, and not fix the problem. I think Bill 143 was needed. People in the areas have to fix their problems. This government, on the other side, has pushed very much for waste reduction in a way that no other government has done. In fact it even makes it a little difficult for industry that we've pushed for tougher rules. The member for Markham stands up lots of times and says the government's against business. I find that to be totally sad.

To my colleague for S-D-G, I appreciate his comments about Bill 75. I was a strong opponent of that issue. One of the things that MMA and the city all agreed to was that we'd have tough land preservation for the lands in that area, the city. I am going to hold him to that.

In closing, I'd appreciate your support. In fact, I remember the PC member Dianne Cunningham who wanted the London annexation. Thank you very much. I hope we can all vote on this. Take care.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for private members' business has expired.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA PROTECTION DES DROITS CIVILS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 27 standing in the name of Mr Harnick. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Harnick has moved second reading of Bill 56, An Act to protect the Civil Rights of Persons in Ontario. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Pursuant to standing order 94(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I wonder if this bill can be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be referred to the standing committee of justice? All those in favour of this question will please rise and remain standing. A majority of the House being in agreement, this bill stands referred to the standing committee of justice.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 28 standing in the name of Mr Klopp. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Klopp has moved private member's notice of motion 26. 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.

We've debated all the matters we had to debate. Therefore, I will leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1201 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PROGRAMME D'ALPHABÉTISATION

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Trente-cinq pour cent de la population franco-ontarienne active est incapable de lire et d'écrire suffisamment bien pour fonctionner de manière normale dans la vie de tous les jours. Son pourcentage d'analphabétisme est deux fois plus élevé que chez les anglophones ontariens.

Dans les dix dernières années, des progrès importants avaient été faits en matière d'alphabétisme des francophones. Le gouvernement met maintenant ces acquis en danger.

Il y a d'abord le problème du transfert de la responsabilité de l'alphabétisation au Conseil ontarien de formation et d'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre. Je pense, comme la majorité des intéressés, que les besoins des analphabètes dépassent largement les cadres de la formation professionnelle. J'espère que le ministre délégué aux Affaires francophones est d'accord avec moi.

Ensuite, je crois qu'il est inacceptable qu'il n'y ait qu'un représentant francophone sur plus de 20 au sein de cette commission.

Je sais aussi que la plupart des fonctionnaires de niveau intermédiaire responsables de l'alphabétisation en français ont été mis à pied ou sont en congé prolongé. On parle de conflits d'intérêt ; on parle de harcèlement.

En plus de cela, des groupes d'alphabétisation francophones nous ont dit que leur survie même était menacée puisque le gouvernement avait coupé jusqu'à 50 % du budget de plusieurs de ces organismes.

L'alphabétisation en français est un programme important.

TEACHERS' DISPUTE

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise in the House today to advise members that the elementary teachers of the East Parry Sound Board of Education have been on strike for the past five instructional days.

I am certain we all share the belief that the primary responsibility of both boards of education and teachers is the instruction of students. We cannot allow the education or futures of our young people to be jeopardized. I have spoken to both the Minister of Education and Training and representatives of the Education Relations Commission on several occasions in order to impress upon them the need to resolve this issue.

Having experienced a similar situation in west Parry Sound in 1982 that took some 51 instructional days and three months to resolve, I am well aware of the negative impact which strikes have on our students and the bitterness that they create in the communities they serve. We cannot allow this ordeal to be repeated in east Parry Sound.

I have received hundreds of phone calls over the past week and a half from concerned parents, students, ratepayers and educators expressing their concerns about this matter. They want the minister to take the initiative to terminate this impasse. I could not agree with them more wholeheartedly and I want to know what steps the Minister of Education is taking to ensure that the students' education is not jeopardized and that this matter is resolved as expeditiously as possible, in a manner that is fair and equitable to all concerned.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Yesterday, the Premier announced that the government of Ontario would act upon the clear directive given by Ontarians to the cabinet committee on the North American free trade agreement that we must challenge NAFTA.

Last spring in public hearings, witness after witness from social advocacy, environmental, labour, academic, senior, student, teaching, ecumenical, unemployed worker and agricultural groups and trade experts urged the government of Ontario to use every means possible to resist NAFTA. In most cases, those who came to the committee hearings were the victims of the free trade agreement that Brian Mulroney said in 1984 he would never pursue.

As it happens, free trade has indeed cost Ontario tens of thousands of jobs, put horrendous pressure on our social programs and jeopardized those who are the most vulnerable members of our society. NAFTA will further erode our ability as a province to protect resources like water and energy, protect our environment, ensure safe and fair labour practices and ensure the continuance of health care and social programs.

That we must resist this deplorable violation of our society and provincial jurisdiction is without question. What is galling is the irresponsible conduct yesterday of the opposition parties. Clearly, they are supporters of federal Tories who created this despicable trade deal and the federal Liberals too cowardly to speak out against it.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to announce that this morning the standing committee on finance and economic affairs agreed to a proposal the Liberal caucus put before it, and that is that the committee conduct a study of the underground economy.

This is a significant problem, in our opinion, for the economy of Ontario and one that I think will benefit very much from a public airing. So I'm pleased that the Conservative Party and, this morning, the caucus of the NDP agreed to allow this study to go forward.

I'm hopeful that we will have, firstly, a thoughtful analysis of the problem. I'm also hopeful that many of the interested parties that have a view on the underground economy will have an opportunity to publicly come before the committee and give us their thoughts on not just the size of the problem and some of the root causes of the problem, but also some of the recommendations for the Legislature on possible solutions.

I'm not naïve enough to underestimate the complexity of the problem, but clearly, as we look at the challenges of revenue, the challenges that we see demonstrated daily in Cornwall with tobacco smuggling, and the problems that we hear from people in the home renovation business, it's an issue that deserves a public airing. I'm pleased that we will be doing that through our finance and economic affairs committee.

TEACHER'S DISPUTE

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Today is day 24 of the Lambton county teachers' strike, which is affecting 6,700 students. The issue is pupil-teacher ratio. Because of the government's social contract cuts, the board must cut its expenditures. All would agree they cannot resort to the local tax base for further dollars; there's no more money.

I've asked the minister twice to show leadership and legislate the teachers back to work. In his response to my question on October 12, he stated, "We have a process in place and everybody's rights have to be respected." What about the students' rights? They are the most important party in this dispute and they are in a semestered school.

He also stated on October 12 that there is precedence for legislating teachers back to work. In June 1981, the Minister of Education, the Honourable Bette Stephenson, introduced legislation, Bill 124, an act to terminate the secondary school strike in Leeds and Grenville. Even though the Education Relations Commission reported "an absence of convincing evidence that jeopardy to courses of study exists at this time," she tabled this legislation. This legislation was intended to assist the parties to resolve the dispute, and it was really successful.

We understand the minister will be meeting with the ERC today and we expect leadership. We look forward to the tabling of legislation on Monday, October 18, for two reasons: first, to assist the parties in a resolution; and secondly, so that students will know exactly when they can get back to the classroom, where they deserve to be.

TWINNING OF ST CATHARINES AND PORT OF SPAIN

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): It is my pleasure to draw to your attention an event which has occurred quite recently in the city of St Catharines. St Catharines and the city of Port of Spain in Trinidad and Tobago have now completed 25 years of being twinned.

Back in 1968, not many other communities saw the advantage of mondialization. I know not many members will have heard the term "mondialization," but as a theory it attempts to bring about the universal understanding of different peoples by promoting cooperation and tolerance.

Citizens of both communities regularly travel back and forth to share major activities in their respective communities. February 1993 saw St Catharines send a large contingent to enjoy the carnival season in Trinidad and Tobago. This past September witnessed 70 visitors who came to our fair city to participate in the Niagara Grape and Wine Festival.

It is my belief that twinning has provided St Catharines with an appreciation of a culture somewhat different from our own. Many friendships have developed, and out of this have sprung a number of business relationships to the advantage of both parties, both in St Catharines and in the city of Port of Spain.

To all of the volunteers in both communities, my heartfelt thanks for 25 years of commitment and dedication. The next 25 years will present many challenges but in truth can only serve to ensure peace and cooperation.

1340

VIOLENCE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The revelation that collector cards depicting individuals who have committed heinous crimes may be distributed in Ontario is revolting to everyone who has viewed the horror and sadness faced by the families and friends of victims of crime in their communities.

Those of us who have shared the pain and anguish of the families of Kristen French of St Catharines and Leslie Mahaffy of Burlington find it difficult to believe that the editors of Eclipse Comics would find it necessary to publish, among their true crime trading cards, the individuals who have been accused of participation in the murder of these innocent young people. The insensitivity of those responsible for this act is reprehensible, and their greed, which motivates them to appeal to the base instincts of people, is to be condemned.

I call upon the Attorney General of Ontario to introduce legislation which will prohibit the sale of this tasteless and hurtful material to the public, and in particular to young, impressionable boys and girls. Those who cry censorship should meet the parents, family and friends of the young victims. If they did, and if they possessed an ounce of decency and compassion, they would support legislation and the condemnation of this publication.

WOMEN'S SUFFRAGE

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On behalf of the PC caucus, I rise in the House to recognize the 64th anniversary of the "persons" case, a precedent-setting decision by the Privy Council of Great Britain which declared that women were in fact persons and were eligible to hold public office.

The decision in the "persons" case was strongly influenced by the efforts of five Alberta suffragettes: Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney, Emily Murphy and Irene Parlby. We applaud these remarkable women and the countless others who have fought for women's rights.

This morning, the Toronto branch of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, or LEAF, held its eighth annual Persons Day breakfast, which the leader of my party attended. LEAF is a national non-profit organization which litigates precedent-setting equality cases and provides public education on the issues of gender, equality and justice.

Women have made great strides since the "persons" case. We have been to outer space, we have served as justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, and Kim Campbell is this country's first female Prime Minister.

Despite these accomplishments, full equality has yet to be achieved. However, thanks to the vital work of the suffragettes, LEAF and others, the barriers to equality for women are being removed.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): National Medicare Day is approaching. It's a day of protest about what's happening with medicare in Canada.

As you know, Ottawa has been destroying our health care system, and so far it's slashed funding by about $34 billion. Ottawa has massively cut its share of spending on health care and higher education in Ontario. These transfer payments have declined from a high of almost 52% in 1979-80 to 31% in 1993-94. Ontario alone will lose $2.7 billion in 1993-94 as a result of Ottawa's cuts to the programs that have made us the envy of the world.

Since 1982-83, Ontario has lost almost $15 billion in health and education funding. Total losses for all the provinces since 1982-83 amount to almost $41 billion. It's shocking. It's an assault on our elderly and our children. While Ottawa continues to suck the lifeblood out of public-funded and universally accessible health care, the provinces are left to preserve the services in our hospitals, doctors' offices, clinics and community health centres.

This government has fought to preserve health care. We've done this by preserving access to health care services, expanding community services and reforming programs. People should be asking if their elected officials in Ottawa support the Canada Health Act and if their elected officials in Ottawa are going to restore transfer payments. These cuts are a disgrace to the social values Canadians hold.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon a former member of the assembly from the riding of Perth and indeed a former Speaker of the assembly, the honourable Hugh Edighoffer, seated in the Speaker's gallery. Welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I rise today to announce new regulations on disclosing the compensation paid to executives of companies which are publicly traded in Ontario.

The new regulations will require that companies tell their shareholders the compensation paid to their chief executive officer and each of their other top four executives. They will also have to explain the process by which those decisions were reached. Previously, companies had to disclose only an aggregate total for all executives.

As well, we will require companies to show investors how their shares have performed against a market average over the last five years.

Companies will also have to reveal non-routine loans they have made or guaranteed to directors, executives, senior officers and others.

These changes benefit a very large group; namely, individual and institutional investors that have put their money into companies whose shares trade publicly in Ontario. They have taken on ownership, with all the risks and rewards that attach to ownership. We believe they, in return, have a right to full information on the companies they own. In particular, they have a right to know how much the people who run those companies are paid and how that decision was reached. These new regulations will ensure that they are told, and told in a way that is complete and easy to understand.

By making these changes, we are responding to investors who have urged that Ontario set higher standards of disclosure. These new rules make our disclosure requirements very similar to those in the United States. They put Ontario at the forefront of openness and accountability to shareholders.

These changes give shareholders the information they need in order to compare a company's performance with the way it rewards its top people. We are showing that we are committed to the investor's right to make informed decisions, which is the basis of a healthy financial system.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond. The basis on which we evaluate any proposal like this is: Will it help our investors? Will it help to attract investors to the Ontario economy? Will it help Ontario companies to stay here and grow? Will it help to develop capital?

I think that for the investors there is an opportunity to have a better understanding of both how the executives are compensated and also how they are rewarded for performance in these proposals. While I appreciate that there are strong arguments on both sides of this issue, and I am sure the Minister of Finance has heard those strong arguments, I suspect that if you use the litmus test that we use -- which is: Will this help investors feel more confident? Will it help investors better understand how companies are run and motivated? -- on balance it would come down more positively than negatively.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's a pretty tepid endorsement.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Finance says "tepid endorsement." I think he spent probably three years debating this issue and he appreciates that there are arguments on both sides.

1350

As we look down the road, I have no doubt that the future of our Ontario economy depends on our ability to grow what we will call home-based multinationals. They won't be the only salvation of our economy, but they will be an important element. An important element of that is having the environment where they can raise long-term patient capital, to use the jargon of the marketplace.

For the investors, I think this can provide some element of comfort for them. For the companies themselves, some of them may be somewhat ambivalent about it. While this may not be something that would cause an organization to choose to raise its money elsewhere, I think as we look at the totality of the environment here, one thing we have to always be vigilant of is, can we develop major, long-term, home-based multinationals here? As I say, I think that on balance this proposal may be helpful for raising capital. I don't think it will be the sort of proposal that would cause any organization to choose to not list on the Ontario market.

On a similar note, while we in the public arena are demanding of the private sector fuller disclosure, it's only fair to say that I have an awful lot of comments from the private sector on the public sector doing a better job of disclosing its finances.

It was the Provincial Auditor who, in his report dated July 23, 1993, made a recommendation which we fully support; in fact, we've made this proposal publicly several times. The Provincial Auditor is saying it is time to change the way the province reports its finances. He makes a very strong recommendation that we apply to ourselves the same kind of medicine we apply to the private sector. He says here:

"Therefore, during the 1993-94 fiscal year, I will strongly urge the government to base the financial statements on the recommendations of the public sector accounting and auditing board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants."

There is no doubt that if the Ontario government were a company, you could never get listed on the Ontario stock exchange. It would be impossible. There is no auditor who would sign the books. Now, the government's doing nothing illegal, the government is operating within its legal rights, but the books don't represent the state of the finances in the province.

I think the private sector has every right to say to us, to say to the Minister of Finance, "It is time that you apply the same restrictions on yourself, the same accounting techniques on yourself, as you apply to us." We don't mind that. While the recommendations from the Minister of Finance today are useful and interesting, I think we also have an equally large task to apply to ourselves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The first thing we might add is that to some degree this government has inherited the problem with respect to government employees and disclosure of their amounts of money. It was the previous government, the Liberal government, that changed the program on how its disclosures were worked.

To say that and move on, though, would be unfair. If the government were being fair and upright, if it's going to want disclosure in private sector corporations of the four top-earning employees, including perks and all the rest that goes with private corporations, stock options and so on, surely to goodness it could apply the same rigid demands upon its own employees such as deputy ministers. We don't know how much a deputy minister earns; we've tried on many occasions, and all you get is a range. It's rather ironic that they insist that private sector companies dealing with private money must be more stringently controlled than public sector employees dealing with taxpayers' money. That is unacceptable to this party.

Further to that, you can't find out what an executive assistant to a minister earns, but we can find out what the chairman of Ford makes. That doesn't seem reasonable. To me, that's something this government should have a long, hard look at before it introduces this kind of stuff, which we know is in the same mould as its NAFTA announcement yesterday: It's propping up Audrey McLaughlin and solidifying her single-point status in the polls.

I asked the minister whether or not the unions must disclose under the same rigid formula that you're asking private sector corporations to disclose under. Apparently not. Why is it that private sector companies have to disclose when government employees and union executives don't have to? It seems they'd rather pick and choose how stringent and tough they are when it comes to payroll, perks and salaries, but they don't want to apply the same formula to their employees or their union buddies.

The government has suggested in this statement through the Treasurer, "These changes give shareholders the information they need in order to compare a company's performance with the way it rewards its top people." Well, I think the people of this province have a right to know about your performance and the rewards you're getting for your performance with the budget, the deficit and the preflows that you're obviously manipulating, according to the auditor, to make it look somewhat better than our fiscal outlook actually is.

The auditor himself has said, in response to this government and the previous government's attitude towards preflows and towards budgeting processes: "There is a perception that the government is in reality managing and adjusting its actual results so they will more closely parallel its budgeted results. This, in turn, raises doubts concerning the integrity of the accounting process."

This is the auditor of the province of Ontario saying that he has serious doubts about the integrity of the accounting process by this government. That is shameful, absolutely shameful. The taxpayers don't know where they stand with respect to the deficit because you're manipulating the government. That's not me saying it; that's the auditor's statement.

I suggest it's ironic, hypocritical maybe, that you should come forward today and suggest private companies come clean when you can't even come clean yourself to the people who elected us, the taxpayers of the province of Ontario. This announcement is very ironic. I think the Treasurer would go a long way with the taxpayers of this province if, before he decides to clean up the private sector, the private sector that's struggling like hell to survive and then he puts more onerous and stringent controls on it -- he should look inward and examine his own party, examine his own government and apply the same standards you ask private companies to live by to yourselves, because you're not doing it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Can I use the other 40 seconds?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. As much as you would like that, it is now time for oral questions and the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, you may be aware that the Provincial Auditor appeared before the subcommittee of the standing committee on public accounts this morning. He drew to the attention of members of that subcommittee something which he considered to be a very serious matter.

The auditor told members of the subcommittee that, for the first time in Ontario's history, the auditor has refused to give an unqualified endorsement of the government's public accounts statement. Minister, I ask you today, what does that mean?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I suspect it means that he wouldn't have given your government an unqualified endorsement either. What it also means is that --

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): That's not what it means at all.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's a fact. We in Finance have been having regular meetings with the auditor to discuss the ways in which the financial statements of the province are reported. The negotiations are going on in such a way that --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Negotiations?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, negotiations -- in such a way that we can satisfy the Provincial Auditor's concerns.

Mrs McLeod: I think you have to come back to answer the question, when I ask, "What does it mean?" that it's quite clear from the auditor's statement, the area in which he has given his qualified opinion, that the auditor is saying your government has understated the deficit at year-end 1992-93. These are the public accounts statements that followed last year's budget and fiscal year.

1400

The Treasurer will certainly recall that we had a lot of concerns when he presented the budget in 1992-93. That was the budget we described as being a smoke-and-mirrors budget. That was the year in which we said from the day you presented your budget that you had underestimated your expenses and that you had overestimated your revenues. We raised a number of very specific concerns when that budget was presented. It became quite clear during the course of the year, Minister, that your budget projections were off.

I ask you again today to tell us, given the auditor's statement, what does it mean about the accuracy of the way in which your deficit was and is being reported?

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps it would be helpful if I outlined the main contention of the auditor's view of the way in which we report and record our revenues and expenditures. Just as in previous years, governments have preflowed money to pay for expenditures which would occur in the subsequent fiscal year. I can certainly remember, and I don't say this in a partisan way, the Liberal government getting a large increase in income tax settlements from the federal government it didn't expect, the opposite of what's going on now, and preflowed money for the next fiscal year. That was something the Provincial Auditor disagrees with; he thinks that's not appropriate, that we should be doing it in a different way.

Secondly, the auditor, I suspect, would prefer that everything was lumped together to show one big number. For example, you could even argue that Ontario Hydro's debt, which is guaranteed by the province, should be considered part of the provincial debt. Well, it's never happened in the province that I can recall, when Ontario Hydro's debt was considered part of the provincial debt, even though technically I can tell you the financial markets regard it as such. Financial markets look at whatever the province guarantees. They see that as part of the provincial debt. It really is a question of how the finances are reported, not whether we're hiding anything. That's not possible. It's not possible to hide the debt of Hydro or to hide --

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

Hon Mr Laughren: -- the unfunded liability of the WCB. It's simply the way in which they're reported that is the matter of contention.

Mrs McLeod: I say to the minister that this is one time that it just won't work to try and dump it all back on a previous government. I remind the minister of what the auditor has said to the public accounts subcommittee today, that this is the first time in the history of the province of Ontario that the auditor has refused to give an unqualified endorsement of the public accounts statements.

Specifically, Minister, you will know that his concern with the 1992-93 reporting was that you failed to show the liability for full payment into the teachers' pension fund and that it is a legitimate part of the government's deficit position.

Minister, you will also know that we have raised, over and over again, our even greater concerns about the way in which this year's deficit figures are being projected and will be shown. The auditor has expressed his own serious reservations about some of the very creative ways in which your government is attempting to move its debt off the books and therefore show a deficit figure which is more favourable than reality would lead us to believe our financial situation is.

Minister, I say to you what we have been saying all along: Debt is debt; public confidence in your budget is essential and the people of this province have a right to know what the true financial picture of this province is.

I ask you today, Minister, will you undertake to tell us today what the true deficit picture is of the province of Ontario in a way that the auditor would accept as accurate?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I made no attempt to dump anything on the former government. That's not the case. All I said was that if the public auditor was commenting on previous governments' budgets or reporting mechanisms or the way in which they report, I don't think that he would endorse them either because it's a change in the way the new auditor views the reporting of --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): He did.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, not this auditor. No, it's not true. That's simply not true. What I'm trying to say to the leader of the official opposition, if she'll listen, if she isn't totally programmed into what she believes and will listen to reason, is that at no point have we ever tried to disguise any aspect of our borrowing requirements. That would be foolhardy. That's simply not possible. I don't think, however, that because Ontario Hydro is off to the side and has a revenue-generating base and the WCB is off to the side with a revenue-generating base called assessments on employers -- that's not trying to hide the deficit or the debt of the province, not at all. It's simply the way in which we report it. If you go back and read the budget document, we said that we were not interested in trying to hide any aspect. We wouldn't get away with it anyway. No government could get away with it.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): You have tried.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, what we're really talking about here is the way in which it's put together and reported in the financial statements. That's all it is. We're working quite cooperatively with the auditor to see exactly what it is that he wants and how we can comply with it. There's no attempt to do an end run around the auditor. That would really be foolish and simply wouldn't fool anybody, even if the government tried to do it.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: So there's nothing untoward. There's no attempt to avoid any aspect of the debt, because you couldn't do it anyway.

VIOLENCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Since this is an issue that we, along with the auditor, undoubtedly will return to, I will move to another issue and place my second question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Minister, last session we asked that you take action to stop the sale in Ontario of trading cards that glorify serial killers. Today, we learned that the company that makes these cards is intending to bring out a new series and that this new series is going to feature those who are accused in the Kristen French and the Leslie Mahaffy murders. Minister, the cards are to go on sale in Ontario in January.

I ask you, why will you not take action to ban the sale of serial killer trading cards in the province of Ontario before this new series is released?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To the Leader of the Opposition, I do remember you asking me about this question. If you will recall, I believe in fact the question should go to the Attorney General, but she has said and I have said that I would love to be able to stop those cards from coming into Ontario. The Ontario Film Review Board has absolutely no jurisdiction in this area -- unfortunately, in my view. The federal government has jurisdiction. I have written two letters now to the federal government asking that this be stopped and I would encourage you to do the same thing.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): You don't have to pass it to the feds. You have the right to do it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the minister take her seat, please.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You can take NAFTA to court, but you can't do anything about this? Come on.

Ms Poole: You are the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. You have the power to do it.

Mr Mahoney: We would love her to answer it.

Ms Poole: You can prohibit their sale and you know it.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: I'm disturbed by the reaction I'm getting from the Liberal Party, because I want to say again, sincerely, that I wish that I did have the power to stop these cards from coming to Ontario. Believe me, I would act like that; it would be done. I don't. I have looked into any kind of loophole, any possibility that we can find within my ministry to ban those cards, and it cannot be done.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Bring a bill to this Parliament. You're a minister. Bring a bill to this Parliament. We'll pass it in one day.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: The federal government has complete jurisdiction in this area, and I'm appalled, to be frank, that it hasn't moved. They haven't even returned an answer to the letters I have written. I say again, I'm glad that you're raising this issue in the House. It's important that it be raised. It's important that people out there understand where the jurisdiction is and start writing letters and making phone calls. I encourage you to do the same.

Mrs McLeod: I'm glad the minister remembers that I did indeed raise this issue in the legislative session in the spring. I also remember the response I received from the government, which was again to say: "We will write to the federal government. We'll ask them to do something about the sale of serial killer cards in Ontario."

I ask the minister, why do you continue to use the federal government as a way of avoiding your own responsibilities? Why is it that you as the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations in Ontario can regulate the sale of cigarettes, you can regulate the sale of alcohol, you can decide essentially what movies we can watch, you certainly have it within your powers to decide whether we will or will not gamble in the province of Ontario, but you can't take action to ban serial killer trading cards?

1410

Minister, you do have the power to act. You regulate retail sales in the province of Ontario. The member from Eglinton has before this House a private member's resolution to ban the sale of serial killer cards in Ontario. I ask, will you support this legislation, support the ban of serial killer cards and ensure that the legislation is enacted before these new cards go on sale in January?

Hon Ms Churley: I appreciate that the Leader of the Opposition is giving me far more powers than I actually have. I understand the concerns and outrage which are being expressed by the Liberals and everybody in this House. We all feel the same way about this. I will be following up --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: As I was saying, I'm glad that people are raising the issue. I think we should all work together to deal with this problem. For you to get up and be silly about it and try to get me to do something that's impossible is ridiculous. This is a very serious issue that concerns all of us, it's something I think shouldn't be partisan and we should find the best way we can to make sure that these cards are banned not only from Ontario but from all of Canada.

Mrs McLeod: I really didn't think I was being particularly silly about this and I can tell the minister I'm not particularly objective about it either. I'm a mother and I have four daughters. This is not an issue that I think is deserving simply of a bureaucratic response or a put-down.

I'm telling you that the response you've given us in the House today, just like the response we got from the government last spring, offers very little comfort to the families that are involved in the murders that are going to be glorified in the new series that will be issued and sold in Ontario in January unless you take some action today.

You know, as we all know, that these serial cards glorify violence; they glorify the most appalling of crimes. The cards are widely available in Toronto. They are available in stores that sell trading cards to minors. Trading cards have traditionally been the way in which we glorify our sports heroes. Surely we are not in Ontario today telling our young people that they will glorify serial killers as their new heroes.

I say to you today that you do have the authority, that you can find the authority, that you can take decisive action. I ask how long you are going to simply evade the responsibility on this important issue rather than taking action. I urge you to take action today and I urge you to ensure that these new cards will not be available in this province in January.

Hon Ms Churley: I too have a daughter. Everybody in this House has daughters or granddaughters or wives. We all are concerned about this issue. It is not an issue only of concern to the Liberal Party. We all feel very strongly about it for all of the reasons, Madam Leader of the Opposition, you mentioned.

The Criminal Code has to be changed. In fact, right now the federal government has the power to stop it and it has not done so. They can do it, and if that would prove ineffectual, they could in fact change the Criminal Code to do so.

I urge everybody in this House again to keep raising the issue and keep raising it with the federal government so these cards don't come anywhere within the boundaries of Canada.

PAROLE SYSTEM

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Solicitor General and deals with the matter of one Clinton Suzack, who has been charged with the murder of police constable Joe MacDonald of Sudbury. News reports today indicate that Suzack was released by the Ontario parole board with an outstanding warrant on his record, an outstanding warrant from the province of Alberta in respect to violation of probation.

I want to ask the Solicitor General if the parole board has access to the criminal records of people applying for parole, and whether that includes outstanding warrants, including out-of-province outstanding warrants.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): As the honourable member knows, I cannot comment in any way that may --

Mr Runciman: I'm not asking you to.

Hon Mr Christopherson: If I could answer the question, Mr Speaker.

Mr Runciman: Stop being a turkey and answer the question then.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): What a class act.

Mr Runciman: A class act! A cop was killed and we get that kind of answer.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Leeds-Grenville is asked to come to order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: As I was saying, I cannot say anything that could possibly impact on this individual case, and the honourable member knows that. However, generically, to answer the question of whether or not the parole board of Ontario as a policy has access to this information, it is my understanding that it does.

Mr Runciman: At the outset, I don't want to apologize for losing my temper, but I want to say that I think the people of Ontario are sick and tired of this kind of response. The minister gets up and says "generically." I asked him a specific question not dealing with the court case or the charges against this individual but the actions of the Ontario parole board.

This police officer was killed a number of days ago. Suzack was released on a decision of this parole board. A chairman who was appointed by the NDP as a matter of fact --

The Speaker: Are you posing a question?

Mr Runciman: This is a leader's question, Mr Speaker. I'd appreciate it if you'd give me an opportunity to pose the question for a change.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I realize that the honourable member for Leeds-Grenville has a serious question which he wishes to pose. It would be very helpful if the language is tempered and if members on both sides of the House would allow those asking and those responding the opportunity to be heard.

Mr Runciman: I think the minister has the responsibility to answer this directly. I asked former members of the Ontario parole board about this. They indicated to me that prison files were made available, including matters of outstanding warrants, which are red-flagged. I think it's very critical in respect to this particular decision: Was that material made available to the parole board, and if indeed it was, how in the world could they release this individual with an outstanding warrant there in front of them? How could they do that?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I think I did answer the question. With all due respect, I said it is my understanding that the parole board does have access to this information.

In answer to his supplementary question, the question on the specifics here, the member will know that on Tuesday I announced that I am initiating a review of this decision because I believe there are some questions that are being asked that deserve answers too.

1420

Mr Runciman: I want to get a commitment from the minister here today in respect to this decision. If indeed he finds out -- and the suspicion is clearly there now, based on past precedents of this board -- that they had this information before them, they made a decision to release an individual, apparently, with an outstanding warrant against him, I think if he can confirm that fact all of that board should be fired, because a policeman is dead because of that decision.

There's no doubt it contributed to the death of that police officer and I want a commitment from the minister today. Will he commit to turfing the complete Ontario parole board which made that kind of terrible, terrible decision?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I would expect that the honourable member in particular, of all people in this House, would feel very strongly about due process. I have indicated to the honourable member that on this issue -- this important issue, this public issue -- I wish answers to questions also. I think that the public is entitled to know how the process was conducted and any questions that may surround that process. Therefore, I have said that I will initiate a review of that decision and I will act on the results of that review.

To speak any earlier of taking action would clearly be extremely premature and I would ask the honourable member to allow all of the facts of the review to come forward to my office before we consider what should or should not happen as a result.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): It begs the question, what about the hearings they're having today?

The Speaker: To whom is your question addressed?

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Treasurer. The auditor has come out and has come as close in the history of this province as an auditor ever has to suggesting the government is in fact fudging the books.

Mr Speaker, through you to the Treasurer, the point was made within the text of his report that if the proper accounting system had been used last year, the deficit for this province would have been $528 million higher. That is rather scary, not only for us in this room but for all the taxpayers in the province of Ontario. I put it to you very directly, Mr Treasurer, consider this report, consider the $528-million higher deficit last year, what is the deficit that we are faced with in this province today?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): As I indicated a couple of weeks ago, we believe that at the present time the deficit of the province, in the way in which we traditionally report it, will be somewhere between $9.2 billion and $9.6 billion this year.

Having said that, the auditor would disagree with that number. The auditor would say it is higher than that because of the way in which we have some what we call off-budget reporting of our financial affairs. I'm not disagreeing with the auditor. It's simply a case of how we report it. The auditor wants us to report our financial affairs in a way that's in keeping with generally -- I can't remember the exact words --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, no, the way in which public sector accounts are traditionally reported. We are meeting with the auditor to see if we can work out an arrangement in which we can make him happy with the way we report our financial statements.

Mr Stockwell: I think it's somewhat confusing to the taxpayer in this province to see this kind of report. If any reasonable person were to read this kind of report, the only conclusion they would come to is the auditor is suggesting that you, the government, are fudging the books.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, that's the way it is.

Mr Stockwell: You may say that, Mr Treasurer. You may say, "Well, that's the way it is," but the fact remains, no auditor has ever done this. No government has ever been put to the wall on how it calculates revenues and the shortfalls with which you have. I do respect the fact that you were put in this situation to a degree by the, I suppose, Laughren McLeod accounting firm, because it was the same auditor who suggested on the preflows that the perception is that the government is in reality -- and this is very important -- managing and adjusting its actual results, thereby raising doubts concerning the integrity of the accounting process.

It seems incumbent on you, Mr Treasurer, for the sake of the surety that the taxpayers have in this government, that they can come forward and pick up an auditor's report that gives the government a clean bill of health. Sir, they didn't do that. I ask you, how can you get the comfort level of the auditor and the taxpayers back to ensure that when you tell us what the numbers are there's some credibility there?

Hon Mr Laughren: What the auditor is saying is that he wishes we would report the financial accounts of the province in a different way. It's nothing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Minister. Final supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: It's somewhat disappointing to have that kind of response. I believe very much that there is nothing more important to the taxpayers and the people of this province to know than when they get a fiscal report on the health of this province, it hasn't been played with, it hasn't been fudged, it hasn't been manipulated to make the government in power look better than the actual fiscal reality of the province is. There's nothing more important than that, nothing.

The auditor did come forward on your crown corporation piece of legislation and he again savaged that piece of legislation, suggesting you're only doing this to move payroll and debt off your books so you can camouflage the real results, and the real results are that this government is incompetent and fiscally irrational.

I ask you, Mr Treasurer, will you please adopt the report by the auditor, change the forecast, change the formulation of how you're fudging the books and withdraw that crown corporation bill that is causing him so much concern, because he's saying in his text that he believes you're this close to fudging the books in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Laughren: It's wonderful to get a lecture on rationality from the member for Etobicoke West.

I just want to assure members that what the Provincial Auditor's talking about is not whether or not we've disguised anything. That's not possible. It is not remotely possible to hide debt of the province of Ontario or any other province.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): It certainly is. You hid $563 million last year.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, the $500 million is reported in the budget. It's reported in the financial statement. What the auditor is saying is, "We want you to report it in a different way," and we're saying to him: "Fine. Let's have a meeting with you and see the best way that we can accomplish your wishes." There's nothing untoward. There's nothing that fudges anything. It's simply a case --

Mr Eves: Why would the auditor do this?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, we have a new auditor in the province. There's no doubt in my mind that the auditor would not have approved of the way in which the former Liberal government preflowed funds or the former Conservative government did the same thing. There's no question in my mind about that.

Let's just put things in perspective and stop screaming and yelling that everybody's fudging the books. It's simply a case of us sitting down with the auditor and saying, "All right then, how can we satisfy you in such a way that you don't give a conditional approval to the way in which we present our financial statements?"

1430

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. You will know that in an unprecedented move, the minister is bargaining with the Ontario Medical Association as to what medical services in Ontario should be covered by medicare. The minister has prepared a list; the doctors have prepared a list. Both of those lists are of services that could be taken out of OHIP. The public has seen neither of these lists, not the minister's list nor the doctors' list. I'm asking the minister if she will tell us today what is on her list and what is on the doctors' list.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The member opposite, as did many members, expressed concern when earlier this year, as our ministry and our government wrestled with the expenditures of the health care system and for ways of preserving our system by maintaining the expenditures at a manageable level, we suggested that a number of procedures, such as the removal of tattoos and the reversal of vasectomies, might be delisted.

There was a great deal of concern about that, so in our negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association, we did, as the member for Halton Centre has said, agree that the Ontario Medical Association and the ministry would both submit a list of procedures that they believed were (a) not medically necessary and (b) might therefore not be covered by a health insurance plan.

What we also negotiated, and what is unique, is that there would be some public scrutiny and public discussion of those lists, and that will occur in due course. At that time, the member will of course be made aware of what the lists are, as will the people of the province of Ontario.

Mrs Sullivan: It's very clear that health care in Ontario is on the bargaining table. These negotiations are going on behind closed doors, out of public sight. The minister has never told the people of Ontario what she is willing to take out of medicare. She has placed the doctors in the invidious position of responding to a list that was prepared previously, not by the medical community but by officials in her ministry.

The public does not know what's involved in the decision-making process or what right of appeal they may have of the deal that's ultimately made. Is it any wonder that people are of the view that this government is part of the dismantling of medicare in Canada, and is it any wonder that they are fearful?

I am asking again: Will the minister make public today the list of those items she is recommending be removed from medicare, and those procedures and services the doctors are recommending be taken off OHIP coverage, along with any other lists that her ministry is preparing or has prepared now for a second round of negotiations? Will you tell us today what's on those lists?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member's description of the process upon which we are engaged with the Ontario Medical Association and the construction that she puts on it couldn't be farther from the truth. In fact, unilaterally in the past, governments have decided what would be added and what would be removed from the insurance system.

What we have now done, as I explained in my answer to her first question, is to embark upon a process with the OMA. I would remind her that she was one of many members who suggested earlier this year that it was inappropriate for me, as minister, or for the government to decide what was medically necessary and what was not. Therefore, in discussions with the OMA, we negotiated a process whereby both the Ontario Medical Association and the ministry prepare a list of procedures that we do not consider to be medically necessary, such as the cosmetic procedures I have mentioned, that those be discussed and that there be some public discussion of that.

That is a first, that is unique and that is something of which I'm very proud. I look forward to having the debate.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Chair of Management Board. Chair, your government intends to pass employment equity legislation before Christmas that will mandate employment equity quotas in the private sector. I wonder if you can tell us if your government has reached its employment equity targets.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member asks a very important question, and the answer to the question is quite simple: No, the government has not met its employment equity targets.

It is interesting, though, that this government, although we're still making progress and moving forward, for the first time has put in place monitoring and reporting mechanisms that will allow us to ensure that the lack of success of the past can never be hidden in the huge Ontario public service bureaucracy again.

For example, we're actually looking at, in the current circumstance, not only the employment equity gains that we've made over the course of the last three years, but we're monitoring the impact of downsizing and the surplus process on employment equity so that we can ensure that the designated groups under the employment equity programs aren't adversely affected by the present unfortunate downsizing circumstances.

Mr Stockwell: That was the longest no I've heard in quite a while. According to a memo that I have from your deputy minister responsible for employment equity, you have not met your targets, and in particular, persons with disabilities and aboriginals are underrepresented in government. According to this memo, you intend to beef up your hiring efforts of these persons by spending additional money over the next few months to hire only persons from these groups.

Minister, is it really equitable when only persons with disabilities or aboriginal persons are eligible for public service jobs? You and the Liberals have spent over $20 million in the last few years in an effort to meet your own targets, money, I might add, that isn't available to the private sector. With all that cash and staff, you can't even meet your own targets. You expect the private sector to meet them or else you intend to fine them up to $50,000.

Minister, how can the private sector live up to your mandated standards when you can't even do it yourself?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are two areas of concern the member has raised in his question. Let me address first the last one he raised. The employment equity legislation in Bill 79, which my colleague is taking through the legislative process, will apply to the government as well as the private sector. In fact, the requirements of the legislation will force the government to comply before our private sector partners have to comply.

Secondly, the member has raised a reference to a memo, which he may have but which he has difficulty reading. The government has proceeded to put in place a positive measures program around employment equity issues, and that positive measures program will not in any way restrict jobs in the public service to designated groups. It will on some occasions, where a particular immovable barrier has been identified, allow us to ensure that barrier is removed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the member for Middlesex.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Health.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Middlesex.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, my question is for the Minister of Health. Recently, a group of Middlesex optometrists provided me with information in regard to the clinical importance of the V402 examination. The concern expressed was the proposal to de-insure this optometric follow-up assessment or the possible deinsurance of this assessment without the de-insurance of an equivalent service provided by physicians.

I understand that optometrists have offered alternatives to delisting V402 and that there are discussions in regard to these alternatives. Do you plan to go ahead with the proposed delisting, and if so, will you be delisting also the service provided by physicians?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Let me say for the benefit of the House that the question raised by my colleague does not refer to the agreement between ourselves and the Ontario Medical Association but in fact to a procedure that is performed by optometrists.

I'm happy to let her know that in another and successful negotiation, the comprehensive social contract agreement, we have reached an agreement with the optometrists, and the billing code for the follow-up assessment that she describes, which I think is known as V402, will not be delisted.

Let me say to her that this is further evidence of the benefits of the social contract and that by working with health care professionals we can together find ways of maintaining our costs and preserving the health care system. I'm delighted to be able to reassure her on that count.

Mrs Mathyssen: Can I assure optometrists that V402 will not be eliminated through some other process?

Hon Mrs Grier: Yes, the member can indeed assure optometrists that this procedure will not be delisted, and I hope she will also confirm to them that we are keeping our commitment to better managing our health care system and controlling our health care costs by working cooperatively with the professions in order to arrive at that end.

1440

CHILD CARE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Rumours are rampant, and secrecy and security, whether it be red paper or numbered copies, are almost extreme around your proposal to cabinet on child care reform. Many Ontarians, providers and recipients, are fearful that you're going to limit eligibility for the establishment of new child care spaces in this province to those and those only that are in school-based settings, that you are going to limit eligibility for wage enhancement and direct operating grants to school-based child centres only.

That policy can only further erode parental choice in child care, child care which they consider best for their own families. Mr Minister, will you confirm that my information is based in fact?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): No, I will confirm that the information is not based in fact.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Minister, there certainly has to be some basis in this rumour, because it's very detailed. What we get is very detailed information from people who do know.

Families of this province have varying needs in child care. They've been ignored by this government, for the most part. The needs in rural child care are those that demand attention; the situations are very different, and certainly there haven't been many spaces available in rural settings. There haven't been many spaces, if any, available in unusual hours, hours beyond the working day. Those are real needs of real people in this province in 1993.

The fears I related earlier spring from an inability of your government to be flexible in its application of child care reform in this province. I want you to guarantee to the people who are fearful of the rumours I presented that you are not going to limit eligibility, that you are not going to limit subsidy, that you are going to broaden criteria for child care in this province, as you made a small initiative earlier in this year, that you will continue to do that as part of the reform.

Minister, I'm asking you that question very pointedly: Are criteria for subsidy and for the development of child care centres going to be broadened in the reform?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can tell the member that as we move towards making some decisions on broader issues of reform of the child care system, I'll obviously be very happy to stand up in this House and explain what those directions are, and the member will have a chance to tell us whether she agrees or disagrees.

But I can tell her very clearly that the rumours she's hearing are not founded in fact. I'm very surprised by those rumours, by the way. I can tell her very clearly that we are looking very much at recognizing the varying needs, as she's acknowledged them and put them before us, in child care, because we know there are a variety of needs and a variety of ways.

The way we have continued to respond to those needs, both in the additional child care centres we have opened, which have been in a whole host of variety of places, some in school settings, some in community settings, and the additional subsidized spaces we've put into the system, 4,000 in a space of three months last spring and an additional 4,000 we expect will be in the system before Christmas of this year, I think shows a very clear indication of the kind of level of support this government has for child care, and this is something I think we want to continue.

CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question as well is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. My leader, Mike Harris, last week raised the issue of your unilateral action to implement a user fee system within your ministry to grab $4.3 million of parental user fees and $4.6 million of the federal child tax credit directly from the federal government that goes to children who are vulnerable in Ontario, and that you intend to implement this by November 1.

Minister, your staff seem to have arrived at these numbers without any accurate information, without any consultation and without any real basis. It is clear that the $9 million to be collected through the remainder of this year and the $14 million you plan to grab out of families in the subsequent year were pulled out of the same hat the Treasurer pulls his deficit figures out of.

My question to you is, as this is your bureaucratic screwup, with these numbers and these targets against children, will you not postpone the implementation date of November 1 and revise that to the new fiscal year, until proper consultation has occurred with the families of these vulnerable children and with the agencies that serve them best in this province?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the member's concern for the services that we provide to children. I mean that genuinely.

I do want to say to him that we are continuing our discussions with the agencies through the umbrella organizations they represent, a variety of children's agencies in the province. There is a meeting coming up early next week, on Monday, I believe. There is a survey that's being done, the results of which are coming in already, and we expect to have more in tomorrow. I think that information is being discussed and shared with the agencies. Those discussions will get us to being able to answer the questions the member has posed to us.

We have on the one hand a responsibility in this area to try to look at ways we can -- not in the basic services we provide; I think it's important to keep stressing this. We're not interested in applying any kind of parental contribution or user fees in those areas, but we think there are some areas in which, just building on experiences that exist now in some agencies that do charge some of these fees, some things can be done. How we do that, exactly to what extent we can do that and what implications that has for the allocations for this year will really be dependent on those discussions with the agencies.

Mr Jackson: The minister is not discussing with agencies that serve thousands of vulnerable children in this province. They have presented an edict that this will be implemented November 1. They have presented numbers of targeted dollars, $9 million that are going to be shortfalled agencies, which they need to continue to serve vulnerable children. This is an outrage, that you're charging these user fees without real consultation.

You are telling agencies in this province that they are now to become collection agencies, when all of their staff are trained in the process of counselling and providing services to children at risk. Front-line counsellors and social workers are not trained, I submit, nor does the law equip them in Ontario, to become bill collectors and collection agencies.

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

Mr Jackson: Your message and your edict to children's aid society workers is, "The skills you need are not how to interview a child who may be a victim of sexual assault, but how well you can squeeze a Visa number out of their parents."

Again, Minister, I have to ask you: Legal questions remain unanswered, there are no accurate numbers from your ministry, so will you not postpone the implementation date of November 1 and move that to the new fiscal year so people can understand this harebrained scheme of yours to start gouging parents for fees because of their vulnerable children?

Hon Mr Silipo: What I want to reiterate for the member is that in fact that's the kind of discussion we are having and need to continue to have with our agencies. We'll make that decision once we have all the information in and once we've had those discussions with the agencies.

Let me also be very clear with the member, because he alluded to agencies becoming collection agencies. We are not talking about mandatory fees that would be established; we are talking about voluntary fees in certain areas where there are already some examples. I could cite just one example of one agency at least which we know asks parents to contribute towards the cost of driving young people to various events. It's those kinds of things that are not at the basis of the service we provide, not at the core service we provide.

Again, the extent to which we can do that and the extent to which we need to find these savings in other areas of the budget, together with the agencies, is exactly the kind of discussion we need to have and want to have with the agencies before we make final decisions around time lines and around expectations around the dollar figures.

1450

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister may be very well aware of what's been happening in Halton region regarding the whole question of property tax reform. As you're no doubt aware, as a result of the citizens committee that has been meeting over the last year on that issue, Halton regional council passed a resolution on September 30 that requests a region-wide assessment based on 1992 values rather than 1988 values and requests implementation of that no later than 1996.

In addition, the region has achieved something very rare: a consensus among its four municipalities on a reapportionment of its shared costs, to take effect next year. This will require many approvals by the provincial government and the cooperation from both levels of government. Are you willing to meet with the chair of the Halton regional council, the four area mayors and councillors to discuss their concerns regarding this very important issue?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can tell you that I'd be pleased to meet with the chair of Halton regional council. I've had a number of phone calls with him over the last several months and have met with him.

It's important to note that this was a very difficult issue the council faced. They all should be commended for attempting to reach resolution by consensus. Certainly their requests will be very carefully considered by my colleagues and myself.

Mr Duignan: As the minister is aware, consensus has been reached by the municipalities. He is also aware that as part of the process, a citizens committee on property tax reform was struck by the region with a mandate to examine alternative proposals on this issue. The citizens committee report outlines a number of recommendations. This report has been forwarded to you, Minister, as well as the ministries of Finance and Education and Training, and also to the Fair Tax Commission and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

As the citizens have reached consensus, as the municipalities have reached consensus, will you respond to the report, and what can the citizens of Halton region expect with regard to the long-term reform, considering that consensus is reached among the citizens of Halton as well as the municipalities of Halton?

Hon Mr Philip: I'm tempted to sing the song of the Toronto Islanders saying, "I passed the bill," and say, "I almost passed the bill." But I did meet with the citizens committee a couple of weeks ago; to be precise, I think it was around the middle of September, September 15 or 16. Certainly they've put a great deal of effort into their report; there are a lot of very thoughtful ideas in that. I enjoyed my meeting with them. I assured them that my colleagues and I would carefully consider the report. I hope to continue this dialogue with that committee and with the elected representatives in that area and representatives of my ministry, and we'll continue that process.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with responsibility for the Human Rights Commission. I'd like to ask her a question about a policy pronouncement made by her parliamentary assistant in committee and ask her whether she agrees with it. I'm going to read a quotation from the Hansard of our standing committee on administration of justice on September 1 and I'd like to know whether she agrees with this: "Mr Fletcher: I know. I think the Human Rights Commission's a joke myself." Does she agree with that?

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): First of all, it is Minister of Citizenship; Culture is not included in the ministry, just to clarify a point. There is a Minister of Culture who sits behind me.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Would you agree with your parliamentary assistant who said it was a joke?

Hon Ms Ziemba: No. I think I would want to say to you very clearly that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has a very important role to play in this province, has always had a very important role to play in this province and will continue to have. We think it's a very important place for people to take their --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): We knew that when we established it. That's why we established it.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The opposition is saying that's why they established it, and that's very true. I'm very pleased that the Conservatives had the foresight to set the tone for all of Canada, because it was the very first Human Rights Commission in Canada and from there we went across other provinces and into the federal jurisdiction. It will continue to have an important role to play in this province. I'm very pleased that some of the reforms that have taken place in the Human Rights Commission have been very beneficial to everyone.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): What I'm hearing from the minister is that you don't agree with your parliamentary assistant. Considering that the parliamentary assistant does not reflect your commitment and your confidence in the Human Rights Commission, and considering also that what he stated is not a part of your party's position or the government's position, do you intend to keep him on as a parliamentary assistant? Also, in terms of employment equity and the legislative hearing, we know he plays a very important role in this employment equity bill, and we want somebody who is very forceful and committed to the cause. Are you prepared to keep him on as your parliamentary assistant with those kinds of remarks?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I believe that our system of appointing parliamentary assistants, as well as appointing ministers, is similar to the previous government's, the Liberals', and to the Conservatives' as well, and that is that the Premier makes those decisions and decides on who will be a minister and who will be a parliamentary assistant. I trust the Premier will continue to make those decisions. I'm very pleased that he has the ability to make the best decisions he can.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The Interim Waste Authority, as you know, recently released its paper called Impact Management and Compensation Policy with respect to the areas of the three superdumps. I wonder if you could tell this House why you're letting the Interim Waste Authority make announcements about expropriation plans when you have not announced who's going to operate and own the three superdumps within the greater Toronto area or in fact worked out a reimbursement schedule for municipalities in exchange for the lost revenues in tax assessments after you have taken over the land surrounding the superdumps.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The two matters are not related.

Mr Tilson: I don't understand his answer when he says the two matters are not related. The very fact of the matter is that you're going to be expropriating areas in the three municipalities and the municipalities are going to be losing substantial moneys with respect to tax assessments. The fact of the matter is that you haven't even decided yet who is going to be operating or owning these superdumps. It's a most relevant question. I'm going to ask the question again: How can you allow the Interim Waste Authority to make these announcements when these questions haven't been answered?

Hon Bud Wildman: I don't allow the Interim Waste Authority to make announcements; it makes announcements itself.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): You are the sole shareholder, Bud, and the boss.

Hon Mr Wildman: As a matter of fact, as the member knows, despite the barracking from the member who's not in his seat, the Interim Waste Authority made a commitment in December 1992 that would follow on its discussion paper Managing the Impact of Landfill: A Commitment to Fair Compensation: that it would provide the commitment, and meet that commitment, to release that information.

I'm sure that anybody who is in an area that might be considered for a landfill site would want to know what the possibilities are with regard to compensation. The IWA is committed to sharing that information, which it has done. I repeat, the question about whether or not the actual sites have been chosen, whether or not the municipalities will operate the dumps --

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): You have lost control.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I don't mind; I'm used to presenting an answer with a chorus. It's sort of like a Greek play.

The fact is, whether or not the municipalities operate the dumps is not related to the question of compensation for people who might be affected around the dumps.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: It's come to my attention that my privileges in the House have been taken away from me. I'm the Correctional Services critic. I understand that Professor Frances Henry has produced a report on corrections which demonstrates that there's significant racism in our jails. That report has not been released and I, as the corrections critic, am being denied my right to see that report and to comment on it and to carry out my functions as corrections critic in this Legislature.

The Speaker: The member will know that he does not have a privilege, and he will be happy to know that he has not lost any of his privileges.

1500

PETITIONS

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas on October 24, 1991, the NDP government introduced Bill 143, the Waste Management Act, and tried to force the Legislature to pass the bill before Christmas 1991 without public consultation or notification to affected municipalities and residents and without naming the candidate landfill sites; and

"Whereas the NDP were forced into five weeks of public hearings and listened to over 200 presenters, all recommending amendments to Bill 143; and

"Whereas the NDP refused to listen or pass any opposition amendments to Bill 143 which would protect and secure individual and municipal rights to full environmental assessment hearings on waste alternatives such as rail haul; and

"Whereas the NDP used their majority to pass Bill 143 on April 23, 1992, with the full support and endorsement from Jim Wiseman, MPP, Durham West; Larry O'Connor, MPP, Durham-York; Gordon Mills, MPP, Durham East; and

"Whereas the NDP named 57 candidate landfill sites on June 4, 1992; and

"Whereas Ruth Grier and the Premier refused to meet with groups opposing the dumps and refused to consider the alternatives like rail haul, contrary to Mrs Grier's support of rail haul in January 1991; and

"Whereas Mrs Grier refused to meet with the residents and mayor of Kirkland Lake to review the Adams mine proposal and proceeded to ban rail haul without considering the impact on the northern economy; and

"Whereas the NDP government created the Interim Waste Authority to find a solution to GTA waste and operate independently from the Ministry of the Environment, but at the same time the IWA must adhere to Mrs Grier's and Mr Wildman's ideology and her ban of waste alternatives such as rail haul and incineration; and

"Whereas the IWA and the NDP government refused to conduct an environmental assessment on the alternatives and remained firm on subjecting communities in the regions of York, Durham and Peel to a process that ignores their fundamental rights to a review of alternatives and employs a system of criteria-ranking that defies logic and leads to the selection of dump sites on environmentally sensitive areas, prime agricultural land and sites located near urban areas,

"We, the undersigned, want Bill 143 revoked and replaced with a bill that would allow a full environmental assessment on all --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Markham: I draw to the member's attention that we have a time limit for the presentation of petitions of 15 minutes and that it's most appropriate if the member could simply summarize the petition, perhaps read the relevant parts, but by so doing allow many members the opportunity to present petitions.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've now finished that petition and presented it to the House with my signature affixed to it as another statement by people opposing the horrible process of this government.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for the citizens of Ontario; and

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

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

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

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario,

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for a public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I have affixed my signature to that in agreeing with it.

GAMBLING

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party 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 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,

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

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

It's signed by a good number of people from Waterloo and Windsor and I too am affixing my signature to this very well-thought-out petition.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan,

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

"Therefore, that the provincial government of Ontario request of the federal government of Canada to initiate a public review by panel of the federal Minister of the Environment to ensure an organized disposal protecting these rural resources and the community of residents therein."

Those residents were here this morning as we debated a private member's resolution on this very issue and I affix my signature in full support.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating the use of commercial providers,

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I concur with this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

PICKERING AIRPORT LAND

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): "To the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario:

"Whereas the federal government intends to dispose of surplus lands on the Pickering airport site that are agriculturally rich and environmentally sensitive; and

"Whereas the residents have not been informed of the immediacy of the federal government sale plan,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

We passed a resolution this morning, calling upon the federal government to do just that. I affix my signature and hope the federal government will now listen.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly presented the following report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 57, An Act to amend the Election Act and the Legislative Assembly Act / Projet de loi 57, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale et la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Shall Bill 57 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

The bill is therefore ordered for the committee of the whole House.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): No, third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: This is what I have here.

Mrs Sullivan: We just agreed to third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: My apologies. Sometimes the Speaker is also distracted, like members. So the bill will therefore go to third reading. I apologize for the mistake.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I move that leave be given to introduce a bill entitled An Act to amend the Municipal Act in respect of Vital Services Bylaws, and that the same be read for the first time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The Speaker being very alert, I don't have the right forms.

Mr Turnbull: I'm sorry, Mr Speaker. I don't have them.

The Deputy Speaker: You could introduce it again on Monday perhaps.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS RELATIVES AUX MUNICIPALITÉS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management / Projet de loi 7, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités en ce qui concerne la gestion des déchets.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to thank you for getting this opportunity to express some concerns that we have in Scarborough North. We know that Bill 7, which has been requested and asked for by the municipalities, is responding to the various municipalities which would like to see that they have, if you want to call it, more powers and more authority to handle their waste management facilities.

It's funny that sometimes we feel in some jurisdictions that we need more powers, but with powers come responsibility. I am confident that the municipalities are equipped to take on those responsibilities, but responsibilities also, as you know, come with the financial backing and the transfer of funds. You hear in this House over and over the blame that one government does not pass on money to the other government. We hear that the provincial government blames the federal government for not transferring funds.

Here I gathered that while the bill and the legislation is welcome, the concern of course of the municipality is that we hope the money comes along with it. One of my colleagues has spoken in the House and said that if you're giving responsibility to the municipality, please transfer the necessary funds that go along with it.

But I want to take this opportunity, as I said, to bring up a specific concern too within my riding of Scarborough North. As you know, we have been handling some matter of some wastes, if you want to call it, some radioactive soil, and where we move one waste to another area. As you know the history, Mr Speaker, and it's very important that I bring you up to scratch on all this, because about 12 years ago, as you of course have known, that radioactive soil --

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Scarborough North has a very important speech to deliver, and I think that we should have more than 11 members present.

The Deputy Speaker: You are asking if there is a quorum. Would you please check if there is a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough North.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am appalled to know that with such an important matter as this the government cannot find it possible to be present within the House to listen. I really urge you to listen to this speech. Go and get your colleagues who may be somewhere else, not finding that this is important. You have a responsibility to keep a quorum in the House.

However, as I was saying, in bringing you back to the historical sequence of this waste that we have had, and really don't know where to put it, 12 years ago radioactive soil was found in an area called McClure Crescent. Of course, the Conservative government wrestled with what to do with it at that time. They were out of power when they should have done something. The Liberal government came in at the time and decided, of course, to make the commitment to move that waste away from that area but in the meantime to find an appropriate place, and bought out about 48 homes from that area. We moved the people in time to get a place to put that radioactive waste.

Why this is important and what makes it relevant is that you just consider the fact that at this time it is a provincial responsibility to do all this moving. This bill itself, as you know, if it is passed, would make it the municipality's responsibility to find those places to put that waste.

But what happened here was that, with a lot of fanfare, the minister of the day, the present minister, Mr Charlton, announced in the House the fact that he would be removing this radioactive waste soil to another area, and he would be moving it by this fall. What had happened here was that they went ahead and purchased land in the same area of my riding, an industrial area, to put this radioactive soil on.

We talk about consultation; we've talked about consultation here many times in the House. The people felt they would be involved in this, making sure that wherever that waste went, they'd be informed. I think those people who were involved, the federal bureaucrats who were involved, said they had sent out a lot of public forum notices so that they could discuss this issue.

People in that area, the Tapscott-Steeles area -- that's the area where they're going to move the McClure radioactive soil to -- were very concerned. Mr Franklin was extremely concerned because he conducts a food business there. But what happened was that they felt they were not consulted properly, and they made their plea to the provincial government that they should be involved in the consultation, a consultation, I would say, that must take place now even though it is stated that they did get the proper notice to be involved in that consultation process.

The strange thing about this is, they also found some other radioactive soil, contaminated soil, in another area called McLevin. The fact is there is no one living at the McLevin site now. They felt that if there is a site in which they've identified some radioactive waste, they could have moved that radioactive waste which they found where there were residents -- in McClure Crescent -- to McLevin. However, it was moved to the Tapscott-Steeles area, and they're protesting the fact that it's good agricultural land and the government of today, itself, went ahead and purchased this land in order to move the soil to that area.

1520

I have spoken to the government people as to why it is they did that, and they told me it was much easier in a way to sort the type of soil, because eventually it will be moved. The most contaminated part will be moved to Chalk River. The reason why that area was selected, the McLevin area, is because of the ease of the area to make that sorting being done.

My concern here, though, is the environmental assessment. I gather from a hearing that the provincial government is exempted from an environmental assessment -- in other words, to assess what impact it will make on the community healthwise or otherwise. They were exempt. I further understand, because the federal government is involved in this, that they may come through this environmental assessment process through the federal government.

The people are concerned, though, with this hurried nature of this government, to have purchased land to put the radioactive soil in without having any environmental assessment done on it, as a matter of fact twisting their arms to accept what is already a given thing, that they will move it to the Tapscott area.

As I see the responsibility in this municipal waste management act, Bill 7, that if it is given to the municipality, I hope that they also will have to go through all the environmental assessment processing in order to make sure that the community is satisfied that these movements do not impact upon them negatively.

I was asked, of course, by my community to write to the minister of the day to meet with them for them to express their concern. It's over a month and a half now that the letter went to the minister and no response. The people of my community feel extremely left out and ignored at the fact that the minister cannot even respond to a letter asking to address some of their concerns.

The people in the McClure Crescent area have lived with this nightmare for the last 12 years. When the Liberal Party was in power, we did an initial move of moving the people. It was some relief. But the fact is that the commitment to move the soil has not yet been done and this government, which is moving on it now or attempting to move on it, I think is making matters worse. I think the fact that while I was very happy to know that something was done and it was announced in the House that something is being done, now what has happened, we have another part of the community extremely upset.

My feeling here, Mr Minister, is to meet with these people to reassure them that all the necessary precautions will be taken to satisfy them that this will not have an impact on their business. As we talk about it each day, it is important that we keep businesses going and here are individuals --

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): They are meeting tonight.

Mr Curling: -- here are individuals who are concerned. I hear the minister is saying, since I have spoken, that he has acted immediately and having a meeting tonight, because they had called me and said they had not heard a thing about that. We hope that when the minister meets with them to say the manner in which we handle waste is a matter of concern to business and also to the individuals.

Of course, we had a public forum, I called a public forum, to hear the concerns of these individuals. I am telling you, Mr Minister, they were pretty angry about this. They felt that they had waited so long, those in the McClure area, for some move to happen and when it happened there was some resistance on the other side.

The people who have businesses are saying, "Why are you moving it to our area to have such a negative impact on us?" As a matter of fact, there is a perception situation that is causing quite a few of the concerns of not only Mr Franklin himself, but Mr Franklin who has a food distribution business there. He felt that this in itself would cause a tremendous negative impact on his business.

I too, though, as I stand in the House today, want to commend the federal government bureaucrats who have been working very closely for years giving out any information necessary so that the individuals feel more comfortable about it. But one cannot really feel comfortable about it. I am still not happy that the process has gone this way. I still feel that we could have made one move, and the costs alone, I'm sure, that the minister announced here -- I think he spoke about 200 person-years of employment will be generated through this kind of a move.

Again, I don't think it's actually a matter of who will get jobs out of this thing but a matter of the social and the health concerns that are more important anyhow. I thought it rather crass that they said that, but I know the concern of people to have a job is important.

I hope, as you said, that you will meet with those members tonight. I had hoped that you would have invited me as a member there. Now I am hearing that it's a public meeting. I had hoped that the minister would have met with those people personally, more than in a public arena, to speak to these individuals after having written them a letter on this. I know that he did not call the public meeting then. Probably this meeting was called by the federal bureaucrats there. I still hope that you do meet with those members who are concerned within the area and don't use the public forum and say, "I have met with them."

One of the most difficult things for us to do since this government has taken place is to meet with ministers, to get responsive letters from ministers, and this has caused a lot of uncertainty and a lack of confidence in the government. I know they are all honourable men and women over there who want to do a good job, but each time I feel that somehow I'm not getting the kind of support that should be given, and the people are feeling the same way.

I just wanted to raise that point and say that as we handle waste in the municipality and have given the responsibility to the municipality to handle waste, the issue itself needs strong support from the other levels of government.

It's nice to pass things over. I remember when Sunday shopping was about. As you remember, when the Liberal Party, the Liberal government of the day said, "We think the municipality should be handling that because they know the community more," the NDP, the opposition of that day, was screaming at us that we are reneging on our responsibilities and passing those responsibilities to the municipality. But we of course would have passed on any necessary support in the sense of financial support or whatever support would be there for the municipality.

In this one here, I am getting a feeling, and the municipalities have complained to me, that although we want that responsibility and think it's important that we can handle it properly -- we are quite competent at doing that -- we may not get that kind of support from the provincial government.

I am saying to you it's no use that the government pass on this responsibility to the municipality without the necessary support. I would warn you that to come back and say that it's the federal government's fault why you're not getting things to pass on to the municipality will not wash this time.

I think that's why people are so cynical about politicians. I'm the last one to ever knock politicians. I think they are great and wonderful, committed people to the cause who are trying to answer some rather difficult questions.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank the minister for being here too, that I could say that directly to him. It's not often that we do see the minister in order to talk directly that way. I would almost reach the point of saying the concern is grave and it should be acted upon in a rather sensitive manner to make sure that as we go along this very important matter within Scarborough North, the people feel they've been listened to. Sometimes, somehow, while I listen to them, I really feel inadequate. I feel inadequate to know that I can take the message to the minister and nothing is acted upon.

1530

He said this will be acted upon in the most sensitive manner, efficiently, sensitive to the people in the Tapscott-Steeles area, and also to those people who for over 12 years have waited for action to happen.

While there was some action that happened by the Liberal Party and some action and an attempt by the NDP government, somehow, when this radioactive soil is moved to Chalk River, if that's the destination -- that it's moved immediately; don't take 10 years. I gather the minister at one stage stated to me that it will take about 10 years. If you're going to deal with wastes and we're going to deal with waste distribution or reduction or what have you, then let us make sure it is done with the cooperation of all levels of government and all colleagues in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member seemed to imply that I'd be responding to the bill, but it's not my bill, so I thought I'd get up and make a few quick comments about the circumstance he raised in his comments about the bill.

On the situation of the radioactively contaminated soil from McClure Crescent which is proposed to be moved, I want the member to just understand several things quickly.

We are being as sensitive with those who are concerned about this move as we can be. Having said that, the member needs to understand that, first of all, those people were notified on a regular basis throughout the process and for whatever reason chose to ignore the process, didn't show up until it became publicly clear that the move was actually going to occur. People have to start taking some responsibility for the decisions they make, and when a process is offered, they have to participate in that process. It is not always adequate for them to come back after the fact and say, "We didn't know," because they were personally mailed and notified.

Secondly, though, to try and be sensitive about this difficulty that's arisen around this project, we've extended the consultation period by 10 weeks so that these people can be fully brought into the process. We offered the business group that is concerned here an opportunity to join the citizens' advisory committee. Unfortunately, they declined that opportunity. We will continue through a public process to encourage them to come out and learn in real terms about the facts of the case in terms of what it is that really confronts them, both in the context of waste disposal and in the context of impacts around their property values, so that we can attempt to assure them that this proposal is not a proposal they need to fear. But they have to become part of the process if they wish to gain those kinds of assurances.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Scarborough North, you have two minutes.

Mr Curling: The minister stands up to correct me. Let me just say to him, reading from Hansard, he said, "Today cabinet has approved the purchase of a site in the Tapscott industrial district," and he said of the area, "I am happy to report that about 200 construction-related jobs will be created over the life of the project when excavation of the McClure soil begins this fall."

He talks about permanently, that he has made that decision. You bought the land, you're going to move the thing, and it says "propose." That is not a "propose." To go out and buy a piece of land, to move land, that's not proposed. Those are commitments that you are making. Don't say that you proposed to do that. What if it's turned down? You have wasted taxpayers' money, because you proposed to move the land in the Tapscott-Sewells area? That's one area.

The other area he talks about, that this area of consultation is there, the people have appealed to you to say that in the consultation process they did not get proper hearings on this matter. I'm not going to debate you on that, because I also knew of some public forums that were there. I will not take you on in the sense that you're right: There were public forums and the people weren't there.

The matter is that as we bring the pressure of the debate down a bit, I know, I'm confident, that the matter will be resolved. I think you have got the issue, that it is a very sensitive area and it's hard to resolve very easily.

I know your concern too, Mr Minister, is only with regard to the purchasing of it, and the other minister is also involved, but if you can catch one minister here, what I try to do, in a sense, is to make sure that you get all the message and pass it on to the other ministers. But I feel that waste management has to be handled in many ways very sensitive to the concerns of the people and the community.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I'd also like to thank all the members who have participated in this debate. I'd also like to thank the staff from the Ministry of Environment and Energy and also from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for their hard work in bringing this bill to where it is today.

I'm very pleased with members who've participated here in the last two days on this particular bill and a little surprised that they -- of course, I guess, that's one way of getting a message out to your constituents, when you get up in the House and debate a particular bill, even though all three parties agreed with this bill unanimously in committee and, I understand, here in the House. I'm pleased we've come this far.

I'd like to address just a couple of issues. I know there's other business the House has to do, but on the issue of funding I want to let the House know and let the public know that this government is going to continue the 3Rs program. It has been retained and there have not been any cuts in that program. We'll continue to make progress in the 3Rs. We have to do that; otherwise, landfill sites will be filling up faster than they are now.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I thought that the member would appreciate if some of his colleagues would come in. I don't think we have a quorum here.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You are the government.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there's a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Essex-Kent.

Mr Hayes: As I was saying, if we don't continue with the 3Rs, landfills are going to fill up faster than they are now, and as everyone in this House knows, trying to find new landfill sites in this province can be very expensive, unpopular and of course a waste of land, a waste of farm land.

That's one of the issues that was raised several times in this Legislature by members of the opposition, and especially when they are critical of the blue box system. On the one hand, they're saying, "Get rid of the blue box system," and also, "Reduce the garbage going into the landfill site." It really doesn't make any sense to me.

I know there were concerns about the blue box system, saying that there have to be other alternatives. The only other alternative I've really seen, which some of the opposition have made, is searching for landfill sites -- we cannot continue on that --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No, no.

Mr Hayes: -- with the exception of the member for Etobicoke West, who indicated that we should be looking at other alternatives, but he also mentioned that there are no markets; I believe he said, "The market isn't there." Let me just tell the member for Etobicoke West that there are markets for blue box materials.

Mr Stockwell: Tell Metro.

1540

Mr Hayes: And they aren't recycled materials just being stockpiled or sent to landfills, as was suggested in this House.

Mr Stockwell: They are.

Mr Hayes: All blue box materials are being successfully marketed, some 450,000 tonnes per year. The only exception is for grossly contaminated materials.

Mr Stockwell: Bunk. Who told you that?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke West, order, please.

Mr Hayes: All recycled newspaper is being sold to recycling mills and in fact Ontario is a net importer of old newsprint. Recycled glass is being recycled into new glass or used as a construction material in the regional roads. The market is there. I guess it's like any kind of business. We have to continue to look for those markets and expand on those markets to make these programs successful.

I am rather surprised at the criticism that we are getting on this particular bill, because it's a bill where the municipalities have come to the government and said, "We want the authority to deal with the 3Rs." I want to tell you the criticism we're getting there is not from the municipal leaders. There are some people who think maybe those municipal leaders don't really know what they're talking about when they're coming to the provincial government for assistance. But let me tell you that those municipal politicians are duly elected and that they are the voice of the people they represent in their municipalities. One of the things the people in this province don't want to happen is for us to continually dig holes in the ground to dump the garbage in.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): That's right. They want to burn it.

Mr Hayes: No, they don't want to burn it either. It's just the Liberals and the Conservatives who want to start a whole bunch of fires and burn the garbage.

The province right now is presently working with the private sector on the private sector's contribution to the cost of recycling and managing these projects. Some of the members across the way talked about, "Who is going to pay?" Let me tell you that the existing system with the blue box is that 45% of the cost is borne by the individual municipalities, 35% by the province and 5% by OMMRI. Of course, 15% of that is financed from material revenues.

We have industry involvement here and we're talking about who is going to pay for this. We are suggesting, and I believe we are getting cooperation from industries, from OMMRI, that they pay a larger share. In other words, those who create the packaging, those who create the waste will have to pay for it and share in the costs if this is going to be a successful program.

The Ministry of Environment and Energy is working with municipalities on reducing the cost of recycling. For instance, currently, the Ministry of Environment and Energy has a project to help North York reduce its costs.

One of the other concerns was the user fees. People say, "This is just another form of revenue." It is a form of revenue but not only a form of revenue: to help with the 3R programs, to help municipalities to pay the costs.

Interjection: Stop any time you want to.

Mr Hayes: I can stop any time I want? Thank you.

I want all members to know that it is a permissive piece of legislation, when we talk about the user fees, and many municipalities, many environmental groups and individuals have supported it.

Mr Speaker, I know there is a lot of other business here. I think we can wrap this thing up very quickly.

Mr Stockwell: You couldn't have told us everything you know in 10 minutes. Come on.

Mr Hayes: I'm going tell you everything the member for Etobicoke West knows in five minutes. If I ever needed a heart transplant, I'd take it from those people, because theirs have never been used.

I want to thank everyone who has participated in this. I hope we can move this very quickly and the municipalities can really get on with working with private industry, this provincial government and the citizens of this province to clean up the environment. Let's move on with the 3Rs program.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Hayes has moved third reading of Bill 7, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management. 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.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to know if it would be allowed that I could be shown as opposed to that.

The Deputy Speaker: There is no mechanism that exists to that effect.

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

Mr Sutherland moved third 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 / Projet de loi 17, Loi prévoyant le plan d'investissement du gouvernement de l'Ontario et concernant d'autres questions relatives à l'administration financière.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'll just try to catch my breath, coming up here from committee.

I'm pleased to move forward the Capital Investment Plan Act, 1993, for third reading and royal assent.

As announced in February 1993 by the Premier, this bill is part of an infrastructure development strategy and is a key component of our government's overall plan for economic renewal. This bill represents a commitment to invest in jobs and public infrastructure vital to keeping Ontario competitive. Once established, the four new crown corporations will serve as new delivery vehicles for capital investment and will seek new sources of funding and innovative partnerships with the private and public sectors.

1550

This bill, which I present here today for third reading, received the approval of the standing committee on general government on August 18, 1993. Several amendments have been adopted in the bill, and I am happy to say the committee witnesses were supportive of the direction and content of the bill. I just want to add that I think we had a very good committee process. Amendments were put forward, both by the government, which were supported by the opposition, and by the opposition as well.

The Capital Investment Plan Act allows the province to invest more in important infrastructure projects than would otherwise be possible. It enables the government to do more for economic renewal and job creation across Ontario during a time of serious fiscal constraints. By using new and creative ways to invest in jobs and infrastructure now, we're laying the foundation for a strong and competitive future for all Ontarians.

The Capital Investment Plan Act is a very new approach for this province, but it's not new for other provinces who have used this approach to finance much of their capital infrastructure plans.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: On a matter such as this, which is seeking to hide hundreds of millions of dollars of debt from the public's view, I believe there should certainly be a quorum present to debate this issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please check whether there is a quorum?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is now present. The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: Mr Speaker, I think I've just about concluded my opening remarks on third reading. As I was about to say, I look forward to the new comments that may be provided by those who are going to comment. We had an extensive second reading debate, a very thorough discussion in committee regarding some of the issues around this piece of legislation.

Despite the best wishes of the member for York Mills, there is nothing that is being hidden in this legislation. Everything's been announced; everything is out in the open. All the people who need to see what is going on will be able to see the final, successful results of this legislation going through, which in the long run is a stronger infrastructure which will mean a stronger economy.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Urged on by my colleague the member for Etobicoke West to just say a few words about these opening remarks -- I will be debating the issue; however --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Just a minute, please. I did ask if there were questions or comments. There being none, I then asked, are there any members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I didn't hear you.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt precede the member for York Mills? Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

You were under the impression, I am told, that you wanted questions and comments, is that correct? Okay. Nobody stood up, and the Speaker has to react accordingly. The member for York Mills, you have two minutes.

Mr Turnbull: The comment by the parliamentary assistant that nothing is being hidden from the electorate, I suggest, is somewhat of a fantasy, and I will more fully explore that when I'm debating this issue, I believe on Monday. However, there can be no doubt that the government will not be successful in hiding this debt from the bond rating agencies, which are already looking very askance at this government.

There is no reason to create these corporations. The functions the government is proposing to finance could be achieved without creating these corporations. If indeed there were a move to reduce the number of civil servants to be able to get rid of debt, I think we would be applauding it, but in point of fact they're creating a new type of crown agency: They've created a schedule 4 crown corporation, where all of the people who are moved from the civil service will have all of the rights and protections they were afforded under the civil service act.

But I have no doubt that come the next election, this government, which will not suggest this today, will try to suggest that those people are no longer civil servants: "Look how fiscally responsible we've been, and we've reduced the size of the civil service." This doesn't hide it from the bond rating agencies, but this is an effort to try and hide debt and civil servants from the view of the taxpaying public, the people who are concerned about the activities of this government. There's no doubt that the banks are most alarmed by the turns of this government, and these mechanisms will not be sufficient to save them from the inevitable sanctions of the bond agencies.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): There are a couple of very critical questions that need to be answered, and to date I haven't heard an answer. I put it directly to the member for Oxford: You suggest in your speech that this will allow you to spend money on these programs that you otherwise couldn't spend. Can you tell me how come you couldn't spend it if you didn't create these crown corporations? I don't understand why as a government you can't just go ahead and do these things internally rather than create these crown corporations.

The second point was that it allows you to accomplish things that you suggest you can't accomplish today. Can you explain that to me as well? I don't understand how come you can't accomplish any of these goals within the context of the broader revenue projections that you have today. It makes absolutely no sense to me why you need to create crown corporations to develop sewers and clean up our waterways and create financial institutions etc etc. Why is it you have to create crown corporations to do this?

Why I ask those questions is because I call this the jiggery-pokery act. I call it that because --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You gave Gerry that line.

Mr Stockwell: Sorry. I've used it before, though.

Why I say that is much what the member for York Mills has said. It doesn't allow you to do anything different from what you could do today, other than moving a significant number of employees off the payroll here, and a significant amount of debt off the debt load there, to crown corporations scattered about the province, thereby claiming that your consolidated debt and consolidated payroll is less. But it doesn't work that way. The bond agencies won't believe it. The auditor won't believe it, and he said so in his report. This is nothing but fudging the books.

So the question stands: What is it you can accomplish by creating these four crown corporations that you can't accomplish by simply going ahead and doing these kinds of things within the internal framework of this beautiful place we work in?

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): On the same general theme that the member for Etobicoke West was commenting on, during the committee hearings for Bill 17 we received a presentation from the Provincial Auditor. I have it in front of me. He presented a series of proposals.

Proposal A was for a management responsibility provision. He delineates there how the books would be kept, the kind of recordkeeping that would be there, with the purpose of making "management responsible, in generic terms, for the maintenance of books, records, systems and practices," and then making "appropriate internal auditing a management responsibility," then also to provide "legislators with ability to assess performance of management which a memorandum of understanding would not provide." So the first thing he was really after was a whole new sense of how corporations such as these, when they're set up, would have a structure of reporting back to the Legislature.

Another proposal he made was that there be an annual reporting provision, so he was asking for "the financial statements for the corporation and any subsidiary corporations, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles." In other words, they're not always right now, but this would begin to force them to do so.

1600

He asks for a number of reporting provisions which he felt would adhere to the general accounting principles in the legislation. It's the kind of thing that would provide for more accountability within these crown corporations. Finally, he was asking for something that helps with the "planning and budgetary provisions."

During the committee hearings, it was generally felt that the government is moving to these kinds of things, that there is discussion under way about it. But the government was not prepared to accept any amendments which were put forward by myself and also by my colleague from the Liberals to make significant changes to the bills that would incorporate the protection that the Provincial Auditor was asking for. Could you explain why again?

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Oxford, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Sutherland: Again, despite the best wishes of the member for York Mills, I'm sure he's going to be sadly disappointed to know that the Ministry of Finance has already had discussions with the bond-rating agencies and the various people who lend us money to fully explain what we're doing. So they're fully aware of what the situation is and know that we're not trying to hide anything.

The member for Etobicoke West wanted to know what is the need for these corporations. Maybe he should ask his colleague the member for Markham, because I know in the York region they're very interested in getting Highway 407 done in a much quicker way. The reason that it can't be done right now is that capital allocation for highway construction is done on a yearly basis. There's no long-term way of planning.

Through the establishment of these corporations, you can do a longer-term financing because you have an ongoing revenue source coming back in. In this case, it's tolls on the roads for the construction.

The member for Markham has raised the same issues again that he raised in second reading, that he raised in committee. He wants to raise them again here. The auditor has requested that accountability frameworks be set up. We have said that they will be put in the memorandum of understanding. They put forward amendments to put them in the legislation.

The reason we said we didn't want them in the legislation at this stage is because the auditor is working with deputy ministers, including the deputy minister for management, to work out a legislative accountability framework, as required by the standing committee on public accounts, before changes are made to the Audit Act.

If we put these provisions in that were requested here, they may not be the final result, so what you'd have to do is go back into the legislation and change that again. That doesn't make a lot of logical sense. We're going to put them in the memorandum of understanding. Whatever accountability framework comes out, it'll still apply to these corporations.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you to the member for Oxford. Are there any other speakers who wish to participate in this debate? I recognize the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to begin the debate in third reading on Bill 17. Just for everybody who may be watching, this is the final stage of this particular bill.

I think it's fair to say this is a very significant piece of legislation for the province of Ontario. We are talking about the establishment here of, to use the jargon we use around here, four new crown corporations, crown agencies. We call them schedule 4 agencies.

These four agencies will have staff of over 3,000 people, and by the way, these are 3,000 people who used to be on the public service docket, if you will. They're going to be moved off that, over into these four crown corporations or schedule 4 agencies.

We're going to see them spending, without doubt, at least $2 billion a year. All the management of the province's finances, all the management of what is now roughly $70 billion of debt, plus the management of the borrowing for municipalities and school boards, will come under this agency. So we're talking about an agency that will be managing a total amount of borrowing well in excess of $100 billion.

Just for the viewers' information, Ontario last year had the two largest borrowing issues in the world outside of what's called sovereign governments. Outside of national governments, Ontario had the two largest borrowing issues in the world last year, and we're going to set up under this bill a crown corporation outside the government's scrutiny to manage that.

We're going to set up a crown agency, what will be called the Ontario Realty Corp, to manage all of the government buildings. I'll talk about that later on, but what's going to happen is that the government is going to sell off to this realty corporation all of its buildings and its land and then lease the buildings back. Then we're going to set up an Ontario Transportation Capital Corp to build things like Highway 407, and the Ontario sewer and water corporation.

There is merit in some of the ideas in the bill, and one of the key considerations right now out there, to use the jargon again, is the public-private partnerships. The Pearson airport is an example, maybe not a good one. There's a whole -- almost an industry. In fact there's a major conference coming up, I think next month, on public-private partnerships, and there's merit in some of the public-private partnerships.

This bill will, the government believes, assist in establishing and facilitating more of those public-private partnerships. I'm sure watching right now are two huge consortiums that are putting together the bid to build Highway 407, which will be worth billions of dollars to the consortium that wins that bid. There are an awful lot of people out there who are watching this debate on the establishment of the sewer and water corporation, because it too will spend billions of dollars on building sewers and water treatment plants.

That's the element of the bill that has merit; it is government looking at creative new ways of refurbishing our infrastructure, and I think all of us who look ahead at, "How are we going to keep our infrastructure refurbished and built?" understand the need for new solutions. That's the part of the bill that I think merits support and merits encouragement.

On the other hand, there's an awful lot in this bill that requires intense scrutiny. In fact today in the Legislature there was a highlight of the Provincial Auditor's concerns about the way the books of this province are kept. He has signalled that it is his intention to -- firstly, for the first time ever, the books last year had a qualified opinion. For the first time ever, the Provincial Auditor said, "I have some concerns about whether these books, for the public, represent the real state of the finances of the province."

He didn't say anything was done illegally; he just has concerns about whether they represent the true state of the books. Then he says, for this year, which we call the 1993-94 fiscal year, he is urging the government to change the way it reports the books.

I would say that one of the primary driving forces behind that recommendation is this bill. There is no doubt that this bill has two intentions. One is one that I can support, and that is, as I said earlier, trying to find creative new ways to build and refurbish our infrastructure. But in my opinion and I think in the opinion of the auditor, there's a second reason for this bill and that is to hide debt, hide the deficit, hide the amount of borrowing that takes place in the province. I think that's why the Provincial Auditor made this strong recommendation in commenting on last year's public accounts.

1610

I want to run through a few specific examples of what's going to happen as a result of this bill. Firstly, all of the school, hospital, college and university capital is going to be funded in a different way than it currently is. What's happened for the last decades, literally decades, is that every year the province provides to the school boards and the hospitals in this province roughly $600 million a year in grants to help them refurbish their infrastructure -- repair the hospitals, repair the schools and, where schools need new schools, assist in the building of those -- $600 million a year every single year in grants.

What this bill permits is for them to do something different. They are moving from a grant-based financing for those schools to what they call loan-based financing, which is a complete misnomer. What this bill does is to instruct the school boards to go out and borrow the money on behalf of the province and the province will commit to repay that over 20 years. What that simply does is transfer, totally, artificially, $600 million a year of provincial debt off the province's books on to the school boards' books. There is no question about that. Nobody has been able to refute that and the province has a 100% obligation to repay that.

As my colleagues have said, the bond-rating agencies will see through that. It is just having someone else go and borrow your money and you have the obligation -- and the Ministry of Finance has confirmed to me that what it means is that in five years the province will owe $2.825 billion to the school boards of debt incurred on behalf of the province, but it will be on the school boards' books.

Now, that's crazy. It is so transparent and so wrong and it makes, in my opinion, no sense and we fool no one over time; maybe temporarily because the province -- and this year the province has already done that. In the budget, you will find that the capital expenditures the province reports had been decreased by $600 million because they've transferred that on to the school boards. But 100% of the obligation for paying that is the province's.

I know this may sound rather dry, like my voice, but it means, without doubt, that we are running up debt. As sure as goodness, we're running up provincial debt on someone else's books, but the province has a 100% obligation for paying that. I just think that makes no sense, and no one on the government side has been able to give me any legitimate argument of why that is happening. That, in my opinion, is one reason why the Provincial Auditor has raised the issue.

The second thing that happens as a result of this bill is the establishment of something called the Ontario Realty Corp. Now, again there can be a mild amount of merit in the Ontario Realty Corp, properly handled, but I will tell you what's happening there. According to the documents the government has provided me -- there's the setting up of the Ontario Realty Corp. Its prime motivation right now is to feed money into the province. The province makes it go out and borrow money, the province then transfers land and buildings to the Ontario Realty Corp, the Ontario Realty Corp gives it the money, and the province reports that as revenue and takes on some long-term debt.

Specifically, at the end of March the province initiated what I think has to be the largest land sale in the history of the province. If anyone has ever seen one transaction of this size, I'd like to know it. At the end of March 1993, the province sold $450 million worth of government land to the Ontario Realty Corp. The Ontario Realty Corp went out and borrowed $450 million, gave it to the province and the province showed that as revenue.

We had an interesting debate here this morning, for people who aren't familiar with it. Three or four of the government ministers were mad at the federal government for selling off land in Pickering. But it was interesting to me that at the same time as they were angry with the federal government for doing that, at the very same time, the province sold off $450 million worth of its own land, including, I might add, two golf courses in the middle of the property we were debating this morning. I see here that the Seaton golf course was sold and the Whitevale golf course was sold, along with 195 acres in Pickering.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and Government House Leader): None was sold.

Mr Phillips: Someone on the other side is barracking that none of them was sold. I can only go on the basis of the information that the government provides the opposition. I asked the question, what are the properties that have been purchased by the Ontario Land Corp? They say, "See appendix 1." I have appendix 1 here, the MBS properties acquired by what's called the Ontario Land Corp in 1992-93; it's a government document. I see here Pickering, 195 acres of open space; Seaton golf course, 117 acres; Whitby, 1,355 acres of agriculture. That was last year.

What's going to happen -- maybe because they're out of land -- I see here is that over the next two fiscal years about another $500 million of Management Board secretariat accommodations are intended to be acquired by the Ontario Realty Corp. These include a variety of types of properties such as hospitals, correctional facilities, courthouses and detention centres. Then what will happen as the jails are sold and the courthouses are sold is that they're not being sold to the private sector or someone out there who is looking to buy a jail.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): They're not going to lease them back, I hope.

Mr Phillips: My colleague has his finger on it. It is a total paper transfer. We are going to sell $500 million worth of jails to, guess whom? This crown corporation we've set up. We then will show the $500 million as revenue coming to the province, so we've got this revenue flowing in, and then we will lease them back.

Mr Bradley: Is Houdini still alive?

Mr Phillips: Is Houdini still alive? But my point is this: We are kidding ourselves. This isn't an asset sale. This isn't selling off spare assets. It's so transparent. The problem is that, firstly, we overstate our revenue by $500 million. There's no doubt about that. Then we take on a significant new annual cost.

The challenge with this issue, I say to my colleagues, is that it is frankly dry matter but it is extremely important. That's why I commend the auditor. He has his finger on this and is saying, "We've got to understand what we're doing here." I repeat, I can't think of anything as transparent.

I understand, and any prudent government that had spare buildings and assets it didn't need should be disposing of them. But the thought of, "We will sell off our jails and then lease them back," as I say, all we're doing is showing transparently revenue coming in. If you sell $500 million of jails, you take on a new annual cost of at least $50 million. I went over the land issue, and frankly, some of this is no doubt excess land. Some of it legitimately could and should be sold. But selling jails and courthouses to ourselves, the Ontario Realty Corp, and leasing them back is transparent.

1620

The same thing is happening with the office buildings. Various government office buildings are being sold off and leased back. Again I say, if we've got spare buildings around, sell them, get rid of them. But just to do a transparent paper transaction like this, in my opinion, is distorting the books.

Mr Bradley: Hocus-pocus.

Mr Phillips: Hocus-pocus, as my colleague said. So that's why I've now raised the concern we have about the new way to finance school and hospital capital. School boards out there should realize that they're going to have to go out and borrow, on behalf of the province, the money the province used to give in grants. The school boards have been told, "Don't worry about it because we will commit to repaying it." It's on, I think, page 83 of the budget.

Mr Bradley: I hope this is in Treasury Watch because I read that every time it --

Mr Phillips: Some of it is in documents we've produced before. But on page 83, for those people out there who are interested in what's happening with their money, with their hard-earned tax dollars -- this is the point -- they tell the school boards to go and borrow the money but they say, "School boards, don't worry, this will not impose any additional costs on the institutions," that is, the school boards, "as the province will provide the institutions with annual instalments required to repay the loan."

What the province desperately hopes is that no one will add up all the debt that it owes on someone else's books. Again, I say, one reason I feel better today than I did a few months ago is that I think the Provincial Auditor, thank heavens, has his finger and his staff's finger on this issue and will make sure the public is fully informed of the problems.

The establishment of another crown corporation: I use the jargon around here that we use, and I apologize for that, but it is the setting up of another schedule 4 agency. I've talked about the realty corporation. The Ontario Transportation Capital Corp will be set up. This will be another schedule 4 agency.

I think we should recognize there is a certain element of potential merit in this. As I said in my opening remarks, any government that isn't prepared to look at some new creative ideas to funding infrastructure I think makes a mistake. Certainly, we've got these two huge consortiums out there right now that are preparing their bids for this toll road and I think it should be looked at with very much an open mind.

I would say that while we in the Liberal caucus are very supportive of looking at, to use the jargon, reinventing government and new approaches and certainly are prepared to look at the establishment of this crown agency, I think all of us will want to examine carefully the actual proposal for the toll road. I know that, I guess in any research we've seen, the public tend to support toll roads. I think we all intellectually support them, as long as it doesn't happen to be the road I had counted on to go from home to work and back again.

That will be the issue on Highway 407, I think, that for those people who may have located there and who had an expectation that -- and many people do. They say: "Listen, I've paid for 401, I've paid for 404 and for 403. Now my 407's coming, and I'm counting on that to get me from home to work and back again."

Mr Bradley: Tom Walkom has been critical of that in a column yesterday.

Mr Phillips: Well, and for all of us, we are desperate for jobs in this province, I think every single party. No one has a monopoly on concern about jobs, and no one's been harder hit than our construction trades.

Mr Bradley: They need an infrastructure renewal program.

Mr Phillips: My colleague says an infrastructure renewal program, and that's one of the reasons why we in the Liberal caucus are prepared to have an open mind about the transportation corporation and to look at some new ways of doing things.

As I say, the issue will be when we get down to the specifics of the toll and I appreciate that, as I recall the bill, one of the provisos had to be that there were alternative ways people could get around besides the toll road. The problem I think we'll find on 407 -- I may be wrong, but I think we'll find -- is that that road system, the transportation system in that area, has been laid out on the assumption of 407, and the ability to travel without using 407 in that area I'm afraid might be limited. Consequently, I think we owe it to the people in the area of the 407 to look carefully at, what are their real alternatives if they can't use 407 and what will the toll costs be?

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I'm sorry to interrupt my colleague but I was wondering, he has been making several comments, some rather detailed information. I wondered if he was quoting from Treasury Watch, which he puts out occasionally for everyone in the province who is interested in this. I'm just wondering whether that's the case. Perhaps he would like to tell the House whether that's what he's quoting from. I was wondering.

The Acting Speaker: To the member, that is not a point of order, thank you.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comment from my colleague, and actually part of this is in a document that I do call Treasury Watch. It's an opportunity for me to give some views on the expenditures and what not. This particular one was dated October 7. I did indicate there that the Provincial Auditor has expressed some very strong concerns about the way these crown agencies will be reported in Bill 17.

One of the previous speakers referenced the fact that the Provincial Auditor came to our committee and had, I thought, some very good recommendations. We in the Liberal caucus moved those as amendments to the bill. I might say the Conservative caucus had the identical amendments -- it just happened that we had priority for moving them -- and the members from the government caucus on that committee rejected them.

The point I'm making with the Provincial Auditor is that this bill has the potential to distort the way we report our finances. So even with the good parts of the bill, we end up undermining some of the good parts of the bill by playing, as one of my colleagues said, jiggery-pokery with this bill.

Back on the transportation corporation, I'm saying that there is merit -- I hope all of us believe this -- in looking at some creative new ways for building infrastructure. Toll roads can be one of them. I think conceptually one has to look at toll roads, and then you get down to the specifics. This isn't like the toll roads we see in the US, which are from major destination to major destination. This particular toll road that's being proposed is running through an existing fairly strongly populated residential area and I think will impose a fair economic burden on some of the people who thought they were going to be able to use that.

1630

I also see, as part of the capital corporation, the possibility of other creative solutions for capital. In the jurisdiction I live in and represent, Scarborough, I know the local council is looking for some creative way of extending what we call the LRT, the light rail train, in Scarborough further northeast. It's possible a private-public sector partnership could be formed, and it's possible this bill could help facilitate that. On the transportation side there is some merit, but there's a need for close scrutiny.

I've talked about the realty corporation and the transportation corporation. The third one here is something called the sewer and water corporation. Make no mistake: We in the province are facing significant infrastructure demands on our sewer and water system. I think there are many municipalities in the province that are going to have to find ways to significantly upgrade both their water and sewer systems. The intent of this piece of legislation is to help facilitate those private sector partnerships.

I would say again, though, that we should understand exactly what we're doing here. First, the province each year gives grants to municipalities in the range of about $150 million to help fund infrastructure replacement on sewer and water. What they're planning to do here with their grants is exactly what they're going to do with the school and hospital and university construction. They are going to say to the municipalities that it will no longer be in the form of a grant: "You go out and borrow the $150 million, but tell whomever you borrow it from not to worry, because we will repay that $150 million over a 20-year period."

First, we have $600 million a year on school capital that the province historically provided in grants but is now getting the school boards to go out and borrow and it will undertake to repay it over 20 years; similarly with sewer and water. That's great for the government for about two or three years, until the debt piles up on those other books. That's one thing that worries me about the sewer and water corporation.

The second thing is this. I think we all have to go in with our eyes wide open on the sewer and water corporation. It only works if you move to full-cost recovery, I think is the jargon; I hope I've got the language right. The premise of the establishment of the Ontario sewer and water corporation is that future projects must be on full-cost recovery. Conceptually, that's fairly easy to nod to, but in reality, when you get down to the details, what it generally means is a doubling or tripling of your water bill. That's generally what it means.

I think all of us support the need to refurbish our infrastructure on sewer and water. If we're going to have the kind of environment we want now and in the future, we're going to have to make some significant investments. But I think we have to at least recognize to ourselves, what does it mean? It means people's water bills in the areas where they get this will go from somewhere around $250 per household to somewhere between $500 and $750 a household. That's the real cost, but I'm not sure people are prepared for that yet. I'm not sure they'll view it as anything other than a tax by a different name.

Many will say: "It happens that in our municipality we've happened to pay that for water because over the years we have subsidized it through our property tax, and now my property tax isn't going to drop but my water bill's going to go up between 100% and 200%. It's going to go to $500 or $750."

In some respects we've never had that debate here. In some respects this bill is presupposing that that debate's taken place. My understanding of the bill is that the only way the sewer and water corporation can really work is if you move to full-cost recovery, and when you're talking full-cost recovery, you're talking generally about a very substantial increase in water rates.

One thing I think the public is increasingly aware of now is that governments are finding creative ways of imposing taxes under a different name. I don't think a day goes by that I don't get a call from someone saying, "Do you know what just happened to my fee" for something?

I think the government is brilliant moving to the five-year licences. It used to be a three-year licence and it's now, I think, five years; you renew your licence for five years. It's brilliant because in 1993, 1994 and 1995, the revenue the government gets goes up dramatically. Now, in 1996 and 1997 there is zero revenue from personal licences in the province because everybody will have bought their five-year licence and nobody will renew their licence in 1996 and 1997, unless they're a brand-new driver. So it's brilliant on behalf of the government that's in power up until 1995, and then the ones in 1996 and 1997 will suddenly find for two years there's zero revenue on drivers' licences. I don't know how much that is. I think it's $100 million a year; not insignificant.

The point I'm making is that as governments say, "We have to find creative new revenue sources and we want to stay away from taxes," it's fees, fees of every kind. I can imagine that the Minister of Finance has probably turned over every stone there is to find ways to take fees up. I repeat, I get calls daily. I had a call from some constituents of mine who want to appeal their property tax. They feel their property tax is too high. Well, guess what? There's now a fairly significant fee attached to appealing your property tax. Creative: It will raise millions of dollars of new revenue. Wherever people are turning now, they're finding the fees.

That's what I think we're going to find when the toll road finally materializes. People will understand that this is just a creative tax on them. By the way, I repeat what I said earlier: I think the people along the Highway 407 area will be particularly interested in the toll roads.

On the sewer and water corporation, the things I want to highlight are, first, that it presupposes we move to a full-cost recovery on our sewer and water projects, and I think many environmentalists would agree with that. Conceptually, I think many people would say there is a need to recognize what it truly costs us to maintain our quality of water and our quality sewage system. But when that first bill comes out and you find your water costs have gone from $250 to $750, I'm not sure I want to be the one answering that phone call.

As I say, the reason I raise this is that this is quite an omnibus bill, and it is sliding through on the merit of public-private sector partnerships and finding ways to get things going and create jobs, both of which we very much support, but we feel an obligation to highlight the concerns behind it.

1640

The fourth crown corporation, crown agency, schedule 4 agency that's being set up here is the Ontario Financing Authority. It's less clear in the bill what its role is, but it is clear that it will be first a crown agency out of the eye of the Legislature. Workers' Compensation is a similar agency and the Minister of Labour often, as I did -- I used to be the Minister of Labour -- gets a question on Workers' Compensation and says, "It is not my role to interfere in the day-to-day operations of Workers' Compensation." We're going to do the same thing with this Ontario Financing Authority.

I don't think there's perhaps anything more fundamental to the province than the management of its finances and the management of its debt. I dare say that it's important today and it's going to be more important in the years ahead. I think everyone now understands that the debt has essentially doubled in the last three years, that we're looking at a debt going probably to $90 billion in two years.

This agency called the Ontario Financing Authority is going to manage all of that plus the Hydro debt, plus it will, as I understand the bill, take on the responsibility for borrowing where school boards want to and where hospitals want to and where colleges -- a huge responsibility, and it is completely out of the authority of the Legislature.

People can say, "Well, you can ask questions on it." Yes, but it's like Workers' Compensation; it is a schedule agency away from here. The Minister of Finance of the day can say: "You don't expect me to get involved in the day-to-day operations of this. It has its own board, it has the outside expertise and all of those things."

That one I frankly see relatively little merit in. As I said before, I've tried to be fair about the merit in the transportation and in the sewer and water, but I see relatively little merit in the Ontario Financing Authority and I see an awful lot of downside for the public. I see that the sort of opportunity, on a day-to-day basis, for us to ask questions about where the borrowing is taking place and how we are managing the debt -- all of those things will no longer be possible here in the Legislature. I see no public benefit in the Ontario Financing Authority and I see some major risks.

The fourth one, as I said, the Ontario Realty Corp I would speculate is probably one of the things that really got the auditor's antenna up, where at the end of March $450 million worth of land sold.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): It got dumped on to the market.

Mr Phillips: Dumped on to the market, my colleague said. Furthermore, it's often the Ontario Realty Corp, which is "an arm's-length, independent agency," where out of the sight and scrutiny of the Legislature -- and then the idea of selling $500 million worth of jails and courthouses I think is questionable, is probably the most charitable thing I can say.

The only thing they've ruled out, by the way, I think they've agreed they won't sell the Legislature.

Mr Sorbara: It's not theirs. They rent it from the University of Toronto. It belongs to the University of Toronto.

Mr Phillips: That may be.

Mr Sorbara: The government House leader knows that.

Mr Phillips: It says buildings that aren't saleable. You're right. So it catches the Legislative Building. I guess the reason they can't do it is that we don't own it. Is that --

Mr Sorbara: We don't own it, no. It's a long-term lease.

Mr Phillips: It would be a mistake to try to sell it then, because I think the auditor would be upset with that.

On that, on the Ontario Realty Corp, I think there are serious questions that have to be asked about why it is being set up in this fashion and some of the transactions that are taking place, including, as I say, last year's $450 million worth of land being sold and this year the plan to sell $500 million worth of jails and hospitals.

Mr Sorbara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think the remarks of my friend from Scarborough-Agincourt are important enough so that the government could do us the courtesy of providing a quorum for the House.

The Acting Speaker: Could the Clerk please determine if there is a quorum present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor and may wish to resume his remarks.

Mr Phillips: The realty corporation -- I've indicated many of the concerns that I think the public have. Most reasonable people are clearly of the opinion that government must dispose of its surplus assets, and I could not agree more. Where the public gets cynical about what we do is when we say we're going to sell $500 million worth of our jails and our courtrooms and then turn around and lease them back instantly, where we essentially just simply borrow money from ourselves. Again, I think that's where the Provincial Auditor really raised his concern.

The next thing I'd like to talk about is just the establishment of these schedule 4 agencies. They're a new breed. There were not what are called schedule 4 agencies established until really 12 months ago, I think. In the last 12 months, we've had eight of them established: the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, OTAB as we refer to it here; the four that are being established here; the property assessment corporation -- remember I mentioned earlier that suddenly some brand-new fees have come into the assessment process. I'm sure that's the first step by the Ontario Property Assessment Corp -- the road safety agency and AgriCorp.

What is the purpose of these things? The president of OPSEU in one of his comments said in his judgement -- why are they being set up? -- in his judgement they are being set up to move spending and head count off the government books. That was in his judgement the prime motivation behind setting up these schedule 4 agencies.

1650

With just the four agencies that we're talking about today, the realty corporation, the financing corporation, transportation and sewer and water, my understanding from the testimony is that there will be almost 3,000 people who used to be on the government payroll and head count, civil servants who would be regarded as with the government, who will be moved off the books into the schedule 4 agencies. Nothing's changed. All of their status remains the same. In fact, if you flip open the phone book now, actually the Ontario Realty Corp --

Mr Sorbara: Is a reality.

Mr Phillips: The Ontario Realty Corp is a reality; it's there. Government Services no longer exists in the phone book; you look under Ontario Realty Corp.

Mr Sorbara: Parliament shouldn't interfere with the will of the government, should it? Why should Parliament interfere?

Mr Phillips: How many people are we talking about? Three thousand. The clean water agency will have in the order of 1,000 staff; the realty corp between 1,300 and 1,500 staff; the financing authority will have in the order of 250 staff, including the provincial savings offices; the transportation office will be quite small, I gather, with 10 to 15.

My point is that with just those four agencies 3,000 people will be moving, just artificially moving, with a stroke of a pen, off the government books on to another book.

If I were in government, it may be a good thing to do because as you are heading up to, as they say, the end of a mandate, you'll show the number of people working for the government now, the number of people working then, and show reductions, but much of it's artificial if all we're doing is the same number of people being moved off the books.

Similarly with spending, because if you look at the budget, the government, just on capital alone, is saying, "We are going to continue to spend" -- this was at the time they presented the budget -- "on capital $3.9 billion, but we're going to move $800 million of that off our books on to someone else's books. It's $800 million this year; next year, as I recall, the capital spending off the books goes to $1.2 billion; $1.7 billion.

Make no mistake that a major objective of this bill is to keep spending the money, but try and get it reported somewhere else, try and get it on someone else's books; keep the number of staff, but try and get it on someone else's books.

The reason I raise this, and the problem with it, is that we do have a financial problem in the country. I think we all understand and accept that. We will never deal effectively with it unless we collectively understand and agree on the magnitude of it. As long as we continue to focus on, in my opinion, playing games with the numbers rather than looking at the real numbers, the public has difficulty in being able to deal effectively with the problem. I go back to complimenting the auditor who I think is going to be an ally for the opposition in terms of dealing with this.

Bill 17 is a bill that, as I've tried to articulate in my comments, has some merit. The parts of it that merit support are these private-public sector partnerships. I repeat that I know there are dozens, if not hundreds, of companies out there right now that are anxious to get on with this public-private sector partnership, and we see merit in that. In fact, as I said earlier, you're going to see a major conference in the month of November on it. It's a thing that most organizations are prepared to look at. That has merit. Finding those new partnerships, as I say, has merit.

Things that I think all of us need to worry about on this bill: the attempt to hide significant amounts of debt on someone else's books. We will only fool ourselves for a very short period of time. As I say, the most obvious one, $600 million worth of school capital, is just so transparent. Looking at selling $500 million worth of jails and courthouses to ourselves is totally transparent.

The $450 million worth of land: As I say, some of it, I hope, is legitimate and has been properly evaluated. I was told earlier today that some of the ones that we were told were sold weren't in fact sold. I'm not sure we've been given the right information, but I'll make the assumption that the $450 million which the government took into revenue last year and says was a result of these sales is true.

The realty corporation: major reservations about it. The sewer and water corporation: As I say, the good part about it can be some new partnerships. The problems will be, as I said before, that the government every year spends $150 million on capital in those areas. They're now going to continue to spend $150 million, but run it up as a debt. We're just going to run up roughly $150 million worth of new debt on someone else's books, along with the $600 million of school and hospital capital.

The Ontario Financing Authority, as I said, will have the responsibility for managing well over $100 billion of debt. Here it is: at arm's length, schedule 4, out of the Legislature, off the consolidated revenue, hidden from public scrutiny. It makes no sense to me. That one makes no sense to me and it made no sense, frankly, at the hearings.

Finally, I think we are well served by the Provincial Auditor, who has been galvanized into action as a result of this bill. The Provincial Auditor commented on last year's public accounts, the 1992-93 public accounts. He, by the way, confirmed what we had been saying all along, and that is that the province had delayed making a payment to the pension funds.

This always bothered me. The province owed the pension funds of the teachers and the public servants $584 million, due January 1, 1993, last fiscal year. The province delayed it for three months, to April 1, into this fiscal year. That was bad enough. The auditor says: "Listen, that's distorting the books. That was an expense that should have been last year. You moved it."

But what really made me angry was that the province, in order to get agreement from the pension managers to do that, had to pay 11.25% interest on that. That cost the taxpayers of this province $50,000 a day, for nothing. That's what really irritated me. The auditor has pointed out the distortion of the financial numbers, but the agreement was that the province had to pay 11.25% interest on that money for the three months that it delayed the payments. That's $50,000 a day. Believe me, we got nothing for that -- zero -- other than that the Premier was allowed to report a deficit $584 million lower than it originally was. That made my blood boil. I've raised that issue several times. The numbers have been confirmed.

1700

When you start to play games, it costs. It costs in terms of credibility, and that one cost the taxpayers $50,000 a day on increased interest payments, which I thought was a travesty; I really did. I don't know how the government ever allowed itself to do that, and I don't know why the taxpayers haven't been as -- I guess they have been as angry as I have about that.

The bad part of this bill is that I think a prime motivator behind the bill is to try and distort the real finances of the province. I've articulated today many of the areas where I think that's happening. The challenge for us in opposition is to recognize that in the bill there are certain elements that merit support, but at the same time to take the opportunity to point out where there are some real deficiencies in the bill. I hope the public has a better appreciation of it. Certainly we in the opposition will, as we've been doing today, continue to point out the concerns we have with the bill.

I'm encouraged by the Provincial Auditor's intention to really bird-dog this thing and to ensure that the government not be allowed to get away with the distorting part of this bill.

I'll look forward to the remainder of the debate and to the opportunity to vote on this some time in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments.

Mr Sutherland: I thank the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for participating in the debate. He didn't raise a lot new today; he raised the same comments that he did in second reading and at committee, and that's fair enough. But I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is being selective in what information he's presenting. I guess that's the nature of political life.

He talked about the MUSH sector going from a grant system to loans-based financing, saying that school boards will have to go out and carry the loans. What he doesn't say is that we've guaranteed that we're going to sign a legally binding contract to guarantee that we're going to give them the money to cover the debt and interest. That's a pretty important point to leave out.

He talked about the clean water agency and about water rates going up. Well, first of all, the clean water agency is not the organization that will be setting the rates. It will still be local municipalities that have the authority to set what the water rates are.

He said this bill is going to send us in the direction of full-cost recovery for water rates. I'd like to suggest that if this bill weren't in place -- probably the direction everyone suggests we go is into full-cost recovery for water rates, so to suggest it's the bill doing that is not accurate.

He also suggested that what the financing authority is going to do will be hidden from the Legislature. That's simply not the case. Like any other corporation under Management Board directives, it will have to table annual reports. Those reports will have to come before the Legislature, so the information is not going to be hidden from the Legislature and from the public.

I appreciate his comments but, in fairness, the whole story needs to be told, and not just parts of it.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt did a service to the House in his remarks today, because he spoke quite positively about the need for a new capital infrastructure that we all recognize is a burning matter in many areas of the province. He spoke about the need for innovative financing mechanisms which are recognized not only in this jurisdiction but in other jurisdictions as well, and those innovative financing mechanisms will assist in keeping Ontario competitive.

He also spoke, however, of the need for integrity in the presentation of the financial statements of the province. Mr Speaker, I think you know and many other members will know that there is a syndicate of investment dealers who provide advice and counsel to the province, through the Minister of Finance, with respect to their capital issues and their financial planning for capital. Those investment dealers, not only Canadian but American and European and Japanese, assist in the taking of those public debt issues to the market. The investment dealers have also provided advice to the government that there must be integrity in the financial statements that are produced by the province. The investment dealers have indicated to the Treasurer and to others in this government that those obligations which are created through the transportation capital corporation, the clean water agency, the realty corporation and the financing authority should be consolidated into the statements of the total provincial accounts at the conclusion of each year; not tabled in the Legislature, as the parliamentary assistant suggests would happen, as separate entities, but included as a part of the consolidated statement of liabilities and assets and expenditures and revenues of the province. They should be there in full force for everyone to see.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further questions or comments?

Mr Turnbull: My colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised a very important issue when he started speaking about the question of sale and leaseback of crown property. In the experience of the commercial real estate market, typically, those companies that go to that vehicle for financing are really at their last gasp, and one of the reasons that rents are usually set at a rather high rate to the company that purchases the property and then leases it back to the vendor is because they know there is an increased risk. Indeed, one of the first things any purchaser looks at in assessing the purchase is the risk factor.

I suspect the fact that Ontario is a very large and still a relatively prosperous province will allow the province to sell those assets, but I would suggest that this is still a giant shell game. When we start talking about sale and leasebacks of jails and courthouses, the obvious question is, is the government going to suggest that there should be a withholding tax exemption, such as the withholding tax exemption the government wanted from the federal government when the province was seeking to sell the rolling stock of GO? In other words, they were going to sell it to offshore investors, and the very people this government normally vilifies as corporate welfare bums, the people who would invest, would probably be seeking some sort of tax shelter. Apparently, this government found that quite appropriate when it was talking about selling GO stock. My question would be, is that what they're thinking about with respect to their properties?

The Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has offered up some rather interesting points of view. Considering the concerns that he has outlined in his statement, or dissertation, to this House, it appears that the Conservatives and Liberals are on the same side of this particular issue. We certainly enjoy the support from the Liberal caucus in not supporting this kind of jiggery-pokery. This is the kind of thing the auditor was talking about.

When we asked the questions today of the Treasurer of Ontario -- or the Finance minister, whatever his title is -- exactly this is what we were speaking about, and exactly this is what the auditor was speaking about. He was saying: "You've got to get your books in order. You've got to start reporting out expenses year-in." They've got to be tabled here so all of us and the public out there know exactly where we are in fiscal matters.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: We've got the member from Cochrane mouthing on the way out, I suppose, Mr Speaker. Just let him leave. Thank you.

We're looking at this exact issue, where you can start four crown corporations and move debt off, move employees off, and so on and so forth, and not report out in a consolidated manner. If this government learned one thing, and one thing only, from the auditor's statement, it should have been that he doesn't like this stuff. He believes in his heart, as you read his report, that you're just trying to fudge the figures. I think that's important to bring out.

1710

I applaud the critic for Finance from the Liberal Party. It's very clear he's seen through this. It's very clear that they've seen through this bit of deception offered up by the government, and I will say to them I thank them for bringing this forward. I'm very pleased to see that they're going to line up on the side of the auditor, they're going to line up on the side of what's right, they're going to line up on the side of what's good for the taxpayers in the province of Ontario, they're going to tell them what the truth is and, if it's tough business, they're still going to let them know because the taxpayers, and the Liberals will tell you this, have a right to know.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate all of the comments and I won't try to respond to all of them in detail, but the member for Oxford made my point. He confirmed exactly what I said, and that is that you're going to have the school boards go out and borrow $600 million on your behalf and you'll commit to pay it back. That's my point. I made that point exactly.

It's so transparent. You're going to say to them: "I don't want to have to go out and borrow $600 million because people are getting very tired of me. You go borrow it for me and you tell them, 'Don't worry. The province will pay it.'" What in the world are we doing? Why don't you just borrow the money yourself?

The member for Halton Centre I thought had very solid advice, consistent with what the Provincial Auditor has said. The Provincial Auditor in his report says, "The inclusion of all organizations owned or controlled by the government in order to provide an account of the full nature and extent of financial affairs and resources of which the government is responsible have to be part of the consolidated statements." The member for Halton Centre, who knows finances well, makes that point and I agree with it completely.

The member for York Mills raises a good point about examples of where the government is playing games with the books. As he points out, the GO train sales -- selling $325 million worth of rolling stock and then leasing it back and using out-of-country companies to buy it so they can depreciate it -- it's all transparent. It's just like the selling of $500 million worth of jails. Consequently, I think we have our position clearly before the Legislature.

The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: As we carry out the final gas in trying to bring some sense to the senseless, it's an effort, at least by opposition parties, to cause the government to rethink, reconsider what it's moving ahead with, with 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.

It's quite a thick bill. We spent several days in the Legislature debating it. We also spent a week during the summer in committee hearing from different agencies, boards and groups commenting on it.

A number of amendments have been made to the bill. The amendments that were presented by the government all passed. The amendments by opposition, as is usual for the last three years and a bit, were all defeated.

It still doesn't take away the importance of members of the opposition to reflect on what this bill is all about, what it means and what its implications are for the province. Sometimes one wonders whether there is any value to it, because by virtue of standing in this House and speaking out on it, the evidence is in on every bill that we've been dealing with that when the government decides it's going to proceed in spite of the vigorous opposition that we provide, in spite of very reasoned and carefully thought out amendments and considerations, the government will singlehandedly move ahead with its own agenda.

It's a consistent pattern of a government that has a majority and will use that majority to accomplish whatever ends it decides. If in their minds those purposes are totally valid and justified, then they proceed. If in fact other opinions come forward, I just have no way of knowing how one can persuade this government to rethink its positions.

It makes it very, very difficult when you're in opposition and you'd like to be able to contribute something. The most that I will be able contribute today is something to Hansard. I will have the satisfaction of at least having put on the record the concerns of our leader, Mr Harris, the member for Nipissing, members of my party and also people who are raising the kind of concerns that I hope to draw attention to.

As with everything that their government does, it's not all bad. But what is bad is the hidden agenda or what might well be the real secret aspect to what this bill is all about.

Let me just comment: On May 17, the government announced what this new infrastructure was all about, and in so doing unveiled all the great benefits that would accrue to this bill. Let's just highlight it, because we all want to see certain benefits. But the underlying question that I ask is, would you have to start up four new crown corporations in order to achieve these objectives? And if you're able to do it in other ways, why then go to all the effort and the sleight of hand that is part of this presentation and this bill to bring it forward and cause us to think we're really getting something fantastic?

When you start looking at it, it says it's going to enable universities, hospitals and school boards to gain access to loan-based financing for capital projects. Yes, so it will. But you could also do it through the existing system. It's going to be a new way for the government to do business. Well, you can do business with government if you know how to open the doors over there and how to allow business to come in. But this is going to be the new way to do business with government.

You don't necessarily have to have four new crown corporations to achieve that objective. If you just had cabinet ministers who answered their phones or opened the doors, or a receptionist who said, "Look, the world of business, we as a government want to do business with you. The government is not going to operate in isolation. The government is actually willing to entertain ideas that can allow us to get the market going and other forces and juices of the province so that enterprise can exist," so that government is not operating in isolation but the government at that point would be working in cooperation with business and industry and labour.

But no, the government isn't prepared to do that, so the government's saying, "Well, no, what we're going to do here is we're going to start up a whole set of crown corporations to work with business." False premise. The real place to start doing that is with ministers, members of the Legislature, parliamentary assistants, deputy ministers, the whole system of some 90,000 people who make up the key working force of the public service of the province of Ontario, to give them the message from the government that says, "We're open for business and we want to do work with the public and private sector," that everybody is going to be welcomed if they've got some way of getting Ontario back to work.

No. This is the way the government does it: They're going to come along and boast at election time, "We went and brought in these four crown corporations and those are the models we're looking to as to how the government is trying to work with the private sector." It doesn't need to do it that way. The government itself could instead have a far more open-door spirit to the private sector and to all people who want to do business with them.

Again, one of the premises to the legislation is that through these bills we're going to have a way of doing private sector business, and in fact that's what's deluded and I think misled a number of the private sector people when they see, "Okay, at least we have a chance to bid on some roads now. The 407 is going to go ahead, so please don't object to the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, because it's a good thing." I agree. To get 407 and new highways built, however they're going to be done, is a good thing. But do you need to have a new crown corporation to achieve that goal? Very simply, our caucus believes no, that is not necessary.

He goes on to say -- now, this is the kind of bragging the minister gave when he announced this fantastic new bill. He said, "This bill is going to be efficient, flexible and cost-effective." Well, I again challenge the government to go back and look at every ministry and every minister and every deputy and everyone within the whole public service and ask them, instead of coming along again and saying, "It's going to be over there" where you're going to have the efficiency and flexibility and cost-effectiveness. Everyone who is within our public service in the province of Ontario should bring that to their jobs.

1720

I know it's very difficult to do that all the time when you're so busy responding to certain kinds of needs. The job of being in the public service is not an easy one. The job of serving the communities and people with problems and needs all across our great province is not something that just happens. As to the commitment by people in Community and Social Services to help those people in the field, and those who are in sports and recreation or culture or citizenship, we're most blessed in the province by having such a dedicated public service.

But as to the concept that starts at the top with an industry or a business that says, "We have a mission statement and the mission statement for our organization is that we are going to be efficient and flexible and cost-effective," again, what we have is the use of words that sidetrack the issue into crown corporations. There is nothing that is being expected from these crown corporations that cannot nor should not be implicit and an integral part of what the government is all about.

Then he goes out and they describe how this is going to be more cost-effective to develop highways and rapid transit. We all want the end objective, but as you start looking at what I'm leading up to, you're seeing the whole use of words, where the government has just flowered up this announcement in such a way that it would make you think we're getting something through these crown corporations that otherwise would not be possible.

Underneath the words is fraud. Underneath all the very kind, lovely words of what they're describing is an ugly, dirty, rotten fraud of the government of Ontario. I see this as a way in which there is a second agenda, and that second agenda has to do with moving the money from the Ontario budget to another agency --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Speaker, that comes really close. That's like about that far away.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Markham. I note that the member for Markham did not accuse any individual member of the House of committing fraud. However, the member might wish to select his words carefully so as to at least not cause disorder.

Mr Cousens: Is "fraud" out of order, Mr Speaker, when it's used in the proper context?

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I beg your pardon?

Mr Cousens: In fact, it is in the proper context. As we discussed this in our own caucus this week, and as we've been dealing with what this government is trying to do with the transferring, the magical removal of moneys that are part of the province of Ontario, from the books of the province to --

Mr Perruzza: You guys are developing a monopoly on self-righteousness. You can go to the bank, make a deposit --

Mr Cousens: If the honourable members are going to interrupt --

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: You're allowed to interrupt me, Mr Speaker, but if they can't stand up and speak on this as they're supposed to, I'd ask you to deal with them accordingly.

The Speaker: The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Cousens: The point that I'm making is that it is fraudulent when you come along and start moving moneys from one set of books to another set of books and give the whole impression that what you're doing is something beautiful and pretty. The fact is, it's ugly and it's underhanded and it's fraudulent.

Here's where it is. You go to page 19 of the very important book that comes out from the province, the Ontario budget. In the budget the government outlines its capital expenditures for the year, and in that way we have a sense of knowing what's going on. You add up the books and what they're then saying is that the budgetary requirement for the year is going to amount to a deficit of $9.2 billion in total for the province of Ontario.

That's the number the media and the public walk away with. They say: "Hey, it's under $10 billion. Isn't that good?" Isn't that good, Chris? The government's operating. Isn't that something, that number? The number's wrong. All you have to do is go and read the fine print, the double asterisk underneath that when it talks about capital expenditure.

Mr Stockwell: Ah, the old double asterisk trick.

Mr Cousens: This has a double asterisk trick, and the asterisk says, "Capital expenditure and debt adjusted to reflect new capital financing arrangements by $0.8 billion in 1993-94, by $1.2 billion in 1994-95," and in 1995-96, by $1.7 billion.

The issue is that what the government is trying to do is say, "We are operating with budgetary requirements of $9.2 billion," but you know, they don't go and put on the printed page -- it's too bad the cameras can't get it here. The honourable members have their own copy of the budget, which everyone was provided with, but if you take and add the $0.8 billion, that gives you very simply a $10-billion deficit.

That just leads to other questions, because we keep on asking the Minister of Finance, "What is the deficit?" and the number keeps changing, for a combination of reasons. The economy still isn't good, but he sure doesn't know how to forecast it, and the government continues to spend money on programs and programs. But the issue here is not on other issues; it has to do with the way in which the government presents the books. The books do not reflect the very real cost that is being set aside to start up these capital corporations.

As long as you understand that the government is going to follow its own agenda, that the government is going to take those moneys and do what it wants to do with them, what we as parliamentarians have to face up to is that as the money is moved off the books of the province of Ontario to crown corporations, there is an increasing removal of the purpose of members of the Legislature.

Therefore, as with previous decisions of the government, the decision-making powers that are being moved away from sitting members of the Legislature through to the ministers' offices or, through them, to crown corporations mean that there is less need for Parliament itself. We are being run more and more by committee or by bureaucrats who have been given the powers that should be here in this House, represented through responsible ministers who then are able to bring forward all the information and data and background that pertains to these crown corporations. The moment you start moving it off the books into smaller crown corporations is the moment you take it away from being accessible to members of the House through either questions we ask of a minister or through other ways by which we can get the data.

We end up having to go to annual reports like Ontario Hydro. Ontario Hydro is a crown corporation, so if we want to know what is going on in Ontario Hydro -- it has a board of directors. Michael Cassidy, former leader of the Ontario NDP, and other people they have appointed to the boards are the ones who have become directors of the crown corporations, not the members of the Legislature, who should be the boards of directors for all the agencies and all the activities that are going on in the province of Ontario, not others who are not elected to that responsibility.

As we have built these empires that are no longer part of what the Legislature is all about, we end up diminishing the role and responsibility of members of the Legislature and build the private empires of others who become the heads, who run those organizations.

I see this as a significant matter in a number of ways. One of the big issues is, first, the loss of control by the elected members. It's something I have never seen as much as I have during the past three years when the socialists took control of the province on September 6. When they took control on that day, the people of Ontario had a real good feeling about Mr Rae. He said his was going to be an open government, that he was going to be accessible. He had his Agenda for People, and they thought it was going to be a government that was available.

What has happened is that with this kind of decision and others which I'll refer to that are like it, it's a removal of power from this place, this House, the chamber which makes the rules and laws of the province of Ontario, to these other agencies.

1730

The classic of all classics, which has my community still up in arms, is Bill 143 and the creation of an Interim Waste Authority. If ever anyone tried to find anything out about the Interim Waste Authority from the Minister of the Environment when it was Mrs Grier, who started it, or now from Mr Wildman, you're just whistling in the wind. You can't get any answers because the minister says: "Oh, they're in the process of studying this. They don't necessarily have to report to me until they've completed their study and their evaluation." By being one step removed from the Legislature, it is almost out of reach for those of us who have concerns about different issues.

The Interim Waste Authority's a classic, where the government has set up a special authority in which the sole shareholder is the Minister of Environment and Energy. The minister has total control over what goes on when they finally make their report and takes the responsibility for it. Meanwhile, during the confusing process they're involved with, we as members have lost our ability to put our finger on issues that come up.

All you had to do is see the outrage of the mayor of the city of Vaughan and her extreme displeasure at the way the Interim Waste Authority -- it's a classic example of the way crown authorities come along and are given authority to do something. They say the terms of reference will be the selection of 57 landfill sites and then, after they have started that process, at the last minute, when they're down to their short list of selecting one landfill site for York, Durham and Peel, they say, "In the city of Vaughan, there's a certain sand and gravel pit we didn't look at in the first series of sites, so now we're going to add it to the list." They don't extend the time frame for people to analyse that new study. They don't give the opportunity for the public to understand what they're doing. You just get an announcement. It's by fiat, some marvellous way in which the government decides things.

There's the mayor of one of our leading cities in Canada trying to understand and react responsibly to a government crown corporation, the Interim Waste Authority, and can't. Her member of the Legislature, who tries to bring forward questions, as well as myself in the neighbouring community can't, because the Interim Waste Authority is out of reach.

That is what's being created with the four new crown corporations. That is exactly what we've got with Ontario Hydro, a huge corporation out of control. You start looking at it and say, what are the statistics? The only place you can find them is when you get to the annual report and see that the costs are $7.4 billion, $7.5 billion, $7.6 billion in 1992. Then you start looking at what's the long-term debt. It was $34 billion in 1992, and that's up from $25 billion in 1988. It just keeps rising. It's out of control, because there's no one in charge of the shop. It's so far removed that even the minister, who gets involved in other activity, important or otherwise, doesn't have the opportunity to really get his or her finger on it, or hand or whatever. It's out of control.

When we, as members of the Legislature, receive a presentation from the Minister of Finance saying, "I'm introducing four new crown corporations as part of the new Ontario plan to expand and build infrastructure," understand that in his words he's making it sound attractive and good and nice. Underneath that is the business of -- first of all I make the point of loss of control, which I've touched upon, because the running of these corporations, the administration of them, is now going to be through other officers in the schedule 4 companies, as is described under all kinds of agreements. It's still outside our reach.

The second point is the way in which, through the establishment of Bill 17, the government is going to be in a position to move not only money off the books of the province of Ontario -- as it already has, as I pointed out, in the Ontario budget document; some $0.8 billion is being moved off this year -- but also, watch what happens in the next provincial election. We can't announce the date yet because the Premier decides, but it's probably in the spring of 1995. Fifteen to 18 months from now, the Ontario Legislature will be up for re-election.

We'll be out campaigning and stumping away in the short time of a campaign period, and when the government makes its announcement, "We have decreased the number of people in the public service in the province of Ontario," people are going to say: "Isn't that something. How many have you decreased it by?" They're going to come up with a number. I'm not sure what it will be; it could be 2,000, it could be 3,000. The number I'm thinking of is the one that pertains to the establishment of the four crown corporations, where the government has moved people from the public service payroll to the schedule 4 agencies they're now under as crown corporations.

They've moved the money off the books and they'll move the people off the books, and then the government's going to say, "Aren't we doing a fine job? We've reduced the number of public servants in the province of Ontario" by whatever number that is, and that is fraudulent. I call that a deceitful way of dealing with the truth. If people are supposed to be stupid, then the government is assuming that the public does not understand --

The Speaker: I caution the member on his use of language. I know that the honourable member for Markham would not want to use language which would cause disorder in the House, and I also know he would not want to use language which diminishes the stature of our Parliament. I would ask him to please carefully consider his language.

Mr Cousens: I appreciate it. I think one of the important things is that in the House we at least have room for honesty and that there is a place for integrity. I certainly want to bring that in everything I'm trying to do.

I'll have to go back to a thesaurus and find another word to describe the very thing that is going on here. It's the removal of certain numbers from the books and putting them in another set of books, and the books you look at don't give you the numbers that are the real numbers. I'd like to find a way of describing that. If there is some way of saying it without using the words I just used, I would be interested. Maybe someone could phone me and tell me another word to describe that, where the government says, "Here's the real deficit of the province of Ontario; it's $9.2 billion," but if you look in the fine print and in the annual reports of the new crown corporations, in fact it is another $0.8 billion that's already part of the cost of doing business in Ontario.

Does that get a name of some kind? An auditor would call it dishonest accounting. If you were in a public business, you'd be going after the corporation and trying to get the head of that business -- actually the upper part of the body -- and have them removed from office. Indeed, I will seek to do that in other ways: I'll seek to remove the NDP from office in the forthcoming provincial election.

I intend to make sure that people understand that what the government is purporting to do in these bills is something very positive. To get Highway 407, to get the new waterworks, to do some of these things is positive, but you don't need to change the books, to put it into another set of books; you don't need to cook the books, the way this government's doing. That becomes the whole point of what we can maybe call the shell game, the mammoth shell game of the province of Ontario, where the New Democrats have ways of moving money from one box to another box. The problem is that you really don't know where the shells are any more.

Our job as responsible opposition is to make sure that when this government is starting to transfer not only money from the general expenditures of the province but people from where they are in the public service, that doesn't go unnoticed. We are going to act as the public conscience and, hopefully, through our process, make sure that the government understands that at least it hasn't fooled the opposition at Queen's Park.

We continue to look at what the government's doing. I condemn them for the removal of control by the Legislature. I condemn this government for the way it is taking the data that are part of the system of the province of Ontario and hiding them in different ways. You don't like the word "fraudulent" for that, Mr Speaker, and the last thing I want to do is use the wrong word, but that's the best I can come up with for what is in fact a very, very bad scene.

1740

The third really overriding issue that surrounds it is that the government's losing accountability. One of the most interesting events during our public hearings was when the new Provincial Auditor made his excellent presentation to the committee --

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Were you there?

Mr Cousens: I was there and I was awake at the time. He had that committee very much in rapt attention to what he was having to say. I have a copy here of his presentation of August 17. What he was trying to do was bring in ways in which there could be management of the new crown corporations in such a way that they would be accountable to the public of Ontario. He made a series of proposals, and all these proposals were tabled with the sense of truly bringing some of the management principles that would allow legislators to understand and know that what's going on within these corporations is according to proven, accepted standards of accounting.

The tragedy that I remember so well is that there was only one recommendation that the minister's staff accepted of the auditor and that was that they at least have an auditor within the system, that the books could be audited by the province of Ontario. Originally, when this legislation came forward, there was not even room for an audit of the books by the auditor. Can you believe that one? That's how bad this was. The whole bill, in setting up these four crown corporations, would have meant that those crown corporations would be out there operating by themselves and not even subject to a financial review of any kind by our Provincial Auditor.

Isn't that a way of really getting rid of the problem? They have not only moved the money off the books, they've now moved the staff off the books, and now they've said it's out of bounds for the Provincial Auditor to even have a look at it.

People say, "Is that true?" Yes. That is exactly what happened, because the original bill, a part of Bill 17, had no way in which the Provincial Auditor could have gone in and investigated what's going on there. That's just amazing, isn't it? Not only is it amazing, it's pitiful. It reflects something of the way in which the government is trying to establish something and hide from it.

So the auditor came in, and one of the things he asked for, very simply, is that the Provincial Auditor be the auditor of the corporation. They could still have internal auditors. Every large corporation such as this should have continuing, ongoing, internal audits so that they're on top of whatever it is they're doing. That was one of his recommendations, and that's the only one the minister's staff accepted.

His recommendations, in order to give an accountability framework, were calling on management responsibility provisions. It's just the fundamentals of running a good business, not anything that's going to be highfalutin, but when you're starting up these four new crown corporations, at least begin them with the framework where they will then have the books, the records and the practices that will be:

"...in such manner as to provide reasonable assurance that (a) the assets of a corporation and of any subsidiary are safeguarded and controlled; (b) the transactions of a corporation and any subsidiary corporations are in accordance with this act...and (c) the financial, human and physical resources of a corporation and any subsidiary are managed economically and efficiently and their operations are carried out effectively."

How in the name of heaven could the minister and his staff say no to that kind of safeguard?

He also called for internal audits to be conducted in respect to itself and any subsidiaries. Again, ministry staff said no.

He also made recommendations for an annual reporting provision. It's not unlike the amendment that I tried to make on the social contract bill. On behalf of our caucus we had some 29 amendments for the social contract, and one of the amendments that I was most disappointed that they --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Oh, now, you've just woken up and you don't know the whole story.

We brought an amendment for the social contract that would have required the Minister of Finance to bring forward in the Legislature on an annual basis for the next three years the whole status of the social contract.

Part of the problem we have is that the social contract is a separate little function now set up within the government. I, as critic for the opposition in Finance, have not even been able to gain access to the data that were accumulated by the Minister of Finance with regard to the agreement. Now it's into October, some two months since they closed the doors on it, and still we can't gain access. What the government is doing consistently is covering up, closing the door, keeping things hidden.

When the Legislature recently wanted to look into the acquisition and the construction of the new Workers' Compensation tower in downtown Toronto, a $200-million expenditure, the committee in the Legislature, which is controlled by a majority of New Democrats, voted against the possibility of the Legislature looking into that until 1996, by which time Bob Rae and his government will be history and the public will not have a chance to really deal with the facts that are there now. It's like sealing Nixon's files. The tapes are closed off to public review until a future time. Again, where is the accountability and openness of this government that Bob Rae promised back on September 6, 1990? It isn't there.

What we're saying as well, in agreement with what the Provincial Auditor is calling for, is that these crown corporations should have certain provisions, and here he says it, "by June 30 of each year submit an annual report on the operations of the corporation and of its subsidiaries."

The annual report would contain financial statements of the corporation -- that should be normal -- the Provincial Auditor's report on the financial statements would also be included and addressed; "a statement on the extent to which the corporation has met its objectives for the fiscal year as set out in the corporate plan" -- that makes sense -- "quantitative information respecting the performance of the corporation, including any subsidiary corporations, relative to the corporation's objectives."

What he was really trying to do was bring forward, through these recommendations, generally accepted accounting principles, provide for the inclusion of the auditor's report so that it could be seen and at least read by those who want to read it and provide for the achieving of objectives, a performance-rating system.

Again, in an effort to bring accountability to these new crown corporations, the provincial New Democrats in committee ruled out recommendations that I put forward in the form of amendments that would have made this possible.

There is no guarantee at this point in time that the very simplistic, straightforward requests of the auditor are going to be carried out. I give credit to the parliamentary assistant, who has said there may well be a new memorandum of understanding, and that could bring in some or all or parts of these recommendations. If they're important, why not do them now? If they're valid, why not act on them now? If they're meaningful, let's not just put them aside for some future delay.

That's what happens. If you don't take hold of the whole issue that we're dealing with now in the establishment of these crown corporations and put the package together so it's complete, it's whole, it's understandable, it's accountable, it's open, it's public, then we've failed in our job to be responsible to our shareholders, the people of the province of Ontario.

Finally, in his recommendations, the auditor also called for certain proposals in planning and budgeting provisions, that annually, these corporations would "submit a corporate plan to the appropriate minister for his approval and recommendation to treasury board." As it stands now, we have these corporations starting up and we don't even know if they have a plan. We don't know the plan. We won't know the plan. If they have one, it's certainly not required by law, and it should be.

"The corporate plan of a corporation shall encompass all the businesses and activities, including investments, of the corporation and its subsidiaries." In other words, there won't be anything even they can hide under the carpet. When they make their statement, when they come out with their report, it will be full and complete.

1750

That's the problem with Ontario Hydro. Don't underestimate it. What you hear and what the public gets is the glossy. You get the round number. You don't necessarily get the details; you don't find out what's really going on.

Then he goes on to ask for, and again the government turns down, commonsense business suggestions that the Provincial Auditor has suggested. The objects for which the corporation is incorporated would be restated each year. The corporation's objectives for the next five years and for each year in that period and the strategy that the corporation intends to employ to achieve them would also be delineated. The corporation's expected performance for the year in which it's doing business would be defined. The operating and capital budgets of the corporation for the next following financial year would also be outlined.

What I'm saying here -- and I could go on. There is more of the kind of detail that was requested by the Provincial Auditor in committee which really is saying, number one, the government has not generically covered in Bill 17 the planning and budgetary processes for the establishment of these crown corporations. And because it hasn't, it should include in these established new corporations those very simple guidelines.

The next thing that he was asking for is that there would be accountability to the Legislative Assembly for performance against objectives, a very simple thing, so that you've got a performance orientation in government. Wouldn't that be refreshing? Part of the concern so many people have is that people in government are just moving on according to some agenda, but no one really knows where it's going to lead them, because any road will get them there.

This would be a way of ensuring that each of these corporations had a plan and was working to its plan and was measured by that plan. In that way, we as the public representatives would know that they are at least moving in the right direction or not.

Finally, the Provincial Auditor does suggest that if these amendments were made to the bill, legislators would have the ability to assess the performance, which even a memorandum of understanding would not provide. The memorandum of understanding is a way for the government to say, "Well, we'll deal with the problem in the future." We don't have time to deal with all the problems in the future, because we're going to be on to another crisis next week. When will we get back to dealing with Bill 17 and the establishment of these crown corporations? If you're doing it, do it right; do it right from the beginning. Don't come along afterwards and then say, "Oh well, we'll make amendments in the future along the way."

Do you wonder why our caucus is not happy? Our caucus is tremendously unhappy with what this bill is trying to do. Our caucus has every desire to see things happen. We want to see the building of infrastructure in the province of Ontario. We want to see the construction of Highway 407. We want to see things prosper, but they can prosper within existing ministries without setting up and establishing these shells and these organizations, which then become a way of the government hiding from its real responsibility.

I take each one of them and I look at them, and there's so much that we have yet to get on. First of all is the authority that continues to go through the Minister of Finance in the establishment of these financing authorities. As he establishes them, they're now structured and they've been given the provincial money; now what happens? If we can take each one of these, I would like, in brief, to comment on what happens.

The first thing that happens is that we have the transportation corporation. I haven't said too much positive about the government, and maybe I'd better find something. I can say one nice thing about it, because in our earlier presentation during second reading on this bill, having read --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: It's amazing, but there are differences. The point that I raised at that time had to do with the decision by the government, I think it was section 46 of the bill, in which it was going to establish tolls on all roads in the province of Ontario. It certainly gave them the right to set up regulations on highways. In fact, the amendment I wanted would have been to remove this section, where they could designate any highway as a toll highway. The government amended the bill, so that is no longer the case. That really had me moving.

Before you come into the House and you're dealing with these bills, as we are -- I was spending the time it takes to read it through. Then I came to section 47 and realized that the bill -- again, it might have been something they tried to slip through and I caught. It might have been something they really intended to do, but how wrong that would be -- the way it was, you could have had tolls on the 400 or 401 or existing 400 highways. The general intent now, by the amendment that was carried in committee, was that the tolls, when they are established, will be only on new 400 highways. So it'll only be on such highways where there are alternate ways so people who cannot afford, aren't able to pay, the toll have an alternate way of getting to their destination.

As much as I'm unhappy with the whole issue of having tolls -- it's another form of taxation. We're already paying huge amounts of taxes through petroleum tax on gasoline and diesel fuels. How much of that is going to pay for highways, which was the original intention when you had those taxes? Not very much, right now. But the fact of the matter is the government has moved off on that very bad piece of legislation that would have allowed it at any time, according to any whim, to bring about tolls on any road. So with that change, we have a chance of seeing something happen.

But now what we have is the formation of the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. We're beginning to accept bids by corporations that are going to put consortiums together to accelerate and build Highway 407, which will be between Highway 7 and Highway 401 in the greater Toronto area. As one who has been fighting for 407 almost since I was elected in 1981, I'm pleased to see Highway 407 accelerated and speeded up.

But the issue has to be, do we need to establish another corporation in order to do it? Could this not have been done through the Ministry of Transportation? Could they not have had a special group that would have entertained ways for the private sector to come in, make its presentations and then work with it? The Ministry of Government Services has been doing this for a while and searching for ways of streamlining and improving certain systems and organizations. Why couldn't we have done the same thing with the transportation corporation? But the fact of the matter is that we are now faced with the transportation corporation, which will bring in its own new methodology.

We then have the Ontario Realty Corp. That ties into the kind of ill-conceived motion that was brought before the House this morning by the member for Huron, when he's saying the federal government has decided to put up for sale some 5,000 acres in the airport lands that were acquired in Durham and why aren't they placed in a special preserve; why can't they be made into parklands or retained indefinitely for agricultural use? The fact is, he's asking for one thing but certainly not doing the same thing when he's dealing with the Ontario Land Corp.

So there are tremendous inconsistencies that are going on with what the government keeps asking for and what it's going to be asking these crown corporations to be doing. I will complete my remarks for the present time and look forward to being able to complete them at a later time.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Markham. Indeed, he will have the opportunity, when next this bill is brought to the floor of the House, to continue his remarks. Does the government House leader have the business statement for next week?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Yes, Mr Speaker, I do.

Pursuant to standing order 55, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the week of October 18.

On Monday, October 18, and Tuesday, October 19, we will give committee of the whole consideration to Bill 8, the Ontario Casino Corporation Act.

On Wednesday, October 20, we will begin second reading debate on Bill 47, photo radar.

On Thursday, October 21, during the time reserved for private members' public business, we will consider ballot item 29, a resolution standing in the name of Mr Miclash, and second reading of Bill 85, standing in the name of Mr Jackson. On Thursday afternoon, we will continue second reading consideration of Bill 47, photo radar.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock Monday next.

The House adjourned at 1801.

14 octobre 1993