role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 22, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

TORONTO CENTRE FOR CREATIVE ARTS THERAPY

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

LABOUR LEGISLATION

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

MICHAEL HERMAN

SPADINA FESTIVAL

VISITORS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

SKILLS TRAINING

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

ONTARIO HYDRO

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

PHOTO-RADAR

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

HEALTH INSURANCE

HAEMODIALYSIS

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

HEALTH INSURANCE

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

TOBACCO PACKAGING

LOTTERY MACHINES

CHARITABLE GAMING

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

TOBACCO PACKAGING

PENSION FUNDS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

DELTA CHI BETA EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TORONTO CENTRE FOR CREATIVE ARTS THERAPY

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I am rising today to pass on a message from the Toronto Centre for Creative Arts Therapy to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Toronto Centre for Creative Arts Therapy is a cost-effective, community-based mental health agency that provides services that prevent individuals from committing suicide, offer alternatives to drug and alcohol abuse, prevent and decrease hospitalizations and save taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, unless this centre can get support from the government, it will be forced to close by July 31, 1994.

TCCAT, as it's known, has been approaching the government with a commitment from a family foundation to fund 50% per year for three years of a proposed $237,000 annual operating budget if this is matched by the government. This would mean $59,000 from the Health ministry and an equal amount from Comsoc, with $118,000 coming from the foundation.

To try and get the government to listen, it has produced a video that is a compelling argument for the continuing existence and support of this agency.

In a desperate attempt to communicate to the government, this video, called A Matter of Life, has been produced. I have copies that I will forward to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services, and would refer them to letters of support from very powerful cabinet colleagues, including Marilyn Churley, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Frances Lankin, the minister of all things. I hope they will listen and watch closely.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My statement today is directed to the Minister of Education and Training. On June 13, trustee members of the Simcoe County Board of Education visited Queen's Park to speak with members of the Legislative Assembly about junior kindergarten. They distributed letters to all MPPs describing the impact this will have on their community.

My colleagues Al McLean, Simcoe East, and Jim Wilson, Simcoe West, have made us aware of the concerns of their constituents in this regard. They have requested that the government reconsider its intent to mandate junior kindergarten. They don't support it.

Many of the schools in Simcoe county are crowded, some are at capacity and almost all have portables. Building junior kindergarten classrooms will be extremely expensive, as will hiring teachers and operating the program. The board cannot afford this.

Our Common Sense Revolution states, "Until a complete review has been made of the impact of junior kindergarten, we will allow school boards to opt out of the program."

Primary school programs have been expanded over the last few years to include much younger children. Government has continued this trend by making junior kindergarten mandatory beginning September 1994. The practice of mandating programs without sufficient dollars must end.

I urge the minister to meet with the delegation from the Simcoe County Board of Education to discuss this issue further.

SLOW-MOVING VEHICLES

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Tomorrow I will be presenting for second reading my private member's Bill 176,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act with respect to Slow Moving Vehicle Signs.

At present, tractors and other farm equipment are required to prominently display the slow-moving vehicle sign to alert other highway users of the potential hazard. The problem is that the law as presently worded does not restrict the use of slow-moving vehicle signs to bona fide slow-moving vehicles.

Some rural people are affixing these signs to their mailboxes and as driveway markers. In bad weather this can cause drivers to mistake these for slow-moving vehicles and lead to accidents.

Bill 176 will prohibit the attachment of the slow-moving vehicle sign to stationary objects such as mailboxes. The bill also broadens the definition of "slow-moving vehicle" to include equipment such as certain construction vehicles that cannot reach speeds greater than 40 kilometres per hour. Also included would be horse-drawn vehicles. However, those who object on religious grounds will be exempted from displaying the sign on horse-drawn vehicles.

Bill 176 seeks to make our rural roads just a little safer. I would earnestly hope that all members of this House will support it.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): As my party's Colleges and Universities critic, I want to express my serious concerns regarding the proposed introduction, in September, of a mandatory general education component in our college programs.

While I do not disagree with the merit of general education and the role it can play in helping to make college graduates lifelong learners, I strongly disagree with the approach that's being taken by this government, which is effectively mandating that general education be introduced at the expense of core programs.

It's important to understand that no additional funding or class time is being made available for general education. This means that a student who has decided to enrol in a technical program, a program which the student believes will provide him or her with the necessary technical skills to get a job in the technical sector, will be required to study, for instance, three hours of art and culture a week at the expense of three hours of technical training.

At present, a student enrolled in a community college vocational program spends 23 hours per week in that program. This number over the years has been reduced from 30 hours per week. Now, if general education becomes the law of the land, only 20 hours per week will be available for the core program.

It's absurd that at a time when our colleges are coping to the very best of their ability with funding problems, the Minister of Education and Training should demand that a new subject be taught in all post-secondary college programs without providing additional funding or additional class time.

The minister is making an unreasonable demand not only of our college faculty but also of our students. College students, with an average age of 26 years, are quite capable of deciding what courses they need to take to get that job, and right now they don't want to give up a single hour of technical training in their courses.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): When the Common Sense Revolution brings a Harris government to power in Ontario, people can count on the Bill 40 job-killing labour law and the catastrophic Bill 91, the agriculture labour law, being repealed.

Bill 40 will result in a loss of millions of dollars worth of investment and thousands of lost jobs in Simcoe county. The successor rights portion of Bill 40 is sending an unfortunate pro-union message to business and makes it uneconomical for independent short-line operators to take over rail lines abandoned by CN.

Bill 91 will unionize the family farm and weaken the already unstable economic climate in agriculture. It will result in higher labour costs, higher interest rates, higher insurance costs and lower gate receipts. These additional costs will undoubtedly be passed on to the hard-pressed consumer because of the farm sector's inability to absorb the increase.

This government fails to realize there is no such thing as industrialized farms. A farm is a farm is a farm, regardless of structure, size and number of employees. This government fails to recognize that strikes during harvest and other vulnerable seasons would be destructive for farmers.

Bill 40 and Bill 91 are examples of a government that has no regard for social and economic consequences. This legislation is symbolic of the anti-business, anti-agriculture, anti-job, anti-worker, anti-prosperity agenda that has prevailed with this government.

They must be scrapped. They will be repealed.

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today to comment on the recent adoption of environmental guidelines for the practice of professional engineering in Ontario by Professional Engineers Ontario, the licensing body for the engineering profession in Ontario.

Professional engineers are currently responsible for safeguarding life, health and property under the Professional Engineers Act. These new guidelines mean the association now expects its practising members to bring their perspective on environmental issues to bear on the many projects they are involved with. The document includes nine guidelines to assist engineers in their practice, making it clear that consideration for the environment and sustainable development are absolutely essential to human life for the present generation and for future generations.

Professional engineers are key to the Ontario economy. Engineering is evident in everything we use in our lives, from the roads we drive on to the buildings we work in to the technology used on the production line and in telecommunications. The involvement of professional engineers in such diverse sectors puts them in a unique position to address the environmental implications of these projects.

Engineers will continue to play a leading role in sustainable development. These guidelines, which will soon be made available to the 59,000 members of Professional Engineers Ontario, will help them do so more effectively.

I convey to this assembly and the professional engineers in this province satisfaction and encouragement for their initiative.

COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): When accused individuals are placed on trial in a court of law, our legal system ensures that they have legal representation and all efforts are made to ensure a fair trial.

What about the victims of crime and their families? What does our legal system do to compensate these people for the costs, personal and financial, that they incur as a result of a crime being committed?

When a change of venue for a trial is ordered by the court, the victims and their families must take time off work, travel to the new site of the trial and arrange for accommodation and food. The cost can amount to thousands of dollars. Yet unless they are witnesses, I'm aware of no compensation for which they are eligible.

Over the years, legislatures and the Parliament of Canada, as well as the administration of the legal system, have enacted laws and regulations to provide fair treatment for those accused of crimes. It is imperative that the same elected and administrative bodies take action to ensure fair treatment for the direct and indirect victims of crime, whose lives are disrupted emotionally and whose bank accounts are drained by the many costs they incur previous to, during and after a trial.

Let us not forget those who are deserving not just of our sympathy, but also our tangible support.

MICHAEL HERMAN

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'm pleased to rise this afternoon to share a story with the members of this House. It's a story of a young man's campaign to help fight cancer.

Michael Herman is attempting to kayak across the five Great Lakes to raise money for the Canadian Cancer Society. A resident of Bolton in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, Mr Herman's 3,000-kilometre solo kayak journey will take him from Thunder Bay to Toronto. He began his trip on May 14 and is scheduled to arrive at Ontario Place on Lake Ontario on September 17.

Mr Herman's decision to devote his summer to helping the Canadian Cancer Society is one that we can all be proud of. I hope the sacrifice he is making will assist the development of new cancer research and treatment techniques, bringing us closer to curing this disease that knows no social, financial or age boundaries. Through donating his time and effort, Michael Herman is helping to continue the fight against this devastating disease. I doubt there is a person in this Legislature who has not been affected by cancer in some way. Whether it is through the suffering of a friend, a family member or a colleague, we can all relate to the pain and suffering that accompanies cancer.

IGA grocery stores across Ontario have set up donation cans in support of Michael's efforts and the Canadian Cancer Society. You can also send your donations directly to the Canadian Cancer Society. Mail a donation marked "Kayaking for Cancer" to the Canadian Cancer Society, 1639 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 2W6.

I extend my sincere congratulations and well wishes to Michael. His journey is truly an inspiration.

SPADINA FESTIVAL

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I rise today, as the member of provincial Parliament representing the Spadina area south of College, to extend a personal invitation to the members of the House to join me on Canada Day at the Spadina Festival.

The Spadina Festival highlights the dynamic role and celebrates the diversity of the Spadina neighbourhood. Spadina is a microcosm of Canada's multicultural and multiracial community. Throughout Toronto's history, generations of new Canadians who have settled in the Spadina area have made key contributions to our city.

I would like to personally congratulate Spadina Festival co-chairs Peter Chen, Susan DaRosa and Derek Wu, who are here today, in fact, and to thank Irene Espinoza, Suruj Persaud and Melanie Rigley, who have taken an active

part in these festivities and are here today as well, the Etobicoke Chinese Canadian Association, and the hundreds of volunteers representing a broad spectrum of community interests, local businesses, schools, community centres, residents' associations and civic groups who have made the Spadina Festival a reality.

Those attending the Spadina Festival will have the opportunity to enjoy the rich mixture of multicultural performances, visit the shops and sample the food.

Spadina Avenue is presently going through a transitional period with the building of the LRT. It is important to celebrate Spadina's rich past, recognize Spadina's role as a hub of economic activity and look forward to Spadina's future as a major boulevard in the heart of Toronto.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all the members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Robin Cooper, member of Parliament in the Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. He is joined by Mrs Jennifer Cooper. Please welcome our special guests.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, Minister, you answered questions about a police investigation of a land flip allegedly made by a housing development consultant for a Kitchener non-profit housing group. You answered, and I'm quoting, "It would be very foolish...and it would be unethical for a minister to talk about the specifics of a case which is under police investigation."

Will the minister tell the House, what is the difference between talking about a case under police investigation and talking to the complainant and chief witness in the Ottawa case about the case where charges had already been laid in the matter involving your ministry?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): There is a very large difference, as the member will know. In the one case what we're dealing with is a situation where allegations have been made and matters have been referred to the police. The police are launching an investigation and therefore it really is out of bounds to discuss that case.

In the second case, I met with members of a board whose members had been at odds for many, many months. My attempt was to mediate among those board members, and in the course of that discussion --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): You're not a mediator. You're a minister.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- we considered many options that lay before the members of the board. We never discussed "the case," as he puts it. There was no reason to do that. What we were discussing were the tensions that existed and some of the ways there might be to relieve those tensions so board members could come to an agreement about where the board was at in terms of its work, where all the requirements of the Housing ministry were and how they were being met, and how the board could work together in the future.

Mr Chiarelli: Then, Minister, if Mr Juan Andres is charged, you would have no problem meeting with him and the board to try to resolve their differences. But in the case of the Van Lang housing project in Ottawa, a member of the board was repeatedly refused information she was entitled to receive from the board, and you and your ministry did not respond to her inquiries. The crown ended up laying four provincial offence charges against four members of the board under the Corporations Act.

I am informed by Trinh Lu, the former manager of the project, that she met with you at your constituency office on June 10, at which time she reviewed with you all the evidence of the case, contents of the charges, copies of the court docket, and you confirmed to her you would meet with the board members to actively try to settle the disputed court case.

As a result of the meeting you attended last Friday, the complainant board member is again quoted in the Ottawa Citizen today, saying: "I felt as if there was a lot of pressure coming towards me from Gigantes. I felt intimidated."

My question to you, Minister -- and I hope you do more than a one-word answer, as the Premier did yesterday when he insulted the people of Ontario -- is, will you please tell the people of Ontario why you are not in breach of

section 22 of the Premier's guidelines?

Hon Ms Gigantes: As I've explained to the member, the purpose of my meeting with the board members, and all the board dispute representatives were present at that meeting, was to try and resolve some of the issues. I had indicated to the former project manager of the non-profit corporation that in fact I would be meeting with the board, so she would know that, and I told her it was my hope that there might be a resolution of the difficulties. That was all I could say to her, because more than that, I had nothing to say. I knew no more about the possibilities of resolving those issues.

Mr Chiarelli: I'm sure the people will be the judge and I'm sure there'll be additional questions on that particular issue.

To change subjects slightly, Minister, we are very concerned about the minister's mismanagement of the Cypriot Homes land flip in Kitchener. As the Toronto Star has revealed, the development consultant who earned $135,000 in taxpayers' money on the Cypriot deal was involved in a questionable land deal three years ago. Mr Juan Andres was charged in November 1991 with fraud in connection with the land flip involving a Kitchener non-profit housing group. He pleaded guilty to the possession of the proceeds of crime and was sentenced in 1993.

His lawyer told the court, and again I'm quoting, "The land flip was completed at a time when everything was aboveboard...with the full knowledge of the ministry."

Minister, can you confirm that your ministry was aware of this type of activity in the past? When did you become aware of the police investigation into Mr Andres's affairs, and how could this happen a second time? I hope you're not going to say, "It's a matter which is before the courts." You're not commenting on the police investigation, you're commenting on the extent of the knowledge of your ministry.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I don't know if you considered that supplementary to the first two questions, but certainly it wasn't, in my mind.

Let me say that in the case to which he is referring, what happened was that the ministry became aware of a situation which made the ministry concerned about what was happening. The ministry was in contact with the board. New project management came into place in September 1992, as I indicated in the House yesterday. In fact, the ministry has cooperated with the police investigation. That's what happened.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. Minister, last week I asked you a question about why the Workers' Compensation Board was spending $9,450 to send one individual to the Golden Key Centre for Learning in Richmond Hill when it could have enrolled that same person in an adult education program offered by his local high school at little or no cost.

Apparently, there are literally hundreds of injured workers who are being enrolled in a number of these schools at an incredible cost to the Workers' Compensation Board. I remind the minister that this Golden Key Centre for Learning is not recognized by the Ministry of Education and Training nor by any college or university in this province. While they claim, sir, that their courses provide equivalency to grade 12, clearly they do not.

Minister, now that you've had a week to look into this matter, I ask you once again, why is the Workers' Compensation Board spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send workers to these so-called schools when public school boards would offer these courses, with grade 12 certificates, at substantially lower cost to the Workers' Compensation Board?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I would still remind the member that when he says "little or no cost," somebody is paying for the courses in the public school system. I don't think it's entirely fair to simply say that because the admission costs are $50, or the numbers he quoted before, that's the entire cost. The taxpayers are picking up the balance of it.

I've explained to the member before that the school is using the word "equivalency," which has no meaning within the Education Act. This organization can in fact offer these types of programs, and then if students are using it, as they are in this case, as a pre-education program in order to get into college, then the college system does the assessment to determine whether there's equivalency.

Whether it is appropriate for the Workers' Compensation Board to use this particular school is something that we have referred to the Ministry of Labour and to the Workers' Compensation Board. All the questions you have asked that pertain specifically to our ministry have been answered. Now the Workers' Compensation Board needs to take what I think is a fair question about the cost.

Mr Mahoney: I would have liked to have put this question to the Minister of Labour, who is not with us. The Premier's not here. The Deputy Premier's not here. The deputy deputy is not here. I have no choice but to go to the Deputy Premier du jour.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member knows he should direct the question to someone who is here.

Mr Mahoney: Since I asked my question, I have received several phone calls from a number of injured workers enrolled in similar schools in Whitby and Peterborough. Their stories are very disconcerting, to say the least. They tell me that some of the teachers -- and as the Minister of Education, this should concern you -- are not even qualified. At one school, two of the instructors had to quit because they were just accepted into teachers' college. The students complain of poor instruction and a lack of proper equipment to complete their course work.

All these workers say that their WCB case worker was adamant that they attend these schools. They were given an ultimatum by the board, "Go to this school or lose your benefits." All these workers say they have been warned by both the WCB and the school "not to cause any trouble" or they will be put on probation or expelled.

Do you agree with these tactics by the WCB to silence and intimidate these injured workers, and do you agree with spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to send these injured workers to these schools where they get a certificate that is virtually worthless?

Hon Mr Cooke: It's not fair to say that the certificate or the education they get at these programs is worthless. The fact is that this type of program is then used, as I said, to achieve entrance to a college. They have to have a base education in order to qualify to get into college.

In terms of the cost and in terms of preference to the public education system, I was told by the Workers' Compensation Board that its preference is to use the public education system, but where it is appropriate to have a condensed program to have students get through the program more quickly, it looks at other alternatives. I would hope that the Workers' Compensation Board would be looking at some very real concerns that you have expressed, that I have agreed with.

Mr Mahoney: I can tell you, as the father of three university-age boys, $10,000 will pay the entire shot for a full university education, including room and board. We're talking about one course, for that amount of money, to this injured worker in this school.

What's clear is that this government, through the Workers' Compensation Board, is determined to send individuals to these schools despite the fact that they are not recognized by the Ministry of Education and Training and despite the fact that they cost the Workers' Compensation Board almost $10,000 per worker per year.

I have learned that there's an individual who is associated with all three of these learning centres who, it turns out, has very strong ties to the New Democratic Party. According to the Golden Key Centre for Learning, a Mr Mike Maloney, principal of the Quinte Learning Centre, is also the director of all three of these schools. Two of the three schools we know about indeed use his address and phone numbers on their letterhead. You might be surprised to learn that Mr Maloney was a candidate for the New Democratic Party in the riding of Quinte in a previous election. It appears that once again your government is simply helping out your friends.

Given that you cannot explain why the government needs to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on these centres and given that the director of three of these centres is a former NDP candidate, will this minister call upon the Provincial Auditor to investigate this mess and report his findings back to this Legislature immediately?

Hon Mr Cooke: I had indicated to the member that I thought some of the concerns in terms of cost were legitimate concerns, but he completely destroyed his credibility on this question when he makes wild accusations. I don't even know who Mr Mahoney is --

Mr Mahoney: Maloney.

Hon Mr Cooke: -- or Mr Maloney is. I don't even know who he is. So you can make all the wild accusations that you want to, that you're used to making, but it's a bunch of nonsense, it's a bunch of hot air, that we're used to coming from that member.

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST GUIDELINES

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, do you agree that you had a meeting with Ms Sharron Pretty on June 17, 1994, and at that meeting you pressured her by asking her several times to have charges withdrawn against several members of the Van Lang Centre board?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): As I've explained to the House, the people I met with last Friday were members of the board. Ms Pretty was a member of the board, remains a member of the board. I met with them on Friday.

Mr Harnick: I have a copy of notes taken by Sharron Pretty. She's transcribed those notes that she prepared right after the meeting. If I can have a page come over, I'm going to send those notes over to you.

Ms Pretty says, "I felt intimidated and pressured to agree to the suggestion by Evelyn Gigantes that I drop charges against the board of directors in order to solve the issue out of court." In fact, you pressured her at least three times to withdraw those charges.

Minister, this is a very serious allegation and it cuts to the heart of your credibility as a minister with the crown. I want to ask you directly, is this account of Ms Pretty accurate, or are you willing to stand in your place and call her a liar?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'm certainly not going to call Ms Pretty a liar. That simply would not be fair.

Mr Harnick: Well, is it accurate then?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It would not be fair, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Take your seat, please.

The member for Willowdale posed a very serious question. It would be most appropriate if he would wait for the reply.

Hon Ms Gigantes: At several points during the discussion, on many issues that we discussed, I said to all the members of the board in the room: "I don't wish you to try and make up your minds in this meeting. I would like you to go away, to reflect on things, not to feel pressured." I said, "I would like to try and help in this situation, if it's possible."

I offered, with the agreement of the regional housing director for eastern Ontario, that there would be somebody representing the ministry at a further meeting if people wished to have one. I also suggested it might be useful for the participants, if they wished to hold another meeting to discuss options, that they would find it beneficial to have somebody from the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association to act as a facilitator.

So we discussed a lot of options. I can't speak for how anybody felt at that meeting, but I certainly encouraged people to take their time, not to feel pressured, to think things through and to see if it were possible in the future to have another meeting which could continue whatever progress we might have been able to establish during that meeting.

Mr Harnick: Minister, I have given you ample opportunity to deny the fact that you pressured Ms Pretty. Her notes make it clear that she felt pressured by you to call the crown and have charges against other Van Lang board members dropped.

Yesterday, your colleague the Attorney General said in this House in response to a question I asked that if a minister of the crown pressured any individual to have charges dropped, that would be improper. Minister, even your own colleague, the chief law enforcement officer of this province, believes that what you have done is improper. You have used your position as a minister of the crown to intimidate a private citizen. Why don't you do the honourable thing and stand up and admit your mistake and resign?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd be so delighted to be able to please the member opposite, but I'm not going to oblige him on this one, because --

Interjection.

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- I feel there was nothing that happened during that meeting that was out of place. We discussed a full range of options. I encouraged people not to feel pressured, very directly I encouraged them. I said to them, "Don't feel pressured." I said to them when they thought about setting a time for another meeting, "Don't rush and decide or try and put pressure on one person or another to decide on a time for another meeting now."

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: "Go away, think about things, just reflect on whether we've been able to make any progress here. If we have, we'd be delighted, from the Ministry of Housing point of view, to be able to offer any help that could lead to an improvement in the work of the board in the future."

Mr Harnick: To carry on with this little saga of evasion, you have had ample opportunity to stand in your place today and to tell this Legislature that Sharron Pretty's account of what happened is not accurate. Sharron Pretty stated, "Evelyn emphasized that she was only 'suggesting' a possible solution, but she did repeat her suggestion at least three times." Not once in these notes does she indicate that she was to go away and reflect on it.

What the notes go on to say is that you would ensure that if she withdrew the charges, she could remain on the board for another month, because that's all her term of office had left.

Now, I want you, as does everyone in this Legislature, to stand in your place and to deny, if it's not true and if Ms Pretty is not telling the truth, the fact that you tried to pressure her to withdraw these charges. Do you have the guts to do that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't know if it is within the rules of this House to accuse another member of evasion when really he is trying to say something more serious, and I really resent the way in which he is posing these questions, because what it assumes is that certain things happened. He feels he has some evidence that certain things happened.

I will say directly, through you, Mr Speaker, to the member that I never pressured anybody. In fact, I deliberately and carefully said: "Do not feel pressured. Think about the options. Take your time on this. If we can be of assistance in setting up a further meeting at which our participation from the Ministry of Housing and the participation of another facilitator would be helpful, we're prepared to do that."

That was our offer. We discussed many options, and for him to draw conclusions that I have breached conflict-of-interest guidelines on this is wrong.

Mr Harnick: Minister, either what Ms Pretty is saying is a fabrication or what you are saying is a fabrication, and what I would like you to do --

The Speaker: Order. The member knows better. I know he would wish to rephrase.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Harnick: What I would like to know is, whose story is true: the story that Sharron Pretty has set out in her notes or the story that you're telling the Legislature?

Hon Ms Gigantes: When you're dealing with a group of people who have had great difficulty and intense struggles dealing with each other in a productive way, in fact have failed to deal with each other in a productive way over a period of time, there are very high emotions. Several times during our conversation, I asked people just to forget about what has happened in the past, to try and focus on where things were at now in terms of the operations of the non-profit organization and to see if there was the possibility of moving forward.

There is always room for different feelings about things. I can tell the member quite clearly what I said, what I meant, what I did, what I offered.

Mr Harnick: Minister, do you deny that you asked Miss Pretty three times to withdraw these charges, and do you deny that you made an offer to her that if she withdrew the charges, she could stay on the board for another month?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I did not ask Miss Pretty to withdraw charges and I did not say to her, "You can stay on for another month if you do that." That doesn't make any sense even to the member, surely. Does it?

The object of the meeting was to take a group which had been in difficulty, which was struggling internally, and to try and work out where things were at so that group would work together in the future. There were some very serious problems which that group had confronted and continues to confront.

The Speaker: New question.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A change of pace, perhaps, to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Sorry to interrupt your lunch, Bud. I understand the pressures of cabinet on Wednesday, so I don't mean to be rude there.

I have a question to the minister responsible for Hydro. I have in my hand some of the several letters that I've been receiving, and I dare say members on all sides are getting, from utility contractors across the province about part of the mandate of the new Ontario Hydro. The minister will know, because he has had representations from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business on this subject, there are a lot of private contractors in the utility business, electrical contractors, line people etc, who are ticked off, to say the least, that Ontario Hydro has now moved in on their business, a business that has been shrinking as a result of the most recent recession.

I also have, as a result of today's mail, a letter from the chairman of Ontario Hydro, our dear friend Maurice Strong, and I know better these days than to annoy the chairman. The chairman's letter seems to suggest that these independent business people really don't have a problem and they must misunderstand.

Minister, what do you say to all of these hardworking independent contractors who are, to a person, ticked off and worse about the fact that Ontario Hydro, with all of its advantages and all of its peculiar opportunities, has now moved in to compete with these small contractors?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As the member will know, over the last year or two the utility has moved to try to restructure and ensure that rates will be maintained at a stable level, and the commitment for no rate increase this year and rate increases at or below inflation will be met over the next few years to the end of the decade.

In doing that, it meant that Ontario Hydro had to curtail some of its programs with regard to retrofits and assistance to home owners and businesses in enabling them to become more energy-efficient. That meant that a number of the contractors that had been supplying the work related to those retrofits have suffered and some of the small manufacturers that produced energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, these kinds of things, have suffered.

The utility is determined to assist in doing analyses of energy use, particularly in the private sector, to do audits and so on. As those audits are completed, to assist with the bottom line, private sector companies should be able to contract with the private sector to do the retrofits that would benefit these contractors.

Mr Conway: What I know is what I read from all of these good people in all of these communities across Ontario. These hardworking, self-sufficient small business people are telling me, and I think telling all members, that this is the unfairest of competition. We even have flyers going out from Hydro's central stores warehouse advertising a whole range of warehouse possibilities that Hydro has to offer. This is really going to cause hardship, is causing hardship, is displacing employment in the private sector.

Would the minister not agree that Ontario Hydro, in all of these new ventures relative to these independent private contractors, is in a complete conflict of interest, given who some of the customers are? It's an unavoidable conflict of interest. Would the minister not agree that that is a problem? Would the minister not also agree that, at the very least, he should call together the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Ontario and senior executives at Ontario Hydro to resolve this problem? I say most sincerely that everywhere I have gone on this subject in recent weeks, good people in this province --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- hardworking private entrepreneurs, are saying that if this unfair competition does not stop or become reined in, it is going to cost hundreds of jobs in the private sector and hurt the community in a way that I'm sure the minister does not want.

Hon Mr Wildman: To answer the first part of the question at the outset, no, I don't agree that Ontario Hydro is in a conflict of interest. It is in the interests of Ontario Hydro, of its customers and of the ratepayers generally for the corporation to assist the private sector in doing assessments of how to ensure that it is energy-efficient. It is also in the interests of the ratepayers for Ontario Hydro to be as efficient as possible.

It is interesting that we hear members of the opposition from time to time saying that Ontario Hydro should be more businesslike and even entrepreneurial and then, when they begin to do that, they are accused of unfair competition.

In response to the last part of the question, I would be glad to facilitate such a meeting and I would be happy to do that.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Housing. I want to go back to Mr Andres's problems as a development consultant.

We have been informed by a freedom-of-information request that he was the development consultant on three projects in the Kitchener area. He has charged what your ministry calls organizational expenses, which as you know are described by your ministry as "non-technical functions necessary for project development, including the preparation of ministerial submissions necessary for project commitment." Basically, this is a percentage of the project's cost and it's a way for consultants to make money without having to substantiate the same.

On three projects in the Kitchener area, he has charged: $75,807 in Hellenic Place, phase 2; $115,700 in Slavonia Village; $193,612 in Cypriot Homes, coming to just in excess of $385,000. Are you aware of that?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I wonder if the member was present yesterday when I outlined the changes that have taken place in the non-profit housing program. He is identifying a method of paying development consultants which is no longer being followed in the non-profit program.

The reason for that was that in 1991 we undertook a public consultation in this province, and I'm sure the member was very interested in that organization.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Were you aware of it?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member for Willowdale please come to order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: He certainly had a chance to participate if he was --

Mr Harnick: Why don't you know what was going on?

The Speaker: Would the Minister of Housing please take her seat.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): What about an answer to the question? It is a noble concept, but what about an answer to the question?

The Speaker: It is not helpful for members to be shouting while one minister is attempting to answer a question.

Mr Turnbull: She wasn't.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to come to order. Supplementary, the member for Parry Sound.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I haven't finished answering.

The Speaker: I'm sorry, my mistake. The Minister of Housing to complete her reply.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I was just informing the member, through you, that in 1991, because this program had operated since 1986 in this province without having a formal look and a formal consultation about what the program requirements should be, we undertook such a consultation. We produced policy for the review of members and for the review of the public in 1992. In 1993 we started to incorporate that new policy in the Jobs Ontario Homes program, our non-profit housing program. What that means for development consultants is that they are no longer paid in the way he describes.

Mr Eves: In addition to the $385,000-plus that I just referred to, I'm sure the minister is aware that Mr Andres is alleged to have made $135,000 in a land flip associated with Cypriot Homes Ltd. I'm sure the minister is also now aware that Mr Andres last fall pleaded guilty to possession of proceeds of crime. In view of the fact that he was involved in all three of these projects, what steps have you taken to investigate all three projects in the Kitchener area, and if you haven't done that, why haven't you done that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: At the point when difficulties around this particular non-profit came to the attention of the Ministry of Housing, and that was early on, the Ministry of Housing undertook steps, the project management was changed at that particular project and in fact the ministry has been in cooperation with the police investigation since that time.

The ministry of course has an interest in the operation, and the good operation, according to program guidelines, of every non-profit housing corporation and co-op in this province, certainly.

CLEANUP OF INDUSTRIAL SITE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. There was another major fire at the abandoned former International Malleable Iron Co Ltd plant on May 19. We call it IMICO in Guelph. This is the sixth time that firefighters have been called to the former foundry in the last three years, and it took 12 firefighters more than three hours to bring this blaze under control, using two pumpers and aerial ladders.

I, along with the people of Guelph, am concerned about the need to clean up this abandoned site, and we're also very concerned about the safety of the firefighters, of the neighbours, and particularly of the neighbourhood children, because it's so easy to gain access to this property.

What can we do about these concerns, and how is the ministry acting on this?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I want to thank the member for raising this question about IMICO. The Ministry of Environment and Energy is indeed concerned about the environmental and safety hazards with regard to that former foundry operation and the abandoned property.

The member will know that the ministry has already dealt with the most serious environmental concerns. The ministry retained a waste disposal company to remove the potentially hazardous raw materials and waste at the foundry in October 1991. Also, the PCB waste was removed to the Guelph water pollution control plant by the contractor at the same time.

The ministry most recently, as a result of some of the investigations around ownership and changes in ownership, has now served notice of intent to issue a cleanup order on the persons and companies associated with the site. As of the end of last month, that order has been finalized and will be served shortly, pending legal review.

Finally, the order will require the site owners to submit a work plan, within 120 days of the order being served, on the steps they are going to take to clean up the site.

Mr Fletcher: Minister, I agree with you. The ministry has been trying to deal with the issue of the site cleanup, but what our community of Guelph would like to know right now is, what about the fire and the safety concerns? What can we do now to deal with these issues?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member knows, the remaining environmental concerns are indeed the responsibility of the owners. These issues will be addressed in the cleanup order. Specifically, in regard to the question of fire safety and property standards, the member is probably aware that these are not within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Indeed, they are the responsibility of the city. In that regard, the ministry district staff is meeting with officials of the city of Guelph to try and resolve the issues around the safety of the site -- today, I believe.

PHOTO-RADAR

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation. This question affects every driver in the province. Minister, your photo-radar is due to come into force this August. As you are aware, the car rental operators have an unresolved matter concerning the impact of photo-radar. As you are aware or should be aware, offences under photo-radar attach to the owner of the car and not the driver. The car rental operators are liable for the offences committed by the people who lease their cars.

Minister, because of the inaction of yourself and your government to address this concern, I have been advised that car rental operators, with the consent of your ministry and as well the Ministry of the Attorney General, will be debiting photo-radar fines from the credit card accounts of their customers. In other words, you're allowing them to plead guilty to offences possibly committed by others. How can you justify this action?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is most relevant indeed. Why should the operator, the car renters, take a hit when the guilt -- hypothetically, of course -- lies with the client, the people who rent a car? That's why we have a pilot project; it's to iron out the inefficiencies. This is why our staff repeatedly has met with the car renters. That's why I met with them. We had a good meeting. The determinant was the very challenge that you pose: to find a way to make it happen. It's quite simple in other jurisdictions.

It's more complex in our jurisdiction by virtue of the size of Ontario. But we're working together to come up with a commonsensical answer and approach to this issue.

Mr Offer: Minister, I happen to have a letter of June 1 that actually has been signed by you. The discussions you have spoken of are truly of no effect whatsoever. Just yesterday, the Association of Canadian Car Rental Operators met in Toronto. You and your ministry and your government refused to meet their concerns.

Minister, I don't care how pompously you wish to answer these questions, but the fact remains that this August you are going to be taking the lens cap off the photo-radar camera, and the concerns, very valid concerns, of car rental operators in this province have not been met because of your inaction.

I find it outrageous that you would allow and consent to car rental operators debiting a person's credit card account for an offence that the driver might not even know they committed. In fact, Minister, the Association of Canadian Car Rental Operators don't want this. What they want is the authority to forward to you, with their invoice, any offences committed by their customers and to let you take the appropriate action. The difficulty is that for this to take place an amendment to the legislation will be required.

For the car rental operators in this province, and because of the fact that you have not dealt with this issue --

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

Mr Offer: -- will you delay the implementation of photo-radar until the concerns of the car rental operators in the province of Ontario have been met?

Hon Mr Pouliot: First and foremost, tales of Houdini, I can't be in two places at once. We intend that at the end of the day, the majority in this Parliament shall have its way. That's the way democracy works, and you can acquiesce readily that with midnight sittings, although we do have an open-door policy and want to meet as many people as we can, there are only so many meetings you can accommodate, because you have to be here as well, as you well know.

On the issue, what do you do if you get a parking ticket? Harry Smith goes to rent a car, parks illegally. It's part of the contract; it's charged back to the client. That's the very parallel that we're trying to develop.

In terms of delaying the safety initiative, the member can just forget it. It won't happen. But we are positive that we can rectify the situation and we won't have to delay this great safety initiative.

SCHOOL BOARD RESTRUCTURING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training, and it concerns the removal of barriers to full cost-cutting restructuring measures in school boards.

Minister, I'm sure you've seen this report from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, the report on education restructuring policy and legislative analysis. It recommends changes to the Education Act and its regulations to facilitate this full restructuring by all school boards in Ontario. Some include: modifying the school year, which the minister is concerned about; forming joint management structures for transportation; and establishing consortia, which I think is very interesting, for curriculum development. Could you tell me when you are going to make these urgently needed changes which will require changes to the Education Act?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Many of the items in that report -- cooperatives for curriculum development, we're doing that. We've funded a whole series of cooperatives that are now being established in the north and elsewhere.

In terms of shared transportation and shared purchasing services, those are all the types of restructuring projects that we have entered into with boards, Metro Toronto being the most recent case where we're actually doing a project between the separate and all the public boards.

I think most of these things can be done and will be done without changes to the Education Act.

Mrs Cunningham: I think the minister's answer is just an indication of what isn't being done, because if Metro Toronto had followed its own consultant's report with regard to the restructuring, it would have saved $55 million this year. I think it goes much beyond what's being done so far, and the minister hasn't answered the question, so I'm going to ask him again.

The boards are saying we need changes to the Education Act and the regulations. I happen to have read the report and discussed it with them. I don't think the minister has had the opportunity of discussing these recommendations directly with representatives from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, so I would urge him to do that.

My question again is: Does he have any intention of following through with the recommendations in this report that require changes to the Education Act and regulations so we really can witness and feel with our tax dollars the true savings of the restructuring that could be accomplished with these changes?

Hon Mr Cooke: I have met with the trustees. I was at their convention the day after they released the report. You might want to sit down with the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, Ann Vanstone, a member of your party. The $55 million you referred to doesn't just happen because there's a consultant's report that's been put out. That's the whole purpose of the project we're undertaking now, with Ned McKeown heading up the project, to implement and find the savings.

I do not intend to bring in amendments to the Education Act. I think we can do many of the reforms that are being talked about in that report without changes to the Education Act. I reject the recommendations in that report that specifically refer to a further decentralized education system in the province. What we need in this province is more control at the provincial level so that we have province-wide standards, not a more decentralized system, as the member now seems to be advocating.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): This question is for the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

There have been recent reports in the Peterborough media regarding the magazine grant provided through the Ontario Publishing Centre which is operated through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. I understand that consumer magazines and book industries are eligible for this funding. However, community newspapers do not qualify for funding.

We all know the valuable work that community newspapers provide to our communities. Can the minister clarify for the House why community newspapers do not qualify for these grants?

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I want to thank the member for her very important question that draws attention to the vital role that community newspapers play in bringing together communities. Community newspapers that need economic support, of course, like any other business, are entitled to apply to the Ontario Development Corp.

The point of the Ontario Publishing Centre is not to support any print industries; it's particularly to help grow Ontario's cultural industries and cultural voices. Ontario book publishers and magazine publishing companies were especially hard hit by the recession, by incredibly crushing American competition, by the federal GST and by the federal postal subsidies, and the intention of our government in establishing the Ontario Publishing Centre has been to particularly support those Ontario companies that publish 85% of Ontario authors.

Ms Carter: Can the minister tell us how these grants assist our cultural industries?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The Ontario Publishing Centre grants have especially helped the book and magazine publishing industries. When you look at the comparison of the number of them that were going bankrupt before we established the centre compared to afterwards, you can see the success of the centre in having both saved jobs and helped to create jobs.

Before the centre's grants programs were created by this government in 1991, five publishing companies in Ontario went bankrupt. Since the creation, we have protected jobs fully in the Ontario publishing industries and in fact helped to create further jobs, with great strength being shown in the expansion of those businesses.

There has been a lot of recent national controversy and concern over both the past Conservative government and the present Liberal government's failure to help protect the book and publishing industries in this country. This has been the effort by this government, very successfully, to strongly help support Ontario's book and magazine publishing companies in Ontario.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Last week, the Minister of Labour was asked here in these chambers if he could name one farmer who approved of and actually welcomed Bill 91. It was most revealing when the minister, the individual responsible for shepherding this bill through the legislative process on behalf of the citizens of Ontario, could not name one individual who had asked him to introduce this legislation.

The reason for the minister's failure is obvious: This deal smells. Farmers don't want the legislation. They are very upset that this government is bringing forward this legislation against their wishes. Farm organization members are very upset. In our discussion with farmers, I have found 100% opposition to this bill. Even members of his committee that he appointed are upset.

My leader, Lyn McLeod, sent out a questionnaire asking what the farmers thought of the NDP government's Bill 91. The response was overwhelmingly negative.

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

Mr Cleary: Just over 1,000 pamphlets were sent out, and they screamed at the minister to restore the agricultural exemption under Bill 91 and put it out to pasture.

Again I ask for the name of one real farmer, not the lobbying behind this bill but individuals on a family farm that is going to have to live with this legislation and actually look forward to working with it. The minister has had a week to think about this --

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Cleary: I asked him for one single name. Can you please answer the question, Mr Minister? This is a serious question. And why are there no public hearings?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I agree with the member: This is a very serious question. His leader sent out I don't know how many thousands of postcards across this area at great expense to the taxpayers and said that this bill was going to mean that family members would have to join unions, and that's not true. She said there was no provision to prevent strikes, and that's not true. So there's some uncertainty coming from the member and his party.

We are very clear on this side of the House that we want to provide farm workers with the same democratic rights to organize themselves as exist in other sectors. We're very proud of that and we're not going to change. Our position is clear.

The member and his party have been trying to generate some opposition to this bill, and I appreciate that; that's the political process. But if he's getting a lot of letters from farmers who don't like this legislation, he must be rather unique. I've gotten no calls and no letters opposed to this, because it was put together with farmers and labour, for farmers and for labour. This is a perfect bill, and the member should be supporting it rather than making noises.

Mr Cleary: That's very interesting. We all know, and even the Labour minister admits, that the central aim of Bill 91 is to allow farms to unionize. Work slowdowns, labour disputes and work-to-rule campaigns, all fair game under union and NDP labour rules, can be damaging in industry, but the problems are tenfold in agriculture. Crops and livestock simply cannot wait for labour disputes. The task force reported two years ago, Bill 91 was introduced one year ago, yet all we have from the NDP are promises that it will fix Bill 91 after second reading.

As the Labour minister also admits that he is not familiar with agriculture and farming, perhaps it would be appropriate at this time to let him know that the agriculture industry is the second-largest employer in Ontario.

There's simply no proof that Bill 91 will make agriculture more competitive, more productive or more profitable. It seems the minister is willing to hurt this industry more by imposing his restrictive and damaging Bill 91.

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

Mr Cleary: Can you explain to us your vision of how Bill 91 will help the farmers of Ontario?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm very puzzled by the last comment. We on this side of the House know that there is no such thing as the ORLA; it's the OLRA that this bill refers to. I don't know how the leader of the official opposition could put out a memo that can't even get that straight. I don't know that the member across can give us any lessons in terms of how to deal with agriculture and with labour relations. He should read the bill. He should look at the amendments that he has in his hand, which clearly say there will be no strikes or lockouts under this legislation.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga North is out of order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: To go around the province saying that produce is going to rot or that animals are not going to be looked after is not true. He should read his own mail and look at the letters he's got in terms of what amendments will be tabled, presumably this afternoon. We should not be spreading that kind of information.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is to the Minister of Transportation and it concerns the flashing green lights for volunteer firefighters. In September 1992, I wrote to the minister in support of an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act to allow volunteer firefighters to use flashing green lights in their cars when they're responding to an emergency call. They need these lights for reasons of safety.

In October 1992, the minister replied to me, "Although the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act has not been tabled, I am confident that it will be forthcoming at the first available opportunity." Since that time, 87 weeks have passed and no such amendment has been passed by the government.

My question to the minister is very simple, and I need an answer. Minister, what's the holdup?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Last year we proposed an omnibus bill with the flashing green lights in it. Those people there, the Liberals, were against; we couldn't get unanimity for this safety initiative, so now we have to go piecemeal. We'll try to introduce it as soon as possible, but if -- and I say if -- the Liberals would join us, yourself and myself, it could be passed almost within a matter of days.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: It's as simple as that. I thank you for your cooperation and I know you will help me talk to those people, get them on side so we can get this safety initiative.

Mr Arnott: I couldn't hear the minister's answer. Nevertheless, irrespective of what the Liberals have done, 87 weeks have passed since that commitment was made. The volunteer firefighters need these for reasons of safety. What are you going to do right away to make sure that the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act is passed?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Again, the question is most appropriate. The Liberals agitate very easily when confronted with the simple truth. We need their cooperation. The volunteer firefighters are asking all members of the House to support this initiative. We will put it in the House as soon as we possibly can.

PETITIONS

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): I have a petition signed by many people from the Quinte area which I'd like to present. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follows the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevents further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth.

I have signed that petition and it joins over 4,000 other names that have previously been submitted on the same subject.

HERITAGE LEGISLATION

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's been signed by 70 members and friends of the Lambton county branch of the Ontario Genealogical Society.

The petitioners are supportive of our government's proposed Ontario heritage act and are requesting that this proposed legislation be given support for timely passage.

I've affixed my name to the petition.

HEALTH INSURANCE

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

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follows provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

The petition is signed by a number of my constituents and by me.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas continued government funding cutbacks will force the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to close eight more hospital beds and these cutbacks are having a continued negative impact on employment in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government is failing to adhere to their own 'principles of restructuring,' which state that restructuring of the hospital sector must be linked to equitable funding, appropriate and accessible community-based health services, and that restructuring initiatives must address the impact of these changes on hospital staff, the local economy and the health care needs of the community;

"Whereas the government refuses to give the green light to redevelop the General and Marine Hospital even though the provincial government announced funding for the project in 1987 and even though the General and Marine cannot achieve additional operating efficiencies unless the hospital is redeveloped;

"Therefore, we demand that the provincial government immediately approve the redevelopment of the General and Marine Hospital and that the hospital be given some financial breathing space to assess the impact of these bed closures on the labour and health care needs of the Collingwood community."

I've signed that petition. I think we're well over 6,500 names to date with respect to this petition, and there are a couple of hundred more being added today.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It's been signed by 19 people in my riding.

I have affixed my name to the petition.

LOTTERY MACHINES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas there is no Lotto 6/49 machine serving people in the east end of Cornwall," 'east' meaning the east side of the railway crossing starting at Danis Avenue,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to service the east end of Cornwall with a much-needed Lotto 6/49 machine."

There are 339 signatures on this petition, and I've also signed it.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition this afternoon signed by 222 residents of Scugog Island, which is in my riding of Durham East. The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,

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

"Whereas the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations grant a gaming licence to the First Nation of Scugog Island to operate a permanent Monte Carlo casino on Scugog Island; and

"Whereas this decision was made without consultation with elected municipal representatives or the taxpayers of Scugog township;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Legislative Assembly not to grant a permanent gaming licence or allow the establishment of this facility."

In keeping with the traditions of this House, I have put my name to this petition.

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, refuse to accept the closing of the Hotel Dieu Hospital emergency department and the reduction of available hospital beds. We strongly urge the hospital boards and the Niagara District Health Council to crush the consultant's report. The Hotel Dieu Hospital board has already taken this position. Implementation of the report would have disastrous consequences for the people of our community. We are committed to keeping two emergency departments in St Catharines and beds open."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Winninger (London South): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

"Whereas the right for workers to refuse to do unsafe work is an essential component of health and safety legislation in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas the threat of sending coworkers home without pay during a work refusal constitutes significant peer pressure to continue to work in unsafe conditions;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the Minister of Labour for the province of Ontario to bring private member's Bill 157,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act, before the Legislature for third reading."

I support this petition and I have affixed my signature thereto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

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

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

It's signed by over 500 residents of Thunder Bay in northern Ontario, and I affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition here from the Exeter Pentecostal Tabernacle, which opposed Bill 167, which was defeated last week, especially with regard to the right of adopting children, and I affix my name to that.

I also have one which is very closely related to it. The St Columbine Catholic Women's League also are opposed to Bills 167 and 45, and any bills which give recognition to such acts as same-sex spousal benefits.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): You've heard this petition before. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the NDP government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming houses, group homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted, not the local residents, not the business community, not the leaders of community organizations, not the education and child care providers, and not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I affix my signature to this petition.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I object to the term "hell-bent." Perhaps "purgatory-straight" would be more appropriate.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of order.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I have a petition here on behalf of the fine people of Marathon, representing on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, who is not able to present petitions:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing and markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and other provinces, rather than acting on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain-packaging strategy the most efficient and best method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

It's signed by many people from Marathon.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the public service pension plan is the pension plan established for the Ontario public service; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has entered into an agreement with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to split the public service pension plan into two: an OPSEU pension plan for government employees represented by OPSEU and a continued public service pension plan for all other active, deferred or retired plan members; and

"Whereas the split would unfairly and inequitably divide the assets and the liabilities between the two plans based on terms of the agreement negotiated between the government of Ontario and OPSEU; and

"Whereas the split would leave all pensioners who were members of OPSEU at the time of their retirement or withdrawal from the Ontario public service in the public service pension plan if such retirement or withdrawal occurred before January 1, 1993; and

"Whereas OPSEU negotiated pensions as a bargaining agent pursuant to amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act in which the government permitted pensions to be negotiated and in which the government voluntarily recognized OPSEU and only OPSEU as a bargaining agent for employees in the Ontario public service; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario had previously recognized both OPSEU and other employee representatives as bargaining agents under the Social Contract Act for the purpose of negotiations thereunder; and

"Whereas no employee representatives other than OPSEU were permitted to take

part in the negotiations to split the public service pension plan; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has incorporated the terms of its agreement with OPSEU in amendments to pension legislation and has included these amendments in its budget bill (Bill 160) in order to implement its agreement with OPSEU; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario owes a duty to all members of the public service pension plan, regardless of their bargaining status, to treat them fairly and equitably; and

"Whereas the following members of the public service pension plan do not believe that the split of the assets and liabilities of the plan, as negotiated by the government of Ontario and OPSEU, treats them fairly,

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

"1. The split of the assets and liabilities of the public service pension plan should not be permitted to proceed unless it is based on an actuarial evaluation mutually agreed upon by the representatives of all members of the plan, including but not limited to bargaining agents in the Ontario public service who were recognized for the purpose of negotiations under the Social Contract Act; and

"2. All payments to pensioners who had been represented by OPSEU during their employment by the government of Ontario should become the responsibility of the OPSEU pension plan."

It is signed by 1,526 people. I attach my signature too.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr Wiseman from the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report that it has decided not to proceed with the consideration of Bill 160,

An Act to amend certain Acts to provide for certain Measures referred to in the 1993 Budget and for other Measures referred to in the 1994 Budget and to make amendments to the Health Insurance Act respecting the Collection and Disclosure of Personal Information / Projet de loi 160, Loi modifiant des lois pour prévoir certaines mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1993 et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1994 et modifiant la

Loi sur l'assurance-santé en ce qui concerne la collecte et la divulgation de renseignements personnels.

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

Shall Bill 160 be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 23rd report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have any statement to make, Mr McLean? No.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Mills from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr60,

An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary

Bill Pr110,

An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ontario

Bill Pr125,

An Act to revive The Lions Club of Kingsville

Bill Pr126,

An Act to revive Electrical Construction Association of Hamilton Inc.

Your committee recommends that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr101,

An Act respecting the City of Scarborough.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing be remitted on:

Bill Pr60,

An Act to incorporate Heritage Baptist College and Heritage Theological Seminary

Bill Pr110,

An Act to revive Namdhari Sangat Canada (Society) Ontario

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DELTA CHI BETA EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTRE (WINDSOR) ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr128,

An Act respecting the Delta Chi Beta Early Childhood Centre (Windsor) Inc.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 159,

An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund / Projet de loi 159, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the proposed Ontario Loan Act, 1994. This is a routine bill that the government puts forward which authorizes the government to borrow a very non-routine amount of money. This year, the government is asking this House, through this bill, to authorize the borrowing of up to $15.5 billion on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund.

When I say it's a very routine amount of money, it's rather amazing that this bill is receiving such little attention as it is, considering the amount of money that we're talking about.

This borrowing authority under this bill, Bill 159, is sunsetted for December 31, 1995. Of course by that time the government will long since be gone.

This year the amount being requested to be authorized to borrow is up to $15.5 billion. Last year the province borrowed a total of $12.5 billion. So the borrowing continues. The debt continues. The debt in this province continues.

I'm going to spend some time on what the philosophy of the Finance minister is as to why he's doing that.

In the current fiscal year, the province will borrow about $11.4 billion, which will be applied as follows: $6.3 billion will be for the operating account; $2.2 billion for the capital account; $1.9 billion for alternate financing arrangements, non-budgetary and project-specific capital; and $1 billion for refinancing maturing debt.

Interest costs -- and this is crucial -- this fiscal year will total $7.9 billion. Interest costs alone will total $7.9 billion, and that's up more than 13% from last year's levels, making it the fastest-growing amount on the operating account.

That's rather astounding, that the government doesn't seem to be making any effort through its policies to reduce the deficit, to reduce the debt of this province. And how are we seeing that? We're seeing that by the way in which this government continues to spend on policies that we don't need, that we can't afford, and we simply have no way of paying it back.

I think the people in this province are very worried. This bill is an indication of the financial policies of this government and how it's creating much worry to people in the financial community, people who want to invest in this province from other provinces, from other countries, and they're looking at this. They're looking at this borrowing that's going on, the debt that continues to climb in this province.

Our party has consistently opposed the financial policies of the New Democratic Party government, even from its very first budget, when you can remember the Treasurer said, "We're going to spend our way out of this recession." Then he suddenly realized he was terribly wrong. The Treasurer says the deficit is $8.5 billion. Others who are more qualified in economics than I say it's closer to $11 billion or $12 billion, considering the bookkeeping that's being kept. The fact of the matter is, it's very high. The interest costs, I repeat, will cost $7.9 billion.

Some discussion has been put forward in the media with respect to the economic policies of this government on the debt and the financing, and of course this is all related to this bill because you have to borrow to pay the interest costs. There's a wonderful paper that was put out by the A.R.A. Consulting Group Inc and gave a commentary on the 1994 Ontario budget.

I'd like to spend some time on that paper because the thoughts are quite concise, and if any of you have read it, well, I'm going to put you through it again because it's worth repeating.

This paper isn't a long paper. It's about 15 pages long and it's got some graphs and it's got some charts dealing with the topic of the measure of fiscal restraint, and of course there really hasn't been a measure of fiscal restraint by the Treasurer of this province. How do I know that? By the very fact of his bill, that he is asking authority to borrow an enormous amount of money and it keeps increasing and increasing since the Treasurer and his government obtained power.

This paper was written by Bill Empey, who is a partner in this firm. Of course, the paper is very critical of the financial policies of this government, as are we in the Progressive Conservative Party. Mr Empey talks about the real measure of financial restraint on page 13. He says: "For 1994-95 the province intends to borrow $1.5 billion more than is explained in the budget. This amount was even greater in 1992-93." I think it was $3 billion.

That's a fact, that the government is borrowing more than is explained in the budget.

"In the budget, net financing numbers suggest that Ontario will need $10.2 billion in new loans" -- just in new loans -- "in the current fiscal year. The budget indicates that some excess borrowing has already been done -- building up the cash balances."

Then Mr Empey asks a number of questions: "How much money must Ontario borrow now and in the future to cover the government's plans? Certainly more than the $8.5 billion that the minister announced. Likely more than the $10.2 billion in net financing."

So we've been told the complete story. We know there are all kinds of fancy bookkeeping entries. The Provincial Auditor doesn't approve of that. He hasn't approved of the way the Finance minister of this province is keeping the books.

As well, we now have these new corporations which are going to hold the former debt of this province, so the debt is actually much higher, particularly when you start looking at the Workers' Compensation Board and Ontario Hydro and the debt that's accumulating in those organizations. We'll be spending some time on that in the little bit of time that I'm allowed.

Mr Empey continues: "The review of budgetary items that we have made here already suggests hundreds of millions in delayed spending" -- and this is another trick that this Minister of Finance has developed in his reign of terror in this province -- "(eg, delayed capital projects and obligations arising from the social contract in 1996) that must be covered in the future."

Can you imagine what's going to happen when this social contract falls due in 1996? It's just going to be just terrible, the expectations that have been put on people in this province and the unrealistic dreams that they think they're going to have as a result of this contract, and I worry. I don't know who is going to form the next government, whether it's the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party or the Conservative Party. All I know is all heck's going to break loose in 1996 on that one topic alone.

Mr Empey continues: "By the government's own calculations the provincial purpose debt will pass $90 billion this year, headed for $100 billion." Unbelievable. "This dubious landmark now seems likely to be achieved in early 1996." That's not far away. "How much debt will foreign markets buy?" That's a question that remains unanswered in this paper, and it worries me when you look at the fiscal policies of this province, the debt that continues to increase and the amount of money that this province is asking this House authority to borrow through Bill 159.

So the question, quite a legitimate question, which perhaps the Finance minister or the parliamentary assistant or whoever is going to be responding at the end of this bill will deal with is: "How much debt will foreign markets buy? How much debt will Ontario tolerate?"

How high can we go -- $100 billion? Can we go higher? When will it be paid off? Why is there not any restraint that's being put on by this government? I know they can blame people, they can blame the recession, they can blame the federal government, they can blame the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, they can blame everybody in the world, but the fact of the matter is there is no sign of restraint in this government with respect to solving fiscal restraint.

"Many financial commentaries are convinced that Ontario passed most reasonable limits this year and there is a serious risk that Ontario debt will be downgraded to a less-than-investment-grade status. That would seriously erode the province's ability to make choices and set policy in the future."

That's the problem. I know the New Democratic Party has faint hopes of governing after the next election, but whoever it is, that's the real issue: the policies that you're setting now and that you're seeking authority to borrow for in this bill. That last question I'm going to read again, because that's the question that is most important, because we have to continue to look to the future.

"Many financial commentaries are convinced that Ontario has passed most reasonable limits this year and there's a serious risk that Ontario debt will be downgraded to a less-than-investment-grade status. This would seriously erode the province's ability to make choices and set policy in the future."

It's a very serious issue that I look to the parliamentary assistant or the Finance minister, if he returns, to answer.

Then the paper goes on and talks about a couple of the other items which dart their ugly heads periodically in this House. That has to do with Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board. I personally have spent some time debating on the new bill that the Minister of Labour has just introduced with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and the unfunded liability and how it's being predicted that the unfunded liability, notwithstanding what this bill is hoping to do, is going to increase to $31 billion in a very short period of time. How is it going to operate? Where's the money going to come from?

How are we going to do it? There's no sign of restraint, not one iota. Not even in the social contract is there a sign of restraint.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: The member makes noises, but the fact of the matter is that there isn't any sign of restraint. The writer goes on to say, with respect to Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board, "Ontario Hydro's massive $35-billion debt is simply noted at the end of the budget." It's just noted; there's just a little reference to it at the back of the budget. A $35-billion debt of Ontario Hydro and there's simply a note. Why doesn't the Finance minister do something with respect to policy with respect to that utility?

"The utility's current losses and struggles are mentioned in the budget speech, along with a commitment to hold down the recent staggering increase in rates.

"The huge and hidden debts of the workers' compensation fund are mentioned in passing. But the mismanagement of WCB has been the current of extended study and controversy in 1993." This is the part that has been referred to in previous speeches when we were talking about the Workers' Compensation Board. "Some estimates indicate that the unfunded liability" --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): What is the unfunded liability?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a questions and comments period. Order.

Mr Tilson: Right now it's over $11 billion and you had no justification to allow it get that high.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, this is not questions and comments period.

Mr Tilson: Continuing on with this paper -- I recommend that you read this, and if you don't have it, I'll get it for you, because it's an excellent paper.

Interjections.

Mr Tilson: You laugh and you chuckle, but you don't do anything. You just sit there like sheep and let your leaders put you into more and more debt in this province.

"Some estimates indicate that the unfunded liability of the fund, which is now $11.5 billion, could exceed $31 billion in 20 years. Without mentioning these basics, the budget promises to reduce the unfunded liabilities by $18 billion over 20 years." This statement I emphasize: "Even if this effort is successful," and most of us are rather dubious that it will be successful, but even if it is successful, "the current level of obligation will remain on the books." That current level of obligation is going to stay there. "In fact, the proper accounting of the province's debt should include the $11.5 billion unfunded liability," and that's not being done.

The Treasurer is doing all kinds of unbelievable tricks that have been put forward. I see the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is here in the House, and he has reiterated this point many times, the unbelievable bookkeeping tricks and moving things to corporations, moving debts off. But I can tell you, the people at the bond-rating agencies aren't going to accept that.

The conclusion of this report: "A careful reading of the province's financial status reveals a very different picture than the one portrayed by the minister on May 5." That was the budget. "We see accounting tricks and hidden obligations" -- I'm not the one that's saying this; this is being said by members in this House, by members of this Legislature, by critics, sound economists who are referring to the tricks of this Treasurer -- "that confront Ontarians. These will likely add more debt to the province's load in this year than last -- perhaps by more than $11 billion if all is accounted.

Expenditures and other obligations that have been delayed by this budget will add to deficits in the next fiscal year."

That's the other thing; the putting off of debts into the future. There's just no way, whether the Liberals, Conservatives or NDP form the next government -- they're going to have an awful time. You have just made an unbelievable mess of the economy of this province and how this place, the province of Ontario, is going to operate in years to come.

Carrying on with this paper: "These obligations make it likely that debt related to the budget will pass $100 billion by 1996 (or sooner). There is at least another $40 billion to $50 billion in accumulating obligations from Ontario Hydro and the workers' compensation fund." That's a very low estimate, in my view.

So finally, with respect to a critique on the budget -- and it's a budget that should be showing the signs of restraint and it hasn't, and that's why you've come together with Bill 159 to ask for authority to borrow up to $15.5 billion -- the concluding paragraph: "The budget provides an inadequate accounting of the province's obligations and an unworkable plan for controlling the finances. If Ontario does not get a new plan soon, we will be on an irreversible course to $150 billion in debt when the term of the government ends next year." Some $150 billion in debt. What have you done? What have you done to our province?

In some of the opening remarks of this paper, and I'd like to speak to some of those, comments were made by the Treasurer in the budget. I think we should analyse what he says and determine whether or not he is really trying to talk about restraint, because, no question, Ontario does need fiscal restraint now.

Mr Empey -- I'm probably pronouncing his name wrong -- quotes the Treasurer in his paper. This is from the budget. Mr Empey says: "Now is the time to impose a strong measure of fiscal restraint on the Ontario government. Spiralling debt is undermining the province's standing with international lenders and eroding confidence among business groups and the community."

That's the word: business confidence. Who has confidence in this province? There's no question that the government is trying to spend its way through government spending, but private enterprise isn't spending; private enterprise can't, because of your fiscal policies. If you don't improve the policies with respect to encouraging private enterprise to operate in this province, we're going nowhere.

"One immediate response to the budget, by the Canadian Bond Rating Service, has been to place Ontario debt on a 'credit watch' with the threat of downgrading the current rating. Evidence of recovery is the signal that spending should be cut and the deficit eliminated." The province of Ontario "is again failing to grasp the opportunity."

Then he quotes what the Finance minister said at page 18 of the budget: "'We are bringing the deficit down in a balanced and responsible way. To reduce the deficit even more this year would slow the recovery and job creation and undermine the services Ontarians value.'"

That is the policy of the province of Ontario. He says you can't do it. He says it would "slow the recovery and job creation and undermine the services Ontarians value." We cannot afford the services that you're implementing in this province. We can't afford them. We don't have the money to pay for them. You know that.

Mr Empey says: "In this statement the Finance minister reveals a basic inconsistency in his policy. In 1991 the government introduced massive stimulus to create jobs during the recession."

Remember that? That's when he said: "We're going to spend our way out of the recession. We've got lots of money."

Carrying on with Mr Empey's paper: "Now, with evidence of recovery, the minister must move to the next natural step -- restraint. Indeed, Ontario's recent history of weak fiscal discipline suggests that fiscal restraint now must at least equal the degree of stimulus in 1991-1992." But that isn't what the Treasurer is doing. He's just going upwards and upwards on debt. How do I know that? I know from what he's asking with respect to Bill 159: $15.5 billion.

One of the issues, of course, is always jobs. We all talk about jobs in this place. Mr Empey says: "Fiscal restraint will create jobs only if it raises the confidence level of business. The private sector will create jobs when public confidence on economic circumstances is high."

Now, can you ask yourself, have you provided that confidence? I'll be looking forward to the two-minute responses for you to give examples as to how your government has promoted confidence in this province.

Carrying on with the paper: "If serious fiscal restraint is combined with other initiatives that favour private jobs, an economic turnaround can be created. The opportunity to begin serious regulatory reform and to reduce the burden of tax and implementation was lost. The minister," namely, the Minister of Finance, "was able to point at the right areas -- eg the cost of tax and regulation, workers' compensation and Ontario Hydro rates -- but nothing significant was delivered."

He mentioned them very briefly in the back of his budget but he did nothing, and he continues to do nothing, even in his bill. Even the Workers' Compensation Board bill really does nothing with respect to that unfunded liability.

"Instead of creative solutions, the government resorted to the use of questionable accounting tricks and fiscal deception."

I'm allowed one half-hour with respect to making comments on this bill, but I'd love to spend half an hour on this topic alone: the creative solutions that this Minister of Finance has put forward to try to trick us in the opposition, the bond rating people and the people of this province that everything's okay, that the debt's not going up, that it's going down.

In the comments that follow, here are some examples of these tricks:

-- "Accounting illusions

-- "Fiscal timing: hidden delays as economy

-- "Shifting responsibilities to other governments." In other words, downloading.

-- "Fiscal terrorism" -- and these aren't my words; these are the statements of this report, and there have been other reports, other papers like this. "Fiscal terrorism: inflated estimates and illusory solutions.

-- "'Straw man' or false targets

-- "Leaving out the detail."

Then the paper goes into a considerable number of charts showing the extent of the private domestic restraint. That's the problem, when you start thinking of it, of the domestic part of our sector, of our economy: the restraints that they've been forced to put through, because if they don't, they're going to go under. If they don't have restraint, they're going to go under. Everyone has practised restraint, except the province of Ontario. I, for the life of me, can't understand, when a bill like this comes forward, that there aren't more signs of restraint -- not more signs; that there aren't signs of restraint.

The final area I'd like to refer to is with respect to page 6 and 7 of this paper. "The weak economy is closely linked to the low level of public confidence in government."

The minister said on page 2 of his budget speech: "Ontario is getting a vote of confidence from business investors. Investment in machinery and equipment is expected to increase by over 10% to more than $21 billion" this year. This is what the Treasurer said in his budget.

But as this paper points out, "The minister overlooks the monstrous 75% decline in non-residential construction between 1990 and 1993." Who's building apartment buildings? Who's building them? Well, non-profit housing is having a wonderful time, but there is no construction in the private sector apartment business. "This area of business investment will not return to previous levels of activity until the next century." That's the prediction of this writer.

Then the minister returns to the matter of investment and confidence when he says, and this is at page 9 of his budget: "This government is providing a competitive corporate tax system to attract new investment and create jobs. Ontario's corporate...tax rate for manufacturers is more than 4 percentage points below the US average." That's what the Treasurer said.

But this statement and others like it have said: "The assertion that Ontario's tax system is competitive is not borne out by more sophisticated analysis. The government's own Fair Tax Commission had research done by Jack Mintz at the University of Toronto that analyses the impact of Ontario's corporate income tax on business investment. The results show that Ontario imposes a higher tax on new investment than any other province in Canada. Many other areas of tax in Ontario are also high in comparison to other provinces and states."

The tax levels in this province have got so out of hand that I don't know how private enterprise has stayed alive to date as it has. "These high tax rates undermine business confidence." Keep those words in mind: "business confidence." If you tax people to death, people who are going to invest in this province won't invest because of fiscal policies of high taxes. "These high tax rates undermine business confidence, turn away new investment and encourage the growth of the underground economy."

With one minute left, I would like to spend some time on the underground economy, and we know, of course, I can't do that, but that has been debated in the past. In fact, we found out with the cigarette tax the effects of the underground economy and how we lowered taxes, and we're going to be talking about the tobacco tax in third reading. But that's what's going on in this province. People are being forced, because of the high tax measures, to get into the underground economy.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): What about the GST?

Mr Tilson: Oh, GST? Give me a break. You know perfectly well that the policies of your government have driven us down, down, down, and the debt has gone up, up, up, as has been shown by Bill 159. Otherwise, why are you asking for all this money?

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? If not, further debate.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate and spend a little bit of time on the bill. I think everybody appreciates what we're dealing with here. It's a bill by the government requesting the approval of the Legislature to borrow $15.5 billion between now and the end of the calendar year.

It's an opportunity for us in the Legislature to reflect on the very serious problem we have in this province and in this country around the whole area of debt and the problems it will present to all of us as we try to deal with that in the future.

The problem is that when we're dealing with numbers in billions, I think it becomes almost irrelevant to individuals in many cases. But the fact is that in Ontario, when Premier Rae became Premier, the debt of the province was roughly $40 billion. Four years later, after four Rae budgets, the debt of the province is $90 billion. It took the entire history of the province to accumulate a debt of roughly $40 billion and it has more than doubled in the four years since Premier Rae became Premier.

What does that mean to us all? What it means is that when he became Premier, for the average family in this province, their share of the provincial debt was roughly $12,000. So each family in round terms was paying about $1,200 a year in interest payments to service that debt, to pay the interest on the debt. Now it's gone to $90 billion and the average family owes $30,000 in debt and is paying roughly $3,000 a year just to service the interest on that debt. Believe me, it is costing that amount of money. This year, we will be paying out roughly $8 billion in interest charges, and that comes from no one else other than the taxpayers. So we all have an enormous stake in this issue.

The reason we are borrowing $15 billion is because we've seen the province take its debt from $40 billion to $90 billion in four years. For anybody who likes to look at numbers, there's a chart in the budget that I find fascinating. It's a 10-year history of the finances of the province. You can see, when Bob Rae became Premier, the public debt interest as a percentage of revenue -- this is a measurement we all use, that is, how much of the revenue, the tax dollars we're bringing in, are we using just to pay the interest on the debt?

It's some measure for the taxpayers of where they are having to lay their hard-earned tax dollars out. When you're paying interest on the debt, frankly you're getting no service for that.

When Bob Rae became Premier of the province, we were spending less than nine cents of every dollar we brought in to service the debt, to pay the interest on the debt. This year, we have more than doubled that. Roughly 18 cents of every dollar that we bring in now in the province is going straight out the window to pay the interest on the debt. You can see the trap we're beginning to get into, which is that all of the increased revenue that's coming into the province is going right out to pay the dramatically increasing interest on our debt. We used to spend nine cents of every dollar we brought in on the interest payments; it's 18 cents now.

Debt as a percentage of gross domestic product: This is a measurement that is used really around the world to give some indication of the stability of governments around the world, what is the government debt relative to the gross domestic product, gross domestic product being a measurement of the output of the economy. When Bob Rae became Premier it was under 15%.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Bob who?

Mr Phillips: When Bob Rae became Premier it was under 15%, the debt as a percentage of GDP. This year, according to the budget, it will be over 30%. When you combine that, I must say, with the federal number, we now have the unfortunate distinction that in Canada the debt is over 100% of our gross domestic product.

It is a serious problem that is having a profound impact on our ability to provide services in the province. What's the reason for it? I'd say there are three fundamental reasons. I think even the Premier would acknowledge now that if he could ever turn the clock back to that first budget, it would have been a very different budget. We all learn from mistakes, but that one was a significant mistake.

Interjection: Sounds like David Peterson in 1990.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the comment because I'll have a chance to respond.

The first Bob Rae budget where they were going to spend their way out of the recession was an enormous mistake. I've read and re-read that budget many times. The word "restraint" is not in the budget. You can't find the word "restraint" anywhere in that budget. This was the only government in North America that presented a budget that year that didn't talk about restraint and the need to get spending under control.

I can remember what the words were: "We are proud to be fighting the recession. This is not the time to be fighting the deficit."

Mr Cleary: Spend their way out.

Mr Phillips: "Spend their way out," my colleague says. They took the deficit from $3 billion to $10 billion, and now we have gone through enormous pain as the government attempts to rectify that problem, but we haven't rectified it.

We now have seen four straight budgets with deficits over $10 billion. Although this budget, the one that was presented, said that the deficit was going to be $8.5 billion, I will say, as all of the analysts out there say, that the 1994 deficit is not $8.5 billion; it is at least $2.5 billion more than that. The money markets have seen through that, the analysts have seen through that, virtually everybody in the province has seen through that, and I think we'd do ourselves a service by saying, "Yes, the real number is substantially higher than $8.5 billion."

Problem number one was that spending didn't work. Problem number two was that the government, as we remember, took taxes up for three straight years. I believe the hope was that the tax revenue would go up, on average, by over $1 billion a year. Three straight years with dramatic tax increases: one year, $1 billion; the next year, $1 billion; the next year, $2 billion.

In that same period of time, what happened? When the government expected tax revenues to grow, tax revenues actually declined. Why is that? It's clear now, as we look back on it, that it was because the tax increases had a dampening impact on the economy. Even now, as we head towards the half year and on into the end of 1994, the Ontario economy is still producing less in 1994 than it did five years ago, which is an amazing statistic.

We've had a significant growth in population, a significant growth in investment and capital equipment, but at the same time the province is still putting out fewer goods and services than it did five years ago. Why is that? Yes, North America has had a problem with the recession. Yes, Canada has had a problem with the recession. But Ontario has had a unique problem.

We have had a longer, deeper, more profound recession than anywhere else, and I would submit to you that it's a combination of the fact that there's a lack of confidence in the government's ability to manage its finances and the fact that the tax increases had a counterproductive impact on the economy. Not only did we not get the revenue; we've dramatically slowed the economy down.

The third problem, of course, is the one we all talk about, and that is jobs. I recall clearly coming back in September of 1991. Bob Rae, the Premier, got up and said: "Jobs are our number one priority.

This is where we're going to focus all of our time and attention." Since then, on at least four other occasions, different times, it's been the same message, but what has actually happened is that in 1993, and remembering that jobs have been the Premier's number one priority, he says, for some time, we actually saw more people out of work in the province of Ontario than at any other time in the history of the province. I might say that this budget predicts that there will be fewer jobs created in Ontario in 1994 than there were in 1993.

I couldn't believe it when I picked up the budget, that the government, in its own document, is saying: "Yes, it's true. We are going to see fewer jobs created in the province of Ontario in 1994 than we did in 1993." For those of you who have a budget at home, it's on page 51. If that is the case, we're going to see more people entering the labour force than jobs are created and we're going to see a record number of people out of work in 1994. All those three things have come together to mean that we have a serious problem with our debt in this province.

I want to talk briefly as well about the games that I think are being played with the finances, and the reason I want to talk about them is that somebody is going to have to deal with these in the future. It is important that we all understand what is happening.

The first game is something called loan-based financing. That may sound a little arcane, it may not be of immediate importance to the public in Ontario, but I think it is. The reason is, it used to be that the province every year spent roughly $1.6 billion on schools and hospitals and colleges and universities and transportation and things like that and provided it in the form of a grant. So we've recorded the $1.6 billion as an expenditure. It went out in the form of a grant.

We're not showing that as an expenditure this year. The province is saying to those organizations: "You go spend the $1.6 billion, but we don't want it on our books. You go borrow the money." So the school boards in this province are out borrowing the money right now. "But whoever you borrow that money from, tell them not to worry because we will guarantee to repay it over 20 years." I said, "Listen, as far as I'm concerned, in five years, there will be $8 billion, just in five years, of debt hidden off the provincial books, over on someone else's books, but the province has 100% of the responsibility for that."

I will say, $8 billion is an enormous amount of money. It's more than the debt of Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland -- it's more than the total provincial debt of five of the provinces. But it's all going to be off the books, hidden away for someone else to manage.

The second game they're playing, in my opinion, is the whole issue of asset sales. What the government is doing, as we all know --

Hon Mr Buchanan: If you're going to talk about other provinces, talk about how they're going to do it.

Mr Phillips: The member is heckling across the way, but it's important, I think, that the public understand that all the government buildings in Ontario which are owned by the public -- there's a phantom sale going on right now. They are being sold to a government agency. The government then says, "Well, we've sold the buildings -- that's revenue." It's right in the budget. They're reporting $250 million worth of revenue, and then they immediately lease them back.

I have no difficulty with the government selling off excess assets. It makes all the sense in the world. Any asset we don't need, we should be selling it, as long as the market is reasonable for a sale, and using that money to reduce our debt. But in this case, it's not a sale. It's an absolute phantom sale. It simply is moving to a crown agency and then immediately leased back.

The third area of concern on the budgetary matters is what's happening on the pensions. This will truly come home to haunt us because there is a combined unfunded liability in our two major pensions, the teachers' pensions and the public sector pensions, of $10 billion. It is growing every year at roughly $800 million, roughly 8% each year. So the $10 billion would become $10.8 billion, then the following year it will add another $800 million. But the province has decided to make no payments against that $10-billion unfunded liability -- zero.

So all we're doing is -- the costs are still going on there, the expense is still going on -- we've just stopped payments. The reason they stopped payments is because they don't report that in the financial statements as part of the provincial debt. So it's an easy way to avoid showing a significant accumulation in debt. We'll just stop the payments against this one. No one sees that as a growing debt at $800 million a year.

The reason I raise all of these things is because the province in the last three years -- the reported three deficits, combined, were r