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

November 3, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CHILD CARE

BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SPORTS HALL OF FAME

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

WINDSOR CASINO

WCB PREMIUMS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

HEALTH CARDS

TAX REVENUES

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

BUS TRANSPORTATION

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

CASINO GAMBLING

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

CASINO GAMBLING

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

CASINO GAMBLING

OPP DETACHMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

REGION 2, IWA BUILDING SOCIETY ACT, 1993

YORK-DURHAM HERITAGE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

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

The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I bring to the attention of this House a motion passed yesterday by Toronto city council endorsing "the Salvation Army's retrofit of 135 Sherbourne Street as a major initiative aimed at alleviating the problem of homelessness in Toronto and, that the city of Toronto strongly urge the government of the province of Ontario to reconsider its decision and provide funding to the Salvation Army for the retrofit of 135 Sherbourne Street in the city of Toronto as soon as possible."

Many economists and social workers in the city of Toronto have reinforced the fact that there is a growing underclass, that the number of those on the outer margins of society is increasing, that there is real suffering in our midst. We know that the Salvation Army has been able to raise 83% of the amount of this retrofit through its own fund-raising efforts.

This province is being requested to provide but 17% of this investment in the people of this city. The Salvation Army has been turned down because it does not fit into the ideologically driven criteria of this government. The indispensable work the Salvation Army has provided to the city of Toronto for over 100 years has been rejected as unsupportable by this government.

I hope the minister will respond to the request for reconsideration which appears in the motion I have read in this House this afternoon.

CHILD CARE

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I would like to bring to the attention of the Legislative Assembly the workplace day care crisis in North York. For over six months, I have been working with representatives from the Little Prints Day Care Centre in an effort to help them attain minimal funding from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Thus far, we have been ignored.

Little Prints has raised, from the private sector, $200,000 of the $375,000 necessary to properly equip the centre.

There is a demonstrated need for the day care spaces in Willowdale.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You know Little Prints has always done well for themselves. I can remember them when I was on North York council.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Downsview.

Mr Harnick: The city of North York has only half the number of infant, toddler and preschool day care spaces that it requires.

The government has announced that it is giving $1.4 million to a day care centre in Barrie, $800,000 to a centre in King City, but it can't seem to provide the small amount of funds needed for a centre in central North York. The funding would increase the number of spaces available from 27 to 90.

Not only do the government's spending practices discriminate against the people in my riding, but the government once again is not spending its scarce resources wisely. The financial benefits of the project would far outweigh the expenditure. The funds would not only provide much-needed day care spaces but also jobs for child care and construction workers.

North York council recently passed a motion that asks the government to respond to the discrepancies in its funding practices. I call on the government to end its discriminatory spending and to address the drastic shortage of workplace child care services in central North York.

BUSINESS ACHIEVEMENT AWARD

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise to pay tribute to the winner of this year's Grimsby Chamber of Commerce Business Achievement Award, Canweb Printing. Canweb, which specializes in the printing of tabloids and magazines, started business less than two years ago with four employees, 7,000 square feet, six web presses and one folder.

Now 48 full-time and part-time employees run eight presses and two folders in 14,000 square feet. That's 48 jobs created since Canweb started business in 1992; 48 people who have acquired skills that will keep them employed in this new economy; 48 people who will pay taxes and buy goods and services from the local business community.

I am proud to say that the NDP government has helped Canweb create employment at its Grimsby plant. Just over a year ago, Ed Philip, then Ontario's Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, announced a $350,000 loan to Canweb, an excellent investment indeed, an investment that has paid off for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Canweb has also used the government's Jobs Ontario Training and Jobs Ontario Youth programs to help employees learn critical new skills, skills they will be able to use for the rest of their working lives.

I would like to personally congratulate Canweb Printing for its achievements, and I'm looking forward to seeing the company receive its Business Achievement Award this evening at Place Polonaise in Grimsby.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to remind the Minister of Economic Development and Trade of her statement made in this House on September 27. In that statement, the minister said this government could no longer stand idle in the face of the Quebec construction barrier. The minister, in her statement, referred to four measures she was going to introduce to address this problem. In speaking of the timing for implementing these measures, the minister made use of the word "immediately" four times.

It has now been 38 days since the minister promised to take action immediately. No legislation restricting Quebec construction workers and goods has been introduced in this House.

Ottawa-Carleton is very sensitive to this very serious problem. Even though we have unemployment in our local construction industry running between 40% and 60%, depending on the trade, there are still over 4,000 Quebec workers being employed in Ottawa-Carleton construction sites.

This means that there are over 4,000 Ottawa-Carleton construction workers who could be employed today but are not because the minister has not yet moved on this issue. That means that there are over 4,000 recipients of unemployment or social assistance payments in Ottawa-Carleton who are being kept, unnecessarily and against their wishes, on the public payroll. That means there continue to be 4,000 less taxpayers, 4,000 less happy, productive and fulfilled workers in Ottawa-Carleton because the minister has not yet introduced legislation.

On behalf of those 4,000 Ottawa-Carleton construction workers, I demand that the minister table her legislation mirroring the Quebec construction barriers immediately. These workers are not prepared to wait any longer.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Seniors are one of our most valuable assets in Grey-Owen Sound. Their volunteer spirit has established and assisted most of our charitable organizations and social programs. We owe them a debt of gratitude.

Because Grey is a pastoral and beautiful county which offers year-round recreation activities as well as proximity to the city, many seniors have chosen to retire in our area. Therefore, our seniors population well exceeds the provincial average.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Markdale, where according to the 1991 census, 27.7% of its residents are over the age of 65, while the Ontario average is 11.7%. Because of the continued influx of retirees from other parts of the province, that number is even greater today.

As these people age, their vulnerability to accidents and major health problems grows and their need for care increases. Because they have given so much to the community, I believe the community should give back to them. Therefore, in Markdale, I would like to advise the Minister of Housing that I support the application --

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Why don't you tell Mike that?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Durham East, come to order.

Mr Murdoch: -- of the Markdale Community Residences. This organization is very concerned with the serious lack of appropriate seniors' housing and wishes to rectify the situation. The councils of the village of Markdale and the county of Grey join me in this support. The community is concerned about the wellbeing and quality of life of these seniors who no longer wish to live in isolation and who crave proper health care and good company.

I urge the minister to take an interest in this proposal and give the application every possible consideration.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I haven't got any prepared speech. I'm going to talk about welfare. Last week, I heard the Leader of the Opposition, I heard the leader of the third party and they unmercifully attacked the Minister of Community and Social Services about welfare, but never once did I hear anybody over there talk about corporate welfare. Corporate welfare: When are you going to talk about that?

We had games in the SkyDome this year, we had playoff games, we had the World Series and I can tell you that there was more corporate welfare fraud that took place in the SkyDome during the World Series than has happened in any welfare office across Ontario. That's where the fraud is: welfare corporate fraud.

I can tell you that this is from the Toronto Star and it says: "We need an overhaul of corporate welfare." These people are ripping off the taxpayers. They should have paid. They have profits of $87 million. They should have paid taxes at 36% and all they paid was 17%. I don't want to hear any more about welfare fraud until you people start talking about corporate fraud. That's where the trouble is. Corporate fraud is absolutely disgusting. They're ripping off everybody in the SkyDome every day of the week and it's shameful.

SPORTS HALL OF FAME

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I had the opportunity last evening to attend the Shriners-Knights of Columbus Sports Celebrities Dinner, at which we have groups of different religious persuasions working together for good charitable causes in our part of the province of Ontario. At this dinner, seven people were inducted into the St Catharines Sports Hall of Fame.

They included Pete Cameron. It's said of Pete Cameron that, "It would be difficult to locate a St Catharines athlete with more diverse talents than Pete Cameron.

"As a youngster, Cameron...played baseball, softball, basketball, soccer and lacrosse and won his only three boxing matches."

Bob Thorpe was also inducted into the sports hall of fame. He played with the city's first junior A team, the Falcons. He was involved in semipro hockey throughout his career and named to the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame.

Bill DeMars, under the category of builder -- as a trainer-executive fund-raiser and general handyman.

Rose and Joe Engemann: Who can deny what they have done for young people through the Spartan Athletic Club as over the years they have given thousands of youngsters an opportunity to participate in sport?

George Howard, now 87, may not have invented hockey, but he's the only surviving cofounder of the first hockey league in the Niagara region.

Craig Swayze, in the field of the media, has done more to promote the sport of rowing than most people in the media would in a lifetime.

Congratulations to all the winners and to the Knights of Columbus and Shriners of St Catharines.

DISCLOSURE OF FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise today to inform all members of this House of my intention to introduce a private member's bill which I prepared and will be tabling to amend the Labour Relations Act. These amendments are in response to the Treasurer's announcement a few weeks ago that will force private companies to disclose compensation packages of their top five executives.

My amendments to the Labour Relations Act will mirror the government's own regulations as they relate to executive compensation packages. My private member's bill will require that the details of the salary paid to the top five highest-compensated union representatives would be tabled annually with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

This will ensure that both management and labour are being held to the same level of openness and accountability. Union members would have the right to see what their top executives are being compensated to represent their interests, just as in the same way they will be able to examine the top five positions in the company they work for.

The NDP government often talks about fairness for the worker and level playing fields. I'm confident they will support my private member's bill to allow trade unions to operate under the same rules of disclosure that private companies are now being asked to adhere to.

I am pleased to present this private member's bill on behalf of the thousands of union members of Ontario who have not been represented by the current government.

QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Recently, thousands of people from across Canada and abroad converged on Kingston for alumni weekend at Queen's University.

One special event was the 100th anniversary of the faculty of applied science, which drew crowds of graduates back to the university for celebrations of the university's justly famous engineering program.

Engineering began at Queen's in 1893 when Principal George Grant and Kingston native Premier Oliver Mowat teamed up to establish the provincially funded Ontario School of Mining and Agriculture at the university. Applied science has prospered in Kingston ever since, and Queen's engineering graduates have been responsible for many of the great developments that have built Canada into such a prosperous country in the past 100 years.

I am pleased to say that the tradition of provincial support for Queen's has also flourished since then. Indeed, another alumni weekend event was the dedication of a plinth outside the university's Stauffer Library, now under construction. The province committed more than $28 million to the library under the former government, and we have been pleased to follow through on that commitment. We look forward as well to the imminent construction of the new biosciences complex at Queen's, for which our government announced $25 million in funding earlier this year.

The great return on these investments, of course, is the creation of a learning environment that puts Queen's at the forefront of higher education in Canada. As evidence of this high standing, I'm pleased to note that Ron Watts, Queen's professor and former principal, perhaps Canada's foremost expert on federalism, was honoured this week with a distinguished educators award from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. I'd like to offer my congratulations and thanks to Professor Watts for his contributions to higher education in Ontario and Canada.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would like the minister to tell me how a 22-year-old student living in Kitchener-Waterloo can receive an assistance cheque for himself and two children he doesn't have, issued out of the Mississauga offices of the family benefits assistance program and sent to him at his home in Port Hope. Can you tell us the procedure by which this fellow would get that cheque?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): No. I think it's clear from the circumstances the member has described that if that is what's happening, something obviously has gone wrong in that particular instance. I'd be happy to pursue that information he's provided and to be able to respond, not on the details of it, but to assure him that obviously we will look at the particular situation and see what has gone wrong if the facts as he describes them are correct.

Mr Elston: The facts I've described are correct, and I add to them the fact that this gentleman was issued with a dental card and a drug card for children he doesn't have. He was issued this cheque for $1,596.99, and thanks to his honesty and his having raised this in returning the cheque, the money was not spent by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I want the minister, when he checks on this, to again look into how this could happen and to tell us exactly what he has done to ensure that the people who are receiving cheques out of various offices are actually living at the addresses that are given, and I want him to tell us exactly what steps he's going to take to absolutely ensure that people who haven't even applied for welfare -- this person didn't apply for it -- won't be sent a cheque. I want him to come back and make a full report as to how he is going to stop the leakage around the social assistance system.

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, let me say on the particular instance that I would appreciate it if the member would forward to me the information he has, because that's the only way in which I can pursue it and ensure and be able to provide an adequate response to exactly what is happening in those circumstances.

As to the broader issue that obviously the member is raising, I want to again say to him, first of all, that we are taking, as I have indicated on a number of occasions in the House, a number of steps, including steps that involve the addition of staff to specifically review files and to specifically determine whether people are entitled to the allowance they are receiving, to the benefits they are receiving. I indicated in the House how already that has resulted in our finding some overpayments.

As part of the steps that we are putting in place now, that are now in place going through the system, we are adding even more staff to be able to deal with that. We are doing that at the provincial level; we are doing that also together with the municipalities because of their responsibility for general welfare assistance.

I would be the first to say that I believe we need to do more, and we are in the process of looking at what more we need to do.

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

Hon Mr Silipo: This is a problem that I believe we need to be tackling in a very serious way. I intend to continue to look at what measures we can add to the ones that are already in place to ensure, as the member would want us to and as everybody else in the province would want us to, that benefits are going to those people who need them.

Mr Elston: The minister already is doing more. This is the new staff training manual, with this funny little rendering on the front required under the expenditure control plan, which your ministry has put out.

One of the things the minister has done to tighten up the system is to advise all clients that there will be no home visits with respect to renewing their applications. In fact, it is indicated here, and I'll read: "The information update report is to let us know if there are any changes in your situation." This is advice to the client saying, "You only need to file with us if you've changed your address or if your rent has been changed," or whatever. For example, you must complete an information update report if your address or rent has changed or one of your children has left school or home.

If there haven't been any changes, you don't need to send this card in. In fact, these cards are only sent out every couple of years under your new, tighter controls to prevent the leakage around the system.

Our problem here is that we all want to ensure that the people who need our assistance are able to get it, but the minister has not yet explained to us what steps he is going to take to make sure the type of errant cheque-issuing which occurred in this one particular situation is going to be stopped. I want to hear, if the minister will, if he will provide us with all of the steps, in a chronological order, which he has implemented on his own account over the last two months to try to tighten up the welfare system so that the deserving and needy people in this province can get access to timely services.

Hon Mr Silipo: I would be very happy to provide to the member, and to all members of the House, in writing the things that I have been saying, and in much more detail than the time in question period allows me. I think the member will see that we have taken and are continuing to take a number of steps to ensure that the benefits under the social assistance system are in fact going to people who are entitled to them and that we do deal very seriously with issues of fraud or issues of abuse in the system.

I take that issue quite seriously. I think we can show very clearly in answering the member's query how we are doing that. Again, I would say to the member on the issue of home visits, which I know he's raised now for the second time, that yes, there have been some changes in terms of asking people to take responsibility directly for filling in the information. But the only difference there is whether we ask people to come into the office to get that information or whether they are able to send it to us in the mail.

The bottom line remains that where the income maintenance workers believe a home visit is warranted, they have every right and every encouragement on our part to carry out those visits. That basic issue hasn't changed. Again, it's one of the steps among a number of steps that we are taking and that we certainly need to look at what we can add to around this issue of ensuring that both issues of fraud and issues of general abuse and even overpayment are addressed, and are addressed in a very serious way.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have here a letter from the law firm of Koskie and Minsky, which represents the Essex and Kent Counties Building and Construction Trades Council. In this letter addressed to you and to the Honourable Brian Charlton, Chair of Management Board, they claim that your government has failed to follow its own requirements for tendering government contracts at the temporary casino at the art gallery in Windsor. This is not in reference to the request for proposals, but rather for the construction contracts.

I also have a copy of the lease document for the Art Gallery of Windsor, in which the government of Ontario is the tenant and the gallery is the landlord.

Minister, are you aware of this letter that I refer to, and did you in fact obtain competitive contracts for the construction work on the temporary casino in Windsor?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): No, I'm not aware of that particular letter. I would like to take the question on notice for him today and get back to him when I have more information.

Mr Mahoney: I find it astounding. The letter is clearly addressed. It's sent by fax and personal delivery both to the minister and to the Chairman of Management Board. Perhaps you could have referred it to the Chairman of Management Board. Maybe he's done his homework. Maybe he would understand what the problem is here.

The lease signed by your government for the use of the Windsor art gallery as a temporary casino clearly states, and let me help you with this, that the gallery, ie, the landlord, must obtain at least five competitive bids from general contractors for the work they are doing on your behalf. Yet the general contract for this project was given to one Mr Alphonse Fanelli without putting out a call for bids from other contractors. Mr Fanelli, for your information and the Labour minister's information, is well known as a non-union contractor in the city of Windsor.

Furthermore, the building trades council claims that the closing date for the subcontract bids was October 28, yet by that time construction work was already going on and indeed had been for some time. Obviously, that bidding process was meaningless too.

The building trades believe and I believe that such behaviour has made a mockery of the government's own tendering process. I ask you very pointedly, did you know that the construction work on the temporary casino in Windsor had simply been handed over to a non-union contractor without a competitive bid, and is this an appropriate way for your government to do business?

Hon Ms Churley: As I said to the member, I will get back to him once I get more details on the information he is presenting to me today.

Mr Mahoney: This is really quite remarkable. It was pointed out that the Minister of Education and Training interfered in the request for proposals bidding process and made a political decision to eliminate a number of companies that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in submitting a proposal for this Windsor casino. He's already admitted that publicly. Here we have a minister who is charged with the responsibility for building the government's casino in Windsor and she doesn't even know whether or not there were competitive bids. We know there weren't.

She doesn't even know it's a non-union contractor that is doing the work, while we know it's a non-union contractor that is doing the work.

Minister, let me ask you very pointedly. If in fact after you investigate and read your mail, are you prepared to issue a stop-work order on this project in Windsor until you clean up this terrible mess and at least give the workers in Windsor a sense that there is some fairness in this bidding process? Will you issue a stop-work order if in fact this turns out to be the case?

Hon Ms Churley: I will get back to the member. I'll be discussing the issue with the Chair of Management Board. Of course, Management Board has been involved in this process.

I would like to say, however, that there are many parties involved in this process, including the art gallery, the city of Windsor and Management Board of the government of Ontario. I will get back to the member when I have discussed it with the Chair of Management Board and discuss the facts with him.

But I would also like to say to the member that as to the facts around the land for the interim casino, he knows very well that what he said in the House today is not based in fact, that we listened to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, just a moment. I thought the minister had completed her response.

Hon Ms Churley: I was in mid-sentence. The reality is that we had involved the city of Windsor from the beginning in the decision around where the interim casino should go, and it overwhelmingly made the decision that it should go downtown.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): That has nothing to do with it.

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

Hon Ms Churley: And we listened, as we always said we would, on the location for the interim casino.

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

WCB PREMIUMS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Minister of Labour. For the past few weeks, Minister, we've been raising and asking questions about the huge WCB rate increases that Ontario workplaces will face next year. Time after time after time after time when we've raised these rate increases and we've talked about the necessity for them, you've had the typical response that governments have had around here for the last eight and a half years; that is, that you must hike taxes, you must hike rates. Never looking at the expenditures, never looking at the reason why this unfunded liability is going through the roof, you tell us that the only solution is to hike rates.

Minister, we have in Ontario a severe shortage of funding for group homes. We have thousands of vulnerable Ontarians in need of care. Given this, can you explain to me how raising the WCB rates of group homes by 205% in one year is fair?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I've tried to deal with this with the member before, but he doesn't seem to listen. The average rate increase at the board this year is 3%. We are in the second year of a process of reclassifications where some industries, some businesses, are seeing their rates decrease and others are seeing them increase. The increases or decreases are based on their accident and health and safety record, and that's as it should be.

Mr Harris: Yesterday the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation met with Mr Di Santo to discuss its outrage that these rate increases were being brought in without any consultation. In a letter to Mr Di Santo, of which I have received a copy today, Jim Yarrow, chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, has this to say about your 3% nonsense.

He says, "The board has advanced a shocking public relations campaign to whitewash over the true effects" of your decision. In your own press release you say, "The WCB announced that the board has approved 1994 assessment rates and declared that the average assessment rate will increase approximately 3%." Quote from Mr Yarrow: "At the very least, this is an attempt to mislead."

Can you explain to me why you are spouting the old line that Mr Di Santo is spouting when the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation is telling you this is going to mean devastating job loss, that it is misleading at the very least, and that these changes were brought about without one whit of consultation with the employers of this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again I don't know where the research is of the leader of the third party, but I want to tell you that the business classifications have been increased from some 100 to 200-and-some classifications, and it was done to more accurately reflect the accident records and the health and safety records in those classifications.

While he's talking about the increases, he might talk about primary smelting and refining, where they're down 22%; industrial electronic industries, where they're down 9%; school bus operators, where they're down 7%. What I told him was the average increase across the board was 3%. There are ups and downs as the businesses fit into the new categorization.

Mr Harris: You keep repeating the information that Mr Yarrow today is responding to, "I was personally shocked with your frail effort to justify your move by saying you 'must administer the act, imperfections and all.'"

Here are the facts that Mr Yarrow advances: Since 1988, the number of accidents has decreased by 37%, the rate of injury has declined by 30%, yet the benefit expenditures have increased by over 50%. He says: "Either the board does not know the reason for this or is refusing to disclose the reasons. You and your administration are of the view that the answer to the crisis is to raise employer taxes. It is not. You must reduce expenditures now."

Can you explain to me two things: (1) why your response to this mismanagement is always to hike rates, and (2) why the board was able to make this decision without one whit of consultation? I quote again from Mr Yarrow's letter of today: "For the board to make a move of this nature without even discussing it first with the business community uncovers the board's true commitment to consultation." Can you explain why it was made without consultation and why your board thinks, as apparently your government does, that the solution to this crisis is to constantly hike taxes or rates?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The answer is fairly straightforward. I might say that last year the rates went up or down by 3%; this year it's an average 3% increase, and they are related to the health and safety record in the various businesses. I think that's exactly as it should be.

I might tell the member also that the board has been doing I think an excellent job of trying to cut some of its costs. They flat-lined their budget last year in terms of the board's own expenses; they've decreased it this year. To me, that is some good management going on at the board.

Mr Harris: A second question to the same minister: I wonder if you could explain to me good management in view of Mr Yarrow's statement that, "Your decision and the manner in which you made it was irresponsible and reckless and has served to dispel any level of confidence the business community had in you and your administration." He goes on to say, "Your refusal to reconsider the rate hike from the meeting yesterday and accept the business proposal from your own employer advisory group which was before your board will reap tragic consequences which you personally must shoulder." That is now you personally, Minister, since you're defending this decision.

Can you explain the contradiction in you coming in here and telling us that the unfunded liability is going up $2 million a day, heading towards $50 billion by 2014, contrasted with Mr Yarrow's conclusion as chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation that says that it is irresponsible and it is reckless? Can you explain that tremendous contradiction between your view and what Mr Yarrow is saying?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let's go back and do a little primary education, which I think the leader of the third party needs. I want to tell him first, very, very clearly, that the WCB has been a contentious agency in this House for a lot of years. I know that well from my days on the other side of the House.

I want to tell him there has not been an awful lot done across the way to try to resolve some of the problems. I want to tell him also that there is a problem with governance, with unfunded liability, with a number of other issues at the board, and I want to tell him that this government is trying to deal with those issues. I want to tell him that the effort to bring to the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee, both management and labour, the specific problems at the board was an effort to get the parties themselves involved in giving us what answers there might be, and that's a process that's still going on.

I find it rather deplorable that the leader of the third party would get up and attack that, and say, "You've got to come in with recommendations on one set of issues only, from one side of the issue, and immediately put them all in place," which would throw injured workers in the province of Ontario on the scrap heap, rather than letting the process finish, which is only weeks away from finishing. I think your approach to this is absolutely despicable.

Mr Harris: The only way injured workers will be thrown on the scrap heap is if WCB goes belly up, and many, many people are telling you you're on the path and the track to going belly up, just like your government's going belly up, just like your Premier's going belly up.

By way of supplementary, soft drink manufacturing is up 16.6%, furniture manufacturing 28%, publishing up 17.2%, paper products up 27.4%, metal products up 18.7%, aircraft manufacturing up 34.1%, lamp manufacturing up 79.6%. Can you explain to me how all these rate increases add up? Can you explain to me why that causes the chairman of the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation, Mr Yarrow, to say this: Your saying they went up 3% "at the very least...is an attempt to mislead." Can you answer that allegation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If I wanted to be reduced to the same tactics as the leader of the third party, which I don't intend to be reduced to, I could go over the list of industries and companies and businesses in Ontario which are going to drop, and they're all within an overall 3% average in the province of Ontario.

I want to tell him that this government, this ministry and this Premier decided we were going to try to deal with the issue of resolving some of the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

Mr Harris: The minister keeps saying he doesn't get suggestions. Yesterday I gave you a proposal; you just dismissed it. Yesterday the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation gave an alternative to continually hiking taxes. Mr Yarrow points out and gives a whole host of those areas where they're going up far in excess of 3%; it is not an exhaustive list. He says, "Our members who will suffer as a result of your decision are insulted by your attempt to explain this move as an average 3% increase. Those members will be forced to lay off workers," the very workers that you purport to protect.

Minister, are you prepared to look at the alternative that has been proposed by the Employers' Council on Workers' Compensation to save jobs, to keep people working in this province and to save the integrity of the Workers' Compensation Board so we don't have a disaster where injured workers will find themselves abandoned and on the heap pile, as you call it? Will you listen to alternatives other than the disastrous policy your mismanaged board is heading in today?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's exactly what we're trying to do while the leader of the third party tries to euchre the process. We've had one part of the issues we put before the PLMAC in the report the member is referring to.

We haven't yet gone back to the Premier with that. We haven't yet gone to the Premier with labour's recommendations on it, and yes, we will look at all of the recommendations that are there. But if we followed your lead and dealt with the first batch of recommendations only, what we would do would be simply to throw injured workers in the province of Ontario on the scrap heap, and that this party does not intend to do.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is for the Attorney General. The United States government, through undercover customs agents, has been engaging in unauthorized law enforcement activities in Ontario. There has been a series of incidents, and your ministry is familiar with one in particular, the case of Ken Walker, a Toronto commodity broker.

Mr Walker, having done absolutely nothing illegal in Canada, was lured on to a plane destined for the Bahamas by US undercover customs agents who arrested him when the plane touched down in New York. He was a victim of a sting operation originating in the United States, based on US customs regulations never intended for Canadians.

Your officials are refusing to prosecute the US agents who entrapped Mr Walker, stating the alleged facts do not constitute a crime in Ontario. You now have on your desk a pre-trial civil ruling of September 16 by Mr Justice Day in the Ontario Court which clearly states the alleged facts constitute a kidnapping in Ontario of Ken Walker.

Madam Minister, my question is this: Why won't you stand behind Ontario resident Ken Walker and prosecute those who entrapped him and lured him to the United States on a trumped-up charge?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): This case has been reviewed a number of times by officials in the Attorney General's ministry. We have read the judgement of Mr Justice Day and our determination still is that there are no facts on which we can establish the offence of kidnapping under

section 279(1)(

b) of the Criminal Code. This person was not unlawfully confined within Canada, and when he was arrested in the United States it was pursuant to a court-ordered process.

We have encouraged and we know that Mr Walker has approached the federal government as to whether or not the action of these US custom officers constituted a circumvention of the US-Canada extradition treaty. That is a federal matter in which we have no part to play.

Mr Chiarelli: This is a very serious issue. There have been repeated cases of US enforcement officials trying to make incursions into Canadian territory. With respect to the decision of the court of September 16, it states quite clearly that "Canadian kidnapping jurisdiction has recognized that a victim's will can be overcome equally by either force or deceit."

In this particular case, referring to Mr Walker, Mr Justice Day said quite clearly: "Once Mr Walker boarded the aircraft at Toronto, he could no more leave it than change its destination. The United States government defendants were awaiting his arrival at La Guardia, having planned to lure him there for his arrest." It is very clear in the judgement, Minister.

In addition to that, there is such a pattern of these incursions by US agents that Canada prepared a brief before the United States Supreme Court in 1990, where it said, "Canada's stated policy is to prosecute any individuals, even if they're official agents of the American government, on these types of cases," where there's an abduction or by deceit, bringing people into the American jurisdiction.

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

Mr Chiarelli: Your inaction is sending a clear message to these US enforcement agencies that it is open season in Canada for entrapment stings.

My question, Minister: Will you issue specific instructions to your crown law office officials to revisit this case in order to protect the integrity of our justice system from these Rambo-like tactics of US enforcement agencies? Will you do it? Will you protect the integrity of our system --

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Mr Chiarelli: -- and the rights of our individual citizens?

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The case has been revisited a number of times. I will discuss it again with the crown law officers in the ministry, but I would remind the member that it may well be that there is a general kind of sense that this is happening. There need to be facts on which to prosecute, and in this particular case this person entered the aircraft willingly, according to his own fact evidence, and was not confined on Canadian soil in any way.

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I hope the Minister of Labour is a little more forthcoming with the northwestern chamber of commerce when it meets with him today. WCB was certainly one of their big concerns that we heard today. Another one, though, was education, and so my question is to the Minister of Education and Training.

Earlier this week, the Scarborough Board of Education passed a zero tolerance policy on school violence. Minister, do you endorse this policy and do you intend to recommend it to other boards in the province?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I certainly endorse a policy of zero tolerance for violence in our school system. I don't think that's an issue that any of us would disagree with.

We are working, as I told the leader of the third party before, in consultation with boards, teachers, police and other professionals across the province on a more comprehensive policy in the Ministry of Education which I hope we'll be able to talk about publicly before Christmas.

Mr Harris: Police at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in St Louis last month were told that school violence is a major problem for the 1990s and that administrators are not equipped to handle the problem. What we've found -- many boards in a vacuum now are looking at security guards in their schools as a way of combating violence. Other boards may be looking at the Scarborough example.

The problem is that without some leadership from the province, there is this vacuum there, that different teachers and different boards and different parents will try to fill and interpret zero tolerance in many different ways. I say to you, as Minister of Education, that you and your government must provide the provincial leadership. Can you tell me specifically what you plan to do to ensure that schools don't become a dangerous place for our children and that we don't have this plethora of different policies in different schools that are very difficult to interpret? Can you tell us that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I agree with the leader of the third party that there has to be a policy direction provided and leadership provided by the Ministry of Education. I think I have stated before that I'm not satisfied that leadership has been adequately provided by the Ministry of Education.

That's why we're working on a more comprehensive province-wide policy and we're going to have to address the issues of prevention, the issues of more comprehensive reporting, as well as how we deal with instances where there are weapons and violence that occur directly in our schools. I think it has to be a comprehensive policy. I'm not satisfied that we've done enough and I'm determined we will do that. That's why we're working on it now.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Minister of Health with a response to a question asked earlier by the leader of the third party.

HEALTH CARDS

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I have a response to a question the leader of the third party raised yesterday with respect to an OHIP card which had been sent to the wrong address and which related to a newborn infant. I'm happy to tell him and tell the House a bit of the process by which newborns are assigned health cards.

When a child is born, the hospital has a pre-printed health number which is assigned to the infant and then later a card is sent. In the case that the leader of the third party raised yesterday, the card was incorrectly sent to the wrong address. In the case of a newborn, charges while that infant is in hospital are then made to the number that has been assigned on birth.

In the case of the card that was raised by the leader of the third party yesterday, I'm happy to be able to tell him that no inappropriate charges were made to that particular number.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): No.

TAX REVENUES

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Premier and I'd like to follow up on your explanation on the lost revenue and the underground economy. I think the Premier's aware that an all-party legislative committee is looking at this issue. The wealth of evidence we've seen to date suggests that the problem is probably a $2-billion to $4-billion revenue problem; that's what most witnesses suggest is the size of the problem.

I read with interest your belief of the primary reason for it and I think you said the problem is with the GST. I think you said there is no other explanation over the last two to three years as to why, when the economy is in a state of growth, our revenues would be stagnant. My question is this, Premier: Of that $2-billion to $4-billion revenue shortfall, how much do you attribute to the GST?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I appreciate the member's question and I would say to him that, if he wants to look at the full context of the response I gave in a scrum, what I said was that I was referring to what I felt was the GST as having not only a major factual intrusion into an area that until its introduction had been exclusively occupied by the provinces -- and the reason we took the federal government to court was because we objected so strongly to this intrusion. I think it's very hard for us to calculate with complete mathematical certainty what the impact is.

I'd also say to him that I don't think the GST is the only problem. In all my discussions with the federal government, I've emphasized that we not only have the duplication of the GST now on sales, we have duplication on tobacco, we have duplication on gasoline, we have duplication on income tax, we have duplication on virtually every commodity tax that's there. This is quite contrary to what the Fathers of Confederation foresaw as the fair share between the provinces and the federal government when it comes to taxation.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I don't think we should neglect the fact that we now have an opportunity, with a new Liberal government elected in Ottawa -- I know the member will be sharing our view and will be following with us as we try to sit down with the new Liberal Party government in Ottawa -- to say to that Liberal Party government in Ottawa: "You campaigned on fair taxes. You have a mandate to get rid of the GST, to abolish the GST, which was the campaign promise you solemnly made to the people of Canada." We will be working with the people of this province to ensure that the Liberal government in Ottawa lives up to its promises --

The Speaker: Would the Premier please take his seat. Supplementary.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate that the Premier's heart is still in Ottawa. In many respects, I'm sure he's sorry he ever left it, but I ran for the provincial Legislature and my role is to hold you accountable. I didn't choose to run federally, I chose to run here in the province.

Next week, Premier, you know that your first six months' financial results will be out. We've been told by you that the revenue shortfall is between $800 million and $1 billion. We've been told that two thirds of that will be personal income tax revenue. We understand and you understand, Premier, that the personal income tax revenue in this province over the last three years, the amount of money we've gotten in, has dropped by $2 billion. At the same time, Premier, you know you have raised personal income tax rates by $2 billion. So you expected personal income tax to go up by $2 billion and it has dropped by $2 billion.

That's the reason I raised the question of the underground economy. You believe it's the GST. In fact, you said there is no other explanation. My question to you is this, Premier, and we will be looking with interest at the financial results next week, what has led you to believe that there is no other explanation than the GST when we see personal income tax revenue actually dropping dramatically over the last three years? We understand from you, Premier, that when you bring the results out next week, we will see another $600-million shortfall over what you would have expected. What is causing that to happen, Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: I think we've just seen the problem, if I may say so to the honourable member, with a scripted question that doesn't hear the answer I just gave. I thought I gave a very clear answer to the first question in which I talked about the problem of duplication as it applies across the board.

I would say to the honourable member that, first of all, he's got to recognize that the figures that relate to a lower revenue flow this year on personal income tax and the adjustments we've had to make have to do with an adjustment that the federal government made with respect to 1992 numbers. It does not have to do with any budgetary increases which were put forward by the government in the last budget. So you're comparing apples and oranges and trying to come up with a crate of pomegranates, and as usual it doesn't work.

I would say to the honourable member, if it makes him feel any better, that the discussion we have to have with the federal government applies to taxes across the board in which we have to come up with a system that is fairer as well as a system that is more efficient and that gives all of us the revenues we need to pay for health care, to pay for education and to pay for the kinds of services that the people of this province and the people of Canada need.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I look forward to the member's support in our campaign as a province to see that the federal government gets out of the way on the GST, because it has had a very negative effect on the tax system overall. I'm sure that he will make sure and he'll be writing personally to Mr Chrétien to see that Mr Chrétien lives up to the one fundamental promise which he has made on behalf of the Liberal Party. I know as a good Liberal opposite, he'll be firmly in support of the abolition of the GST, which was a central campaign feature of the Liberal Party in Ottawa.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Since October 6, I have been telling you that many groups and individuals are strongly opposed to Mr McMurdo's reappointment as management co-chair at the Workplace Health and Safety Agency. They do not believe that he represents their interests.

For the record, do you still deny that the business community is dissatisfied with Mr McMurdo's record and is strongly opposed to his reappointment? If you do recognize that this is in fact the case, will you explain why you personally insist on his reappointment?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I don't agree that there is such a unanimous position in the business community and we haven't finalized the decisions there yet, although there has been a good job done at the health and safety agency.

Mrs Witmer: You are not listening. You do not have the right to blatantly interfere in this bipartite process in the manner in which you and your deputy minister have. Your deputy minister recently indicated to the management representatives that the government is going to reappoint Mr McMurdo because you are satisfied with his work. That is irrelevant. He is not your government's co-chair and he is not the labour unions' co-chair; he is the management co-chair. This blatant disregard for the wishes of management makes a complete mockery of democratic principles and the idea that the WHSA is a cooperative agency in which both business and labour have an equal role.

I ask you one more time: Will you follow democratic principles and allow the management community to nominate and appoint their own co-chair without any interference from you or your deputy minister?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's obvious that the critic for the third party is discounting totally the management members who are on the board at the agency now, and I find that very difficult to understand.

SENECA COLLEGE CAMPUS

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. Again, I'm having to stand up and ask in the Legislature a question that my constituents are certainly concerned about. It's an issue that I brought up in the House yesterday, and that is the Seneca College proposal that we all believe should go to the Jane and Finch community.

Continually, I have written letters and, continually, I've had to have meetings with your staff and the previous minister's staff. I have met with you in particular on a number of occasions. Quite frankly, I am not happy with the responses. I am truly concerned that Yorkview and the Jane and Finch community are going to lose out on what we call the most important thing that this government could ever give to the Jane and Finch community.

I don't have to tell you that 65% of our public housing --

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

Mr Mammoliti: -- tenants are on social assistance. A Seneca College campus will help get those people off social assistance, and that's proven.

Are we or are we not getting a Seneca College campus at Jane and Finch?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I must say I'm not quite sure why the member is not satisfied since the member knows that a $200,000 planning grant was given to take a look at the possible locations. That report's only been in to the government for a few weeks now, and while we move quickly in our ministry, we can't be expected to move that quickly. Yes, the member has talked to me and I've explained all this to the member. I'm more than willing to explain it on the record, but I don't think it's particularly fair to say that a member is unhappy with something that is moving as quickly as possible.

Mr Mammoliti: We appreciate the previous minister giving $200,000 to our community to conduct a study and giving it to Seneca College to conduct a study. That study has now led to this report that Seneca College has given to our community.

The community agrees, everybody agrees, that the site should go to Jane and Finch and nowhere else. It shouldn't go to Vaughan, it shouldn't go to York University, it shouldn't go anywhere else in this city except Jane and Finch. It can do more good at Jane and Finch than anywhere else.

Mr Minister, I need a commitment. I need a commitment today from you. I need a commitment for my constituents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mammoliti: I need to know how you stand on the Jane and Finch proposal, Mr Minister, and I'm hoping it's positive for us.

Hon Mr Cooke: I wish things were that black and white. Not everybody agrees with the honourable member. Not everybody agrees with any one of the particular areas that are being looked at. There are certainly pluses for the Jane-Finch area. There are also pluses, quite frankly, for the York University location. We're working through the process and we're going to be looking at the pros and the downsides for each of the locations. But I think the member's wrong to say that everybody unanimously agrees with the member's position. That's not the case.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, last week the press reported that Ontario plans to push the incoming federal government to start spending money quickly on a variety of road, sewer and transit projects under the Liberal's promised job creation program, and this is what Premier Bob Rae said: "I've asked everyone within the public service to go through the federal Liberal red book and see what we can do together. We'll start calling them up as soon as they're sworn in and say: 'We're ready to do these things. Where are you?'"

Minister, in eastern Ontario, as you know, we have a project that is ready to go, and that project is called Highway 416. Last year you put phase 2 on hold indefinitely and you said you didn't have sufficient money available. In view of the fact that the new Prime Minister, who's going to be sworn in tomorrow, has said he's going to support just these kinds of projects, will you now put the second phase of 416 back on track and will you make the 416 one of the top priorities that you and the federal government will work on and fund together?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Long before the writs were issued, long before the little red manifesto became night and bedroom reading for the fans, long before that, Premier Bob Rae went on television and said that he would match dollar for dollar in terms of infrastructure any new money that was to come from the feds.

We've had a change of heart. The people have spoken. Blue led to red. We are looking forward to working with our new-found friends, because this is exactly what we're talking about. The federal government doesn't spend one red penny on provincial highways, and now I see my friend saying, "Come on with us." Well, you do the same. We'll be reciprocal. We'll tell everyone, for every dollar you put in, we will match you. We will put people to work.

We're already spending in excess of $38 million this year on Highway 416 north. You want to have it completed in its entirety -- and 416 south. Let's do it together. We will be there like soldiers at our post.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Daigeler: I am prepared to say thank you if the rhetoric that was coming forward is in fact a confirmation that the minister will be on the phone tomorrow or the next day with the new federal Minister of Transport and he will say, "Yes, we are ready to pull the 416 back off the shelf and we are ready to go with you and complete the 416 in the time that was originally scheduled."

My question to you then again is -- because there was a lot of rhetoric about your commitment that you seemed to say -- have you already instructed your officials to reopen the files on the second phase of the 416 to make sure that this project, where the engineering is all done and construction could start in the spring on the second phase will -- have you instructed your officials to put this dossier back on track and will you contact the federal minister as soon as possible, at the earliest possible opportunity, to get the two governments together and to sign the full commitment towards the completion of 416?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Under the previous administration, when the phone in my office did not ring I knew it was Ottawa calling. I take the proposal from the member across with a great deal of seriousness and sincerity. We will do it together. In the meantime, we have asked our officials -- and you're right on -- to look at every opportunity, even involving at the infrastructural level, under a new concept, the free enterprise system, departing from the form that it's always the job of the government.

Let's do it together in this case. It's a new partner in the equation. We look forward to it. The thought, the idea is well taken. If not done after the swearing-in tomorrow, within 24 hours, I will endeavour -- and I promise -- to call my federal counterpart, offer him congratulations and invite him to partake in this project.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have to say I would love to have a question to the minister following that particular one because they are the ministry --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To whom is your question directed?

Mr Turnbull: -- that dragged their heels about a joint venture with the federal government on infrastructure.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Mills please resume his seat. What is more appropriate is if he would identify the minister to whom he wishes to direct a question.

Mr Turnbull: My question is still to the Minister of Transportation. In response to a question by my colleague the member for Wellington yesterday with respect to longer bus lengths, he said, "You're getting the legislation." Minister, the legislative mechanism is already there.

On July 14 of this year, you brought in Bill 74,

an act to amend the Highway Traffic Act, dealing specifically with longer truck lengths. My question to you is: When will you bring in Bill 74 for second reading and will it contain an amendment to reflect the longer truck lengths?

Interjection: Bus lengths.

Mr Turnbull: I'm sorry, I should have said "to reflect the longer bus lengths," an addition to that bill.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The question is welcome. I appreciate the member's candour that there's so much going forth in terms of transportation safety programs, expediency, competitiveness in the marketplace. So the trucks have gone from 48 feet to 53 feet. It's a safety issue as well. It's an economic competitiveness issue. It's also an environmental issue.

More pertinent to your question, which is very well taken, as an answer to your colleagues, our friends, yesterday, I could've been out of step in terms of going out on the limb and saying maybe it can be done by legislation. Well, I did think that it could be done by legislation. Now it's a matter of process to say, do we need regulation or not? I've asked our legal people, the people who draft legislation, whether it can be done by regulation. That way it gets done quicker. If not, we'll have to go through the process and we will have, like all competing priorities, to get seated. To notify the parties across, that takes a little more time.

I'm sympathetic to the idea. I say this at great risk. I don't wish to prejudice our caucus. Our democratic process demands that all of us together make a decision on important matters such as this. In the meantime, one possibility would be --

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- to enact a de facto situation whereby we could issue permits. But first we must probe the waters. We must ask the people who are making it possible around here, if yes or no, they wish to acquiesce to what I call the reality of longer buses by a few feet to accommodate the marketplace and to be able to compete with other jurisdictions.

Mr Turnbull: On repeated occasions, I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House have asked questions to the Minister of Transport, and once in a while it's acceptable to be the court jester, but I've got to the stage where I am absolutely fed up with a minister who is obviously not briefed on the issues. I presume when he made his answer to my first question now, he was admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about yesterday.

My question was very specific, and it ran along the lines as to whether you would be amending Bill 74. I'm not talking about bringing it under the guise of some other bill. You brought in a bill last summer --

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

Mr Turnbull: Are you going to bring back Bill 74 to address the issue of long trucks and to address the issue of long buses, as opposed to tacking it on to graduated licences? I'm going to say this in advance: We've already discussed graduated licences in committee; we've agreed it's a good idea. We don't want that tacked on to Bill 74.

The Speaker: Would the member complete his question, please.

Mr Turnbull: Are you going to bring back Bill 74 for second reading --

The Speaker: The question has been asked. Would the member resume his seat, please. Minister?

Hon Mr Pouliot: This is a bit of a twist. Obviously, if it can be done by consent of everyone, if you wish, because once you open the door to amendments, in political jargon, the vultures start gathering --

Mr Turnbull: What a lot of drivel.

Hon Mr Pouliot: No, no -- only in that context, and you will come up with several amendments.

What we're trying to do, and we're searching long and hard, is to find possible ways to make it happen as quickly as possible. We couldn't care less, as long as the people win, who gets the credit.

My critic opposite -- I've been putting up with him for over two years now -- always makes it a point to go to the bottom of each and every matter. He has a resilience that is uncanny, that is rare, and I appreciate this. By the same token, to refer to the honourable minister as a court jester makes him a --

Mr Turnbull: Point of order, Mr Speaker --

Hon Mr Pouliot: There he goes again.

The Speaker: What is out of order?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat first.

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You have an obligation as Speaker to cut off drivel that is being talked in this House.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: As most people reach the milestones in their lives, I think it's important for this House to recognize our colleague George Dadamo, the member from Windsor, who is celebrating his 40th birthday today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order, and indeed the honourable member is suitably embarrassed.

PETITIONS

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This petition is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will affix my signature to this petition, as I agree with its contents.

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 28 signatures from my riding of Dufferin-Peel. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas criminals can currently derive profit from the sale of recollections of their crimes; and

"Whereas criminals can also derive profit for interviews or public appearances; and

"Whereas this can cause suffering of crime victims and of their families;

"We, the undersigned, demand that private member's Bill 85, Proceeds of Crime Act, 1993, be passed into law."

I have signed this petition, and I support this petition.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here signed by many people in my riding with concern to the free trade deal:

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

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

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario in Toronto to fight this trade deal with whatever means possible, and we petition the House of Commons in Ottawa and the newly elected government there to live up to their commitment to stop this deal now."

It is signed, as I mentioned, by Sharon Fiance, Marie Genesse, Larry Houghton and Maureen Thorne in my riding: good, hardworking people concerned about their jobs.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have a petition that reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party purports to have a commitment to family life and a quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

I sign this in agreement.

HIGHWAY NOISE BARRIERS

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition from the Sarnia Citizens Highway Noise Reduction Committee. It is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and reads as follows:

"I, the undersigned, am requesting that the appropriate levels of government take immediate action to resolve the excessive noise levels on the Sarnia corridor of Highway 402 (which cuts a path through 100% residential). I support the reduction of the speed limit to 70 km/hr and the installation of an effective noise barrier."

This petition has been signed by 478 constituents in my riding of Sarnia. I am in strong support of this petition and affix my name to it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario, and families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures," as we all know;

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has had a historical concern for the poor in society, who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded, and the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling;

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

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

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

Mr Speaker, I sign my name to this petition, and I want you to know that.

OPP DETACHMENT

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here that I'm bringing forward on behalf of the constituents who are concerned about the preservation of law and order in their community. The residents are concerned because they read an

article that appeared on the front page of the Sunderland Sun on September 28, and there's a fear that they might lose their OPP station.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Beaverton OPP station has been a long-standing, integral part of the Beaverton area community;

"Whereas many of the officers and staff have established permanent homes in the Beaverton area and have become strong voices in the community in volunteer and non-profit groups" -- in fact, many of them were involved in the car rally this past weekend to help the Sandgate Women's Shelter;

"Whereas the OPP station provides an economic benefit for the Beaverton community;

"Whereas the OPP station provides a much-needed policing presence;

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

"We demand that the Ontario government maintain the OPP station in Beaverton," as the closure would be detrimental to the security and safety and the wellbeing of all Brock residents.

Mr Speaker, I have one of the people who work in that detachment here today.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Witmer, on behalf of Mrs Marland, from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 10th report and moved its adoption.

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

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): No, I have no comment.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Huget from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's report on graduated licensing and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

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

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Yes, Mr Speaker, if I could.

The committee held public hearings from September 7 to September 16 in Toronto, Ottawa and St Catharines. During the course of these hearings, the committee heard from numerous groups and individuals, including representatives from driving schools, driver educators, transportation research and safety organizations, automobile and motorcycle associations, the insurance industry, police associations, medical professionals and private citizens.

The committee would like to thank the staff and officials of the Ministry of Transportation for their expert assistance and their cooperation throughout the committee's deliberation on graduated licensing.

In addition, the committee would like to acknowledge the assistance of its support staff: Tannis Manikel, clerk of the committee, and Andrew McNaught, research officer.

Finally, the committee would like to express its support for the process adopted to consider this issue. In particular, the committee believes that referring draft legislation to a committee, rather than legislation which has received second reading in the House, promotes a non-partisan and cooperative atmosphere in which a committee can function effectively.

In addition, such a process enhances the integrity of the committee's work as well as the integrity of the legislative process as a whole. The committee suggests that more issues be handled in this way.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Mr Huget moves the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr56,

An Act to revive Ottawa Jewish Home for the Aged.

Your committee begs to report the following bills as amended:

Bill Pr50,

An Act to amend the Institute of Municipal Assessors, the title of which is amended to read "An Act respecting the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario";

Bill Pr52,

An Act respecting the County of Hastings;

Bill Pr59,

An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Your committee recommends that the actual cost of reprinting be remitted on Bill Pr50,

An Act respecting the Institute of Municipal Assessors of Ontario.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGION 2, IWA BUILDING SOCIETY ACT, 1993

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

Bill Pr65,

An Act to revive Region 2, IWA Building Society.

YORK-DURHAM HERITAGE RAILWAY ASSOCIATION ACT, 1993

On motion by Mr O'Connor, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr64,

An Act respecting York-Durham Heritage Railway Association.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

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

Bill 116,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 116, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I read a statement in the House earlier on this proposed bill. The purpose of the bill is to make information available to the public about compensation paid to the presidents and other executive officers of trade unions. The Treasurer of this government has indicated the importance of making senior executive officers in the private industry available.

I would ask unanimous consent that second reading of this debate be made today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The question's in order. The honourable member has asked for unanimous consent to proceed to second reading. Agreed? I heard at least one negative voice.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 17,

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

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I got about halfway through my presentation some time ago with respect to this bill. Of course, this is a bill which is to set up a number of crown agencies, three new crown corporations in particular, the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, the Ontario Realty Corp and the Ontario Clean Water Agency.

We've heard considerable debate in this House and in committee on this topic, and I think the question still remains, why are we creating this new set of bureaucracy? Why are we setting up these new crown agencies? The public in the past has had a great deal of difficulty understanding the working of crown agencies, the accountability of those crown agencies. Really, the public at large has no basic understanding of what happens when you have these crown agencies formed: the number of employees who are going to be there, who's going to be running them, specifically what they're going to do, the possibility of these crown agencies getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

It's an ironic time for a government that has talked about how it wants to downsize the government and has introduced social contract legislation as a result of which people in this province are losing their jobs as well as affecting their way of life. I will tell you, that's what this legislation will do.

This legislation is going to create three new crown corporations, and it will require a substantial number of people to run these corporations and will require a substantial amount of money to run these operations. The question has been asked, and I ask it again, about exactly why we are doing it. Will the system be any better now with these new crown corporations than the system we've had, which basically has had a substantial amount of accountability through this government? There's no question that there will be less accountability to the government through these crown corporations.

The Provincial Auditor, unsolicited, has made some statements at the public accounts committee, to which I'll be referring very shortly, and his concern on the whole issue of accountability.

When you take operations of a government out of the consolidated revenue fund and put it into crown corporations, it creates many problems certainly for me as a person in this place, because I will have no say, I will have no right to question. For example, the Minister of Labour is continually standing in his place and saying he has no idea what is going on at the Workers' Compensation Board, that it's its business.

The Minister of Environment and Energy is standing in his place when questions are asked with respect to the whole process involving the Interim Waste Authority and saying, "I don't have anything to do with that; that's their job." It's very important when we have major operations being conducted in this province that there be a system of accountability. That is the second concern I have with respect to Bill 17.

There's the issue of cost. There seems to be an idea coming from the government side that we're going to have much more money to do things, that we're going to have much more money to build roads, to improve our water systems and a whole slew of other things. The average person in this province knows that there's only so much money and it's fictitious to say you're going to have more money to perform the work this government is now doing.

We all know we've got less money, and to say we're going to create three crown corporations that will be allowed to create a debt -- and perhaps the government will say in the next budget, "The deficit is down and the number of employees is down," and where has it all gone? It's gone to these three crown corporations.

That's the third issue, the issue of hiding the deficit. This has been spoken of by many members in this place, the issue of: What is the real deficit of this province? What is the real debt of this province? I can tell you, the debt of this province will not include the debt of these three crown corporations, and everything is being moved over with respect to these matters to these three crown corporations. We really will have less say as to what is going on in this place, we as legislators. I have a great fear about that.

The closing remarks of my speech to this House when we were last here had to do with a

section in the bill which I read specifically to the House on the matter of the hospital debts. That had to do with

section 33(3). I'll read the

section again because it gives me great concern with respect to a situation that's occurring in my own riding of Dufferin-Peel.

The

section says, "Except for capital projects where the Minister of Health's share is less than or equal to $1,000,000, a payment for capital purposes made by the Minister of Health to a hospital, as defined in the Public Hospitals Act or any other facility receiving funding for capital purposes from the Minister, that is charged to an appropriation of the Ministry of Health for the fiscal year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1993 shall be deemed to have been a loan from the Province to the hospital or other facility."

In short, what that means is that there was originally a grant that was promised by the former Minister of Health of the Liberal government. That promise came over to two different ministers of Health in the NDP government and still continues. That would be a grant to the Dufferin-Caledon Health Care Corp of $24 million. Now, with Bill 17, and I think the

section is quite clear, that will not be a grant; that will be a debt which the corporation will have to pay back to this new corporation being created by this government.

So it's rather deceptive to start off with a Liberal government, to go through two different Health ministers saying, "Yes, we want health services in Dufferin-Peel, in Dufferin-Caledon, and we're going to give you a grant of $24 million." When Bill 17 passes, the $24-million grant will suddenly become a $24-million debt that the community must be obliged to pay back.

The ministry, of course, has reassured me and the health providers in my riding that they will pay this, the interest and the principal of the loan. And they've said that.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes.

Mr Tilson: Yes, they have said that. But what happens? Am I supposed to trust them? Are we supposed to trust them?

Mr Sutherland: It's a legally binding contract.

Mr Tilson: There's no legally binding contract. They say they're going to pay the debt, but they're not going to pay the debt if the financial position of this province continues to worsen. The Treasurer stands up almost on a daily basis telling us of the financial position.

It gives us great concern with respect to the residents of Dufferin-Peel, and I suspect there are similar issues with respect to education and health care around this province, where matters that have been considered to be a grant are now a debt.

The member says it's a contract. That's fine, but we've all seen what happens to contracts in this province. We don't trust you. You set forward a social contract, unions bargain in good faith to reach a contract and you rub them out at the stroke of a pen. That's the fear I have as to what you could do with the constituents in my riding. Do I trust you? No, I don't trust you.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member direct his comments to the Chair.

Mr Tilson: Madam Speaker, I will direct my comments to the Chair, and I would like to refer very briefly to some comments that were made by the Provincial Auditor in the public accounts committee. He expressed grave concerns with respect to Bill 17, and he did this unsolicited. I'm sorry, it wasn't the public accounts, it was the standing committee on general government.

I have a few minutes left and I'm going to read some of the comments that the Provincial Auditor made. These are independent, unsolicited comments that were made by the Provincial Auditor in his concern, basically, with accountability because he is charged to make this place accountable. He has genuine fears as to the proposed accountability of these three crown corporations, that matters normally operated by various ministries are now going to be put in the hands of independent crown corporations.

These are some of the things he said back on August 17. "We saw accountability clauses appearing and disappearing in the draft legislation without being able to provide input or without finding out why these clauses were disappearing." He's had a concern with respect to accountability from the outset, even during the draft negotiations, the draft consultation process. He says: "I view Bill 17 as a first opportunity to enhance legislation for better accountability with the view that value for money be obtained. It is the result that I'm interested in, to ensure that we are obtaining value for money for the taxpayers' dollars."

He says these memoranda of understanding that have been put forward, "They're not tools that assist you, as members of the Legislative Assembly, in ensuring that you have the right tools to monitor, to control and take corrective action where necessary as these corporations are starting down the road and undertaking their activities."

He then expresses other concerns. "The corporations" -- the three corporations that are being created -- "are taking on operational and financial activities carved out of the operations and financial activities of the consolidated revenue fund."

That's exactly what they're doing. They're taking work that this government and all the governments in the history of Ontario have normally performed and it's being handed over, for some unknown reason, to three crown corporations. The Provincial Auditor of this province is concerned with the issue of accountability, and so are we on this side of the House.

"The Legislative Assembly should have controls over the corporation's revenue and spending and over the total provincial debt through legislation since memoranda of understanding are outside the scope of the Legislative Assembly."

He is saying, as I read his words, that his hands are tied, that he is not going to have the right to advise as to the accountability process of these three crown corporations, this myriad of individuals who are going to be operating these crown corporations and doing things about which I, as a member in this place, could normally stand during question period or at other times, designated times, and place questions to the minister who's currently responsible for those issues. I no longer will have that right. That right is gone when Bill 17 is passed.

I don't know why they're doing that. The member for Etobicoke West says it's an effort to fudge the books. It's an effort for the Treasurer to stand up in his place and say that the deficit isn't going to be as high as it was because the debt's going to be over in these three crown corporations. He says it's a big fix, it's a scheme, and that's why it's being rammed through this House at a rather fast pace. Well, he may have a point and he's made his point, as have others in this place, but the issue of accountability continues to concern me and certainly concerns the Provincial Auditor. He says:

"The accountability rules should be strengthened to provide a financial position statement which combines the consolidated revenue funds and these corporations, and indeed all other government-owned corporations, so that the public has a picture of the overall financial position of the province."

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with Bill 17. We all know that. When you pass Bill 17, the general public and we in this place will have less of an overall picture of the financial operations of this province. There's no question. There's no getting away from that. The Provincial Auditor has warned you of that, yet you continue to proceed with passing this bill without these accountability processes.

Madam Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to say these few words. The Provincial Auditor went on for a number of pages and the time precludes me from speaking on that, but I can tell you, this place all of a sudden is now going to have less accountability.

The Acting Speaker : Thank you to the member for Dufferin-Peel. Now we have time for questions and/or comments.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): It's really interesting to sit here and to listen to a Conservative talk about not taking on decisions that make good business sense.

He will know from every lesson and from every business person that surely to goodness he has ever spoken to, and he has listened to this advice over and over and over and over again, that the way to get some of these things and some of these projects and some of these initiatives moving, getting sewers on track, building roads, is precisely to get them away from government, to get them away from the stranglehold of bureaucracy, to put them in an arena where decisions could be made irrespective of political influence and can be made on an independent level based on good economic business sense.

Surely to goodness he will know all of that. What he's really angry at today is that somehow he senses and sees that his own political clout is somehow diminished, and I can't see how passing this act and proceeding with this bill does any of that. I would say to him, listen to good business sense and good business advice and support this initiative.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. I would like to caution the member that we must not impute any motive to any member of this House. We have time for further questions and/or comments.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I'm really not clear, if I'm to understand that you somehow reprimanded me or advised that I should watch what I say by imputing motives, I'm not clear on what motive or where that happened in what I said. Please be clearer because if there's something I said that is inappropriate or that imputes motive in one way, shape or form, I'll be more than glad to withdraw or to take that back. Please show me where I did that so I can correct the record. If not, please clear that.

The Acting Speaker: Certainly, to the member, I think what you would first do is you would look at Hansard and I will speak with you. If that's not clear, we will clear it up. I would like to go on now to the member for Parkdale.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I'm delighted to be able to participate in this debate. The member for Downsview is still on his feet, and I'm not sure that he understood your comments, Madam Speaker, when you said he did impute motive, and I think you were absolutely right to say let him look at Hansard and then he will find how we impute motives in this House.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask you to make your comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel's speech, please.

Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate your comments, but let me address the issue the member for Downsview raised. We're not talking here about business sense. He's simply saying that if Bill 17 is passed, then what we would be able to do is to have a good business analysis and we could carry on with certain business that would then be automatically looked at by all the members, and all of us would have a right to ask questions in the House. It would certainly be questionable whether the auditor could make that kind of a statement if indeed he thought the circumstances under which Bill 17 is being passed were quite legitimate.

In fact the Provincial Auditor, as the member for Dufferin-Peel correctly indicated, and I guess the comment goes to him as well, is really saying that this is a questionable practice, and he's looking at it with an eye to making some changes.

Certainly as members of the opposition, obviously, we would have a right to question it when the Provincial Auditor, who is authorized to look at the books, that the books this government has are not going to be cooked. That's his job, and if he starts to say this is a questionable practice, it ought to be looked at, it ought to be examined by this government. Certainly the member for Dufferin-Peel is quite right when he says if the Provincial Auditor says it's questionable, let's look at it and probably let's defeat it.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I listened carefully to my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. As always, he brought a cogent debate forward on this matter.

It is somewhat distressing when I hear members of the government suggesting that if we were to speak to business people, in some way we would find that the practices were good and applauded by business people. The fact is, the government constantly likes to portray us, the Tories, as the party of business. The fact is, we do talk to a lot of business people and a lot of business people comprise our members of the caucus.

We're very aware of the accounting practices the government adheres to and we're very critical of them. Indeed, there was nothing to suggest in my colleague's debate that this was not a good idea to move forward with creative financing. What his concerns revolve around are the clear efforts by this government to hide debt. I will enlarge on this when I join debate later.

We have consulted very widely with the business sector and we have been told very clearly that there's nothing to suggest the government needs to create capital corporations in order to enter into joint ventures, for example, on the roads. In fact some of the people who are involved in bidding on building Highway 407 would sooner be directly in a relationship with the government, as opposed to a crown corporation as a filter in between. They have some concerns about that, but it isn't going to stop them going forward. There's absolutely nothing in creating a corporation that is going to make them want to do business more than with the government.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Dufferin-Peel indicated he didn't know what the basis for these crown corporations are. We have stated repeatedly, and I have stated repeatedly, that the basis for these crown corporations is to allow us to speed up projects by entering into longer-term agreements.

Ministries now can only account for budgets on a yearly basis. That's all the House and the Legislature gives approval for. If we want to speed up some of these projects and enter into joint ventures, then we have to ensure that we can make some long-term commitments. These crown corporations will allow that to occur. In terms of a project like the 407, because there's consideration being given to tolls, you have a regular revenue stream, you can go out and borrow money against the projected revenue stream and have the construction go ahead far quicker.

The member for Dufferin-Peel brought up the issue about grants versus loans to hospitals and school boards adding to their debt load. It does not add to their debt load. Yes, they will take the loan out. There is a guarantee, not just a guarantee but a written contract that the government of Ontario will provide the principal and the interest. That written contract, if it's not followed through, can be taken through to the courts to be upheld, as most written business contracts can be done. I would think a member who claims to be in a party of business would understand a simple thing like that about contract law.

With respect to accountability, the other issue the member raised, he seems to forget the Provincial Auditor will be the auditor for these crown corporations. That's pretty clear accountability. There are all kinds of new accountability mechanisms in these

schedule 4 agencies that don't exist in agencies like the Workers' Compensation Board whose accountability mechanism, we remind members, was set up by the Conservative Party, not by our party.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.

Mr Tilson: I want to thank the various members for York Mills, Oxford, Parkdale and Downsview for making comments on my address to this House.

I will say I'm still not convinced, particularly by the members of the government, as to why this bill is going forward. We can say these three crown corporations will do things more efficiently. Are you trying to tell me that's because this government is doing things inefficiently?

If that's the reason you're doing it, why don't you improve the ways in which this government does business? Why create more bureaucracy that's going to be unaccountable to the people of this province? If that's why you're doing it, to make the system more efficient, then the whole thing's a sham. It's a shuffling of cards and that's exactly what it is.

A debt is a debt is a debt, to use a favourite quote of someone over on that side, and there's no question that these crown corporations will be able to incur debts, debts that the province of Ontario has in the past incurred, and that's the concern I suppose I have on this.

Of course, people in the water industry and the road industry are going to say, "There's going to be lots more money out there." But guess what? There's no more money out there. There's a debt, and that's the problem with this province, that you've piled up a debt since you came into office that this province has never seen before and now you're going to pass it on to three crown corporations. There's another bill in this place that's going to pass it on to municipalities and school boards and hospitals. It's unbelievable how you people think over there.

I will tell you I have a grave concern, as does the Provincial Auditor in this province. He commented on the remarks made with respect to accountability and the auditor's role in this. I obviously don't have time to read it, but I'd recommend that before we vote on this bill all of you read, on the subject of accountability, the comments made by the Provincial Auditor to the standing committee on general government on August 17, 1993.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. Are there any other honourable members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I am pleased to get an opportunity to participate in this debate. Every time it had been scheduled previously, I was unable to be here, either because I had to be in the constituency or was in committee. So I am pleased to be here, because this is an important bill before us.

There is a lot of money at stake and some very significant decisions that are being made by the government. Perhaps this bill is one of the key measures that the government may have taken in its probably one-time mandate. I think I'm pretty safe to say that after last week's federal election results.

But be that as it may, I also took

part in the committee hearings when we looked at Bill 17. We had representations from various groups including, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, the Provincial Auditor. There were some serious concerns that were brought to the attention of the government and to the attention of the committee, and at the same time there was also strong support for some of the measures.

In terms of the concerns, I think they have been spelled out very clearly in this House, in fact before the hearings were held, by my colleague Mr Gerry Phillips from Scarborough-Agincourt and by other members of this House. The concern, as was just mentioned, is that the government seems to be trying to hide debt in the books of other groups. In particular, where I think this is most obvious is when it comes to school capital.

The debt that will be incurred for school capital will show up on the books of the school boards and no longer on the books of the province, which frankly is something that we fundamentally disagree with because the province is, at least so far, assuming full responsibility for that debt. I say "so far" because I'm worried that once that debt is moved off the books of the province, there may come a time when the province says, "We will no longer fully guarantee that debt," and there will be a part of it that the local taxpayer, the property taxpayer has to assume.

I think all of the members in the House will know the heavy tax burden already on the property owner. I'm sure you, Madam Speaker, and other members in the House have received complaints, especially from seniors who own their home and who sometimes feel they have to give up their home because the taxation load on the property owner is ever rising.

Obviously, if school boards have to cover as well part of the debt load that normally the province would cover, where do they get the money from? Mostly, they get it from the property taxpayer. I have a concern there. This is not in the legislation.

At the present time the government is saying, "We will cover whatever debt the school boards will incur relating to the capital expenditures." I'm concerned that the door is open and that at some time in the future the government may simply say, "The debt is on your books, so therefore you shall also assume a certain cost of paying for the debt." That's a serious concern to me which frankly hasn't been mentioned clearly enough and often enough yet.

I am very leery about this measure, because I used to serve on a school board and I know how easy it is for the government. I don't blame just this government. It happened in our government as well when we were there and it happened with the Tories. There is a shifting of financial burdens between the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, and there's no guarantee that the various levels of government will stick to their promises.

So I think especially the school boards and the municipal level are rightfully concerned and will want to make sure the provincial government will keep its commitment towards assuming the full payment of the debt, even if the capital debt is on the books of the school boards.

I should say also in this context that I do hope the government will continue very strong funding and approval of capital expenditures for our schools. Obviously, that was one of the reasons the government put forward, that with this new capital corporation perhaps it may be possible to have even more capital available for new schools. I come from an area, fortunately still a very fast-growing area, where there is a need for new schools. I do hope that growth will resume very soon again in other parts of the province too.

What's one of the first priorities? It's new schools. We, under the Liberal government, made quite a bit of money, several hundreds of millions of dollars, available every year for new school construction. I remember those days in caucus when we pressured the Treasurer, who was always reluctant to spend the money; he was good that way. But we got a lot of demands from our ratepayers and from the people who were moving into new homes, who were saying, "We don't have a school; we need a school."

There's a lot of money involved and a lot of money required, and I certainly hope this government will continue to make money available for the schools we need, especially now when we're talking about infrastructure improvements and getting the economy going again. These are investments that stay with us.

So I encourage the government, even though it may be shifting this whole capital financing off to a corporation, that the responsibility for the approval of the amount of capital that may be handed out in a particular year will still continue to rest, as far as schools are concerned, with the Minister of Education. He or she will still have to say, "You can spend that much money on new schools, but you can't build this additional school."

Certainly, in my area of Nepean, for example, and the Carleton boards, both the public and the separate boards have a very urgent need for a high school in Barr Haven, the area where I live. This has been on the books for a long time. Just recently, both the separate and the public boards put that as a top priority, and I certainly hope the government, whether it be the government per se or the capital corporation, will be providing that funding very soon and to the extent that has been requested.

There is obviously a great interest in having capital moneys available to do the infrastructure improvements that we need. Last night my caucus colleagues and myself were meeting with representatives of the sewer and water contractors, and yes, they are in favour of the provisions in this bill that make it possible to have this sewer and water corporation, the clean water corporation, I think it's called.

They are not as concerned, obviously, as we are about the possibility of the government trying to hide its debt. They are mostly concerned about jobs. They said almost 50% of the people associated with these contractors are presently out of work, so they're obviously extremely keen to resume infrastructure improvements.

There's no question; I don't think anybody debates the need, for example, for improving some of the sewer works that we have. The area where I come from, Ottawa-Carleton, with the support of the provincial government, has built some very excellent facilities for sewage treatment. Especially in the suburban cities, we've got new sewers and they are maintained to make sure we are treating sewage the proper way.

Obviously there are other cities, and the city of Ottawa is one of them, that because they're older, don't have the kind of infrastructure under the ground that first of all can meet the demand, because the demand is ever-growing. With more people coming in, there's demand on the sewer and water systems as well. Simply, their length of life has come to an end, because many of these pipes were built around the turn of the century; they're almost 100 years old.

I remember that when Jim Durrell was still the mayor of Ottawa, he took us on a tour to visit some of the sewers that were in Ottawa, and some of them were still made out of wood. As the contractors told us last night, this is not the only instance where this happens; it's in other parts of the province as well. These people are very concerned from a jobs point of view, but then also from the point of view of making sure that we have the infrastructure that can support our normal living.

I mean, we're used to clean water, we're used to it that the garbage is taken away, that the toilets flush and everything else, but somebody has to look into that. It's all too easy to say, "Well, somebody will take care of it." It isn't just somebody; somebody has to plan for it. There are engineering departments in the cities that are preparing this, and they are generally doing a very good job, but it costs money.

I guess the government is arguing -- and I must say we were arguing as well. I remember that when Bob Nixon was the Treasurer he planned as well to introduce a sewer and water corporation that would look into some of these things. I think one can make arguments on both sides of the coin. Liberals, and I think Mr Chrétien at the federal level, certainly very clearly knew what the people out there were waiting for and hoping for, and that is job creation, to make sure that people get back to work and can contribute to society and also can contribute again to the tax base because they work.

From that perspective, we're supportive of the initiative that has been put forward, as long as it is very clear who is responsible for the debt and as long as we can be assured, through the auditor and through the way we in this Legislature can scrutinize the expenditures, that we know very, very clearly that ultimately it is the province which is still responsible for all of these expenditures.

While I was talking a little bit generally about some of the global measures of Bill 17, I am, as Transportation critic for the Liberal Party, particularly interested in the

section that establishes the --

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: This is a terribly important issue, and I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the clerk if she would determine if a quorum is present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for Nepean has the floor.

Mr Daigeler: As I was saying, I have a general interest as a member of this House, obviously, in all of the provisions of this bill, but as Liberal critic for Transportation I'm specifically looking at the

section of Bill 17 that deals with the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp. That's the corporation that will be looking after the construction of new roads.

Frankly, the sections in the bill that deal with this corporation are not very long and mostly, frankly, they have to do with how this corporation is going to collect the tolls and also how it's going to collect the fines if the tolls aren't paid. So if somebody is looking for real details as to how this transportation capital corporation will work, don't look for the bill. I'm sure there will be regulations that will be established that will be coming with this bill and all the details will be in the regulations.

When we were at the committee, not too many people came and spoke about the Ontario Transportation Capital Corp, but a few did. One of the groups that came was the Better Roads Coalition, and I think the members will be familiar with this organization, which obviously brings together road builders and other people interested in good road construction in this province.

Frankly, they echoed my own feelings and the feelings of my party. They did say that at first they had been hesitant to support other means of financing of our roads when revenues from the direct road user taxes provide over $1 billion per annum more than is being spent on our roads. I'm quoting here from the brief from the Better Roads Coalition. "However, faced with an economy that continues to sag and a road system that badly needs expansion, we strongly support the principle of Bill 17,

An Act to provide for the Capital Investment Plan of the Government of Ontario."

Again, like with the water and sewer contractors, I think these people are interested in getting people working again. They realize there are a lot of roads that need to be built still and a lot of roads that need maintenance, and in view of the needs that are out there, they are prepared to look for new ideas and new ways of finding perhaps the finances that will make the roads available.

Of course, the main purpose of this particular corporation is, according to the government, the construction especially of 407 north of Toronto and where tolls will be collected.

Now, so far we haven't heard from the government that it will be considering tolls on any other roads, although there has been some speculation with regard to the 416. Frankly, it seems to me that the only road that probably could be financed through tolls and at the same time give a reasonable return to the private sector would be the 407, in terms of just the strict usage, because obviously building highways is a very expensive undertaking. We all know that.

To have enough traffic in this country, where our population is so spread across distances, probably the only area where there might be a reasonable return would be in the greater Toronto area. I understand that right now there are two consortia that are bidding for the possible contract for this 407 and are awaiting the establishment of this capital corporation, which I guess will then be in touch with whoever is the winning bidder and will make sure everything is in place for an early construction and completion of 407.

The Better Roads Coalition, while they did say they were generally supportive of the concept of the tolls, put forward a number of cautions and put those on the record. For example, they said: "Tolls must not be collected on existing roads. The program is intended to accelerate road construction and therefore must only be applied to new construction." Frankly, the way the bill is written at the present time, this would not satisfy the Better Roads Coalition because, according to the bill, it could be any kind of road where tolls could be collected.

However, I understand that the Better Roads Coalition was able to get an agreement from the ministry that there will be an amendment forthcoming to make sure that only with the construction of new roads will it will be possible to finance the construction through tolls.

Another the point the Better Roads coalition made was that construction priorities of toll roads must be based on appropriate needs studies. I think that's a very, very good point and I sure hope the government will listen to this, because we know, when it comes to needs studies, that when we look at the ferry fees in eastern Ontario, where the government is backtracking very, very quickly, they didn't do any kind of study.

It's turning into a major embarrassment to the NDP members who are from eastern Ontario, because if the Minister of Transportation and I guess his officials had done a study first, at least the Premier wouldn't have had to go down there and say, "Well, we don't really know what the economic impact is of these new fees on the people of Wolfe Island and Amherst Island and so on." They wouldn't have to set up now, somewhat after the fact, Brooke McNabb, who has been asked to do a study on what the needs are and what the ferry fees will mean for the people of Kingston and of Wolfe Island and of that whole area.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): It's backwards.

Mr Daigeler: As my colleague says, this is a way of operating backwards. Well, here's the warning from the Better Roads Coalition: Do your study before you make the decisions. "Construction priorities of toll roads must be based on appropriate needs studies."

Further, they said, "Toll roads must only be constructed where existing roads would provide road users with an option to bypass tolls if they so choose."

Then they say: "All moneys collected as tolls must be dedicated funds to be used exclusively to retire the capital and administrative costs of the facility on which it is collected. Once this debt is retired, such tolls must be removed."

I think this is a very good point, and I must say I was glad to see that in the current bill there are in fact provisions that precisely look after that. In other words, the revenue from the tolls will be used only for the construction of that particula