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

November 4, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT LEGISLATION

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT LEGISLATION

COURT FACILITY

ESWAR PRASAD

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

GLEBE CENTRE

EXPENDITURE CONTROL IN MISSISSAUGA

JOBS ONTARIO

PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

FIRE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION AWARDS

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

VISITORS

REMEMBRANCE DAY

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS REFORM

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGES

JOBS ONTARIO

CANCER TREATMENT

REDISTRIBUTION OF BOUNDARIES

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

JUSTICE SYSTEM

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT

ASSISTED HOUSING

TAXATION

FAMILY SUPPORT PAYMENTS

TUITION FEES

ASSISTED HOUSING

PROCEEDS OF CRIME

PUBLIC SERVICE AND LABOUR RELATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA FONCTION PUBLIQUE ET LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

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

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr Turnbull moved private member's notice of motion number 28:

That, in the opinion of this House, taking note of the government's decision to require the public disclosure of compensation paid to executives of companies which are publicly traded in Ontario; and

This House urges the government to immediately introduce legislation necessary to provide for the disclosure annually in the public accounts beginning with the public accounts for the 1993-94 fiscal year of the following information:

The details of the salary paid to the deputy minister and the four other highest-paid bureaucrats in each ministry of the government, the Premier's office and the Cabinet Office;

The details of the salary paid to the five highest-paid political staff in each ministry and the Premier's office and the Cabinet Office;

The details of the salary paid to the five highest-paid executives in each crown corporation;

The details of any non-routine loans made or guaranteed by a government ministry, agency or crown corporation to any of the above individuals;

Information on benefits paid to any of the above individuals that add significantly to compensation;

Information on compensation paid to a senior public sector executive, senior executive of a crown corporation or senior member of the political staff who left during the fiscal year but would otherwise have been among the highest-paid group;

Information on any contract that would result in a senior public sector executive, senior executive of a crown corporation or senior member of the political staff being paid more than $100,000 as a result of being dismissed or having to change duties;

The details of the compensation paid to the directors of crown corporations.

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

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): At the outset of the debate, I just want to point out that the reason I'm not moving forward today with my private member's bill with respect to vital services bylaws is because I feel it was adequately debated last week with respect to Bill 95. I thank all of those people who have sent petitions in support of my bill. Also, I will be continuing to pursue that issue in committee so that all municipalities are given an opportunity to be able to enact vital services bylaws.

Turning to my resolution, I note that the Minister of Finance, in his statement to the Legislature about disclosure of executive compensation, had two key quotes:

"By making these changes, we are responding to investors who have urged that Ontario set higher standards of disclosure....

"These changes give shareholders the information they need in order to compare a company's performance with the way it rewards its top people."

He further quoted:

"After public reaction and discussion, we have decided that the interests of shareholders are better served by fuller disclosure. These changes show our commitment to helping investors make informed decisions, the basis of a healthy financial system."

Those are the comments of the Minister of Finance of Ontario when he made his statement on 14 October. When the Minister of Finance was asked at his press conference following that whether he believed in the same kind of standards being applied to the public service, the minister suggested that he was pursuing this through the Chair of Management Board and that they were going to review public sector compensation disclosure. Asked whether he personally was in favour of it, he said yes, he personally approved of such disclosure. I thank the Minister of Finance for that endorsement of what we're moving forward with today.

I would point out to the honourable members that in fact the wording of my resolution virtually identically mirrors the wording of the government's announcement as to what it was going to apply to the publicly traded companies for full disclosure. The reason the government has said that it needs such disclosure is so that minority shareholders will have a better view into the affairs of those companies to identify whether they are being properly managed.

Additionally, there is a requirement for certain charts to be published by these public companies showing their performance against a broad range of companies in the same sector so that those minority shareholders will be able to compare the performance of those companies with similar companies and see whether they're better managed and if there's any relationship with that compensation, which leads me to my resolution.

There's a great feeling that exists today that there is not enough public disclosure of what civil servants and political staff are receiving. If we are to regain the confidence of the public -- and there can be no doubt that there is a great deal of concern in the public today for the activities of politicians and governments at all levels in terms of the responsibilities as to how they are spending the taxpayers' money -- it would seem reasonable to use those same standards that the Finance minister has come forward with to have that type of disclosure.

We have taken exactly the same criterion of the top five from each ministry and crown corporation. We've taken the top five bureaucrats and the top five political staff in terms of compensation, and the two are well balanced because we know that within a ministry or within the Premier's office you have career civil servants and you have political staff who come and go.

If indeed these rules were enforced, I would emphasize to you that it would not just be the present government that would be faced with that kind of disclosure; it would be any successive political party that was fortunate enough to get the favour of the electorate. Those same standards of accountability would be applied.

This is part of a three-pronged approach the Conservative Party is bringing forward to ensure that we lift the veil of secrecy which exists in the public sector.

I would urge the government to support this resolution. It is reasonable and it would take away some of the cynicism that exists, because there is a feeling that no matter how one tries, one cannot find out how the government is spending the taxpayers' money. If we can regain the confidence of the taxpayer, we can start to solve some of the problems we have.

If we don't have the confidence of the public, then we see that order starts to break down. We have only to look at the sector of taxation to see how this erosion of confidence in what government is doing is affecting even the revenues of government. People are beginning to find it acceptable to buy cigarettes and alcohol on the black market, which is a very serious threat to the continued resources of the treasury, which I'm sure, Madam Speaker, you recognize your own government is most concerned about.

The efforts we're making, as I said, are three-pronged. My colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, Mr Tilson, introduced Bill 108 to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to provide for the release of information on salary and benefits, job classification and responsibilities of persons employed in the provincial and municipal sectors. I can say that when we have tried to identify certain compensation within the public sector through freedom of information, we have met with very little result. Usually the information that we get back, after many, many weeks, is all blocked out, all of the vital information.

Additionally, my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel has just brought forward a private member's bill to amend the Labour Relations Act to make available to the public information about compensation paid to the presidents and other executive officers of trade unions. Despite the freedom of information act, this information is privileged. In fairness, there are indeed some trade unions that do disclose such information, but not all of them, and the members of those trade unions surely have a right to it.

My colleague the member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell, introduced Bill 114, which parallels the efforts of the minister and in fact completely mirrors what our resolution is today. This is a resolution. He is bringing forward a bill to exactly call for the government to enforce these same rules of full disclosure.

I just want to read some of the reactions we've had to this move by me to put forward this ballot item.

The Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto says that it is in full support of anything which promotes full disclosure of finances in the public sector.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business: Judith Andrew, the director of public policy, said that she is supportive of anything to enhance the accountability of government to the taxpayer. "Public accountability involves anything that illuminates the use of public moneys by government. Crown corporations should be under public scrutiny."

A further endorsement by Ontarians for Responsible Government says: "If corporate executives whose salaries are paid by shareholders are being forced by the NDP to disclose their income, then surely bureaucrats who are paid by the province's taxpayers should also have their salary figures published. What's good for the private goose should be good for the public gander."

In an

article in the Globe and Mail by Terence Corcoran, he states, "Indeed, on the very day Mr Laughren rose to support pension fund rights for information on corporate salaries, the Provincial Auditor was telling reporters he would not approve the annual report of the socialist paradise casino party."

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired. I thank the member for York Mills. Are there other speakers who wish to address the member's resolution?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'm very pleased to rise today to address the resolution from the member and to say that as far as this resolution goes, I don't think I have any problem in supporting it. I would like, however, to go through and outline where there are some drawbacks in this resolution.

If we are to examine some of the sections, I think we need to have a much broader definition of what we mean by a "public servant." I don't think it's sufficient to have it just relate to the provincial sector, because I believe the public has the right to know how much their school board directors make. I think they have a right to know how much the commissioners make at Metropolitan Toronto. I think they have a right to know how much the salaries out of the public purse are paying in terms of the political staff for the opposition parties in this Legislature. I think they have a right to know a whole host of information.

I would like to see that perhaps work can be done to expand the definition to administrators of hospitals. We don't know what administrators of hospitals make. We know there was an

article in the newspaper a few months back, or a year back, I guess, now, about one administrator who had a car, had a penthouse apartment, had a really lucrative salary, between what amounts, we don't know. I think, in terms of the employees who work in those institutions and are now taking cuts, the disclosure of the salaries of people who administer those hospitals should be revealed. I think the salaries of the people who work at the Ontario Hospital Association should be revealed in that they get money indirectly from the public purse. I don't think we should be restricting this resolution solely to the ones that are listed in this resolution.

In fact, I would take it even another step further and suggest that people who are private contractors that are being paid in any sector, whether it be the colleges, whether it be the universities, that all of these things should be revealed, and the perks that go with them.

Mr Turnbull: I don't quite understand. Explain what you mean, contractors.

Mr Wiseman: I'm talking about the directors of the universities, the presidents of the universities, the presidents of colleges: whether they have houses included in their stipend, whether they have chauffeur-driven cars, whether they're paid on the basis of mileage, whether they're paid all sorts of different perks. If you're talking about revealing what the public purse is paying for, let's broaden these

definitions and make sure we have an understanding out there that we're talking about chairmen of regions, commissioners; we're talking about whether they have cars, houses and a whole host of things.

In fact, I think this government has moved in the direction of disclosing some of these by creating the review committee on the government agencies for public appointments and by publishing a book so that everyone out there knows what is in fact being given out in terms of public appointments. That's the first time it's ever been done. I think this is something we need to be sure to continue.

In saying this, I recognize that to do what the honourable member is suggesting -- and of course I've said I support that -- it will take legislation. We will know the public's preoccupation at this time is on jobs. We need to move ahead with the creation of jobs, and we have many pieces of legislation before this House that will do that. These pieces of legislation need to be passed. I would ask at this point that if we could rely on the opposition to get that legislation through, then we can certainly move on these other pieces of legislation we have common agreement on.

I think it's important that we recognize that the creation of the crown corporations -- that we get the community economic development legislation through, because this will allow people to help themselves. It will allow them to create jobs in the community.

I think we need to recognize that there are other problems that are inhibiting the job creation agenda. We need to have banks that will lend money at a reasonable rate, that will lend money to people who need it below the level of $5,000. So I think we have a lot of work there and we have a lot of legislation on the agenda.

While we support this and while we would like to see this happen in terms of legislation, I think that if we can get the other legislation through quickly -- I call upon both opposition parties to help us do that -- then we can turn to this very important piece of legislation that needs to be done as well. So I say to the member, let's consider that it needs to be a broader piece of work and that what we'll do is then try to expedite it.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further speakers on this resolution?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): It's a pleasure to rise in my place today to speak to this resolution. It's a resolution that I agree with. It's too bad that my colleague who just preceded me in his diatribe is coming out against it, because while maybe it is not as all-encompassing as some may want, I think it's a very good start. I know in my riding I get many complaints from people wanting to know what their public officials are being paid.

While I would like to see this expanded, obviously, into school boards and, like my colleague says, hospital board chairs and administrators, and I agree with that, I don't think that's any reason why we should not support the commencement of this procedure, and I think that's before us today with this ballot item that we're debating.

It starts to deal with basically the highest-paid people in the Ontario government, and I think that's a good start. If we are to require people in the greater public service to be disclosing their benefits packages, then I think we have to start with our own shop, the Ontario government. So I think it is a good start for this. It would start to set the standard and be an example to other people in the public sector, because I think the greater public who foot the bill, and all of us as taxpayers foot the bill, need to know and have some certainty as to what our public officials are being paid.

Then they can basically make their own judgement as to whether those officials are being paid adequately or maybe too much.

I think that's their right as taxpayers, as we all foot that bill, that taxpayers want a little more empowerment. They want to have a sense of control, they want to have a sense of what's going on and of whether there is value there in the money that is being expended. I think taxpayers don't mind paying taxes as long as they believe there's value there for that expenditure. What taxpayers don't like to see is, number one, frivolous waste and, number two, extravagant salaries and extravagant benefits packages. If the public doesn't know, if there's no disclosure, then how can they make that judgement?

If we're to regain some credibility in the political process, in the whole political system, credibility by our taxpayers in our institutions and in politicians and in civil servants themselves, then I think we have to have full disclosure.

We certainly realize this on the political end. We have full disclosure of MPPs' salaries and of MPPs' benefits. In fact, we go beyond that and we disclose fully what our assets are, what our liabilities are. These are all on record at the Conflict of Interest Commissioner's office on Bloor Street, and I think that's right. I think people should know what our interests are. I think this needs to be brought forward to the top officials in the public sector, in the public service. All we see in the paper is the range of deputies' salaries.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): What about regional government?

Mr Ramsay: I think all of that, yes. My colleague across the way is saying what about regional government, municipal government. I believe anybody in the public sector is accountable to the public, and I think that's one of the drawbacks of working in the public sector, that I think taxpayers have a right to know.

So I think, as we might all agree, that for now this resolution maybe doesn't go as far as we would like to see. It's a good start. Maybe if we start to set the example and say we're going to put our own house in order, we're going to have disclosure of the top five salaries being paid to ministers' staff, to the civil servants in each ministry, I think that's a very good start.

I'd like to go through some of this because it goes beyond those that I've just mentioned. I think very important are the five highest-paid political staff in each ministry and the Premier's office and Cabinet Office. I think that again would be a very good example for us to set to the rest of the public service, that it's going to be starting from the very top all the way through.

In this day of restructuring, of reinventing government, we see government inventing new organizations. We call them in government

schedule 4 agencies, crown corporations that are becoming quite independent from government:

schedule 1, 2, 3 through the newly formed

schedule 4 agency, 4 being very independent. We should know what those crown employee executives are making also. The resolution does talk about that, that "The details of the salary paid to the five highest-paid executives in each crown corporation" also be disclosed. I agree with that.

It also goes on to say, "The details of any non-routine loans made or guaranteed by a government ministry, agency or crown corporation to any of the above individuals." Again, from time to time such deals are struck. I think the public needs to know why they are struck and the details of those particular arrangements. When we don't know and we start to hear these things, they leak out, then we start to believe the very worst of such an arrangement. Therefore, I think if there is a strict disclosure of any arrangement such as that, people would have more confidence that the arrangement is sound, that it's an honest arrangement. I think people need to know that and be assured of that.

Also, "Information on benefits paid to any of the above individuals that add significantly to compensation." What the member is saying is that the total benefits package, basically, should be disclosed. I certainly agree with that.

What we find from time to time is that when people leave this place there are compensation packages that are negotiated. Many times those packages are extremely rich. I guess they are called in business parlance "golden parachutes." People get very angry when any sort of inordinate type of compensation package is awarded to any sort of official. If this is to go on for whatever reason, then I think it has to be justified, and to be justified it has to be disclosed.

Therefore, I agree with the member that these compensation packages that are paid to "a senior public sector executive, senior executive of a crown corporation or senior member of the political staff who left during the fiscal year but would otherwise have been among the highest-paid group" also be disclosed. I agree with the member that this be there.

Also, "Information on any contract that would result in a senior public sector executive, senior executive of a crown corporation or senior member of the political staff being paid more than $100,000 as a result of being dismissed or having to change duties." Again, I would agree with that, that all types of compensation and benefit packages negotiated between top crown employees and the government should be disclosed.

In conclusion, I would agree with the motion that's been set forward today. I think it's a very good motion. As one of my colleagues has already said, maybe it doesn't go far enough and maybe we should be looking at the greater public sector, but I think this is a good start. It sets the example for the provincial government, and until we get our own house in order, who are we to ask other people in the greater public sector that they should enforce such a disclosure law? I think this is a good start, I support it, and I hope it has the support of all the members today.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further speakers to the resolution from the member for York Mills?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I'm certainly pleased this morning to have a few minutes to talk on this resolution in support of my colleague who has very well brought this resolution forward.

The concern here is that the Minister of Finance is bringing a government bill forward to disclose the salaries of the top executives in private sector companies under the guise of protecting the shareholders so that they would know the salaries being paid by the company because of them being shareholders.

But the point is that we the voters, we the public, are all shareholders in all aspects of government. Regardless of what agency it is or what ministry it is, we're all individual shareholders. I think we have a right to know what salaries are being paid to the people we have put our trust in to direct these agencies, government ministries and so on.

I can tell you from my experience on the municipal level of politics and at the county level that it's very frustrating to go in and set a budget if you're reeve and chief executive officer of the municipality and you don't even know what your administrator is being paid. You may find out in different ways, but technically and legally that salary is not made known. The salary range is there at the municipal level, but not the level in that range at which that person is set. So as you go to set up a budget, as you go to report to your electorate, you cannot comment on those top three or four executive positions.

I find it difficult when the member for Durham West indicates that this resolution is not complete enough for him to support because it doesn't cover all aspects of the different areas that should be covered, and yet the resolution is very relevant to these areas of concern as we see them today, and the Minister of Finance, as I said before, is bringing forward a bill to request that those positions in the private sector declare their salaries in the interests of the stockholders or shareholders in that private company. I'm sure the people of Ontario are entitled to that same information relative to government and government agencies.

Other members of my caucus, the member for Etobicoke West and the member for Dufferin-Peel, are bringing forward bills to deal with this on a larger scale, all using this resolution as a base. But those bills, as brought forward by those members, will also add to the information that is required by the public, as will the bill that the Minister of Finance is bringing forward to release information on private enterprise.

All we're asking is that the government take a good look at the bills being brought forward by the members of our caucus, along with this resolution today, in that we are looking at the whole aspect of declaring this public information -- labour unions, private companies, ministries, government agencies and so on -- that these salaries be made known to the people generally.

Of course, when you just separate the private sector and say that those people should have to declare for the good of the shareholders, I find that difficult to understand when we have deputy ministers and all these other executive and director positions within government not being given the direction that their salaries should also be made public.

I don't want to belabour this too long; I just want to support my colleague who has presented this resolution very well this morning. It's difficult to understand: for instance, you're sitting on a hospital board and you're trying to work the budget for the hospital, the cost of operating the hospital, and you don't even know what your top employee's salary is. You don't know that. Actually, that chief executive officer-administrator at the hospital is really an employee of that board and of the people generally who support the hospital with grants coming from Ontario --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. If you are conducting a conversation, would you please conduct the conversation somewhere else. The member for Lanark-Renfrew has the floor.

Mr Jordan: I know my colleagues are very interested in this. I'm also interested in their conversation. I'd like to be part of it later.

The bottom line is that the minister of revenue is bringing forward the concerns about the private companies relative to their shareholders, and is not taking a broader view of the whole aspect of government: public service, municipal administration, county administration, regional administration. All these are areas of concern, especially in these difficult economic times, and I strongly urge, as a start, that we support this resolution today.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I want to thank, of course, the member who introduced the resolution for giving us time to debate and to talk about the necessity of this item. I quite frankly agree with the member and I certainly would vow to do my best in trying to get some sort of change in this particular area.

But there are a number of questions I'd like to ask the member while he is in the Legislature and listening. I look at the resolution, and I read the resolution, and I wonder why the resolution is very specific in and around the areas of highest-paid salaries. Why the question? I ask the question because I certainly don't understand why the member is only referring to the highest-paid bureaucrats, the highest-paid political staff, and in one part of the resolution, he talks about staff being paid more than $100,000 when they leave as well, whether they have been let go or whether they have voluntarily resigned. Why the top-paying jobs? I can't understand that.

Mr Turnbull: Say that again.

Mr Mammoliti: The member asked me to repeat it again and I certainly will. Why only the top bureaucrats, the highest-paid positions? Why are we not talking about all public sector employees? Why are we not talking about middle management? Why are we not talking about even the grass-roots bureaucrats? Why can't we talk about that in this resolution? I'm not too sure what the process is in terms of amending resolutions, but that's certainly a suggestion I'd like to make.

I think if you look at some of the books in the public sector, you'll find that even some of those middle bureaucrats are making well over $100,000. Some of them have credit cards, and some of them have the spending sprees that some of us find to be a little disturbing. Why shouldn't we talk about that?

That's certainly a question I'd like answered by the member across. I'm not going to take a lot of time because, quite frankly, looking at the resolution and actually working in the bureaucracy myself before political life, I've asked these questions for years. I can remember statements I've made and speeches I've made in the past that refer directly to this. Why are we not disclosing? When we find salaries to be an average salary in the bureaucracy, why at the end of the year do we find that the bureaucrats are making a little more than that? What's happening? Disclose it.

The question I'm looking forward to having answered is why? Why just the top bureaucrats? Why the highest- paid bureaucrats and political staff members? Why not everybody? That's something I'll close in asking.

Mr Jamison: I'd just like to add some comment at this point in time. I find the resolution one that I could very well be favourable to, but it's very narrow and focused. I know that when I look at the experience that I've had in the area of disclosure, we had the chair of one of the hospital boards in Toronto in front of a committee, for an example, and when asked directly by the committee --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: Excuse me. The member for Downsview, on a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: My point is this, Madam Chair: You generally go in rotation, and we just spoke as a party --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member. I do realize that. There were no other members standing. The member for Norfolk.

Mr Jamison: I don't know if there's a signal being sent there or whatever, but if there is, it's -- I'd just like to say that to broaden the point of view on this resolution I think is very important, very important indeed. To narrowly define whose salary should be made public seems very pointed. For an example, when I have a superintendent of my school board making well in excess of $100,000 a year, I'd like that to be made public also.

Having said that, I support the last speaker.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The interesting thing about working at Queen's Park is that often you try to be in two places at once. At the present time, while I'm participating in this debate, I'm also sitting at the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. The elevator was a little slow, so that was why I was a few minutes delayed in coming to my place.

I believe the bill that is before us this morning by Mr Turnbull is one we should look at in two ways: First is its basic principle, and second are the policies that flow from the principles.

I believe we have seen, and rightly so, a lot of progress made in this jurisdiction over the last number of years which has enhanced openness and accountability as principles overall of integrity. One of the things I was proudest of as a member of the Liberal government in 1985 was that our very first piece of legislation to be tabled in this House was the freedom of information legislation. The flip side and the other name of that legislation is also the protection of personal privacy, and that is a very important principle to understand when we discuss openness and accountability, because we are accountable to two.

In corporations and business organizations, we expect accountability by the management to their shareholders, and similarly, in government we expect accountability by management -- the government, the bureaucracy -- to the shareholder: the taxpayer, the voter, the constituent. These are important principles that, as I said, I do hold dear.

We've seen movement not only in the area of freedom of information, access to government records and government information; we've seen recently a piece of legislation tabled which requires greater openness in the corporate sector.

I'd like to say quite frankly at this point in time that I believe there are a number of reasons why Ontario, and Canada in fact, should have consistent rules with their trading partners and consistent rules particularly continentally in North America.

The reason for that is that we have multinational corporations. If you have one set of rules in one jurisdiction and another set of rules in another jurisdiction, it can be confusing, and when shareholders of that corporation often live on different sides of the borders, it seems to me that it is a reasonable expectation of the shareholders that wherever possible, government will bring in rules that will simplify for the shareholders their access to information, and that it will be the same information available to them whether that company is headquartered in New York state or Ohio or Michigan or Ontario.

The principles of having those kinds of similar rules for disclosure are very important, and I'm supportive of the legislation the government has brought forward which would disclose information that I think the shareholders of companies and corporations have a right to know.

On the other hand, today we have a resolution by Mr Turnbull which goes beyond those basic principles. As I read the resolution, he is calling for specific salary details. When I was in government, I was not only proud of the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation; I was also very proud of the fact that we made available for the first time disclosure of salary ranges. That's good human resource practice. People applying for jobs should know what the job range is. When you are offering a job, you publicize that in your advertising. It's also extremely important that taxpayers, people who may not ever be interested in knowing, know what that job pays.

It's also very important that we realize that where a person is within that range is not relevant knowledge that an individual need know. All they need to know is that the person doing that job is within a range which is open and public and available information. That achieves the correct balance between freedom of information and protection of individual personal privacy.

I'll be specific. You may know that the salary range for deputy ministers -- and I will say hypothetically because it does change from time to time -- today is between $90,000 and $120,000. Whether a specific deputy is earning $90,000 or whether that specific deputy is earning $120,000 is not as important as knowing what that range is and knowing that all deputy ministers are earning within that range. If anyone is earning more than that, is earning outside the range, I believe that should be disclosed. It should be disclosed in an open and frank way so that nobody is deceived.

That's the point; you mustn't deceive by saying, "This is the salary range," when this individual may be earning well outside the range. The taxpayers have a right to know if the government is paying people above the salary range, and I think that's an important principle.

It is my view that if we're going to err on the policies based on these principles and you have to choose which side you're going to err on, I believe we should always err on the side of openness, we should always err on the side of accountability and err on the side of the public interest, which is knowledge. Recognizing that, Mr Turnbull's motion, while it is deserving of support in principle, is quite simplistic and intrusive in an unnecessary way in its implementation and its request for detail. I think it crosses that line in a way which could be inappropriate.

I'm not saying it is or it would result in that, but I have concerns and want to express that because I believe in individual right to personal privacy protection. I am concerned that this resolution, if it were to go forward intact and without thoughtful discussion and debate as to what the policy implications would be, could well have an inappropriate and negative impact on individuals.

I don't mean this in a partisan sense, but I find it interesting that it's taken the Tories in Ontario such a long time to come to this position. During the four decades the Tories were in power, the hallmark of their administration was no freedom of information, no access to information, no disclosure, no openness and very little accountability. I'm pleased to see that they have seen the light and I'm pleased to participate in this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, the member for Oriole. Further participants in this debate.

Mr Perruzza: It's a pleasure to participate in this. While I agree essentially with the thrust of the resolution that's before us that's been brought forward by my Conservative colleague from York Mills, I believe this is an important thing to do, but I don't believe for one minute that it should somehow stop at this list.

I've had the good fortune of being able to be a trustee and a municipal councillor and I've seen the operation when people get elected to office, when they run, when they actually get elected and start doing the work, and the cosy relationships that develop between the political wing and the administrative, the bureaucratic wing. Quite frankly, the bureaucrats call the shots. They have the information, they have the expertise, they have the longevity. They're here for ever; we are not. Many of us fly-by-nighters, we fly in on the GO train and then we're taken right back out again on the first tidal wave.

These guys stick around and they basically determine what they're going to get in terms of compensation and so on.

I believe the public out there should know right down to the nickel what people are getting in terms of remuneration and compensation. But my caution, and yes, there is a caution in all of this, is that once that happens and once you disclose what people are making in the private sector, you will find that people in the public sector, because a lot of them are simply in it for the money -- a lot of them are good public servants who have the public trust at heart, but a lot of them are not -- will claim, "We want equal pay for work of equal value and equal responsibility."

If you have some executive from some corporation making $500,000 a year, I tell you that the deputy ministers in this place will claim to want the same thing. Otherwise, as Ross Perot coined the phrase, that sucking sound is going to happen in the public sector. There's going to be that sucking sound out to the private sector and you'll lose all the talent. That's the caution I give you this morning.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

Mr Turnbull: We've had, generally speaking, agreement with the intent of what I've proposed here. There have been some interesting points made, and typically the point most often made is that perhaps this resolution isn't broad enough. I did allude in my opening comments to the fact that this is part of a three-pronged approach being brought forward by the Conservatives. This started with Bill 128, the bill introduced by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, Mr Tilson, on June 19, 1991. It is titled

An Act to amend the Law related to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy. In this bill, Mr Tilson goes a long step towards getting complete disclosure of public officials in the broader public sector.

As my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew has pointed out, one of the great problems that elected officials at municipal levels have is that while they're responsible in the eyes of the electorate for expenditures of municipalities, they often don't have all the information, because they're precluded from knowing the compensation of senior staff in municipalities and in regions. The same has been said of administrators of hospitals. We've all heard these stories of very excessive pay packages, including all kinds of additional benefits such as cars, credit cards and houses being provided to them. The same can be said of school boards.

Yes, indeed, this debate today, in the application of what we have put forward, is relatively limited. The reason for that limitation was purely to try to mirror those measures which the Minister of Finance is proposing to bring forward. My colleague the member for dump site west -- I beg your pardon, Durham West -- had suggested we should include such people but also suggested we should not have this bill move forward until the government's measures are all finished with.

The interesting thing is that the government has put on notice the fact that it will be moving to enforce that the top five officials of publicly traded companies will have to disclose their compensation and benefits. Perhaps in the interest of expeditious movement of this bill, the government, in view of the fact that it seems to be in agreement with it, should amend its bill so that it does not include just the senior executives of corporations publicly traded but in fact includes all of the people we believe should be open to public scrutiny.

My colleague the member for Yorkview suggests perhaps everybody who is on the public payroll should be open to scrutiny. It's the taxpayers who are paying for it, so why not?

There are all kinds of arguments that have been made about why executives of public corporations should not have their salaries disclosed, and it's been suggested that this will pose a significant risk to them because they might be kidnapped as a result of it. I have to tell you, kidnappers tend to have other sources. They're not just reading through the disclosure of the securities exchange as to whether they're good targets for kidnapping. I believe that's a somewhat bogus argument.

I do believe we should expand the area of public disclosure. Whether it should go to every single person or not, I'm not sure, but it would be appropriate that we have a full and open debate and committee hearings on this so that the public interest could be served.

The suggestion was made by the member for Durham West that in fact the government was only moving forward with job-creating policies. I would ask him, what jobs were created by Bill 40, the amendments to the Labour Relations Act? I would suggest that was a job-killing piece of legislation. If ever we have seen a piece of legislation in this present Parliament, Bill 40 undoubtedly has to be rechristened the "job-killing act," because we have seen the erosion of the confidence of companies to invest in Ontario.

It is not by chance that Ontario is still suffering the worst ravages of the recession as compared with other provinces in Canada. In fact, the mood present in Ontario is so much more gloomy than other provinces, which I would suggest is probably a great deal due to the stripe of the government we've got.

The suggestion was made that perhaps the political staff of the opposition parties should be disclosed. Absolutely; of course they should. There should not be a different standard applied to the government than the opposition parties. That is perfectly reasonable and I would absolutely welcome it if we were able to move forward with the bill proposed by my colleague the member for Etobicoke West, Bill 114, which exactly mirrors the wording of my resolution.

My suggestion would be that any move by the Minister of Finance to move forward with his legislation for public disclosure of salaries of the top five officials of publicly traded companies should be amended to include the top five salaries of political staff and civil servants, and political staff not just of the governing party but of the opposition parties. That is perfectly reasonable, because the public is paying the bill and wants to know, much in the same way as those people who buy shares listed by a public company want to know.

The difference is, of course, that if you buy shares in a public company and you're not satisfied with the performance of that public company, you can sell the shares. You're not able to get out of paying taxes. There is the difference.

When we look at the tax burden that we have in this province, which is the most excessive of any administration in the whole of North America, then we have to question what is happening to the expenditures of government and we must scrutinize those expenditures of government. Over and over again we -- my party, the Progressive Conservative Party -- have made the assertion that the government doesn't have a revenue problem, it has an expenditure problem.

I haven't done the exact math, but if you were to take the last budget that a Progressive Conservative government brought down in 1985 and adjusted for inflation, you would arrive at a budget which would be radically different from the budget this government has or indeed the budget the last Liberal government had, because they were much more frugal. They may have made many mistakes. I certainly wasn't around. I wasn't involved with the party in those days.

They may have made mistakes, I don't deny that, but the fact is they were much more fiscally responsible than either the Liberals, who went on a complete spending binge and raised taxes 33 times, or the present NDP government, which has raised taxes 22 times in just three years and has raised almost every conceivable fee, squeezed every drop of money out of the province, to the detriment of future governments.

That is why when we make the assertion that this is an expenditure problem that we have in this province, the only way you can address it is by the public being cognizant of the expenditures. You start out by explaining what you are paying to your senior staff, much in the same way as public companies are being asked to explain how much they pay to their senior executives. Indeed, the government is calling for charts and comparisons with other companies in their sector for their performance so that investors can compare the performance of a company and take into account the compensation of those officers.

I would submit to you that the same type of approach should be made, in which the government would be obliged to submit to the public each year a comparison of what it is paying to its staff, the numbers of staff and how its performance compares with other governments in Canada and other administrations around the world. I think the jury would be very interested in this evidence.

The Deputy Speaker: The first ballot item has expired.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT LEGISLATION

Mr Marchese moved private member's notice of motion number 27:

That, in the opinion of this House, since small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario created 85% of all new jobs between 1979 and 1989, employ nearly two million people with a payroll of $44 billion, and are vital players in our province's economic renewal; and

Since small business claims the major federally chartered banks and provincially regulated financial institutions unnecessarily restrict access to capital for small business, creating a credit crunch; and

Since the Bank of Canada says small bank loans -- which small business rely on -- declined between 1990 and 1992, while loans to big business increased during the same period; and

Since the survival of many small businesses and the prosperity of Ontario is threatened by banks and financial institutions that are not doing their fair share of small business lending; and

Since Canada's major chartered banks recorded healthy profits during this recession; and

Since nearly half, or 44%, of Canada's bank deposits come from Ontario depositors, giving the province of Ontario a direct interest in where this capital is reinvested;

Therefore, this House urges the government of Ontario to call upon the new federal Minister of Finance to convene a meeting with provincial finance ministers on the economy, at which first ministers will work to ease the credit crunch facing small business; and

Urge the new federal government to call a national summit meeting with banks and business representatives, to discuss small business financing; and

Request the new federal government to introduce a community reinvestment act -- as the United States federal and state governments have -- requiring all deposit-taking financial institutions to recycle a minimum portion of their loan portfolio within the communities which provided the deposits; and

Support a federal community reinvestment act that is structured to promote full employment by supporting small business and community economic development; and

Introduce a community reinvestment act in the province of Ontario following the introduction of similar federal legislation; and

Ensure that Ontario's proposed legislation to regulate provincial financial institutions removes impediments which restrict access to capital for small business, allowing Ontario's financial institutions to play a greater role in the province's economic renewal.

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

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It is my pleasure to introduce this resolution before this House, and I would say that many people are looking forward to this debate. In fact, many are eager to talk about this issue, not just the members across the floor and some of my colleagues, but businesses, people who are unemployed and people who are looking for economic renewal in this province and in this country.

In this regard, in Fort York I've established a working group with about 50 small businesses to explore ways to address taxation and the paper burden of small businesses, ensure government legislation supports small business and improve access to capital. We have been meeting for approximately eight months, and this is a long process. It isn't an event where you meet, make suggestions and recommendations, and people go back to their homes. It is a long process that these business people have committed themselves to: seeking solutions to the problems I have alluded to.

Why is it important? It's important because we recognize that small- and medium-sized businesses in Ontario created 85% of all new jobs between 1979 and 1989, employ nearly two million people with a payroll of $44 billion, and are vital players in our province's economic renewal. Here in Metropolitan Toronto, in 1990-91 small business created an impressive 20,000 new jobs while big business, on the other hand, has lost 50,000 jobs.

The Fort York Small Business Working Group has made its mandate Ontario's economic renewal and has decided to focus on strategies that will promote a full employment economy. This strategy by itself will not magically create all those jobs that we're looking for, but we say it's a vital part of that economic renewal.

These businesses have argued that taxation and red tape are not the only concerns facing business in Ontario. In fact, they argue that access to capital is the major barrier they face today. They say that if they could get the capital they need to expand and hire more people, they would be supporting the province's economic renewal and helping reverse the decline in our revenues.

I want to thank the members of the Fort York Small Business Working Group for assisting me with this resolution. Since we have introduced it in this House, we have been flooded with calls from people who support this and want to engage in the debate.

The problem, as we see it, and the reason why this resolution speaks to this matter is that the focus needs to be on Canada's financial institutions, and we say banks in particular. Why? Since they are the major source of capital for business.

Small business claims that the major federally chartered banks and provincially regulated financial institutions unreasonably restrict access to capital for small business, creating what we call a credit crunch.

The Bank of Canada says that small bank loans, which small businesses rely on, declined between 1990 and 1992 while, on the other hand, loans to big business have increased during the same period. The survival of many small businesses and the prosperity of Ontario is threatened by the banks and financial institutions that are not doing their fair share of small business lending.

Let me give you just one example. Just this week, as many of you saw in the Toronto Star and Financial Post, my riding's small business working group intervened on behalf of a Toronto company, Argord Industries, that was scheduled to be auctioned off today after being forced into receivership by the Toronto-Dominion Bank. We succeeded in delaying the auction so that the owner, who employs 45 people, could seek new investors in his company.

To many people, this example was indicative of the insensitivity of big banks, of big financial institutions, towards small business in this province. The same bank made a $7-billion loan to American utilities companies earlier this year, but could not find it in itself to continue to support this small Canadian manufacturer needing a credit line of $150,000.

This is what a spokesperson for the Canadian Bankers Association had to say: "You've got to remember, it's your grandmother's money that's being loaned. Banks are low-risk lenders." Well, how is it that grandma does not mind lending $7 billion to the American utilities company but grandma minds lending approximately $150,000 to a Canadian company that's keeping 45 people employed? Why is it that this is going on?

I would say that grandma is more upset and worried that she pays more in taxes proportionately than the Canadian banks put together. In fact, I would say that if the Canadian banks would put in a minuscule amount of their dollars, we could secure our social services in this country, we could put people back to work and put revenues back into this province and Canada and the federal government to be able to do all the things that we want to do in the social service end.

Argord, which hired 28 new employees recently and has work orders in excess of half a million dollars, has no future, according to the bank. As a result, the problem facing governments is that our deficits increase each time a company like this is forced to close by the banks. In the case of Argord, the cost to the taxpayer is over $640,000 in social assistance and lost revenues.

This case, for me, illustrates the hypocrisy of the banks criticizing government deficits on the one hand while causing unnecessary bankruptcies on the other, forcing our deficits to go even higher. Susan Bellan, a member of the Fort York Small Business Working Group and the chair of banking issues for the Canadian Organization of Small Business, says, "The banks have no right to criticize Queen's Park or Ottawa for their deficits when they make the problem worse by pulling the plug on promising businesses at the first sign of trouble."

The sentiment was echoed by the Toronto Star business columnist David Crane when we wrote last week, and again today, about the Toronto-Dominion's closure of Argord and urged Prime Minister Chrétien to follow up on his promises to improve access to capital for small business.

We are here to help him keep that promise. Today's resolution, if approved, will send a clear message and a clear signal, both to Ottawa and to the government of Ontario, that urgent action is required.

I want to speak to the special responsibility of the banks. This resolution is aimed primarily at Canada's federally chartered banks, although it encompasses provincially regulated financial institutions as well. Canada's major chartered banks recorded healthy profits during this recession while virtually every other sector of the economy took a beating. We must begin to demand that the banks do their fair share of community lending, given particularly that their risk has been considerably reduced by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp and programs like the federal Small Business Loans Act.

We must realize that banks are not just like any other private company. They are chartered by the federal government and have exclusive privileges to invest Canada's deposits. As such, I argue that the banks must bear a responsibility to the public that supplies their deposits. Our economy depends on them, and it depends on them working with small businesses.

Nearly half, or $148 billion, of Canada's bank deposits come from Ontario depositors, giving the province of Ontario a particular interest in where this capital is reinvested. As some of you know, the head offices of all of the major banks are located in my riding of Fort York. You would think that of all the small businesses in the country, the small businesses in my riding would have the best access to these banks. But they don't.

This is a problem shared by small businesses everywhere, and we need to deal with it. That is why this resolution begins the debate in Ontario and begins the debate at the federal level.

I'm looking forward to the debate in this House from my colleagues and the members of the opposition. I look forward to their comments.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I'd like to begin by saying that, yes, I too will be supporting the resolution as put forth by the member for Fort York. I must say that in my riding I've had a good number of small businesses come forth and actually talk about this problem that they're having with lending institutions.

I think we have to look beyond what the banks and lending institutions are doing for the small businesses across Ontario, and I speak from northern Ontario, particularly northwestern Ontario.

I'm sure the member for Fort York would have been present at the Northwestern Ontario Chamber of Commerce presentations as they presented various resolutions to the two opposition parties and the government. They brought forth a lot of very positive-type material which showed that it's not only the banks and the lending institutions that are prohibiting small business from flourishing in Ontario, but it also goes back to a little of Bob Rae's government, if I could speak about that just a bit.

If we take a look at what used to be the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, and we have a new word for it today, we find out that the Bob Rae government froze its budget, a very important ministry that was dedicated to the development of small and medium-sized businesses. While government spending rose some 13.4%, this ministry had its budget frozen out.

If we take a look at something else which I was part of in the past, and that of course was the parliamentary assistants committee for small business, this was a very important committee to the small business community of this province. I travelled extensively with that committee. What has the Bob Rae government done to it? It's dismantled this particular committee. It was something which I felt helped small business, but it was dismantled, and I'm quite concerned about that.

We also had the small business development corporation program --

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I chair that committee. That committee is still in existence.

The Deputy Speaker: That's not a point of order.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): You're getting action already.

Mr Miclash: Action already. I go back to that committee and the extreme importance of it and the good work it does on behalf of small and medium-sized business. I take a look at the committee and the work that it did.

The other program that I was speaking about when I was interrupted is the small business development corporation program. Here's a program which fuels the private sector. It was a program that was extremely successful. In the past 14 years, it brought in more than $527 million to small business and created some 26,000 jobs. Again I ask, what has the Bob Rae government done to this particular committee? They've actually axed that particular committee as well.

So I go back to a number of points that were good things that were being done in terms of helping out small business. I indicated at the beginning that I will be supporting this resolution, but I think what the member for Fort York has to do is ensure that his own house and government are in order.

We hear him mention the federal Minister of Finance, who has now been appointed in the new federal Liberal government, and he talks about having the federal minister come together with his provincial counterparts. I'm sure that at the federal level we will see this minister wanting to come together with the provincial counterparts, wanting to work with them, because I know in their plan they indicated a lot about small and medium-sized business and its importance not only to the province of Ontario, but to the entire country. So I too look forward to that happening. I think that's a very important portion of this member's resolution.

Let me conclude by taking a look at the final part of the resolution put forth by the member. It says, "Ensure that Ontario's proposed legislation to regulate provincial financial institutions removes impediments which restrict access to capital for small business, allowing Ontario's financial institutions to play a greater role in the province's economic renewal."

I can't agree with that more. I think that's the most important part of the member's resolution, but again I have to get the member to go back and take a look at what this Bob Rae government is doing to small and medium-sized business across the province. I again must go back to the resolutions as presented by the Northwestern Ontario Chamber of Commerce, a very, very unique scope on what's happening not only in northwestern Ontario but across the province.

I must also remind this member that finger-pointing at the federal government, which we know is going to carry on and which will probably flourish in this House, will not be the only answer to a lot of the unanswered questions out there. It's going to have to be the Bob Rae government that is going to have to become more involved to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses flourish across this province.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm pleased to rise on this important issue. There can be no doubt that one of the most important things we could do to help small businesses would be to provide funding to them by way of finance, particularly to small and medium-sized companies, finance that to a great extent a lot of companies are finding themselves starved of today. I want to speak about that in some detail. I also want to point out that another very serious and probably even more important issue is the issue of the tax burden that businesses are finding themselves in.

We will be supporting this resolution by Mr Marchese today because we do believe it's important we send out a message that part of the job of helping Ontario's faltering economy lies with the banks. There are many examples of organizations that have been viable businesses for many years having difficulty renewing mortgages and renewing loans.

I will give you the example of somebody who is quite a close friend of mine. He has saved all of his life and put money into an investment. I will be fair; I will say this is an investment in real estate that he bought, maybe at the height of the market. At least you understand that, yes, obviously he's lost money.

But the example is that he purchased this building for $1.8 million. The banks offered him a mortgage of $1.3 million, and at the time he purchased it he and his partners, his group of partners -- because it certainly wasn't all his money -- said, "No, we want to make sure we've got more equity in the building." So instead of taking the $1.3 million the bank offered, they only took $1.1 million.

The mortgage is up for renewal within about a month. The bank has offered him 70% of what it considers the value today, which is $800,000, which would mean that my friend would have to come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to pay the difference between the current $1.1 million and 70% of $800,000 that it's estimated to have as value today.

That's a serious problem. He is contemplating personal bankruptcy. This is a tragedy. This is his life's savings, and it isn't just him. There are about 10 partners in this and they were trying to establish some type of pension fund for themselves because, unlike civil servants and MPPs if they stay long enough, he doesn't have a pension. This was his life's savings and this is what's going to happen. They're going to be wiped out.

When we talk about accountability to the public, and we talked about it in my resolution before, we must consider what is happening in the private sector. It's a very serious situation. There are many companies that absolutely cannot get any renewal of their mortgages under any terms from the banks. We need to send out a strong message to the banks that the banks must be part of the solution of kickstarting our economy.

But I really want to turn to the problem with governments, specifically the problems we find with this present government.

The member for Fort York talks about capital not being available, yet 44% of Canada's bank deposits come from Ontario. That is true, absolutely true. But I want you to contemplate the fact that governments by and large, all governments across Canada, are sucking up huge amounts of funds which would otherwise be available for reinvestment. That is because governments are involving themselves in deficit financing. The impact of deficit financing is inevitably that you squeeze out the private sector, and that is what we've had in Canada for many years.

I remember during the mid to late 1980s the concern that western Canada had, with a great deal of validity, about how overheated the Ontario economy was. Despite the fact that we had massive amounts of revenue coming into the government and the Liberals increased taxes 33 times, they still increased the deficit instead of paying off the deficit. In just five short years, we added $10 billion to the debt.

Mr Phillips: That's not right. He's incorrect.

Mr Turnbull: I hear my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt saying I'm incorrect. I remember, sir, during a debate during the last election when the suggestion was that the debt hadn't risen by very significant numbers. I was just about to jump with the numbers at the Liberal, who I defeated, when lo and behold, the Libertarian candidate got up with a copy of the budget from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, the last Liberal budget and the last Conservative budget, and pointed out that they had increased the debt of this province by $10 billion. But that's not what I'm talking about.

I am saying that when governments, and it doesn't matter what political persuasion they are, increase deficit financing, inevitably the private sector is squeezed out. That's what's happening.

We now know that Ontario has become one of the largest borrowers on the international market. So, my friend, when you say that 44% of Canada's bank deposits are made in Ontario, don't forget that the government of Ontario is in fact sucking in enormous amounts of cash, not just from Ontario-based banks but from the whole world. On the latest list of borrowers in the international market, Ontario lists fourth behind the European Investment Bank, the kingdom of Sweden and the World Bank.

They are the only people that are borrowing more on the international markets than the Ontario NDP government, and therein is one of the serious problems that we have in kickstarting this economy, because as you suck up money, it is not available for companies. And, yes, we have to get the banks to spend more money.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): How about the Conservatives' GST? How much money has that sucked up?

Mr Turnbull: I hear once again heckling as to the GST. My friend, the GST is sucking up the same amount of money in taxes as the amount that it replaced of manufacturers' sales tax. Check the numbers. This is what is very frustrating, when you rise to debate and you get people who are totally misinformed about the facts, for partisan reasons. Check the numbers. You may not like the GST, but the fact is that it is collecting about the same amount of taxes.

So we are now in the position that Ontario is the fourth-largest borrower internationally. What must we do? We must get government reduced in size, and it has to be done in a reasonable, workmanlike way so that the needy in society are not squeezed. But those people who don't need all of the handouts through government -- and that includes some large corporations that are getting large handouts from government. This NDP government has given millions of dollars to Toyota, one of the world's largest companies, a Japanese company, for goodness' sake. They've given them millions of dollars to try to get them to expand in Ontario.

The answer is, as my friends pointed out, that more jobs are created in the private sector by small companies, so take the burden off small companies. If we could get governments off our backs, we have the fundamentals of a very good recovery in this province, because rental rates have gone down for office towers, rental rates have gone down on a per-square-foot basis for industrial buildings, but the taxes haven't gone down.

If you take a look at any international survey of the cost of rental rates of office buildings in the major centres of the world, you will find that Ontario, Toronto, used to be one of the highest on the list in terms of the net rental rates. It is down to a fraction of what it was before; however, the add-on costs connected with it, which means taxes and operating costs, but predominantly taxes, are still among the highest in the whole world.

Mr Perruzza: The GST had nothing to do with it?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: Your bloated interest rates had nothing to do it?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Downsview, I don't want to have to remind you again, please.

Mr Turnbull: As my friend across the floor said, bloated interest rates have a lot to do with it. He's quite right, absolutely right. Bloated interest rates come from excessive government borrowing. There's no doubt about it that governments in Canada of every political persuasion have been the greatest source of the problems we have in Canada today. Businesses have done their fair share: Businesses have worked to create jobs. Governments have created destruction of jobs in the private sector. If anybody in any political party wants to look at themselves in the mirror, they will have to admit it, and unless we finally come to terms with this tax burden problem, we will never fix the problem.

Returning to the debate about what we should do, we're going to have to have a very honest debate with all the citizens, all of our constituents, about what the fundamental problem is. Perhaps we need a little more focus about what the problem is, because the problem is that we don't agree on what the problem is. In this Legislature, if you listen to debates, it's as if we're from different planets when we're speaking about the problems.

The public sector is bloated. The last government added thousands to the payroll. They added just to the civil service 9,000 people in five years, at a time when the companies in the private sector were downsizing to make themselves more efficient so they could meet the competition. Believe you me, the workers of Ontario are capable of competing with anybody anywhere in the world.

When we have any debate about the merits of free trade -- I want to point out that the Premier's Council, the investment panel on which I sit, had a very interesting presentation by Professor Dezsö Horvath, who is one of the Premier's appointees. Professor Horvath's conclusion was that not only should we have free trade with the US and Mexico but we should extend it to include the whole of Latin America because therein would be our saviour.

We've got the fundamentals of low rental rates, we've got a relatively well-trained group of workers in Ontario, we've got a relatively good productivity compared with most countries in the world, but we have a horrendous tax burden, and the tax burden has got to be lightened. When we lighten the tax burden by reducing government, we can then start having smaller deficits. Smaller deficits will lead to less government borrowing, and less government borrowing will mean that the banks will have more money to invest.

They are going to have to invest the money, but the only way they get their customers is that they put their money in and want to earn interest, and they won't have anything to invest if governments are sucking it up. If you hear that great sucking noise, it's the noise of governments right across Canada sucking up taxpayers' dollars.

Mr Jamison: Very interesting comments and interesting theories being put forward in the House today. This resolution that's been put forward is a very good one indeed. It talks about community investment, about community development in the face of global competition.

The banks have turned their attention to the globalization of the marketplace and they've turned it that way with a vengeance, simply dealing the small business community out. The resolution describes the need to expand the ability of provincially financed lending institutions, institutions under our jurisdiction, to become a major player in allowing the small business community to access the needed capital.

The member for Fort York indicated that there are a number of concerns presently in the mind of the small business community: taxation, red tape. This government, in those areas, is moving to unify the tax system. We're moving to clear the path or reduce the paperwork significantly.

But the other point that was made was access to capital. The previous speaker indicated that it is government borrowing that has taken money away from the possibility of lending more money to the small business community. Well, I'd like to bring your attention to the O&Y situation, Olympia and York. When that financial situation developed, the banks all pulled their horns in, and where did they pull them in? They pulled them in at the expense of the small business community that provides the major portion, 85%, of all new jobs being created.

With O&Y suffering financially, O&Y was treated very well throughout that whole situation. The people who weren't treated well were the small business people. What happened to them was that their line of credit was reduced, the very line of credit allowing them to do business and to expand and to continue producing and accepting orders as they come in. Some very good small businesses found their business practices interfered with to a great extent. So when people indicate that the banks are trying very desperately to work with the small business community, and the banks are indicating that themselves, I say be aware that, in my humble opinion, that is certainly not the case.

Banks are a major source of capital, and they're based here. Our national banks are based right here.

The credit crunch in small business is really limiting what small business can do. Government can apply tax credits to hire people who are unemployed, but if the line of credit for small business is reduced or halved or cut to a third, the ability to participate in programs that would benefit small business beyond normal lending is hindered.

The banks have jumped on the global economy bandwagon, there's no question about it. If we can convince the federal government to move somewhat in the same area that we're prepared to move, in the area of community economic development, we'll be able to add a new life to the small business community along with other efforts and other things that have to be done, such as reducing the amount of paper. We have reduced the level of taxation on small business in our term. By the sound of the opposition parties, no one would ever know that. That's a message, obviously, they don't want out.

In conclusion, I want to stress that the livelihood of many Ontarians is dependent upon small business. Our hopes for the future creation of jobs is dependent very much on this sector. I support this resolution. I support it strongly because I believe that if the banks are left to do what the banks feel they should have the freedom to do, the small business community will simply be left out once more.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): I'm very happy to be speaking in favour of the resolution by my neighbour the member for Fort York because, as a member for a downtown Toronto riding, I share many of the same problems in my riding that he faces in his.

Specifically, I have, for example, a small business in my riding which has faced exactly the same problem that a business in his riding is facing. I have written and requested of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, to have the Ontario Development Corp assist. I won't mention the name of the company, for obvious reasons, because it is approaching difficult straits, but with some assistance it could get over the hump and continue to provide 100 jobs for people in my riding.

I hope the minister, whom I've approached on this subject, will listen to what I've had to say and will find a way within her ministry and within the Ontario Development Corp to assist.

I too have a concern, because the same bank which gave rise to the concern of my neighbour the MPP for Fort York, the TD Bank, has recently closed a branch near Moss Park in my riding. Many people who live there, who are disabled, seniors and others, have difficulty going a long way to banks in order to do banking, and this is going to be a real problem. We have met with bank officials, to be fair, who have listened but have not found it in their hearts or pocketbook to help and assist. We are looking for other alternatives. Again, I hope this government will assist.

We're looking towards perhaps a credit union that can assist others. I hope the minister will listen as we move forward and will be able to assist us in that regard as well.

I'm happy to see this. I think this is only part of a small business strategy, which frankly I have not seen from this government. I took a look at the list of legislative priorities that was leaked out of the NDP caucus's meeting up in Barrie a few months ago and a community reinvestment act wasn't on that list. Maybe they've changed their mind; I hope to see it.

But I am concerned too about the impact of taxes. That's a major cause of heartache for businesses, why they're not able to hire more and expand. This government, unfortunately, has added to that burden. I can think of the taxes on insurance premiums which is going to be a very real increase in cost for people, and it's not something they can avoid or duck or move around. In fact, I suspect that's why the government imposed it.

I hope they are going look not just at this and not just blame other levels but think about what this government can do, because I think there's a lot it can do and should do and is not doing. I hope the member for Fort York, in his good efforts on this point, will be able to convince his colleagues in his own cabinet to do some good work in other areas as well.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak and I look forward to supporting the resolution.

Mr Perruzza: I'm going to be supporting this resolution, as I suspect all members of this House are going to be supporting this resolution, because it makes an awful lot of sense. Not only does it make sense as you go through the "whereases," but it makes sense when you get down to the "therefore." I urge all my colleagues to support it as well.

We're here this morning talking about small business. There's a difference between small business and big business. Small business has a name, has a face, there's an individual there or a number of individuals. You can see them, you can touch them, you can feel them, you can talk to them. Big business has no face. They have hired faces. They project images on people, and quite frankly small business, that individual, more often than not is completely overlooked, overlooked by government, overlooked by many of our institutions which are there and are supposed to be taking care of small business.

Who is and what is a small business person? Has anybody asked themselves that question? I'll tell you what a small business person has to be. They have to be an accountant. They have to be a public relations expert. They are risk-takers. They are hard workers. More often that not you find small business persons burning the midnight oil. They are personnel managers. They are inventors. They are creative individuals. They are artists. They are innovators. They are multitrades people.

What are they asking of us? They're not asking anything else of us other than they're saying: "We need access to money. We need to have cash when we need to do business." They do not have the cash because banks are persecuting small business. The minute they deposit money in the bank, the bank takes it and it squeezes their credit. They squeeze their credit until there's nothing left.

Where do the banks' lending criteria speak to what I call grey-matter equity? Where do they take into account the ability of a small business person? Where is that in their credit policy statement? I'll tell you where it is. It's nowhere to be found, because all the banks are interested in is bottom-line equity. We all know what's happened to the equity over the last while in the recession. It is gone. Bottom-line equity is gone. It's not there. That needs to be replaced with what I call grey-matter equity -- ability, creativity, innovativeness -- and that just isn't there. It's really unfortunate that we as a provincial government have no power in the face of that.

I say support the resolution, and my message to the new Prime Minister, Mr Chrétien, is, "You better strap on your big boots and you better kick some bank butt if you really mean to do what you say you mean to do, and that is create jobs," because small business, and it's shown time and time again, is the biggest creator of jobs.

Mr Phillips: I'm hopeful of supporting the motion, but after hearing that drivel and nonsense, you've almost talked me out of it. If in fact you believe that sort of nonsense, then we're in more trouble than I thought we were.

Having said all that, I don't think there's any doubt but that many of our small businesses are facing a crunch in terms of their funds for their businesses, and there's no doubt the banks are having difficulty dealing, in all instances, with small business. I happen to think the resolution will advance the issue of, how do we help ensure that our small businesses have the necessary debt and equity financing? I think having an opportunity for governments and the banks and the public to discuss the issue has a lot of merit.

I don't buy what I call the nonsensical rhetoric of the member for Downsview. That doesn't help a reasoned debate around this. It simply is drivel.

I'm looking forward to the banks, government and small business having a rational, logical discussion around this. That's why I can support the motion and hope that the member who's supporting it doesn't support that nonsense I just heard from the member for Downsview.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I'm quite pleased this morning to stand up and support the resolution by the member for Fort York. I want to talk this morning about some of the things the government is doing with respect to the financial institutions that fall under the control of provincial jurisdiction; first, credit unions and caisses populaires.

The government set up an industry-led committee to review the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act, which has not been reviewed for many years. I'm pleased to tell this House today that we will be bringing forward legislation in the very near future that will update and modernize the credit union act.

As we all know, at the credit unions and caisses populaires in our communities are the kinds of people the member for Fort York described as people you live beside, people with whom you do business. These are the kinds of financial institutions that our government -- not wanting to give a competitive edge to credit unions and caisses populaires, but to put them on an equal footing so that they can offer the kinds of creative financial services and financial instruments small business particularly needs, not only to survive but to grow and flourish in these tough economic times.

The second, and just as important, initiative that we're undertaking is a review of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act. I think all members in the House, particularly in the two former governments opposite, have had examples of trust company failure and the kinds of difficulties that result from these kinds of failures, which are catastrophic for the investor, the small business person, the grandmother, the small business owner in your community who have investments in trust companies. They are a multibillion-dollar industry, but they deal in your local neighbourhood.

We are going to provide legislation, again, to provide them with the instruments that they need to compete on a equal basis with the banks.

The third issue we are involved with in terms of community economic development is a task force on legislative review that I'm personally involved in, and that's the review of the Co-operative Corporations Act. We see that as being a process that will dovetail quite nicely with the credit union review and the loan and trust act review, as well as the broader financial services review that has been ongoing since our party took government in 1990.

It's our view that in this province we have a very competitive financial services market, and we're certainly not doing enough as a government or as an industry to promote the kind of financial services industry that we have operating within our jurisdiction.

With that, again I want to tell the member for Fort York that I support his resolution. He has been a leader within caucus on community economic development issues and I urge all members on all sides of this House to support the resolution.

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): I want to say to the member for Fort York that I appreciate his efforts in bringing this issue forth for discussion. I'd like to concentrate on that word for a moment. I think we do need to have some discussion, and some fruitful discussion, with all levels and players, if you will.

Reference has been made to the federal government. I note that during the consultation with the people of this country not too long ago, not quite two weeks ago, during that period of time much was said about small business. It seems to me, as my party's critic and advocate for small business, that as I travel across the province, one of the frustrations businesswomen and businessmen tell me is that there's a tremendous amount of lipservice paid to many of the things we talk about, but oft-times government fails to act on that.

To the extent that the good offices of the Premier and people in financial senior portfolios can be brought to bear to negotiate and work with banks in assisting the dilemma that many small businesses are in, I applaud the member's efforts.

I hasten to add that I want to distance myself, with all due respect to my friend from Fort York, from the kind of rhetoric we've heard from the member for Downsview. I wish he were here right now because I don't want to make that comment in his absence, and if he's in the lobby I hope he can come in.

Quite frankly, I think that kind of inflammatory rhetoric in the long run doesn't serve anybody's interests. We're beyond the point of drawing lines in the sand and castigating the banks as institutions that are without a sense of responsibility. I agree fundamentally that there needs to be some movement. Small businesses need to have some sensitivity. But to paint an adversarial relationship into heightened, almost inflammatory rhetoric, in the final analysis serves nobody very well.

I think it also important to note that there has been some response from the banking community. I note, by way of example, and I'm sure the member for Fort York would be aware of this, that the Canadian Bankers Association is sponsoring a conference at the Toronto Westin Harbour Castle November 7 to 9. I hope that he, together with some of his caucus colleagues, would drop in and visit and have a sense of some of the things that are taking place and the dialogue and the interchange and the exchanges that are taking place as the financial institutions in this country recognize the realities that we're facing in this province, indeed in this country.

I take some pride in the fact that the new Prime Minister of this country -- I was going to say "the Prime Minister designate" but I understand he would have been sworn by now -- during the debate and the consultation with the people before the election of October 25 indicated that he had as a cornerstone of his economic plan and development strategy a focus on small business.

I also want to put on the record that I hope my friend from Fort York and members of his caucus would perhaps use their good offices to look to the loan collections procedures. I say that as directly as I can. When I think of the province of Ontario, I think of some of the new ventures loans that are out there. I hear from small businesses that the collection squeeze by that albeit arm's-length agency of the Ontario government is very onerous and that there could be some latitude and that we can look in the mirror as well as looking outside. There's much that we could talk about of what is the role of the provincial government, and we're not here to debate that today.

I would just hasten to add that the fourth paragraph of the member's good efforts here says that the survival of many small businesses is threatened by banks and financial institutions. Financial institutions and banks and access to money is an issue. It is not the only issue and there's much else that we need to do. To the extent that the resolution addresses the issue with respect to financing --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The time has expired.

Mr McClelland: -- I applaud the member, I thank him for his efforts and hope that it'll move us towards a reasoned, thoughtful debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): First, I would like to thank the member for Scarborough Centre for all his work with regard to credit union legislation. I think members on all sides realize how much that is needed, and the other initiatives needed to keep local dollars invested in local communities for economic development.

I truly believe that small businesses, medium-sized businesses, as Mr Marchese says, are very important and do create 85% of the new jobs in this province. I'd like to say that this, to me, is very important because I represent Niagara Falls and I believe it is reality that we probably have more small business per capita in Niagara Falls than any other area of the province. That's why I insisted on joining the parliamentary assistant's committee on small business 2 1/2 years ago. What we did was an initiative called Clearing the Path, which is to reduce red tape.

In fact, I remember the budget of 1992, where the small business tax was reduced. That doesn't happen very often, and that was a direct result of the work that Mr Jamison did with this committee.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I see in Niagara Falls many small business people coming to me, whether they own motels or other small businesses, in desperation. These are desperate times and the banks have not been cooperative. I remember last spring being up at the top of Commerce Court with a group of small business people and they said to me, "The banks are a problem."

Finally, Mr Speaker, I want to tell you that my husband is now, this month, starting a small business, and I know the absolute struggle that he has gone through. So I call upon this government and the federal government to help small business.

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

Mr Marchese: I want to congratulate and thank all the members for speaking. It's too difficult and there's too little time to name them, but I want to thank them for participating in this debate.

I want to as well say to Mr McClelland, about the invitation that he was extending me, that the $500 it costs to get there makes it impossible for me to be present, but I thank him for the invitation.

With Mr Turnbull, I must say there is one thing that we agree on -- we do indeed cohabit a different hemisphere, perhaps three different hemispheres. On that we agree. I have heard a lot of myopic and unimaginative suggestions from the opposition. This I must say: While I accept the fact that they agree with the resolution, in terms of what else they suggest, in my view it's completely unimaginative.

I want to say that the tax burden, the red tape, is not the problem.

Mr Turnbull: Your government has no responsibility.

Mr Marchese: Most of the people in my work group are not NDPers. Susan Bellan, the chair of banking issues for the Canadian Organization of Small Business, says, "The banks have no right to criticize Queen's Park or Ottawa for their deficits when they make the problem worse by pulling the plug on promising businesses."

Let's not create false dichotomies between the economy and the social services that this government provides. This resolution says that we can and should do both, that economic renewal is possible by giving access to capital to small businesses. If we can do that, we get revenues we need to keep the social programs that this country needs to keep on doing.

I want to add that we have done many things, and I'm willing to share some of the things that this government has done. There's very little time to share them, but I will pass them on to some of the opposition members who obviously have no clue about what this government has done.

By relying on private capital, a community reinvestment act also recognizes that governments have limited resources with which to create jobs. All the government job creation programs in the world won't help us achieve full employment if the banks are busy pulling the plug on Canada's small businesses, throwing more people out of work and increasing the deficit.

I invite small business people to write to me and support this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: I'd just like to remind the members that when the Speaker stands up, you have to take your chair. Also, I'd like to remind you that the speakers are completely cut off, so whatever you say is not heard.

The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 33, standing in the name of Mr Turnbull. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Turnbull has moved private member's resolution number 28. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Excuse me, Mr Speaker, it's number 33.

The Deputy Speaker: That's what I said: Ballot item number 33 but resolution number 28.

I declare the motion carried.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT LEGISLATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 34. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Marchese has moved private member's resolution number 27. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1205 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COURT FACILITY

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's always been my position that justice should not be a political issue, it should be based on the genuine needs of communities. When we were in government, the Attorney General of the day, Ian Scott, announced that there would be a new court complex constructed in Brampton, which is the seat of the region of Peel's justice system. We have heard a number of announcements thereafter. The then Attorney General, Howard Hampton, also announced that this would take place.

It has come to my attention from senior justice officials within that region that they have severe concerns that perhaps Brampton will be overlooked and that in fact a project will take place in another area. In looking at what other area they're speaking of, it causes me concern that in fact politics is creeping into the administration of justice, that the decisions that are being made are being made on the basis of who happens to be the member of what political stripe in that particular riding.

The region of Peel is perhaps one of the fastest-growing areas in North America. We have the airport there, which of course increases the case load. If what the senior officials have told me is correct, I urge the Attorney General to drop the political side of it and to get on with the job that was promised by Ian Scott, by Howard Hampton and, hopefully, by this Attorney General.

ESWAR PRASAD

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): It gives me great pleasure to rise in this Legislature to salute Dr Eswar Prasad who has been chosen as the first recipient of the Collingwood community development award of excellence. I wholeheartedly commend the town of Collingwood for its selection of Dr Prasad, president of Sensor Technology Ltd.

Not only has Dr Prasad helped to put Collingwood on the global technology map, but his company stands as a working blueprint, the type of industry that Ontario needs to attract and promote if it's to regain prosperity in the 1990s and beyond.

In 1992, the Canadian space agency launched its first microgravity rocket, which included a ceramic furnace built by Sensor Technology. Sensor will also be a participant with CSAR-2 in 1994 and has been chosen for inclusion on the planned space station Freedom.

Another exciting project engineered by Dr Prasad and Sensor Technology is the creation of an acoustic levitation system for processing materials in space. This device will enable manufacturers to move and position objects in space by using sound.

Thanks to Dr Prasad, Sensor Technology is making impressive and vital strides in the advancement of Canada's technology base as well as enriching the economic development in the Collingwood community.

I encourage all communities in Ontario to follow the lead provided by the town of Collingwood. The town has demonstrated its commitment to industrial development by establishing this important award and by bestowing it upon such a worthy and dignified individual and company.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEARNING

Mr Tony Rizzo (Oakwood): On the 30th of this month the Royal Commission on Learning will be holding a public meeting in the city of York.

For my part, every effort is being made to let the constituents of Oakwood riding know about this meeting and the importance of getting involved in this process.

I wish to take this opportunity to voice my support, loud and clear, for the work the commission has undertaken and for the need to improve the quality of education in this province. We all know that the issues we face are complex and require the involvement of parents, educators and legislators if we are to create a dynamic for real change.

Not a day goes by that I do not hear or read about the serious problems in our schools. The most common complaints raised by my constituents are threefold. They are the perceived lack of discipline in schools that serves to undermine the entire educational process; the failure of the system to teach little John or Jane to be able to read, count or write, even after having graduated; and the feeling that the system is weighted down by a bureaucracy too big and complacent and by too many school boards and trustees that consume tax dollars that would be better spent on our children.

These are very serious complaints, and I hope that parents in particular will assist the royal commission in producing the necessary answers. With the establishment of this commission our Minister of Education, Mr Cooke, has already shown he's determined to tackle the challenges that face our government in preparing the province's educational system for the future.

GLEBE CENTRE

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Recently I received a letter to the Premier from the Glebe Centre in Ottawa. This centre is a non-profit voluntary organization that has provided care and services to the elderly of Ottawa-Carleton since 1889.

The Glebe Centre board of directors is very concerned about the NDP government's plans for multiservice agencies in the long-term care field. Like many other similar groups, they fear the erosion of the role of voluntary organizations in long-term care. They argue forcefully, and rightfully so, that volunteer boards have played an essential role in providing health and social assistance in Ontario.

To replace these organizations with an administrative superstructure would put further distance between the people being served and the people serving them. Community boards allow the institutions to respond best to local needs and priorities.

As the Glebe Centre said in their brief to the government, "The elderly client has developed a personal trusting relationship with their neighbourhood-based home support service; many may not wish to be linked to a large bureaucratic organization."

I encourage the government, therefore, to recognize the important role played by local community-based groups in the provision of community-based services and to permit flexibility in the development of its new multiservice agency.

EXPENDITURE CONTROL IN MISSISSAUGA

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): People who live and work in Mississauga are very fortunate. While many governments and utilities have increased taxes and energy rates, the city of Mississauga and Hydro Mississauga are giving their residents and customers a break.

This year the city of Mississauga achieved a 1% decrease in property taxes, bringing taxes back to the 1990 level. Council achieved a tax cut by continuing to follow its pay-as-you-go philosophy. Because Mississauga does not build new facilities or introduce new programs unless the money is in the bank, the city does not have to pay debt service charges.

Now Hydro Mississauga has announced that next year, electricity rates will drop an average of 3.4%. Hydro Mississauga has the lowest overall electricity rates in the greater Toronto area.

I know that everybody in Mississauga joins me in congratulating the city of Mississauga and Hydro Mississauga for their sound financial management.

Bob Rae's big-spending, high-taxing government could learn a lesson from Mississauga. If people have money left over to invest and spend, our economy will grow. That means giving Ontarians tax breaks, not tax hikes. But since the NDP was elected in 1990, the average family's provincial tax bill has jumped $633 a year.

I would suggest that the Premier seek advice from the council of Mississauga and the hydro commission of Mississauga: Mayor Hazel McCallion, chairman Alan Bradley, vice-chairman Ron Starr, Donna Howard, Ken Newton and general manager Karl Wahl.

JOBS ONTARIO

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Yesterday the Honourable Brad Ward and myself toured several locations in Dundas, Ancaster and Flamborough that benefited from the Jobs Ontario program.

During our tour we had the opportunity to visit the Greater Hamilton Technology Enterprise Centre in the town of Flamborough. The GHTEC is a high-tech business incubator administered through the Business Advisory Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth. As we toured the facility, Ron Wallace, the executive director of the BAC, told us, "Jobs Ontario is working and working well."

Based on this comment and many others like it, I would like to suggest to opposition members, who insist on continually condemning the NDP government's Jobs Ontario program and other job-creating initiatives, talk to the construction workers who are now working at St John's Anglican Church in Ancaster, the Dundas Public Library and talk to the thousands of others in this province who have gained employment through Jobs Ontario, and perhaps you should talk to the executive director of the Business Advisory Centre of Hamilton Wentworth.

Mr Wallace was spot on when he stated, "Jobs Ontario is working and working well," and I think it's a shame that the opposition refuse to recognize that fact.

PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The month of November marks the first national program of Pharmacy Awareness Week, and the Ontario Pharmacists' Association is playing a key role in the provincial portion of that campaign. Today and tomorrow pharmacists are available, through an information line, to answer consumers' questions about their medications. These two days are specially set aside to highlight the work they do with consumers on a day-to-day basis.

People who are anywhere in the province can call their pharmacist for advice, and not just about prescribed medications. Although over-the-counter drugs are available without a prescription, they are potent enough to cause considerable harm. Many individuals try to diagnose and treat their own symptoms and don't take the selection of non-prescription drugs as seriously as they ought. People should be aware that these medications are very powerful, can cause side-effects and can adversely interact with prescription medications.

Today and tomorrow, as I've indicated, people can call pharmacists for advice. Pharmacists are health care professionals with particular expertise in knowing the implications and contraindications for medications. If anyone has questions about their medications, they can call an information line at 1-800-463-6479. We salute the pharmacists for offering this service.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): In the spring I sent a comprehensive questionnaire to people in Wellington county, asking for their opinions on a variety of issues. Over 1,000 people responded. One of the questions in the questionnaire was, "Do you believe that the government should require school boards to provide junior kindergarten?" Some 80% said no.

The Wellington County Board of Education is also opposed to mandatory junior kindergarten, yet the government insists that the board make plans to provide mandatory junior kindergarten. Our public board conservatively estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be about $4.5 million per year.

Ironically, $4.5 million is the total operating budget for Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington County. It is my understanding that this agency will see its budget cut by about $75,000 under government plans to claw back money received from parental contributions and children's special allowances.

Our children's aid agency, whose work is so essential, estimates that the financial impact of the government's plan will have three times the impact of the social contract. This organization cannot withstand cutbacks of this magnitude without jeopardizing the lives and wellbeing of the children it serves.

As Moe Brubacher, the executive director of Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington county, states: "We've cut all the corners we can. My question is 'Which of the essential services we provide should we cut?' You can't put abused children on a waiting list."

A program like junior kindergarten, with very little public support in Wellington, becomes a government edict and a priority, while at the same time the government is pillaging the bank accounts of children's services organizations. I say to the Premier: Take your junior kindergarten. We don't want it. We don't need it. But give us enough money to look after the children who need our help.

FIRE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EDUCATION AWARDS

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the 1993 Fire Prevention and Public Education Award winners. Today the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services presented plaques to 22 groups and individuals who have generously given their time, energy and resources to promote fire safety and prevention. I'm proud to say Mr Jim Lyon accepted, on behalf of the Kingston area office of Bell Canada, a plaque this afternoon.

Leaders in the fire service across Ontario will tell you that fire prevention and public education are essential to saving lives and protecting property. That's why it's important to recognize the organizations and people who have won the 1993 fire prevention awards. What they have done is extremely important. They have not only helped to save lives but have also worked to change the attitudes of people in this province towards fire. We're talking about people who care enough about their families, their friends and their neighbours to join with the government in working for the safety and wellbeing of others.

On behalf of all Ontarians, I extend to the 1993 fire prevention award winners a heartfelt thank you for their actions and their help. I ask all members of this House to join me in showing their appreciation for the leadership of the award winners present in the gallery today.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our Legislature this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, participants from across Canada and Alaska to the National Ombudsman Conference. The delegation is headed by Mrs Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman of Ontario. Please welcome our guests.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also appreciate all members joining me in thanking our current group of pages. This is their last day of service. I think all members will agree with me that our pages have served with great distinction. They have served both the members and the assembly, and this would be a good time to thank them for their service.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding and recognizing the honourable member for Durham East, I would also invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon a former member from Lambton, Mr David Smith, who is seated in the members' gallery west. Welcome.

The honourable member for Durham East.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I would like to ask unanimous consent of the House for myself and one member of each opposition party to say a few words in regard to Remembrance Day.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous agreement? Agreed.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This coming weekend we will once again celebrate Armistice Day in our towns and our villages across Ontario. It's a time to remember, a time to look back at times past, sometimes with a happy smile and sometimes with a great deal of sadness.

As we remember and honour those who gave their all, we can also remember wartime experiences that are for ever etched in our memories.

I'd just like to say today that I can remember the wartime sausages which my mother suggested were made with sawdust. They were touched with herbs, which allowed us to eat them.

I remember an hour or two before the imminent invasion of Great Britain, there was a newspaper seller down the road, and he pitched his tent outside of a pub and he had a board proclaiming these words. He said, "Chin up, don't look so solemn. Nuffin's 'appened yet. Why worry about tomorrow? T'aint 'ere yet," a message to dispel the gloom of the threatened invasion.

I can also remember Mr Churchill's famous speech: "We will fight in the streets, on the beaches. We will never surrender." I can say that that speech made my hair stand on end.

This weekend, many stories will be exchanged in the local Legion Hall. The sadness felt as we remember will also be intermixed with laughter as many an incident from time past is recalled.

Time of course has taken its toll of the veterans we gather to honour, but we gather to honour them in a very special way because they are our friends. We pause today, amid the challenges we face in the changing world as legislators, to honour the veterans who made our being here possible. We honour those who served in the campaigns of the North Atlantic, in northwest Europe, in Italy, in North Africa and in the Pacific. We honour those who gave their lives at Dieppe and in the defence of Hong Kong, the battle of Ortona, the Normandy invasion and the Battle of Britain.

Let us also remember and honour those who gave their lives for peace in the Great War.

Today we also honour all who gave their lives in peacekeeping actions around the world.

The wars have taken a terrible toll. Thousands lost their lives fighting for our freedom. Today that freedom is brought home to all of us here in a meaningful way. We come here to debate the issues affecting our peers free of fear, free of reprisals and free to say what we want. This freedom we share because of those who gave their all.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Once again we rise in respect of Remembrance Day. I would like to take this opportunity to speak not only about the importance of remembering our past, but about Canadian heroes. Heroes, I should point out, are ordinary persons who accomplish extraordinary deeds. Heroes are the countless men and women who risk and sometimes sacrifice their lives during war because they believe in the cause and the values they are defending.

Today, in 1993, war remains a constant presence. It has even moved a bit closer to us, as Canadian involvement in UN missions overseas illustrates. War has not lessened its grip on the minds of those who would use terror and violence as a means to achieve an end, and the impact of war is no less horrifying and devastating today than it was 50 years ago. It is perhaps more so as humanity, in its infinite capacity for innovation, devises yet new methods of annihilation.

The loss of loved ones remains fixed in the memory of family and friends. They are not forgotten. They are the child, the spouse, the parent, the friend who went away to fight a war and never returned.

Perhaps our society tends to forget that heroes are not some abstract notion that we pull out once a year, but very real people. Some of our heroes were recognized for their exploits and were present to receive military honours. So many others never returned home. They are remembered by the people who knew and loved them best.

Conrad LaFleur, George Robert Paterson, Frank Pickersgill, Lucien Dumais, Ted Wong, John Di Lucia and Ivan Starcevic are but a few known Canadian heroes. One in particular I knew personally, a fellow by the name of Raymond LaBrosse.

Raymond left Canada for an overseas mission in 1940 at 18 years of age. He started out as a signalman with the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals. When the network he operated within was infiltrated by the Gestapo, he was forced to flee France. He later returned to France with a partner, Lucien Dumais, as part of a larger escape network whose main objective was to locate Allied airmen shot down over France and safely escort them out of the country. One can easily imagine the risks involved. A total of 307 Allied airmen safely made it to England. Both Raymond and Lucien returned to Canada.

The same courage that propelled Raymond LaBrosse during the war accompanied him throughout his life. I met with him just three days before his death which ended his battle with cancer. I cannot overstate my profound admiration for his exemplary courage. This is the stuff of which real heroes are made. This we must remember.

Gustave Biéler is another Canadian hero, but one who was not so fortunate. Involved in sabotage activities in France aimed at destroying German troop movements, he was eventually caught by the Gestapo, tortured and executed. He never betrayed the cause.

Frank Pickersgill and John Macalister suffered a similar fate. Pickersgill was a romantic intellectual who had witnessed the Nuremberg rally during a trip to Germany. Completely opposed to fascism, he longed to do useful work. With a fellow Canadian, John Macalister, he was parachuted into France in June 1943. The two men were to be part of a network involving sabotage. Just a few days into this mission they were captured, then tortured and executed. They too never revealed any information of use to the enemy. This goes beyond the call of duty. What a supreme act of loyalty, of integrity towards one's country.

Lest we forget, thousands of soldiers on the front lines also merit our recognition, for they committed the ultimate act of bravery. They gave their lives. They are our unsung heroes.

In an effort to keep the name and deeds of Raymond LaBrosse alive, I have succeeded, with the cooperation of the city of Gloucester and a local developer, in having a street named in his honour. This is but one way of remembering our war heroes, their courage and their sacrifice. I encourage you, my colleagues, and the citizens of Ontario to seek ways of honouring the heroes in your communities. We must retain in our collective memory the singular heroism of these persons.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Next Thursday, Canadians will gather at cenotaphs, march in parades and attend services and assemblies to honour the men and women who served in the First World War, the Second World War and the Korean conflict. We will remember the 110,000 Canadian