The House met at 1330.
Prayers.
MEMBERS' STATEMENTS
ANTI-DRUG STRATEGIES
Mr Beer: I want to tell the House today about an innovative drug awareness program sponsored by the York Regional Police Force together with the Newmarket Saints Hockey Club.
The York Regional Police have been active for the past number of years working with young people in schools to combat the spread of drugs. Their excellent program Say No To Drugs sends police officers into the classrooms to talk to students at the senior elementary level about values, influences and peers, their VIP program.
This year they are building on the interest of young people in collecting hockey cards. I am sure many of us collected hockey cards when we were young and this activity is still of interest today.
Anyone under 16 years of age in York region can collect 28 hockey cards from members of the York Regional Police or from the Newmarket Saints box office. When they have collected the first 12 cards, they can obtain a free collector's book, such as the one I am holding in my hand, at the Newmarket Saints box office. Inside the booklet is a place to attach each picture collected and under each picture is information about drug abuse.
I want to commend the York Regional Police Force and the Newmarket Saints Hockey Club for this informative and innovative program.
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of Education. I would like the minister today to rethink her government's plans to cut back its funding to Georgian College in Barrie.
The minister should be made aware that there is also a Georgian College campus in my riding in the town of Collingwood. If the Collingwood campus of Georgian College is forced to close or cut back services because of this government's shortsightedness, then workers will have no place to go to receive the education and skills development they need and want.
When will the government wake up to the reality that exists in Collingwood? A third of the town's workforce has been confined to the unemployment rolls because of industrial layoffs. If jobs cannot be found and the province is denying the option of education and retraining, what is left for workers? The skills development and retraining programs are needed to ensure that young adults are trained to find their rightful place in the workforce so they do not have to rely on government handouts.
It is about time this government did something for Collingwood to offset the traumatic effects this recession is having. At the very least I want the minister to assure this House there will be no cutbacks at Georgian College, and at the same time I want the NDP government to sharpen its collective pencil and offer assistance to get the town of Collingwood back on its feet.
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Mr Drainville: I speak today as a member of the provincial Parliament and as a Canadian citizen over my concern about the growing estrangement between the federal government and the various provincial governments in Canada.
Our nation seems to be in a state of suspended animation. As the recession deepens, as the destructive policies of the Conservative government continue to divide this country, region against region and citizen against citizen, we are finding it most difficult to communicate with each other about issues that need our common support. Fragmentation and chaos seem to characterize our current relationships.
Let me say to members that we must endeavour in the months ahead to begin to dream a new dream of Canada and to make this dream a reality. We must begin to build a Canada whose system of government is flexible enough to allow for regional economic, linguistic and cultural differences, a Canada that will foster consensus and unity on questions that affect our people as a whole.
As we enter a new year we should look for ways to work together to end this constitutional crisis that has been forced upon us by the federal government and look towards the day when all Canadians will be proud of the unity we experience and live out in our daily lives.
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE FRANCHISE
Mr Chiarelli: I rise today on behalf of the people of Ottawa-Carleton to express jubilation at the return of NHL hockey to our nation's capital. Ottawa's "Bring back the Senators" bid has indeed brought back the Senators.
Ottawa has a tradition of hockey excellence. The original Senators won nine Stanley Cups, third only to the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leafs. The people of Ottawa are prepared to again support an NHL franchise. Hockey is Canada's national game and the nation's capital is hockey country. The people of eastern Ontario have already proved their support by purchasing close to 15,000 non-refundable season tickets even before a franchise was awarded.
The economic benefits that eastern Ontario will enjoy are equally encouraging: some 4,100 person-years of employment during the construction phase alone and close to 5,000 permanent full-time and part-time positions when the new Ottawa Palladium and commercial complex is completed, all without one penny of government investment.
Our congratulations and thanks go out to Dr Bruce Firestone, Cyril Leeder, Randy Sexton and the entire Terrace team who put in the thousands of hours required to make this dream a reality. Given such dedication and professionalism, it is my strong feeling that soon the CBC, or what is left of it, will have to change the name of its feature Saturday night program to Hockey Night in Kanata.
NUCLEAR POWER
Mr Jordan: When the members opposite came to power they thought they had the answers. Now that they are on the government side of the House, they are not too sure about what it means to be a New Democrat. They have two R-words over there: recycle and review. They either recycle Liberal programs and legislation or they review past Liberal decisions.
In the Ministry of Energy it has been review. First, they failed to live up to their promise to stop any further nuclear power development in Ontario by allowing the environmental assessment review of Ontario Hydro's demand-supply plan to continue, despite the fact that it has a large nuclear component. When the Environmental Assessment Board makes its decision, the Minister of Energy has said she will review it and then she will decide whether or not nuclear power has a future in Ontario.
Before they were on the government side of the House, the New Democrats steadfastly opposed the sale of tritium for peaceful purposes. They did not even want to transport it along the highways of this province. Now the government is reviewing its own policy on tritium sales and has said it will not even worry about the five grams of tritium already delivered to a company in Peterborough. This government is having an identity crisis and it is not sure which R-word to use next.
1340
KEN BLACK
Mr Waters: First, Mr Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on being the first elected Speaker of the House. That in itself is an historic occasion.
I would also like to take this opportunity to say a few words about the previous member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay. Ken Black was first elected as a member of the Legislature in 1987. In August 1988 the then Premier, David Peterson, appointed Mr Black to a one-man task force to study and make recommendations on the illegal use of drugs in Ontario. Mr Black was appointed Minister of Tourism and Recreation and minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy in August 1989. Mr Black's educational background and community involvement put him in good stead for his legislative responsibilities.
Ken and I have known each other personally for a number of years. He was my physical education teacher at Bracebridge and Muskoka Lakes Secondary School, more years ago than I care to remember. Ken went on to be superintendent of the Muskoka Board of Education. In this regard, I know very well his commitment to education and the youth of the community. He spent his entire life working with young people, and his concern with their futures did not end on 6 September.
I would like to close by saying thank you to Ken Black for his commitment and effort to the constituents he represented in this Legislature.
RENT REGULATION
Ms Poole: This morning I attended a rally in front of Queen's Park. There were hundreds of people there: unemployed workers who have been laid off because of the Minister of Housing's new legislation, representatives from the renovation trades and construction firms who may have to shut down businesses because of the minister's policy, and small landlords who face bankruptcy.
They are angry and frustrated that the minister introduced his legislation with no consultation and no thought as to the chaos it is creating in the housing market.
I am a tenant advocate and I have deep concerns about this bill. Just as affordability of rents is important to tenants, so is the maintenance and care of their buildings; but what the minister has done is to use a sledgehammer just to solve a problem that he has admitted is caused by a few landlords.
The minister talks about massive rent increases, and I do agree with him that a 195% rent increase is reprehensible. I fought tenants having to pay for luxury renovations and the flipping of buildings, but at the same time, of all the units that have gone to rent review, only 5.7% received increases over 20%.
Why is the minister not dealing with those problems? Why is he not dealing with the abusers of the system instead of penalizing everyone? I hope the minister will take this into account when he is formulating his revisions to this legislation.
HUNTING LICENCE FEES
Mr McLean: My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the cost of hunting licences in Ontario, which are scheduled to increase by an average of 5% on 1 January 1991. The minister is no doubt aware that a resident small game licence will rise to $6.50, that a resident moose licence will increase to $26.50 and that a resident deer licence will be hiked to $20.25.
I have no problem with an average 5% increase in hunting licence fees, but I am concerned that this increase will happen automatically without any financial accounting being undertaken to inform the public about how such revenue is generated from these fees and how the money is spent.
The minister's predecessor began a fishing licence program with the understanding that all revenues generated would be used for conservation and stocking of our rivers and lakes with fish, but that money ended up in general revenues and has never been used for the intended purposes.
Many sports people that I have talked to want to see a system established whereby one adult moose tag would be allocated to each licensed hunt camp in Ontario. The minister should establish such a system and provide a financial accounting now, before the hunting licences are increased on 1 January.
EDUCATION OF DISABLED
Mr Malkowski: I am very honoured to have been able to meet many representatives from the disabled community from all across Canada, from the east coast to the west coast. At the Chestnut Park Hotel, I had that opportunity this past weekend. They were involved with the Canadian Disabled Rights Council and this gave them the opportunity to discuss their concerns regarding accessibility to education and job training.
There were several representatives who will be going on to the International Human Rights Conference this week. This book, Human Rights in Canada, sets up the agenda for the 1990s so that the disabled community can have full participation in society.
To become accessible we need to provide assistive devices that will give them the opportunity. I think all levels of government -- municipal, provincial and federal -- should be concerned about making their programs accessible so that we can reduce the barriers.
STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY
CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Hon Mr Laughren: In the February 1990 federal budget, the federal government limited growth in Canada assistance plan, or CAP, entitlements to 5% for the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia in 1990-91 and 1991-92.
As many members know, the government of British Columbia referred the federal action to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba intervened in the British Columbia challenge out of concern that this federal retreat from federal-provincial CAP cost-sharing agreements could undermine the validity of all existing and future fiscal arrangements and cost-sharing agreements.
On 15 June 1990 the British Columbia Court of Appeal declared that the federal government did not have the authority to override the requirement of one year's notice in terminating federal-provincial CAP cost-sharing agreements.
Today the Supreme Court of Canada is scheduled to hear the federal government appeal of the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision. Again, Ontario is intervening.
Current estimates indicate that Ontario could lose $310 million in respect of 1990-91 and a further $510 million in respect of 1991-92 as a result of the federal 5% limit on growth in Ontario's CAP entitlements.
The Canada assistance plan has helped to support Ontario social assistance benefits for almost 590,000 recipients, including more than 250,000 children. Limits on cost-sharing deny federal assistance to individuals, families and children in need. National programs should not be permitted to discriminate against individuals based on their place of residence.
Attempts by the federal government to transfer responsibilities on to the provinces have not been confined to the areas of welfare assistance and child care. The overall cost to the government of Ontario of these federal actions has been estimated at $5.5 billion for this year and next. About 95% of this amount represents federal transfer payments associated with critical services such as health care, post-secondary education, welfare and child care.
In 1990-91 and 1991-92, Ontario will receive $4.4 billion less under established programs financing, or EPF, with respect to health care and post-secondary education than the federal government was to have provided under the formula set in 1977. Five unilateral federal actions since 1982 have resulted in ongoing losses to Ontario under EPF, so that federal contributions now cover less than 35% of health care and post-secondary education spending in Ontario. That is down from a high of 52% back in 1979-80.
1350
In the most recent move to limit EPF payments to the provinces, the 1990 federal budget froze per capita EPF entitlements for 1990-91 and 1991-92, resulting in anticipated losses to Ontario of some $320 million this year and $570 million next year. The provinces are being asked to provide uncompromised service with eroding federal support.
In addition to these, the federal government has undertaken wide-ranging cuts affecting many of the programs previously the foundation of fiscal federalism and the very nature of our Confederation. Federal measures aimed at transferring expenditures or responsibilities have included the following: terminating or refusing to renew existing cost-sharing agreements; changing program criteria to restrict provincial spending eligible for federal cost sharing; and placing ceilings on spending on direct federal programs.
Among the programs affected have been cost-sharing for young offenders, with federal transfer shortfalls in Ontario of $28 million over 1990-91 and 1991-92; non-profit housing, where federal cutbacks amount to $50 million over the two years; and forestry funding under economic and regional development agreements, with cutbacks of some $30 million.
These federal actions have damaged the country. Through this court case and in other forms we will continue to voice the strong objections of the people of Ontario.
RESPONSES
CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Mr Elston: I have listened with interest to the member for Nickel Belt, now Treasurer of Ontario, and I really wonder why he is bringing this statement to the House today. I know it is important news that the Supreme Court of Canada will deliberate, but our national press service, such as it is now under the guidance of the federal Tory government, will tell us all about what the Supreme Court of Canada does or does not do with this. This material is not news at a time when the people of Ontario need real action, real leadership from this government.
We are suffering, even if you just go to the debates which have been held here in this House, from a real series of devastating layoffs about which the government of the day has done nothing. They had made promises and when the member for Hamilton East was in his place here in opposition he made statements about how he was going to cure the ills of the economic world in favour of the working person of the province. He has done nothing except squirm in his seat as we have asked him to respond to the needs of the unemployed and those people who have seen their companies moving south of the border. He has squirmed. The member from Toronto who is the Minister of Community and Social Services has in fact never responded seriously to a timetable of implementing another stage of the Social Assistance Review Committee reform. There has been nothing to tell the people who were interested during the election about the new plan for interest assistance for mortgage holders, for people who would be home owners. Nothing has come through.
There are more studies than even we as a government had, and some would say that we had far too many. But each day as each minister stands in his or her place, he or she responds by saying: "We have taken it under advisement. We have discovered a new concept -- consultation." They are not responding with any real news.
Where is the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food? When he returns from the international discussions, where is his program to assist the agricultural community at a time when things are becoming more devastatingly serious? Where in this announcement are the results of the deliberations of this government over the past three months now as it tries to bring forward some real response to the agricultural community, which really needs help?
How can the Treasurer stand in his place today and bring this little information to us? Most of this information is already a matter of public record. All of the cutbacks by the federal government were well documented under the auspices of the former Treasurer and even under the auspices of former ministers of the government as we wrestled with the delays in funding at the federal level and the real cutbacks.
That was never good enough for those people when they were in opposition, but today they have the courage, through the Treasurer standing in his place, to tell us all of these details while the province goes wanting. I cannot understand this inaction. It is not necessary that he tell us this today. He should be telling us about the details of his program for interest assistance to home owners. He should be telling us about the details for assistance to the farm community. He should tell us about assistance for the people of Elliot Lake, and he should tell us about assistance for the people in the forestry industry who need that more now than they have in the last several years. Yet he has not responded.
If the Treasurer were being upfront about all of the things he was expecting to receive or not to receive in terms of economic reimbursement from Ottawa, perhaps he could tell us about the estimated $500 million in excess revenue which is coming. In fact, rumour has it that there may even be as much as $750 million coming which was not projected. But he has not actually decided to tell us about that. He should tell us about that, and he should tell us about concrete plans to gear up the construction industry so that it can take projects off the shelf and put them into real activity now in Ontario, because men, women and children in this province need the government's leadership.
At a time when they are looking for leadership, the Treasurer has given us this. This is not acceptable. The leadership the government was elected to give has not come about. I know the members are new and I know they have to find their way around this place, and that is important, but they had real plans in August and September 1990; they were elected with real plans. They were elected with immediate plans, and the Premier has taken them back. In fact, the Premier is now sitting in his place comfortably and cosily talking to his buddies while people in the province need his help.
Mr Stockwell: The statement cuts at what I believe to be a broader issue, that is the downloading of governments to other levels of government: more senior levels of government's commitments to programs, commitments to ideas, then obviously backing out.
If in fact this is the position of the provincial government, then I look forward to certain commitments to municipalities, where downloading was practised for the past five years. I have not heard any comments about them. I will give the members a couple of ideas about what the municipalities would certainly like to hear them speak about.
Maybe when the government issued this statement about those terrible federal people, it could then have announced that it would re-accept the cost of supplying court security, the millions of dollars it is costing municipal taxpayers. The government cannot have it both ways. If it is going to wail and complain when its financing gets cut off, it cannot go around cutting off municipal financing.
Waste disposal, pay equity, education, for goodness' sake -- we can talk about heritage language, classroom size, junior kindergarten. Maybe we can talk about those kinds of programs the government will be prepared to pick up in the next little while after it finishes bashing the federal government for doing exactly what provincial governments have been doing for the past five years.
If the government's commitment is in place, if its commitment is true, then maybe it should stand by its principles. If this is fundamentally wrong, if this is fundamentally flawed, then so are the processes and programs that were instituted which cut the legs from under municipal government. Some municipal governments were looking at 25% and 30% increases. If that is the case, then what is good for this government should also be good for the municipalities.
Employer health tax: the 4,000 fewer beds in this province are probably very indicative with respect to provincial cutbacks. The federal government is taking the position that there has to be a reduction in spending. The provincial NDP cannot tell me about the terrible high interest rates when we can tie it to debt. It is nearly directly tied to the debt. And the provincial government cannot tell me that on the one hand it wants the federal government to increase funding to it and increase spending, and then on the other hand that it wants to retire the debt and so it cannot lower interest rates. It cannot have it both ways. It has to be consistent.
The government also has to be consistent with the municipalities. The Treasurer cannot keep cutting the funding off to these people and not give them their transfer payments.
Hon Mr Laughren: Consistency should start with you, my friend.
Mr Stockwell: For somebody who should be listening, the Treasurer talks a lot. I remember he corrected me that way.
The Treasurer cannot cut the legs out from under those people and complain when the federal government does the same to him.
1400
An Agenda for People promised a lot of initiatives and programs. None of them have been instituted fully to the extent that Agenda for People called for. They have not been instituted fully because the government realizes it has some financial problems. Standing in this House today bashing and whining about the federal government as they did in opposition is not going to resolve the issues the people of this province have with the provincial NDP. Outstanding commitments include billions of dollars to the taxpayers.
If the government is not prepared to institute them it should say so, but it should not come before us today bashing the federal government for transfer payments, for the high interest rates, for the GST and for all those other things when it is not prepared to offer anything to the people of this province in the way of help or assistance -- nothing.
The government is not prepared to stick by its campaign promises. It is not prepared to go to the municipalities and say, "We'll pick up all that downloading that was done in the last five years." What is it prepared to do? Sitting here bashing levels of government and telling us about the concerns it has is not serving the public in the province of Ontario.
If I were asking the Treasurer to make a statement, the statement would be whether he is going to institute An Agenda for People, whether he is going to institute his new economic policy, whether he is going to start his Fair Tax Commission. He should start his Fair Tax Commission, deal with the duplication of public service and deal with the duplication to the taxpayers, because the taxpayers do not care who takes the money from them. You can have three levels of government, but there is one taxpayer. Whether they take it from the right pocket, the left pocket or the hip pocket, it matters not, because all of them are taking and the taxpayers are fed up.
ADVERTISING BY MEMBERS
Mr J. Wilson: I rise on a point of privilege. I have with me today a copy of the 12 November issue of the Guelph Mercury. On page 3A, in the centre of the page, we see a photo of the inside of the constituency office of the NDP member for Guelph. In that photo we have a group of members of the Guelph and District Labour Council, and they are preparing signs which are clearly political in nature. In fact, one of the signs right here mentions one of the political parties. I feel this is an abuse of the taxpayers' money, Mr Speaker, and it is inappropriate to use a constituency office for partisan purposes. I would ask that you deal with this matter and rule on it and report back to the House.
The Speaker: If the member for Simcoe West would forward the information, I will be most pleased to look into it and I will respond back to him as quickly as I can.
VISITORS
The Speaker: All members of the House may wish to welcome to our chamber this afternoon two former members of the House, George McCague from Simcoe West and Doug Wiseman from Lanark-Renfrew.
ORAL QUESTIONS
CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Premier. On 26 November he indicated in this House that he would make an announcement, after consultation with the opposition leaders, as to a process whereby the members of the House and the residents of Ontario would be consulted to give the government guidance on what the official position should be in our negotiations with the other provinces and the government of Canada leading to any changes in our Confederation agreement.
At the same time, in emphasizing that it would be nonpolitical, I believe that -- according to media reports -- over the weekend he lambasted the Progressive Conservative government of Canada for its inadequacies in constitutional leadership to no less an august body than the NDP provincial council.
I wonder if the Premier could indicate what he means by an open and non-political approach and when we can hear the structure in which we might all participate in the very near future.
Hon Mr Rae: I hope I will be able to meet with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party later this week. I hope it can be done as soon as that. I hope to be in a position to make a statement to the House before we adjourn next week. I look forward to those discussions and I look forward to the House and other institutions in the province being involved.
Mr Nixon: I appreciate the reiteration of the promise to consult with the leaders of the opposition parties. He may have forgotten his previous situation where, as Leader of the Opposition, there was a rumour that he did not always speak for every member of his party. I do not think any secret would be divulged if I said there are a variety of views in our party on how this consultation should take place. I would suggest to him that it is not sufficient consultation, although I appreciate his offer to speak to me and to my friend and colleague the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.
Would he not think that a truly open approach to this might be for him to put forward a resolution that could be debated, maybe in a evening session or something like that, as there are very few days apparently left in this fall session before we adjourn for a time?
While consultation with the two leaders might be sufficient in his view, I would express on behalf of my colleagues their desire to participate right from the beginning in how the structure might become established, and that we should do this without delay, because the rest of the provincial and Canadian world is rapidly moving on while we are polishing our glasses.
Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition has again used a metaphor which I have used myself and I appreciate the fact that he is using it.
I hear the suggestion. It is an interesting one which I would like to discuss with the House leader, because there are some questions about what House business is going to look like over the next seven days. I am very open to the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition and I sincerely hope that something can be arranged.
Mr Nixon: I believe it was announced over the last day or two that Manitoba has established a so-called blue ribbon committee to review this matter and report to the government and, I presume, through the government to the Legislature and people of that province.
Alberta's review of this matter has been in operation for a number of months. We know that the government of Canada, through its rather ill-fated citizens' forum, is gathering its skirts together as it plans to consult with the people of Canada beginning in 1991.
Perhaps the most significant thing is that the Bélanger-Campeau commission is well into this and mobilizing the opinions of the province of Quebec, while there seems to be a certain timorous approach by the fearless leader of the New Democratic government. It is not clear what is restraining him because he may well recall, in an address to this House not many months ago, that people on all sides responded to his rather clear review of the situation as it then was, pre-Meech, with a standing ovation. I even participated, much against my better judgement when I think back.
The Premier must surely put aside his timorous approach to this and assert his leadership of the majority in this House, move forward in spite of the reactionary pressures that are exerted upon him. give some leadership and allow the House and the people of the province to proceed. Does he not agree?
Hon Mr Rae: Yes, I do.
The Speaker: Before entertaining a second question -- this chamber is obviously popular today -- we also have another former member, Cliff Pilkey, a former member for Oshawa.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr Kwinter: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Exactly one year ago, the GATT council adopted the report of a GATT panel formed at the request of the United States. The panel ruled that Canada's import restrictions on certain products are inconsistent with article XI of the GATT.
The minister has just returned from leading Ontario's delegation to the GATT. Could he tell us what progress he made in addressing the problems with article XI?
1410
Hon Mr Pilkey: I thank the member for the question. Ontario is well satisfied with the circumstances that related to article XI at the recent GATT talks, the Uruguay round.
As I mentioned to the House yesterday, I was pleased to have in my delegation there the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who did a very commendable and excellent job not only in advance of the round with his meetings with the agricultural industry representatives but also at the round itself. I want to thank him publicly for that.
The province of Ontario, as members know, attended those talks in a subnational setting, the federal government of course having the prime responsibility to represent this nation at the green rooms at those GATT talks. We were very successful in having article XI maintained in the agricultural policy to help protect supply management and those who benefit from that supply management program, the Ontario farmers.
That circumstance was maintained in the Canadian package even though there were other provinces that were not pleased with that. They would like to have seen them removed, but it was necessary for the benefit of Ontario agriculture that the management supply article be left intact. It was left intact when the round began, it was intact when the round was suspended.
It will be our position, as we meet later in the year with the federal Minister for International Trade, John Crosbie, to maintain that position for the benefit of Ontario interests, and we believe we will be able to continue to do so.
Mr Kwinter: The minister certainly does not understand the problem. The problem is that we do not want article XI maintained. To state that he is satisfied that it is maintained goes contrary to what Ontario's and Canada's position is. Just to remind the minister, who has just gone to Brussels, article XI deals with a ruling that was made about yoghurt and ice cream and possibly cheese. We, as a province, are opposed to it.
For the minister to stand in his place and say that he has gone to Brussels and he is happy with that means that he was not really there in any kind of meaningful way.
If, as the minister says, he is happy with what is happening with regard to article XI, what is he going to do to ensure that the dairy industry is not going to be decimated, which is what will happen if the interpretation under the present ruling of the GATT panel is upheld? What is he going to do about it?
Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand the article quite well, contrary to what the former minister has said. It is very important, and was very important, for us to maintain that article in the interests of supply management for the agricultural community here in Ontario.
It is true that there have been interpretations of that article under the former GATT provisions that have allowed some seepage and some escape into the areas that the member mentions. It has been our role and our task to try to close those gaps and those circumstances where those exports have been able to flow into Canada and Ontario, and that is our position as well.
The member tries in some kind of cute way to steer away to a secondary issue and detract from the primary comment on the main issue of supply management that I mentioned. But I can assure him, as I think he well knew before he asked the question, we also, in both ministries, are aware of that seepage and are trying to correct that circumstance through our trade representative, John Crosbie.
Mr Kwinter: Just so we can clarify the situation, a year ago today the GATT council accepted the ruling of a GATT panel that said Canada's stand on article XI is not in keeping with its interpretation of what it is. We as a province and we as a country have been very unhappy with that stand, because if it is allowed to stay as it is -- and the minister has just said that he is happy with its staying as it is -- it will destroy supply management. That is exactly the point I was making, that unless he can strengthen the interpretation, unless he can adjust it to accommodate supply management and crop insurance and some of the other things we do, we are going to destroy the crop management system in Ontario.
Can the minister tell me now that he can ensure that supply management will remain as it is now during the final negotiations and afterwards? Can he assure us of that?
Hon Mr Pilkey: Unless 107 countries in this world bestow upon me the single authority to write all the rules and regulations under the current Uruguay round, no, I cannot guarantee him that.
What I can guarantee him is that it will be the position of this ministry and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food to continue to urge the trade minister, John Crosbie, who represents this nation at those tables, to continue to protect article XI in terms of supply management so that the farms and the farming families of this province will continue to be protected.
In terms of those areas where there is some slippage through milk byproducts, which the member referred to on ice cream and yoghurt, we have continued to urge that those loopholes be plugged. We want to ensure that, under the rules section of GATT, those areas are strengthened and regulated to ensure that the very pitfalls the member indicates are in fact plugged. He should not confuse the fact of that slippage with our position on article XI, though. I ask him to consider that perspective.
LANDFILL SITES
Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. In light of the revelations in this morning's announcement that Metropolitan Toronto's secret list of 15 potential landfill sites includes the Rouge Valley as a potential mega-dump for Metro Toronto's garbage, will the Premier stand up in this House today and tell us whether he plans to live up to his party's promise and his own personal onsite commitment that there will be no dump in the Rouge Valley?
Hon Mr Rae: First of all, let me say to the leader of the Conservative Party that the list, which is put forward by the group called Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee, is not a secret list. It is certainly not now a secret list, but it was not a secret list before. I tell the member very directly, there are absolutely no plans of any kind by this government to use the Rouge Valley as a dump, none at all.
Mr Harris: As the public has begun to realize, I believe, from politicians of all parties at all levels, there is a huge difference between "We have no plans" and, as he said in the campaign, "There will be no dump in the Rouge Valley."
The Premier says the list is not secret. I still have not seen it. Metro Toronto officials who wanted to release it have been told, as I understand, by either the Ministry of the Environment or officials: "That would be inappropriate. Please keep it secret so that we do not excite some of these municipalities that may have other expectations." I do not know why they would have those expectations, but perhaps they still remember the month of August and the commitments that were made by the Premier.
As opposed to having no plans, I wonder if he would answer the original question, which is to say, does he plan to live up to his personal promise that regardless of anything else, he now, as Premier of the province, can say with certainty there will be no dump in the Rouge Valley?
Hon Mr Rae: I will live up to the statements that I have made in the past. I state as clearly as I can to the leader of the third party with respect to the Rouge Valley, it has been declared a park by the previous administration --
Mr Elston: Hear, hear.
Hon Mr Rae: -- in answer to the interjection, a position which we fully supported and which was advocated with great eloquence by the member for Mississauga South. When she did so, she was speaking on behalf of all the members of the Legislature, I believe, in the efforts that she and others made with respect to the Rouge.
I do not know how I can be any clearer than I have been. I was asked specifically by the leader of the third party whether I abided by the statements that I had made in the past with respect to there not being a dump in the Rouge Valley. That is the statement that I am making today: No dump in the Rouge.
1420
Mr Harris: I would say to the Premier, that was not so tough, what he said in August. However, there are 14 other sites on this secret list that the Minister of the Environment has asked to be suppressed, for what reason, we are not sure.
Specifically, I can recall the NDP in August -- that was the No Dump Party -- particularly in Marmora, Plympton and Scarborough, for example. Could the Premier repeat the promises he made that there would be no dump in the Rouge Valley and the personal commitment and promise he made this summer to Marmora, Plympton and Scarborough? Does he plan to live up to those commitments?
Hon Mr Rae: I think the question that has been put by the member has been answered on many occasions, and it has been answered very clearly by the Minister of the Environment as well as by others.
The first priority of this government is the reduction of waste, and that position has been advocated very strongly. I can tell the member we are now, as a government, allocating resources. We are now looking at exactly what is going to be required to carry out this tremendous task, and that is what we are doing.
The second thing I would say to the leader of the third party is that we are establishing a public authority which will be clearly publicly accountable. It is going to be established with a clear responsibility to finding a long-term site, and the clear statement has been made by this government that no long-term site will be established without environmental assessment and without a process of full accountability -- no long-term site in that regard. That has been made very clear by the government and that is our position.
Mr Harris: Small change in the answer to the supplementary from what there was to the first question.
Mrs Cunningham: No long-term.
Mr Harris: Oh, that was just no long-term dump in the Rouge. Maybe I should --
Interjections.
Hon Mr Rae: No, no.
Mr Harris: I understand.
RENT REGULATION
Mr Harris: I have a question. I am not sure we have really cleared up what I wanted to clear up, but I am not sure 10 more questions are going to do it either, so I will go to the Minister of Housing.
This afternoon, two weeks before Christmas, I bring him greetings from over 15,000 workers of this province, many of whom stopped by in person, who have been directly affected by the minister's very ill-conceived, I suggest, and unjust legislation.
The minister has example after example of workers who have been laid off as a result of his introduction of proposed retroactive legislation. These workers, I suggest to the minister, will be themselves facing a rather grim Christmas. I would like to know what the Grinch who stole housing has to say to these workers whose jobs were lost that were directly linked to the necessary maintenance and upkeep of Ontario's aging rental stock. What message does the minister have for them?
Hon Mr Cooke: I think the leader of the third party knows very well that the whole issue of rent regulation and protecting the affordable housing stock that exists in this province is a very difficult one indeed. I understand that. I understood it when I was in opposition and we understood it in the election. That is why, when we were in opposition and during the election and now that we are in government, we have brought forward proposals that will provide protection for tenants in this province.
I understand very clearly the member's point of view and the point of view of the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, the large landlords in this province. The member's point of view and their point of view is that rent control should be abolished and that tenants should be left to have absolutely no protection for rents at all. That is not a point of view that I share. I think we have to provide protection.
Mr Harris: I think it is a pretty well established fact that Santa is not going to arrive on the roofs of a number of apartment buildings across this province this Christmas because there are so many roofs that cannot support even him and his eight tiny little reindeer because they are in need of repairs and apartments where he will not be able to slide down the chimney because the chimney is crumbling.
If Santa has problems, what about the thousands of tradespeople who have no jobs because of this government's shortsighted attempt to be all things to all people? They know their jobs have been stolen by the New Democratic Party, and the jobs that were stolen were not for luxury renovations. This seems to be the minister's only justification when we talk about this legislation. These are jobs that were for necessary repairs. I have estimates that less than 2% of planned renovations could be classified as luxury or unnecessary, so the minister is throwing out 98% of the renovation jobs to correct a 1% or 2% problem. He is also destroying 98% of the homes of tenants to stop the 1% or 2% perhaps unnecessary or luxury renovations.
I wonder if the minister has any impact studies that show this is not the case, and if he does have any impact studies, if he would table them with the Legislature before we debate this legislation.
Hon Mr Cooke: I give the leader of the third party credit for his consistent point of view in wanting to eliminate rent regulation in the province; that has been his point of view for a long time. He refuses to recognize, as he has consistently that we had to bring in some type of protection because we were experiencing speculation and flips and unnecessary renovations that were resulting in tenants not receiving the kind of protection that we in this party and this government believe in.
The member has to understand, as he refuses to do, that if we had not brought in some improved type of rent regulation, he knows as well as I do that he would be standing up and the Liberal Party members would be standing up and saying, "Where is the protection for tenants?" There are tenants who are receiving 60%, 70% and 80% rent increases.
We have decided that type of rent regulation is necessary. We brought in a moratorium, and that is the position that we have taken. We do not agree with the member's point of view that there should not be rent control in thisprovince.
Mr Harris: I realize that the minister does not like to answer the question, and he likes to get into a whole host of other facts and suggestions and presumptions. What I am interested in is this: Why is the minister destroying the homes of 98% of the tenants in this province and the jobs of 98% of the renovation workers who are being thrown out of work with a sweeping, retroactive bill designed to protect the 1% or 2% of the renovations that can be deemed as unnecessary or luxury? That is the question that I want answered and that the people of this province and the 98% of the tenants do not understand.
Will the minister table the impact studies or, if he does not have them, will he admit that he has done no impact studies on the 98% or more of these homes that tenants are going to see deteriorate as a result of his legislation?
1430
Hon Mr Cooke: I would say to the leader of the third party that it is that kind of rhetoric, the rhetoric that he is using and the rhetoric that is used by AFFORD, the Association for Furthering Ontario's Rental Development, and by large landlords in this province, that will not lead us to a permanent solution to this very important issue in this province.
I have put forward to the member through my House leader a proposal which we put to the landlords and the tenants of this province that would see the moratorium now and a proposal for the long-term legislation to come forward at the end of February so we can speed up the process and make sure the moratorium is as short as is absolutely necessary.
The member knows that this proposal is in front of him. If he wants to get the moratorium out of the way and get on with a long-term solution that will deal with capital, then let's get the bill out to committee and start dealing with the problem.
LANDFILL SITES
Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. We have learned today that the minister and her officials have been in possession for several weeks now, since 14 November, of a list prepared by Metropolitan Toronto outlining 20 proposed sites to receive Metro garbage. We understand that when the minister learned this list was to be released, she or her officials directed Metro to keep the list under wraps.
There is a great deal of confusion in towns like Marmora, Plympton, Kirkland Lake, and indeed even in the Toronto area in Keele Valley and in Scarborough, that communities will be required to take Metro waste against their will.
The minister has promised that she will be open and aboveboard relating to any question on environmental issues with the people of Ontario. I am asking the question of this minister, will she lift the veil of secrecy and will she table in the House tomorrow the list of sites that Metro Toronto has prepared and that she has directed shall be kept under wraps?
Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad of an opportunity to be as clear as I possibly can about the process that is being undertaken by this government. Let me start by dealing with the list. The list of sites was prepared by Metropolitan Toronto. I think they called for proposals under the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee or SWISC process set up by the previous government. They got 89 responses and they have since been whittling that list down.
I am not in possession of nor have I seen the list to which the member refers, but I think we all know that since last spring there has been a long list of communities that have been concerned about the fact that Metro and the GTA were looking at their communities for a long-term site for waste disposal.
What this government has done is establish an integrated process of waste management. The member knows we are going to be dealing with waste reduction and reuse. We also are going to be setting up an authority that will build on the work that has been done by the existing regional municipalities and their co-ordinating committee and that will set in place the search for a long-term site.
Until that authority is set up, which will likely not be until the next sitting of this Parliament, I asked Metro and the regional municipalities to carry on and to keep their options open. They said, "Will we release the list of our preferred sites?" I rolled my eyes and said, "If you must." They now have decided they must.
My concern is that the authority that is going to be put in place will be the body that will be seeking the long-term site. That authority will establish the criteria and the conditions under which a site has been selected. The list to which the member refers is a list that is currently in the possession of Metropolitan Toronto and was the list that they had prepared under the previous process which was set in place by her government.
Mrs Sullivan: The minister did not answer the question about tabling the list. Clearly, it is in the possession of her officials. I also believe that the minister is creating enormous confusion with directions from her officials which are going to, for example, the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, with her emergency action threats and with flip-flops. I will give some examples of that.
When in opposition, the minister advocated that Metro and the greater Toronto area should meet their garbage needs within their own boundaries. On 21 November the minister flip-flopped and absolved the GTA of any requirement to do so. On 4 December she and her government and the members on the back benches, some of whose communities are affected, voted against our party's resolution to require this. Today the Premier says the Rouge Valley will not have to take long-term waste. I can tell members what NDP means in terms of waste management issues; it means no damned plans.
I want to ask the minister if she will outline for this House her definition of a willing host, her definition of her commitment to the environmental assessment process, the relationship between her landfill siting authority and the solid waste environmental assessment plan of Metro and whether she will guarantee that the Rouge Valley will not have to accept landfill, not only in the long term, as the Premier has indicated, but in the short term as well.
Hon Mrs Grier: Let me respond to the last part of the member's question. If the member will recall the statement I made in this House, of which she was very critical, it was that there were not going to be interim waste disposal sites for the greater Toronto area. That, I think, deals with the question at the end of her statement.
The plan that this government has is one that puts the environment first, and it puts the environment first by getting serious about waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling, something that the previous government was not prepared to do.
Second, our plan calls for an expedited process to find a long-term site for the garbage and putting that site under the environmental assessment process as opposed to taking shortcuts as our predecessors were going to do.
RENT REGULATION
Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. As the minister knows, I have received and I am sure the minister has received many letters and telephone calls daily criticizing and expressing concerns about the Bill 4 that he is proposing, which is the rent control legislation. These retroactive provisions are seen by many, and not just the landlords, as unfair and inequitable as they effectively leave high and dry those who relied on the existing legislation and undertook renovations in good faith over the last summer.
Will the minister do the honourable thing and remove those retroactive provisions of Bill 4 which threaten so many of the small apartment owners with total ruin?
Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure the member knows that even under the proposal that is now before the Legislature, there will be 130,000 units in this province that will go through the rent review system under the old Liberal legislation. That is how many units. Over 10% of the private stock will still go through the old rent review system under the proposal we have put forward.
That means that 130,000 are going to face significant increases, and we are not able to protect them under our current legislation. So I would say to the member, if he is suggesting there should be changes to Bill 4 that would provide even less protection for tenants across this province, I do not share that point of view at all.
Mr Tilson: As the minister knows, I have asked for impact studies. He said he has them. I have written to him, I have telephoned him, and he will not give them to me. The leader has asked for supporting data behind this bill. We have not received any. My guess is that this information does not even exist.
Will the minister tell this House whether he has a legal opinion in support of the retroactive provisions of Bill 4 and, if not, will he make a reference to the courts to determine whether or not his legislation, especially the retroactive legislation, is even legal? I expect the minister is breaking the law with this legislation. Will the minister do that before someone else takes him to court and before committee hearings begin, so we can proceed on a sound legal footing?
Hon Mr Cooke: I am sure the member knows that the procedure in government is that any legislation that is brought forward to the Legislature is put through the Attorney General's office for an opinion to make sure that it is consistent with the Constitution and with laws in the province, just as any piece of legislation goes through the Attorney General's office.
My understanding is that is exactly what has happened with Bill 4. It has been routed through the Attorney General's office and the opinion is that the legislation is adequate under the Constitution of the country.
1440
GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS
Mr Owens: My question is for the Treasurer. Will the vetting process that the Premier announced yesterday in this House slow down the establishment of the Fair Tax Commission, and will the proposed members of this commission have to undergo the vetting process?
Interjections.
Hon Mr Laughren: I did not hear the last part of the member's question. Sorry.
The Speaker: Like the member for Nickel Belt, I was unable to hear the entire question either.
Mr Owens: Thanks to St Nicholas and his blue reindeers across the way.
The second part of the question is, will the members of this Fair Tax Commission have to undergo a vetting process under the rules that will be established by this new commission?
Interjection.
Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the assistance of the member opposite. I appreciate the question. I do not anticipate that the rules or the plans laid down by the Premier yesterday will slow down at all the process of appointing the tax commissioners.
According to the guidelines outlined by the Premier, they will apply to order-in-council appointments as opposed to appointments that are at the initiative of a particular minister. It is my expectation that the tax commissioners will be appointed in this case by the Treasurer and that we will not be subjected to an order in council, and therefore vetting is laid out by the Premier.
Mr Owens: What then will be done to ensure that Ontarians have the best possible representation so that all sectors are represented on this commission?
Hon Mr Laughren: The member raises a good point, because we have been spending a considerable amount of time ensuring that the various sectors will be represented on the commission. We want to be sure first of all that there is appropriate gender representation on the commission. We want to ensure that there is regional representation. We want to ensure that the various sectors, including the business sector, the public sector and local government, are all represented on the commission. So we are working very hard to ensure that the commission itself is a representative one.
I am hopeful we will be able to make that announcement of the composition of the commission in the not-too-distant future.
FOREST MANAGEMENT
M. Ramsay: Aujourd'hui, j'ai une question pour le ministre des Richesses naturelles.
In this House on 17 May the minister, while in opposition, stated in reference to the budget of the day:
"There is a huge backlog of unregenerated cutover lands. These cutbacks mean much of them will remain unplanted. This will mean less timber for the mills of Ontario and increased unemployment across the north. Both governments, federal and provincial, must commit increased funding for forest management. These cutbacks threaten the future economic viability of the lumber and pulp and paper industries and communities dependent upon them for jobs."
Then in the throne speech the government stated:
"We believe in sustainable forestry, and are determined to see that our forests are regenerated."
So far we have seen in a concrete effort from this government only a 20% allocation of the $41 million put into capital works this winter towards silviculture and some forest inventory updates. We have not seen any change in policy and we have not see any new initiatives.
My question is, what specific items are on the ministerial agenda to solve the forestry problems that the members talked about while in opposition? What are those projects and what are the time lines?
Hon Mr Wildman: I appreciate the question from the member and I appreciate his concern for the future of our forests and the jobs in the one-industry towns that are dependent on those forests. He is quite correct in pointing out, as has been done in this House, the serious problems facing particularly the sawmill industry but also the pulp and paper industry.
This government is committed, as it stated in the throne speech, to sustainable forestry and to ensuring that we manage our forests in a way that takes into account all values -- particularly timber values, but the values of other types of habitat, fish and wildlife, the tourist industry, recreation -- and that we manage forests in an ecosystem approach.
We are currently developing proposals within the ministry for such an approach and moving towards consultation with various sectors. We have already been very much involved in consultation with the industry, with environmental groups and with labour to determine how we might proceed. I will be preparing a presentation for cabinet. We will be going to cabinet in the near future with a proposal for how we will implement our commitment in the throne speech and we will be making it public as soon as we can.
Mr Ramsay: I have been in contact also, as the minister has, with representatives of the industry and other interest groups in the province that share the minister's interest and mine in the forest, in the management of the total resource. But, as the minister will know, the previous government had some studies to be looking at in old growth and also the Pearse report. The previous minister allowed the new minister the discretion on when that report should be released, and I applaud the previous minister for doing that.
At the forestry industry breakfast which the minister attended last week, the industry was asking where the Pearse report was. We would like to see that consultation. The industry would like to see that discussion start. The industry would like to see some direction from this government.
Hon Mr Wildman: Again, I want to agree with my friend across the way about the co-operation of the previous minister. I appreciate her approach. I would say in response specifically to the question that the industry has sought direction from the government, particularly in relation to the fact that the previous government was unable to proceed with the forest management agreements and refused to proceed with forest management agreements over the last two years of its mandate because of the costs involved, and the industry, as I am sure as the member will agree, is looking at how that might be changed.
The industry has also specifically called for an audit, which is in line with the policy of this party, as the member will know since he was part of it at one time, and we are proceeding with the need for an audit so we can get a better picture of what exactly is the state of the forest. We will be able then to develop our forestry management plans in consultation with the industry, environmentalists, labour and the communities involved to ensure we have proper management.
In regard to the Pearse report specifically, I expect that will be released in due time as we release to the public our overall policy with regard to consultation and forest management.
FOOD BANKS
Mr Jackson: I have a question for the member for York South. The member is well documented on record, both as opposition leader and during the last election, with respect to his understanding of the problems associated with the perpetuation of food banks in this province.
The member was quite eloquent in his understanding of what contributes to institutionalized poverty and the traps that exist for far too many thousands of Ontario residents, and so it is not surprising that so many anti-poverty groups have been shocked and dismayed at the complete reversal of the Premier's position with respect to his approach to attacking institutionalized poverty.
1450
My question has to do with why the Premier continued to even seek out headlines, such as one that appeared in the Toronto Star of 1 December which reads, "Rae Vows to End Food Banks." I would like to add again, that was on 1 December. In the Premier's own words, "Poverty is what drives people to food banks." The article says he said that although speeding up the Social Assistance Review Committee process "might have less political sex appeal than throwing money at food banks, we recognize that it isn't the answer. We must deal with the structural problems that create and perpetuate poverty."
Why was the Premier saying that on 1 December, when his government is now funding food banks? They are now perpetuating poverty, by his own admission. They have gone with the sexier political appeal approach instead of attacking the structural problems of poverty in this province. Why has the Premier changed his position so dramatically?
Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question from the always eloquent member for Burlington South. l can assure the member that there has been no change in our objective and the direction in which we are going in terms of speeding up the SARC review process. As a government, we have taken something that was clearly on the back shelf after the first round was approved by the Liberal government, and we have pulled it off the back shelf and said that we want to get moving on it, that we want to proceed. It is not easy in terms of our financial circumstances, and we all understand that, but we are determined to do the best we can.
With respect to the $1 million, the minister made it very clear yesterday that this $1 million can be used by a variety of food banks across the province. I would say to the honourable member for Burlington South that there are varying views with respect to the emergency situation in different parts of the province, that there are differing needs in the food bank community in different parts of the province and that there are differing views.
Therefore, it was the response of this government that we would set up a fund of $1 million which can be accessed by food banks and used for various purposes. That is the way in which it was put forward by the Minister of Community and Social Services. It can be used for advocacy. It can be used to get people the benefits they need and deserve. In some circumstances, in the Ottawa area, for example, and in some smaller communities where there is an immediate emergency in terms of access to food supplies, it can be used in that regard.
But the position of this government remains that the long-term approach, the medium-term approach where we are putting the vast majority of our resources right now as a government is in terms of the increase in welfare payments we announced and the increase in shelter supplements we announced. The direction of our policy is clearly to put money into the pockets of people to make sure they do not have to use food banks, and to respond to emergencies as and once we find them. That is the position of the government of Ontario.
Mr Jackson: The Premier referred to differing views. We do not have a differing view from the thousands of poor people in this province. We do not have a differing view from Thomson and the SARC members. We do not have a differing view from a whole host of volunteers who run food banks and whose goodwill we are exploiting in this province. The only differing view we are getting is from the Premier and the New Democratic Party of this province.
They were saying six short days ago, after one cabinet meeting, "Rae Vows to End Food Banks" to every one of those groups -- consistent in their message that this government has not changed its approach like any of the previous governments. The truth of the matter is --
Hon Mr Allen: Why did the national food bank close?
Mr Jackson: The member for Hamilton West knows there are elements of his own government's policy that betray his own dissenting report at the standing committee on social development. I will quote the member for Hamilton West. He said that "refusal to support such early action on these...crucial points leads us to conclude that the government has no intention of including any major new income support measures for the poor in the coming budget. To us that is intolerable." That was the position of the New Democratic Party before an election.
Finally, one point: With the Premier funding these, then my question is --
The Speaker: We may have a differing view on what constitutes a question. Could the member succinctly place a supplementary question.
Mr Jackson: My supplementary question to the Premier is simply this: Why did his political party sign a document objecting to the approaches taken in attacking poverty through food banks? Why did he include the statement, "To expect them to continue in that role is, in our view, an improper exploitation of community goodwill and voluntary resources"? Why is he perpetuating that with his policies instead of attacking the structural problems associated with poverty in this province?
Hon Mr Rae: I will try to say as briefly as I can to the honourable member that what we are doing is consistent with what we said we would do in opposition. It is not easy to do. Reforming the welfare system, getting people back to work and dealing with the problems of people who are disabled is not an easy job.
If the member reads the text of what I actually said in the Star article from which he quoted, he will find that is exactly what I said in the Star article, that what I am saying in the Star article is precisely the position this government has taken.
The position we are taking is that we are going to work with groups across this province. We are not pretending that it is going to be easy. We are going to respond to those groups all around the province, not just in Metropolitan Toronto. We are going to respond to groups in Hamilton. We are going to respond to groups in Ottawa that have been cut off because the previous government cut off emergency funding worth some $600,000, which required a great many of them to close and no longer provide help.
We are going to have to do that at the same time as we are going to have to deal with the long-term problem. That is what we are committed to doing. We were committed to doing it before the election and during the election, and now that we are the government we are committed to doing the very best job we can in that regard.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD
Mr Morrow: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I know the minister has heard a lot of complaints about the poor service injured workers are getting from the Workers' Compensation Board. In my riding I hear constantly from injured workers who wait months for an answer to their claims and may suffer terribly as a result. What is the minister doing to try to resolve these unacceptable delays at the WCB in getting legitimate benefits paid to workers who have been injured on the job?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the member and all members of this House that we are treating the problems at the Workers' Compensation Board with the utmost urgency in our ministry.
I want to emphasize that in our judgement the problem does not lie with the front-line workers at the board whose workloads are extremely heavy. I have recently met with the chairman of the board, the vice-chair and senior officials and we spent most of that meeting talking about the service problems that are emanating from the board. I came away from that meeting convinced that they sincerely want to resolve these problems as much as anyone, and they have begun a number of new initiatives that should help us in this matter. I will be monitoring what happens with these new initiatives on a regular basis.
Mr Morrow: I thank the minister for his assurances and I share his hope that we can get some quick improvements. Does the minister know if any of these new initiatives by the board involve the hiring of some more staff? Surely this is a problem. There are not enough adjudicators.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am told by the board that the telephone inquiry staff has more than doubled in the past two months. They also told me there are efforts to hire even more. They are also hiring more adjudication personnel as quickly as they can find the qualified personnel.
The member will also know that the WCB is an independent agency, not controlled by the ministry directly, and we cannot tell them when to put in phones or additional personnel. We think the board should resolve its own problems and we believe that the top management, the new direction and the new board that will be hired shortly will see to it that the priority at the Workers' Compensation Board is resolving the adjudication problems.
1500
EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Mr Cordiano: I have a question of the Minister of Citizenship. On 26 November the Minister of Citizenship issued a press release in response to her government's throne speech. In that release the minister noted that her ministry was perfectly positioned to take the lead in securing an employment equity piece of legislation that would be brought forward.
The minister went on to promise that there would be more in the coming weeks. Yesterday in this House the Premier announced his intention to appoint an employment equity commissioner. The real issue is, when will the minister bring forward employment equity legislation? It has been some time since that announcement was made, since her intention was made known. I would like to know what specific timetable will be put in place by the minister to bring forward legislation.
Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member very much for the question. I too share his concerns about the urgency. As he knows, there is an urgency for employment equity in this province. We recognize that need. We also recognize that to be able to make sure we have a good employment equity plan in place, one that works well, we need to have a commissioner in place. That commissioner will be announced very shortly.
Mr Cordiano: It is very interesting indeed to note the transformation that takes place when one goes from opposition to government. I might remind the current minister of this document, Bill 172, which in case she forgets, outlined the initiatives to put forward a broadly representative workforce by eliminating discrimination against women, disabled people, natives and other visible minorities.
That was put forward by the then Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Premier. In case she forgets, he wrote the bill; it is quite detailed, quite specific, with timetables, agendas and a number of relevant facts that will lead to employment equity. I would like to ask the minister again, when will she put forward this piece of legislation? If it was good enough for the Leader of the Opposition when he was in opposition, why is it not good enough for her leader when he is the Premier in government today?
Hon Ms Ziemba: This is a very good question. I thank the member very much for his question. I also would like to be a little bit rhetorical, but I will not be because the Liberals also put forth employment equity four times in an announcement. We will be putting forth our employment equity plan. When we do, it will be a good employment equity plan. It will reflect the Premier's bill and we also will have this plan in place very quickly, before our mandate is over.
ZEBRA MUSSELS
Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister is no doubt aware that this past summer the former government promised quick action to deal with the threat of zebra mussels. An interministerial committee was set up and a strategy was put in place, in conjunction with research, and there was a budget of about $8 million. What happened to the report of this interministerial committee and what happened to the minimum $8 million that was set aside for that?
Hon Mr Wildman: I am particularly concerned about the effects of zebra mussels and the potential effects they could have for the future of the fishery in the Great Lakes, particularly Lake Erie. As they have moved into the other Great Lakes and have been identified in other harbours throughout the lakes system, and as we see the possibility of the zebra mussels moving into inland lakes, the possible effects on the sport fishery as well as on commercial fishing in the Great Lakes could be devastating.
The member is correct that there is an interministerial committee that has been working to develop a strategy for government. Some of the main thrusts of that strategy have been to try to educate the public to ensure that they will take measures required to protect their boats, their vessels, working to deal with the effects on water intakes, whether it be municipal water intakes or utilities and so on to ensure that those can be protected, and developing new avenues for scientific research as to how we can eventually control, if not eradicate the problem.
The report has not been finalized, but I will follow this up and report back to the member as soon as possible as to when the report will be published.
PETITION
RETAIL STORE HOURS
Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition from 20 members of the Presbyterian Church of Canada asking the members of the Legislative Assembly to retain a common pause day. I have signed my name to this petition.
REPORT BY COMMITTEE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Mr Jackson from the standing committee on estimates presented the following report:
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday 6 December 1990, the report of the committee is deemed to be received and the estimates of the ministries and offices named therein as not being selected for consideration by the committee are deemed to be concurred in.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
HOUSE SITTINGS / HEURES DE SÉANCE
Miss Martel moved government notice of motion 7:
That, notwithstanding standing order 9, the House shall continue to meet from 6 pm to 12 midnight on 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 20 December 1990, at which time the Speaker shall adjourn the House without motion until the next sessional day.
Hon Miss Martel: The motion we are moving today is patterned after motions that have been moved by the previous government on two occasions. The first was last fall, in the session of 1989, when the government House leader at that point moved that we sit, and we ended up sitting Wednesday 13 December, Monday 18 December, Tuesday 19 December and Wednesday 20 December. Second, in the spring session of the year 1990 the government House leader moved the same motion and agreed that we should sit eight sessional days. As it turned out, on only two of those occasions did the House in fact sit beyond the extended time.
I believe the memo I have given to both House leaders outlining the business we would like to move in the next two weeks is business that this House can in fact complete. We do not believe there is anything onerous in what we have suggested. We have asked both the House leaders to give us an idea of what time they would need on different bills, such as the rent review bill, for example, and how many speakers they would have. What we would like to do, given that we know a number of speakers from both the opposition parties would like to speak on rent review, is allow as much time as we possibly can during the night sittings for that to occur.
1510
We also know, for example, that although we have been told previously that the official opposition would put up speakers for no more than two days on the GST, on Bill 1, in fact that has been extended and there are more members who wish to speak to that. So we are moving that tonight we would allow those members from the official opposition who have not yet spoken on this bill to do that. We hope that in this way all the people, the 10 people from the official opposition who want to speak on rent review and the at least 15 people from the Tory party who want to speak on the rent review, will all be accommodated. That is the reason for moving the motion.
I have also told both the House leaders that pursuant to the agenda we have set out, we would like to finish the business on each of the days. If we finished at 7, 6:15, 8 o'clock, then we would adjourn the House and we would not proceed with any other new motions.
We have said as well that if both parties want to continue to deal with rent review, even though we have finished the business of that day, then, as the government, we would certainly allow that to proceed.
That is the reason for the motion. I say again that we do not feel it is onerous in any way, shape or form. We hope, as has happened with the last two governments when this was moved by the former government House leader, that we will not have to sit every night and that we will deal with the business of the day each day.
Mr Elston: It is an interesting adventure upon which we are embarking at this particular time. We have been in this Legislature now since 19 November, first to carry on with the election of the Speaker. This government was first notified that it was to take power on 6 September, and we were presented in very short order -- at, I think, our first House leaders' meeting -- with the list of must-have bills which were seen by those people on the other side of the House to be non-contentious.
Some of those people have indicated quite clearly that they found Bill 1, for instance, to be a bill of little significance, very little public import, and why did we wish to speak to it as an opposition? I can say that the signal given by the government with respect to Bill 1, the GST parallel for the Retail Sales Tax Act, was in fact for us a signal of a reversal of position, not leading a tax revolt at all but merely changing their attitude towards what they would do for the public of Ontario.
During the election we were told that they would fight the GST, that a tax revolt would be led by the member for York South with all the passion and power that he could muster in his new-found capacity as Premier.
We were left to debate a bill that said, "We are going to comply, the flags will be struck, and we will move to join our federal colleagues, our federal friends" -- as the NDP is now cosying up to the Tories in Ottawa -- and they do not think the loyal opposition of Her Majesty should have the right to speak for more than two days on a bill which has significance to the extent that the NDP has now withdrawn from the fight to save Canada from the GST.
This is an indication that they cannot stand the speeches that are being made by the opposition members, effective speeches which have found their mark, aimed at the heart of the conscience of the people from the New Democratic caucus who have been told not to talk at all. They have been told not to speak out in this public Parliament of Ontario, they have been told to muzzle themselves, not to join in expressing dissent from the position carried by the Premier of this province, which is to cosy up to Brian Mulroney. "Let's go and join the GST gravy wagon. We'll give away a little bit of money and we'll tell the people we are giving them $500 million," while all the time the seals laugh with glee as they think about the presents they will carry home to their constituents: "You get the right to pay retail sales tax and GST. We've given up the fight; we will not lead the tax revolt that was promised."
That is an important item to debate in this House, and that is why we have been debating it. Far from what the House leader of the New Democratic Party said, I had indicated that we had a number of people who wished to speak and that I was asked by my caucus to ensure that there was ample time for them to put the view each of them held on behalf of the people whose interest they represent in this Legislative Assembly.
That is as it should be. I do not wish to cut off the debate; I do not wish that they should cut off the debate. We should have been back here at a much earlier date if they wanted all this stuff to be done. If they had a legislative agenda, which they did not when they came here to take power on 6 September, they ought to have come back to this House at an early time in October. We were ready, we were prepared.
At the time of the election on 6 September, the people of Ontario were fooled into believing that those people were prepared to lead this province, but they are not. They were not prepared, they were not ready. They do not have an agenda. We have heard nothing but "more consultation" dribble-drabble from those people who represent the executive interest of that government. Today, they tell us we will extend the sitting hours so that the people of the province will be able to watch television from 1:30 in the afternoon until midnight. What is more, they are trying to break Her Majesty's loyal opposition by moving the amendment so that there is no time for a dinner break.
I approached the House leader for the New Democratic Party and asked that we be allowed to take one hour, one solitary hour, so that the members of this Legislative Assembly could break, so that they could have time to eat and drink and have some time for rest. Those people said: "No way. You don't deserve a break at the dinner hour like ordinary people." This government will not allow Her Majesty's opposition to rest at the dinner hour. They require us to speak until midnight, straight through from 1:30, while we are forced to listen to the drivel that comes from their executive council members in answer to questions that are required to show assistance is available to farmers who need the help, to the forestry industry which needs the help, to deal with issues around mortgage assistance relief for those people who need that to purchase houses in the province.
We have a lot of things to debate in this House. We have a number of items. An important part of our debating time has been with respect to their give-in to the GST under Bill 1.
Then, they wish to start Bill 4 today. That is fine. They can do that. But do you know what they want to do, Mr Speaker? They told us at 12:30 today that we would be debating Bill 4 for the rest of the day and into midnight hours, which was fine, because the House leader for the New Democratic Party has every right to tell us what she will do and her caucus has told her what it wants us to do. The majority tells the minority how to conduct itself in this Parliament to the best of its ability, and she was given her marching orders out of her caucus meeting today.
I heard about the sentiments expressed by a number of those backbench people, who said: "Madam House leader, don't you let them carry on with the debate. You show them who has the authority. You show them who has the power and put the boots to them. Make sure, Madam House leader, that those people don't have time to eat or drink. Make sure they are starved into submission in this Parliament."
What more could be true of the majority as it revels in its new-found authority and power in a way which could not be imagined by such a novice group of individuals? They have found their mark at an early opportunity. I will say that it surprises me that they have come to this state so early in their novice careers, but we should have expected it. We should have expected that they would try to put this to us early in their time, because they are an impatient lot.
They wish to go home and show their constituents what they have done for the province, but what we want to do is show the people in this province, through televised debate, what in fact the New Democratic Party has not done. They have not launched a tax revolt with Bill 1, they have not done anything that will significantly assist the housing situation in Ontario, and we will require the time to debate this. But they are unwilling to order their business in the regular hours of sitting for this House. They say: "We don't want to hear your points of view, Leader of the Opposition. We do not want to hear your points of view during normal sitting hours. You can talk from 6 o'clock until 12 o'clock every night."
These people had all of these things they said were so important for the people of the province, but they waited and they waited and they waited until 20 November to put out their legislative scheme. Not only did they wait that long, then they would not introduce their bills so that we as opposition people could take time and examine them.
1520
We heard an equally absurd sort of consultation timetable put by the Premier of this province today when he spoke to the Leader of the Opposition in reply to questions about the constitutional, non-partisan activity in this House. He said, "I am going to talk to the leader of the third party and the Leader of the Opposition in the next couple of days, and then we want to deal with this next week."
This man who would have led a tax revolt in the populist sense, this man who would have been the populist leader of Ontario in a way which was not seen perhaps since the time of Mitch Hepburn or some of those other premiers of renown, would tell the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party that they have two days to get back to him, maybe three days, before he makes a speech next week in the House about what the government will do on the Constitution.
While events pass us by, they move the motions to make us sit without a break for the supper hour each day from now until 20 December.
Mr Sorbara: Let them eat Hansard.
Mr Elston: They could have brought all of those bills into this House that were non-contentious, like the Income Tax Act -- if we are to believe the House leader of the New Democratic Party; like the Manitoulin bill; like the parental leave bill; like other of those bills, amendments to the Education Act, the Ottawa-Carleton French-Language School Board Act. All of those could have been brought on the first day they had an opportunity to introduce bills in this House, and they refused. Why did they refuse? They refused because they wanted us, as opposition members, to sit here and nod our heads as servants of the majority.
There ought to be a lesson to be learned by those new people over there that while they may be told by their government House leader, by their government whip and by their Premier to nod in acquiescence to the terrible travesty of the democratic process that we are involved in here, we are not going to take our direction from the government House leader nor the government whip nor indeed the Premier. We will not be told that we have two days to do certain things if there is a significant point of view to be put. We must have time to debate this.
Obviously we are not going to win the day when it comes time to vote on the extension of hours, but if these people had been able to order their business in a reasonable manner, we could have proceeded to get a number of these bills out of the way starting on 21 November. Nobody over there had any idea of how to run this business, despite the fact that they have a number of veteran people in their caucus and in their cabinet. Why could they not have brought on 21 November all of their bills which are seen to be non-contentious, all of these bills which I and the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party were told were mere housekeeping matters? Why could we not have been debating the principles around which those bills were associated while we waited for some of their big items to come? Why could we not have done the housekeeping? Why could the NDP House leader not have given us some opportunity to sit in our caucus and discuss the relative merits and then come to this House to give good debate to those bills instead of being told we have from 1:30 to 6 to do seven bills? That is what we were told: "Seven bills. We want them."
Interjections.
Mr Elston: All of those people think it is funny. They are in government and they can put the boots to us. I understand that, but there are some good points to be made. The Minister of Revenue sits and laughs, but at least two others of the bills are her bills and are important bills with significant housekeeping items to be discussed. There is not any question in my mind that we ought to have had those on the first possible day.
The new House leader for the government obviously is learning her way around. She has found the significant sections, the sections she will need to make sure that the majority has its way with us in opposition. They may not like the fact that we have some very serious points to make with respect to the GST bill. They may not like the fact that we do not think it is fair for them in the government, after having run an election in which they criticized the former Premier of the province for introducing a retail sales tax cut of 1%, to now introduce their own tax cut and be running around the province indicating to real men and women and children that there is some $500 million to be saved under their scheme. That is only true and only significant if the people have anything to buy products with. There is no saving if the people cannot afford to buy anything. There is no saving if those people do not have jobs, if those farmers do not have farms, if those farmers do not have incomes, if those people who would pay for their mortgages have nothing to pay their mortgages with. That is an important issue upon which we would like to debate the government's intention.
The government thinks it is important that it makes us sit in the evenings? We will sit in the evenings: We are paid to do that and so are members opposite. The House leader has said she wishes to go to Bill 4, but she only wishes to go to Bill 4 for three speakers and then she wishes to go back to Bill 1. She has said, "Liberals, if you want to talk about GST, you can do it until midnight." That is fair ball. If that is the way she wants to run things, then we will be here and we will speak and we will be seeing a good number of the members opposite here for the last sessional days.
That is fair, but I say there will be days when other things are required. When they ask for unanimous consent, as they have done a number of times so far, we have been agreeable. We have been agreeable to assisting the government when it had real plans to process through this Legislative Assembly and showed them to us, but there is nothing of real substance that this government has shown the people of this province. The government House leader says she wants to sit longer to talk on these bills which even she has called less than significant. The GST bill is significant to the Liberals. Maybe the Progressive Conservatives do not want to talk about GST; maybe the New Democrats do not want to talk about GST. That is fair. The members can run and hide if they wish on that issue, both parties, but the Liberals have something to say about GST. We have said it nationally and we are saying it provincially.
I know that my colleagues to my left -- philosophically to my right, a long way to the right -- will have a lot to say on Bill 4, but it is unfair for the member for Sudbury East to say that the House leader of the Liberal Party has said that only 10 people in our caucus wish to speak to that. I have told her that at the moment our list contains 10 names. As the debate heats up, there will likely be more than that who wish to speak to it. I realize that she was putting the number of speakers we had on the record so that at some later date she could move and say: "I was told they had 10 but now they have 12. That's all they deserve." That is not the way it works. We have an open party. We will let our members speak, unlike over there, the members opposite, men and women, who have been told to be quiet. They have been told not to intervene in the debate. They have been told to be quiet, to be diligent in their silence to an extent which would marble the very sanctity of any religious institution anywhere in this province.
I guess the members opposite might be entitled "the true silent majority," because they refuse to speak at all, but we need the debate time to put across our point. We will be diligent in doing it at all hours of the day and night, because we are entrusted to watch, on behalf of Her Majesty, the very difficult situation the majority intends to put Her Majesty's people in. Without a thorough examination of these bills, there will be other problems.
I can tell members I would love to go on much longer, but Mr Speaker grimaces with some mild degree of concern. While I know it is not because the subject matter has strayed from the topic on which we are speaking, it may be a bit of a return to his previous roots in a caucus of uncertain origin.
I can say that the diligence with which we intend to pursue Her Majesty's business is real and is heartfelt among the people here who ran in the election of 6 September and were confronted by NDP candidates who talked about the GST in a way which said or at least indicated that our then Premier would be unable to deliver. Why are those people, who were elected as New Democratic candidates to be the members from their ridings, not standing up today saying: "Our Premier said he would lead a tax revolt. I'm upset that he is not leading such a tax revolt"? Why? Because they are diligent in their silence, because they will not speak now that power has fallen close to their laps. They are, even now, after an initial wakened hour, slumbering under the whip of the House leader and her chief government whip.
1530
I would just like to add a few words. I have found an interesting Hansard that the House leader and the Speaker may be interested in hearing.
"I am not going to speak for two hours, so I do not have to worry about the rules coming into effect and cutting me off, but I do have a few comments to make about this since this is the first time that we have proceeded under this rule, the new rules having just been in effect for this session," speaking as he then was, the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for Windsor-Riverside, on the first use of the extended sitting time.
"I think it is going to be important for the government to review the planning that has gone into this session, or in some cases the lack of planning that has gone into this session, and why it has become necessary for us to use this rule, which I would hope would not become the normal course in the last two weeks of every session" -- but which of course this government speeds on its way to become the rule of this Legislative Assembly.
"If we have a well-run and well-planned House, we should be able to avoid evening sittings, and I think we should do that to the best of our ability." I quote again the member for Windsor-Riverside as then the House leader of the opposition New Democrats.
"Sitting up until midnight for two weeks straight before Christmas, at the same time as this is a very busy season back in our home ridings, is not a very healthy process to follow in this place. However, this was part of the give and take under the new rules. We are not going to oppose this violently, but I do think some review is necessary."
How quickly they do turn on their thoughts of philosophy. Is it not clear that this is really the badge which this government party is wearing? The things for which they stood in opposition -- the fairness, the consultation, the ability to work for the little man, the helping hand for those who could not help themselves, the ability to reach out and provide interest assistance for farmers and for home owners, the desire to assist in doing something for the environment in a way which would be real, speaking in fairness in the operation of the House -- how quickly they do forget. And now here we are, in just less than a month of sitting, they turn to the extended hours and do the very thing that the House leader for the New Democrats, when he was in opposition, said should not be done.
They are making a mockery of debating in this House. They had the time to introduce all of the bills. They had the time to let us deal with them in a reasonable fashion, and they say, "We want seven bills in an afternoon and oh, by the way, if you really want to talk about one of the most important pieces of legislation we've seen in some time, which is Bill 4 on rent control, you can speak about that at night if we get the rest of the stuff done." I think that shows gall which is actually beyond what that party had been when it was over in opposition. But they seem to have accepted their new role with a new-found lust after power and authority in a way which I would not have thought possible.
I am exercised by these people moving this today, not so much just that we sit to midnight but the fact that they decide they will do one thing at 12 of the o'clock, they will do another at 12:30 of the clock, and after we have gone about and arranged our business so that speakers who were arranged to be here this afternoon were told to go away, we are now told that they have changed their minds and those very people for whom phone calls were given to tell them to cancel their speaking engagements so that they could be here tonight have been told now that, "You can go to your speaking engagements, but the other people have to be brought in here."
What kind of fumbling around is this with the government business? When will they ever make up their mind? I know there has been some need to accommodate the needs of the Tory party, and I think that is great, because it has an important social function tonight for its caucus, but all that should have been well known before we were told to go and tell all our people that they were not needed to speak on Bill 1.
No, they think it is a joke. They think that somehow they can run around and cause us to try in our co-operative manner, cancel some speakers and then have to bring them in again from other places. Let's think about what this government is doing with this bill, with this resolution. They are moving to make it a rule that we will sit every night in the two weeks leading up to our holiday break. And for what -- to cover their stumbling and bumbling and fumbling around, to cover the fact that they have nothing in their plans for the agenda of this session, that they have nothing done as ministers, that they have nothing arranged as a caucus to proceed with the business of the day.
Mr Speaker, if you examined all of those people over there, you would probably find out that they do not even have all their staff in place yet because they cannot get around to getting their own business affairs done. I hear a whole bunch of them over there saying, "Oh, I got mine, I got mine." "How many have you got?" I heard one say. There are a number of their ministers over there who have not really got down to getting their affairs in order. How can they tell us that we ought to sit nights while they figure out what in the world they are going to be doing?
Give us reasonable notice. Let's get on with the business. Because they have the numbers and because the majority will tell us that we must, we will sit in this House after 6 o'clock tonight without a break for dinner. We will sit till midnight, and we will sit till midnight tomorrow night and the next night, and we will carry on and do the business of this place and we will not be deterred from doing Her Majesty's loyal opposition's business.
Before I sit, I wish to move that the motion be amended by allowing one hour for dinner beginning at 6 o'clock this evening.
The Deputy Speaker: I expect that you will put this in writing.
Mr Eves: I am going to be rather brief in my remarks. I do want to get a few things on the record, though. While I could concur with my colleague the House leader for the Liberal Party that perhaps the government could have taken a more organized or reasonable approach with respect to legislation, unlike him, I do not see any sinister plot on behalf of the government waiting until the eleventh-and-a-half hour to introduce legislation. I just happen to think that they were totally disorganized and quite frankly did not have their act together until 6 December. But it is the government's prerogative, under the new rules that we have agreed to on all sides of this House at other times, to ask for extended sittings no later than midnight during the last eight sessional days of each session.
While I would have preferred a more reasonable approach with respect to perhaps a break between 6 and 7, or perhaps a limit as to how long the House could sit other than midnight, that is obviously not to be. The government is intent on proceeding with the motion the way it is worded. We did receive notice of this motion being tabled last Thursday, and it has been tabled in accordance with the standing orders, and it is indeed in order.
I would like to direct a few comments, though, with respect to this matter, with what I see is some interesting -- I was going to say perverted, but I will say somewhat unusual logic on behalf of the Liberal House leader. Bill 1 is a bill about the retail sales tax in the province of Ontario. It is not a vote on the goods and services tax. That is done, for his information, in the House of Commons in Ottawa. We are in Toronto in the Ontario Legislature, not in the federal House.
Mr Sorbara: We thought we were in Ottawa.
Mr Eves: I know the member does not realize where he is. That seems to be the problem right here right now.
I do not know why the Liberal Party of Ontario would want to discuss this bill. Quite frankly, if I were they I would be extremely embarrassed to drag this debate out as long as they have, because what this debate is about is a tax on tax.
Is it their basic philosophy that they should be taxing taxes and gouging taxpayers or not? Yes or no? Obviously they have been talking for three days because they believe that you should gouge taxpayers and you should tax taxes and have double taxation. That is what this legislation is about. That is what this Ontario legislation is about. We are in Ontario, we are elected to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and we should be discussing Ontario business.
Mrs Sullivan: That is precisely what we are doing.
Mr Eves: I see I have struck a raw nerve over there. Speaking of raw nerves, the former Treasurer of Ontario, now interim leader for the third time, if I am not mistaken, of the Liberal Party, initially went to Ottawa and agreed -- if you want to talk about whether they should be embarrassed about this piece of legislation or not -- with the Minister of Finance, Mr Wilson. He was one of the seven provincial treasurers who agreed to combine the retail sales tax and the goods and services tax but then came home and had his knuckles slapped by the member for London Centre, I think it was, who is not here any more. What was his name? Peter Davidson, as they called him on Wall Street and in Washington. I see he obviously made a big impact there.
The reality is that the Treasurer thought it was a good idea to combine the two but then came home and was told by his leader: "What are you doing, Bob? We might want to run on this in the next provincial election so we could reduce our caucus from 93 to 36. How stupid could you be?" I wonder who is stupid now.
If you want to talk about being on anybody's philosophical right, as the Liberal House leader does, I can remember his jackboot, Attila the Hun approach to the positions of this province. If you want to start talking about philosophical right and left, if you go any farther right you will drop off the end of the earth, as the Liberal House leader did in his then portfolio as Minister of Health in this province.
Although we would agree with the fact that this could have been done in a more organized and orderly fashion, we do appreciate that the government is somewhat disorganized. They did this according to the standing orders and we see no reason to object to this motion.
1540
Mr Drainville: It is a pleasure indeed to be able to respond to some of the red herrings that have been hurled from the opposite side of the chamber today. I have to admit that as I listen to the hyperbole and the grandiloquent statements that are made by the honourable members, particularly the member for Bruce, it reminds me of some of the promises that have been made by the members across the way. I think of the member who spoke recently indicating that the former Treasurer of Ontario was himself in favour of the GST and that continues to be a problem with the Liberal Party, both in this province and in the federal House, that they do not know which side of the issue they are standing on.
It has been said by some members opposite in the last few days, whether during question period or during debate, that somehow the agenda for this government is not clear. If it is unclear for them, let us try to make it clear, if we can. The reality is in terms of the Agenda for People -- members remember that -- we know that between the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party what we have are competing agendas. They do not want an Agenda for People. They want an agenda for the rich or they want an agenda for the privileged or they want an agenda for other people. But let us say that we are very clear in this party about whose agenda we are working on, and that is the Agenda for People.
The minister has been clear in this House that what we need to do is to provide a framework for legislation. We have done precisely that. We began with Bill 1 and what did we see? The Liberal Party, in its great wisdom, standing up in this House and every member seeing it as his divine right -- never mind democratic right; it is their divine right -- to speak on this bill. We are facilitating that. We are saying if you want to speak on Bill 1, we will give you time to speak on Bill 1. We will sit at night.
The member for Bruce has indicated that we nod in acquiescence to what our ministers say. I would not say that is true. I think we nod in agreement at the good sense they bring forth in the direction we are moving in terms of our Agenda for People.
Further on, the member for Bruce indicated that we are silent. Now, sometimes silence is necessary. I remember years ago my grandmother used to say to me, "Dennis, sometimes it's better to be silent than to share your ignorance with people." I would give that particular bit of warning to the member for Bruce and some of the other opposition members. We hear these lugubrious outpourings every day from the opposition. What do they amount to? They say that we have forgotten our agenda. We know our agenda. They say that we are not bringing forth legislation. The legislation is here. They want to speak about it. We are giving them time to speak about it today and through the next few days.
As to the right that we have, let there be no doubt about this: We are bringing this forth according to the rules of the House, rules that have been agreed upon by all the parties. The Liberal Party may not like those rules -- it agreed to them at one time -- but the rules are reasonable because we cannot allow members opposite to feel that they have the full right to co-opt what the government's agenda is.
They have a right to criticize, yes. They have a right to debate, yes. They will be given that right in the nights ahead. But they do not have a right to indicate that they have control over the agenda. It is the government of the day that has been elected by the people of this province that has given its indication as to the direction it is going.
Let us be clear that this is a direction that is going to lead us, on 20 December, to having passed the legislation that we need to pass to be able to do the work in the new year that we are intending to do.
The Deputy Speaker: I have just received the motion from the member for Bruce.
Mr Elston moves that the motion be amended by adding thereto "that one hour be allowed commencing at 6 o'clock each day for dinner, and that the House resume at 7 o'clock."
Mr Sorbara: I for one am not surprised that the government members have just voted down an opportunity to grab a bite to eat during the dinner hour over the next few days. That is okay. If that is the way they want it, that is the way they will have it. As I said earlier, I guess we can eat Hansard during that period.
We are experiencing in the first two months of the first session of this Parliament a government which is undertaking what all agreed, and I remind my friends that our government House leader, the member for Bruce, quoted the passages from the member for Windsor-Riverside when he was the House leader for the official opposition about how draconian a measure this is. What we see now is the government House leader simply unable to manage effectively the business of this House and requiring at this Christmas holiday season that all of us stay here and work until midnight. That is okay because we are prepared to do that. But the sad reality of it, Mr Speaker, is that if you look at the Orders and Notices and the bills that the government has on it, none of these bills has anything to do with the agenda that the New Democratic Party proposed when it was campaigning. Nothing here represents one law, one bill, one project, that reflects what that party said during the election campaign.
Let's look at the Orders and Notices and let's look at what the government is asking us to do. It is asking us to stop talking about Bill 1. It does not want to hear from us any more on the goods and services tax and the retail sales tax. The government, Mr Speaker, has had one speaker -- I encourage you to check Hansard -- other than the minister, speaking on this bill. I want to tell the members of the government party that they were not elected by their constituents to remain silent. This is a parliament. This is a place where, based on a mandate from the people who elected us in our ridings, we come to speak our views.
My friend the member for Durham East did stand up and speak, but the others are remaining silent. Why is that? The members of that party, within two months of being elected and forming a government, are simply bowing to the wishes of those few people in the Premier's office who decide that they are going to get through with this agenda. But what is the agenda? Bill 1, "Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act." What does it say? It harmonizes our sales tax with the GST. But what does it matter, I say to the government House leader, when we pass this bill? It is retroactive. Why are we staying here to get this done before Christmas? If we pass it two years from now it does not matter because it is retroactive, like all other tax bills.
1550
There is no urgency in that. Nobody's life is going to change as of Christmas if we pass the bill. No unemployed worker is suddenly going to get a job because we pass this bill. Yet the government members do not want to speak about it. They do not want to have their say. They do not want to take this opportunity to speak to their constituents in this Parliament, which they were democratically elected to do, to have their say on the GST. Well, they should forgo that.
I want to tell my friends that the bills that are going to come up are going to be a lot more controversial than this, and if the government shuts them up on this bill, then I will tell them something. For the bills that are coming down, they will not even be in the House, because they will be so embarrassed at what their government is doing.
Now we have a motion before us to keep us here until midnight tonight, tomorrow night, Thursday night and all of next week. We are prepared to do that because we have to get these bills done.
The second item on Orders and Notices is "Second reading Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act." They call it in their document the rent control bill. I am glad we are going to get this done before Christmas, or the government wants to get it done before Christmas. That is why we have this motion. That is why two months into this Parliament we are going to be sitting until midnight every night.
But I encourage government members to read the bill. It is retroactive. It does not matter when they pass it. It does not matter if they say anything about it, because their minister has told them that they are going to vote in favour of it. If it is passed in the spring session or the fall session or the first session in 1992, it does not matter. It is retroactive. It does not matter what the Parliament says. Well, we are not giving up our right to have our say on these bills.
Let's look at the next bill, the third order. "Second reading Bill 9, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund." Have government members read the bill? It gives the Treasurer some authority to borrow some $3 billion.
I want to tell my friends that I did not see that bill on the document called An Agenda for People, but if that is what they think the priority is -- they have just been elected. They have a massive mandate, 74 members, a great Agenda for People. It is not here. The first two months and nothing is here having anything to do with the Agenda for People.
I am reminded, because my friend the member for Parry Sound reminded us, that we are in Ontario. But I remember when Lester Pearson was elected as the Prime Minister of this great nation in 1963, he had 100 days of action. He had all of the stuff that he had promised Canadians on the order paper within 100 days. With a minority Parliament we got the Canada pension plan. We got an unemployment insurance plan. We got a universal medicare system with a minority Parliament. He was elected, he came into the federal House of Commons and he brought forward the legislation.
What do we have? We have on the order paper a number of bills that the government has said represent an urgent priority for it. We have been through three. None of them relate to An Agenda for People, but we are going to stay until midnight every night to get it accomplished. One of these days we will see a bill introduced that has something to do with what that party talked about when it campaigned.
Let's look at the fourth order. Guess whether this bill has anything to do with An Agenda for People: "Second reading Bill 10, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act." My goodness, another tax bill. Have a look at the bill. It is very lengthy and virtually every provision in it is retroactive. Some of the provisions will apply back to 1981. Read the bill. But we must stay here every night this week and next to get this retroactive legislation passed, because somehow it has something to do with An Agenda for People that those members promised the people of Ontario when they were campaigning.
I think maybe if we go through the order paper, we will get something that has something to do with the agenda that the New Democratic Party promised when it was campaigning. Order 5: "Second reading Bill 11" -- we are moving up -- "An Act to amend the Income Tax Act." Again the Minister of Revenue asking for second reading of this bill, a tax bill.
This is interesting, because as I recall the campaign, there was, let's see now, provision for a fairer tax system with a minimum corporate tax of 8% of income. It is not on the order paper. What did we get? We had the Treasurer make an announcement about creating something called a Fair Tax Commission. We will want to study it. That is not even on the order paper.
The Treasurer told us today that the commissioners are not even going to be appointed by order in council. He will do it himself. Cabinet ministers? By the way, if members have not learned, if it is not order in council, he will do it himself and he will let members know who he appointed. If it is order in council, he will bring it to cabinet, but we heard today that members are not going to hear about it.
The fifth order that we are going to be dealing with as we sit till midnight every night has nothing to do with An Agenda for People, but maybe we will get on with it when we get to the sixth order. Let's see what that says. "Second reading Bill 12, An Act to amend the Education Act." My goodness. I wonder what that has to do with An Agenda for People.
I think I recall hearing that An Agenda for People promised a number of things on education. I am going to be speaking about that later on during this session, but I remember quite clearly that the government would be moving urgently if elected to fund school boards from the consolidated revenue fund to the tune of 60%. They had better get started. There is nothing on the order paper. The sixth order does not deal with that. I know. I have had a look at the bill.
The seventh order: «Deuxième lecture Projet de loi 13, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton», the Minister of Education's bill. What is that? It is a little housecleaning. It has got to be done. Sooner or later, it has got to be done. It was a bill that the previous government, the government that I was a part of, had proposed, I think, in this Legislature, and we will get to that. It does not have anything to do with An Agenda for People, what they were elected to do.
Mr Speaker, I remind you -- you know the rules -- but I will remind the other members of this House that if they were to introduce a bill tomorrow that had anything remotely to do with An Agenda for People, would we be able to deal with it in this session of the Parliament or in this sitting of this session? No, the rules prohibit it. We are into the last eight days.
We are going to midnight. That is great. I am ready to work till midnight every night. I just made a phone call, or asked for a phone call to be made home to tell my kids that I have got a democratic duty to speak in this Parliament and be here every night until midnight. I hope they are here to join me. I hope, notwithstanding --
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it very difficult to follow your debate because of the noise. Let me explain. Order, please. I would ask that you tone down your conversation.
Mr Sorbara: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your help and I hope perhaps if I speak a little bit more slowly, I can overcome the interjections from the members over there.
We were talking, Mr Speaker, when you rose, about the second reading of Bill 13 and about how important this was. I was saying at that time, reminding the government members that even if one of their ministers was to introduce now, in these last eight days, a bill that related to An Agenda for People, the rules prohibit us from getting to second reading. So what is going to happen? "Oh, well, we'll carry that over to the spring session."
Thousands and thousands of people are losing their jobs every day. The welfare lines are getting longer. The food banks now have a little bit of money, even though it was against their policy. But the issues that we talked about -- I remind you, Mr Speaker, that the now Premier, during the election campaign, had the courage to say that this province was in a deep recession.
He comes to this Parliament and he does nothing in the first two months of this Parliament to deal in any respect whatever with that deepening recession. He asks us to stay until midnight to deal with what they themselves describe as routine business. We are prepared to be here, and if one of the pages would bring me a glass of water, then I would be able to continue my analysis of the order paper.
1600
The eighth order. I enjoy the way the clerks call these orders, when the government House leader rises and mentions the eighth order and then a clerk will say, 'The eighth order, second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave, the Honourable Mr Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour." Great stuff.
I have had a look at the bill. I know what it says. As a matter of fact, believe it or not, some of the new members of the government party will be a little bit surprised to hear this, but I helped craft the bill. This matter has been before the Ontario Parliament for quite some time. This matter has been before the government of Ontario for almost three years. This matter was taken up in the last Parliament. This matter is supported by all parties. This matter was not referred to in An Agenda for People because we all knew that this bill was coming forward.
My friend the Minister of Labour was for a number of years, both in regular afternoon sittings and in evening sittings, when the extraordinary rules had us here till midnight, as we are going to be from now until Christmas, notwithstanding that some of us would have preferred to be with our families but we are going to deal with this routine business -- and you will recall this, Mr Speaker, because you have been here for a while -- one of the most outspoken advocates of dramatic reform on the labour front.
He used to sit in this area and ask me questions and become furious that I would say things like, "The Workers' Compensation Board is an independent agency and I have no right to intervene in that case, so I am sorry to tell the member for Hamilton East that I cannot help him with his problem." He would stand up in a supplementary and he would shout and scream, "How could the Minister of Labour be so callous?"
What did we hear today from the Minister of Labour on a lobbed question from one of his own members? He sort of cowered a little bit when asked the question about the delays in the Workers' Compensation Board. He said -- maybe he will say it again as we sit here till midnight -- "The Workers' Compensation Board is an independent agency and they are hiring people like crazy. I can't do anything about the backlog, I can't do anything about the administrative chaos and I don't have any particular plans, although we're working on it."
This is the same MPP who, for I think some 15 years, stood up in this House and, day after day and month after month and year after year, demanded reforms in the workplace on behalf of workers. More than that, he introduced bills: bills dealing with the minimum wage, bills dealing with occupational health and safety, bills dealing with the workers' compensation system, bills dealing with -- here it is, Mr Speaker -- plant closure justification, a key plank in An Agenda for People. We have not seen the legislation yet. "Oh, well, we'll get around to that," they say. "Sooner or later we're going to have a bill dealing with the workplace in some form or other."
My God, this is the labour government. This is the party that is described by the trade union movement as "our parliamentary wing." Talk to Gord Wilson. He speaks with great pride about the election of 74 New Democrat members. He says, "Speaking on behalf of the trade union movement, we have been elected." Yet on the order paper, in the first two months of Ontario's first labour government, we have nothing that reflects An Agenda for People, the trade union movement or anything remotely to do with reform in the workplace.
What we do have in the eighth order, second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave, is a bill that has been under the jurisdiction of myself as Minister of Labour. I was fortunate enough to start off the process. It is progressive legislation, it is good legislation, and 1 look forward to debating this into the wee hours of the morning if we have to in this House.
But what does it have to do with urgency? It too has -- guess what? -- retroactive effect. There is no urgency, there is no need to sit until midnight but, if the government House leader wants it, we are prepared to do it. We are prepared to sit even if they do not support the motion for a dinner hour. There are other matters that we will be debating as we move through the --
Mr Jackson: You're biting into my dinner hour, Greg. Let me get up and speak.
Mr Sorbara: You can get up and speak pretty soon. I am going to be done in a while.
The ninth order -- check this one out -- is very progressive legislation representing the trade union movement and the labour government's Agenda for People. Here it is: "Second reading Bill 15, An Act respecting Land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island," from the Minister of Natural Resources.
I remember the Minister of Natural Resources, who is also the minister responsible for native affairs in this province, standing in his place as a member of the opposition and actually coming up with some creative questions and creative suggestions about how we might better manage the natural resources of this province.
At that time he was an eloquent spokesperson on behalf of native people, as was the incumbent minister at that time, the member for St George-St David. What have we heard from him so far? A bill respecting land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island and, in the form of a ministerial announcement, the completion of an important agreement with native peoples in this province negotiated for the most part by the previous minister, the member for St George-St David.
If we need to stay until midnight to deal with that bill, I must admit I have not checked to see whether it is retroactive, but we are going to get to it.
The 10th order keeping us here until midnight is "Second reading Bill 16, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections" from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That one deals with a number of things including conflict of interest, I believe, including conflict of interest as that notion relates to municipal elections. Surprise, surprise. It is a project, it is a bill, it is a policy that was primarily the responsibility of the previous government, under a previous minister, under a previous political party.
I understand the problems of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He got into his office and the bureaucrats said, as they must do: "This needs to get done. Move this forward. Put An Agenda for People aside for a moment. We have got business to look after." That business is going to take us through a second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections.
It is going to take us until midnight every night this week and every night next week, and I probably will not get any Christmas shopping done, but it does not matter. It does not matter, because it is not one of my favourite things to do in any event. I generally shop on the day before Christmas and I do not think we are going to be sitting then, although we will be sitting until midnight most nights this week and next.
What is of great interest here under the 10th order, second reading of Bill 16, is that it deals with conflict of interest at the municipal level. If we look at An Agenda for People and if we listened to the speeches that the Premier has given in this province, and I think even in this House during this Parliament and the previous Parliament, he promised us a new conflict of interest bill for this Parliament, for his new cabinet, for his new caucus and for all of us, the 130 of us who have been elected to carry out this democratic debate in this province.
Do we see that bill? Do we have any indication at all that the Attorney General is about to bring forward a bill? He has a terrible conflict of interest in his office. He has someone working for him. He is responsible, by the way, for the Law Society of Upper Canada. This is really interesting. This is fascinating, particularly from a political party that wanted to paint itself as the grand crusaders on conflict of interest.
I remember this very well, the member for York South, now the Premier, painting himself with the brightest of white paint. What is it called? White-out. He tried to black us out with his white-out. He talked about conflict of interest and said that when he was elected there would be a new bill in this House to really enforce on conflict of interest.
1610
Now what do we see in the office of the Attorney General? I see a conflict of interest that is blatant, rather stark and rather unfortunate, but has the Attorney General done anything about that? Absolutely not. Let me explain. I will be explaining this for a while and perhaps during some of the evening sittings that we are going to be having over the next couple of weeks.
The Attorney General of this province is responsible for setting policy in respect of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The Law Society of Upper Canada is a self-regulating body. It has a board of directors. They are called benchers. I do not know why they are called benchers. The head of the board is called the treasurer. I do not know why the head of the board would be called the treasurer, but as a lawyer I understand that we like the archaic aspects, so the benchers, their board of directors, is a group of some, I think, 44 men and women who are responsible for governing the Law Society of Upper Canada, but the Attorney General has overall authority.
The act that creates the Law Society of Upper Canada is under his jurisdiction. If he wants to change that act, he has the legislated responsibility to bring those changes forward. You would think that when looking for policy advice on the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Attorney General would want an impartial view. Look at this minister's staff to look for a conflict of interest. The Attorney General has as his senior --
Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I fail to understand the turn of mind of the member opposite when he talks about the minister and the Law Society of Upper Canada and what that has to do with the motion that is before us.
The Deputy Speaker: Many others did exactly the same thing.
Mr Sorbara: The way it relates is that one of the bills we are going to be debating under this motion -- you want to be here until midnight. I think I am going to look forward to being here until midnight. I will have an opportunity to speak. You folks are going to have an opportunity to sit and listen. Do you know what? We are going to enjoy this more than you.
The reason I bring up the conflict of interest in the office of the Attorney General is that we are going to be dealing with the conflict of interest bill, but not the one you promised to bring forward, during the election campaign and even after the election campaign. If you want to bring forward a conflict of interest bill, you should also be thinking about cleaning up the conflicts that you have in your own shop.
The Attorney General has on his minister's staff --
The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks to the Chair.
Mr Sorbara: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, you are absolutely right.
The Attorney General has on his minister's staff a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada. How can that person, how can a bencher -- it is like if the Minister of Health had his senior --
Hon Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe you have already reminded the member to stick to the issue. I wish you would ask him to stick to the truth. The fact of the matter is that my policy adviser is a former bencher. She is no longer a bencher. Before the member makes those remarks in the House, I wish he would be sure of the accuracy of those remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order.
Mr Sorbara: I would love to stand to be corrected by the Attorney General. I will just say to him -- through you, Mr Speaker, of course, because all of the comments that we are going to be making during these evening sittings are going to be referred through you to the rest of the House; I am going to look forward to them -- I just want to tell the Attorney General that as of two weeks ago, when this individual was at that time on the political staff of the minister, she was at that time, according to the administrative officials of the Law Society of Upper Canada, still a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada.
If she has since that time resigned, that is great. I am glad to hear that, but I would like the Attorney General not to suggest in this House that I was misrepresenting the truth, because up until two weeks ago that was the truth. If there has been a correction of that conflict, that is great, that is wonderful. I just want to tell him that there are some other conflicts over there that need to be corrected and perhaps it is the case that we are waiting for the conflicts bill until all the messes that are in the ministers' offices are cleaned up.
In any event, we will be here debating Bill 16 for second reading, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections. That was not on the Agenda for People. Here we go with the 11th order. It is interesting, by the way, that there are only 11 government orders. I would have thought that the conscience of the nation, as the New Democratic Party likes to describe itself, having finally achieved the opportunity to make the rules rather than criticize them, would have --
Hon Mr Hampton: With you as leader of the Liberal Party, we're here for ever.
Mr Sorbara: I just want to tell my friend the Attorney General that I do not mind the interjections. If he wants to cross the floor and join our party, that would be great for him because we will have more fun over here than he can ever imagine.
I would have thought that the New Democratic Party, the party of Tommy Douglas, the party of David Lewis, the party of Stephen Lewis and, yes, the party of Bob Rae, having come to power would have brought forward, in its first two months in office, at least one piece of legislation that reflected its new agenda.
There are 11 orders. We have been through them. Most of them are retroactive. Most of them arise from initiatives undertaken by the previous government, and now we get to number 11. Interestingly, this is a bill of the Attorney General. We were just talking about the Attorney General and how he has cleaned up the conflicts in his office. I want to tell him, by the way, that I have a very high regard for the policy adviser who advises him. She is a very intelligent woman and I am glad, if I understand correctly, that she has now resigned her position as a bencher, because it would have been impossible to advise him. It is the clearest of conflicts. Think of it. Sitting as a bencher, being part of the board of governors for lawyers.
Hon Mr Hampton: I am a bencher, ex officio. I am a bencher of the law society.
Mr Sorbara: You are a bencher by virtue of the statute, my friend. I want to tell you that -- through you, Mr Speaker; of course not directly to him. I just want to say that the 11th order is a project presented, introduced and sponsored by the Attorney General. The 11th order reads as follows:
"Second reading Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders. Hon H. Hampton.
«Deuxième lecture Projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.» Important bill, dramatic bill: going to give the government, through its agency -- we are going to change the name of the agency -- the power to automatically deduct support payments from the paycheques of any individual who is subject to an order for support in this province. Dramatic intervention: administrative nightmares like you cannot imagine, Mr Speaker, even though I know you have great administrative abilities and understand the administration of government like few others in this House. Lots of problems with it.
We are glad that the honourable the Attorney General has introduced this bill into the House. By the way, I had a look at it. I do not think it has retroactive effect, so it will be important to get to it because the rights -- do the members know what retroactive means? It means that the rights and responsibilities accrue not from the time the bill is passed and given royal assent when his honour the Lieutenant Governor sits in the chair, Mr Speaker -- the very chair you are sitting in -- and gives his consent to these bills. In a retroactive bill, the law notionally has come into effect a long time ago. That is why we do not really need to sit until midnight in this Christmas season to debate these bills. They are all retroactive. We could get to them in March.
The new members could exercise their vocal cords and begin to discharge their democratic responsibilities and speak in this House rather than remain silent, shut up. Ross McClellan, I think, told them all to shut up. They were elected to support the government, to support the Premier, not to describe their views of these issues. They are all going to be silent, are not going to have anything to say.
But I was talking about the 11th order, the dramatic bill that the Attorney General introduced.
Hon Mr Hampton: The one you guys sat on for two years.
Mr Sorbara: That project was a project that was under the jurisdiction, for a year, by the previous Attorney General and the previous government. In fact, I read the cabinet submissions. I was there at the time we approved it and I was there to examine the design of this bill. It is nice to see that this new government is completing some of these projects. That is their responsibility. They have a responsibility to their bureaucratic masters to make sure that the stuff that is waiting to be done gets done and introduced.
1620
I am at the 11th order, once again a project of the Liberal government that has been completed by the new Attorney General. I congratulate him on doing it. As a matter of fact, he actually did tinker. I reviewed the cabinet submission again and I see that he did tinker a little bit with the proposal before he introduced it. He gave it his own touch, as did, by the way, the Minister of Labour on the parental leave bill. He gave that his own touch. That is nice. It is nice to see them do that. But these bills have nothing to do with the election campaign and the mandate that party received during this campaign. I know it was only 37% of the people who voted for them, but it is a mandate none the less, just like Lester Pearson in 1963, who although he only had a minority government saw it as a mandate for reform -- medicare, unemployment insurance, Canada pension and he never had a majority. He never had us two to one. They are 74, we are 36; two to one and a couple more.
Mr Carr: Don't forget about us. We're here too.
Mr Sorbara: The Tories have become irrelevant on the political scene. I am not going to count them in in this enumeration.
They have a mandate. How in the world, having sat here until midnight every night this week and next, are they going to go back to their constituents, I ask them, and report on what they have done? Of 11 bills, all are part of the previous administration's plans for this province. There is not one that represents one commitment. If they would just bring in one, if we could debate for second reading just one -- now of course we cannot, because the standing orders prohibit us, even if they introduce a bill, from getting to it notwithstanding that we are going to sit here until midnight.
I have been through the order paper and I think it is an important order paper. I think the bills on it are important. I do not see too many of them that I would be moved to vote against. All of them are ones that I want to speak on. That is what we are elected to do. That is what I intend to do, and if this motion passes I expect to do it each night in this House from now until we recess for the holiday season.
Mr Jackson: I appreciate the opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution before us. I can tell members what a test of my patience it is to follow the member for York Centre, as a former candidate for leadership of my political party who was unable to sustain himself through that process. I would like to give some advice to the member for York Centre, that it is far better, in this House at least, to approach his speeches by being to the point rather than to speak at length. Perhaps in his attempt at leadership he will keep that in mind. It is a rather scary thought that he intends to be here every night until midnight to go on as he has in this Legislature. One questions our ability to sustain ourselves during that period, but it also begs the question, just how busy an MPP is this guy if he can be in here for an entire week until midnight?
I might even go further to suggest that it was interesting that the Liberals are more concerned with their own stomachs in sustaining a free hour for a meal than they were for speaking up for the hundreds of individuals who will be trapped and employed in this building, some sustaining overtime wages, many who will not. There are serious cost implications and an unfairness, I might add, to workers in this building whose obvious concerns were not part of the equation when the government approached this amendment.
The reason I raise the point is that traditionally it has been the NDP members who jump to their feet whenever there is a suggestion that we meet late into the evening. The NDP members are always jumping to their feet to defend the people who work in this building, yet not only did they not, neither did the Liberals, incidentally, so I guess it falls to our party at least to consider the people who work in this building somehow in the equation.
I will not trust my memory entirely by trying to quote some of the eloquent speeches from some of the members who are now on the executive council, who are in the House today, who spoke to those motions on two occasions, but if any member wishes to take a moment and read Hansard, he or she will be rather impressed by the very strong position that was put forward by the NDP in objection to these kinds of moves.
I am fascinated by the Liberal approach since the Liberals were on that side of the House, imposing on the opposition and all members of this building who work on behalf of the taxpayers. I was very surprised to hear the Liberals now objecting so strenuously when in fact it was falling upon deaf ears two short years ago.
I really think it is worth while that we consider a couple of very simple points about this. First of all, it has been suggested that there is a precedent. There were two precedents mentioned, but at the time they were not precedents. These were extraordinary circumstances, so it begs the question, why is it that in the last four years we take three occasions to work outside of our own House schedule and our House rules in order to do these extended sittings at a time of the year when, quite frankly, the people who work in this building would very much like to be with their families?
There is a problem if each year we are going to be sitting in December and sitting late until midnight for two and three weeks prior to Christmas. But there is a good reason, and the reason has not been mentioned in the debate. It is a reason that was raised by the NDP when the Liberal government of the day was attempting to do a similar motion. It is not, as the member suggests, what was on the order paper but what is not on the order paper, those things that are coming which this government does not wish to be in this House in January to deal with.
Now there is nothing wrong with this. I want to say to the government that it has the right to order up its business in any way it wishes. It has the right to withdraw legislation and promote legislation at will, but it does have a moral responsibility to call it what it is when it is being presented here.
I happen to believe that there is no great sin for us to be sitting in the month of January. As all members have stated, I feel that this is important legislation that we have in front of us, but there are certain things that will occur in January and it is the government's clear intention not to be here in this forum where we have a process of accountability. The real essence of democracy is not solely what goes on on the side of the government, but that which we mutually work on when we share the concerns of the citizens of this province whom we were all elected to democratically represent as we openly debate, improve, modify and then approve those bills.
The new NDP government will be proceeding with many regulations during a rather lengthy period -- January, February and most of March. It begs some questions about how much time the government intends to sit in the Legislature. The citizens of Ontario last saw a Liberal government in this chamber back in June of last year. We went through July and August with an election in September. It was not until October that we had a cabinet installed, and it was not until late November that we had a throne speech. We are only going to sit in this House for four weeks and then we are going to prorogue for January. February and most of March.
We will have only given the citizens of this province four weeks-plus of government in about an eight- or nine-month period. That is quite unacceptable in this province. It is unfortunate that the public is not being taxed in direct proportion to the amount of time we sit in this House, because then maybe they would be getting some value for their dollar, but the less we sit in this House, the more we spend.
1630
Here is the issue which concerns me the most. What twigged me to this issue, what concerned me, is when I saw the Minister of Community and Social Services make an announcement about food banks on Friday and not make the announcement in the House -- which is the custom, the tradition, the expectation. She did that for a very simple reason. It was to avoid the kinds of questions the government was subjected to yesterday and today, to avoid the kind of examination the media make in fulfilling their public role when dealing with a policy statement.
In January we will be getting our transfer payments. Clearly, 35% to 40% of all the money the government will spend in a given year is going to be announced in January. Under the Liberals and the previous Tory administration, it was announced in September, October and sometimes as late as November. But if those transfer payments have the crippling effect we believe they will, it is in the government's best interest not to be in this Legislature, for ministers to be scattered all over the province, for school boards to be desperately seeking a government audience when this House is not sitting. That really is what I believe this agenda is, and that is what this is all about, our sitting until midnight: to assist everybody to get out of this building before they have to face the music of their transfer payments.
These were the points I wanted to put on the record. They are the kinds of concerns that are being expressed by my party. They are the kinds of concerns being expressed by the constituents in my riding.
I would like to support the primary concern of the Liberal Party for getting an hour off for dinner, but frankly I am more concerned that we did not consult with the many hundreds of people who work in this building to ensure that we can do a proper job as legislators. They were not consulted, and their holiday plans have been unfairly disrupted just so the government can get out of here in the next 10 days or the next week and a half and avoid the accountability, which is so precious to our democratic freedoms in this Legislature, in January of the new year.
Hon Miss Martel: I have enjoyed the debate we have had with respect to our movement of this motion. There are a couple of things, in summing up --
The Deputy Speaker: But you are closing the debate, are you not?
Hon Miss Martel: Yes, I am. There are a couple of things I would like to say in wrapping up. First, there was talk about how the House leaders have been trying to deal in a co-operative manner, and that it has appeared to them that there has been a great deal of confusion on this side with respect to ordering our business and our getting our agenda together. I do not deny it. There has been a great deal of confusion. I have been very open and honest at House leaders' meetings that this is the first time for all of us, that it is the first time for me in this House to act as government House leader and I have never felt that having three years in here as a member was enough to do that job.
However, the fact of the matter is, here we are. We are doing the best we can, and I am confident that as more of our members participate in debates and work in committee and learn the ropes around this place, we will all be very effective, as all of the new members from all sides of the House will be. I have never for one instant tried to pretend that we knew everything we were doing, and I have looked to the two House leaders at a number of House leaders' meetings and at Board of Internal Economy meetings for advice and for help. That is where we are. I make no bones about saying that, and they have certainly been good to provide advice when they can. We may not always agree, but I have certainly been open about where we are coming from and what our agenda has been. If there have been changes I have certainly tried to deal with that as quickly as I possibly could.
With respect to the statement made by the House leader for the official opposition that Bill 1 was the signal of a reversal of our policy, let me say this with respect to the debate on Bill 1. A week and a half ago, at the House leaders' meeting, I stated clearly that the government would like to deal with Bill 1 within two days. We wanted to deal with that last Wednesday and Thursday. I asked them, that is, the House leader for the official opposition and the whip, to let me know if that could not be done, and I asked the same of the third party. I was told very clearly by the House leader for the third party that that was not a problem, that they would have, if any, only one speaker and he would not speak for a great deal of time; he had a few things to get on the record, and that would be the end of the debate. I was then told by the official opposition that they felt we could get this done. I was never told at any time that there would be additional speakers. I do not mind if there are additional speakers, but I would like to deal as openly as I can and I expect the same in return. I have not felt that I have been told all the time what they would like to do. If they want to talk and go on, we can accommodate that, but I need to be told.
I can say that the third party has told me what it needs, what times it needs, how we can deal with committee, but I have not had that same sense of co-operation from the official opposition. I regret that deeply, but that is the fact of the matter. I have not. At this point, when I talk to the House leader of the official opposition and he gives me some idea of how many people are going to speak on different debates, I can only guess that there will be at least five, eight or maybe 10 more speakers on top of the number he gives me. In my opinion, I have no choice at this point but to think that that is going to happen on every bill.
That is fine. The way we will deal with that extension, then, and more members speaking, is to extend the sittings. That is what we are moving. We have said very clearly to both opposition parties that we expect that many people will want to speak on rent review in particular and we will provide as much time as we can on rent review during the night sittings. I was told again today that Bill 1 could probably not finish again today, which is the second time that has happened, so I am making accommodation for them to finish tonight. They can speak to their hearts' content until midnight tonight and I encourage them to do that.
Mr Mahoney: Will you be here?
Hon Miss Martel: Yes, I will be here. We already have had to cancel one dinner, the member for Mississauga West and myself, for tonight, but we will be here.
The fact of the matter is that I have not had a clear sense of the direction of the official opposition, what kind of time it needs, how many members. Therefore, in order to accommodate them to the best of my ability, not knowing all the time what they are going to do, we will extend the sittings. If we do not need to sit, if we can finish the business we have laid out in our program and given to both House leaders, if we can finish the business on that particular day, we will not continue. I have no intention of keeping people here longer than we have to, but again that will depend on how many speakers go up.
If, for example, both parties decide they would like to have more people speak on rent review, then we will work to accommodate that as well, but I have given my commitment to both of the House leaders that I will deal with the agenda I have set before them. They should outline to me their concerns. We will try to accommodate them. If they would like to sit longer at night after we have finished the business for that day to deal with rent review or another contentious issue, that will be done with the unanimous agreement of all three.
I say in closing that as far as I am concerned the position we have put forward, the legislation we would like to have dealt with in this session, is not onerous, nor has it been. It has not always been easy, but I have openly admitted that to the House leaders of both sides, so I do not think we have anything to hide. I surely have not. But I would also like to say that the standing orders were agreed upon by all members of this House, and just as the former government, as I pointed out earlier in my remarks, put this motion in both sittings, both in the fall of 1989 and the spring of this year, so too are we putting this motion in order to try to deal with all the business and ensure that everyone can speak.
I will not at this point entertain the motion with respect to having dinner or having time off for dinner between 6 and 7 o'clock. I can only say that the former government did not provide us with that accommodation. They did not provide my colleague the Minister of Financial Institutions with that kind of right when he had to speak for 17 hours, so I will not be extending this right at this time. For those people who want to speak, we will continue all day and they can speak until midnight.
1640
The Deputy Speaker: We will now proceed with the amendment to the motion by Mr Elston, which reads as follows:
"That one hour be allowed commencing at 6 o'clock each day for dinner and that the House resume at 7 o'clock."
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay.
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
1656
The House divided on Miss Martel's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes -- 75
Abel, Allen, Arnott, Boyd, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos;
Lessard, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Owens, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Runciman, Silipo, Stockwell, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, B., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.
Nays -- 27
Beer, Callahan, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Grandmaître, Henderson, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Nixon, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sorbara, Sullivan.
RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990
Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.
Hon Mr Cooke: I am not going to speak at length about this bill. This is my first bill as a cabinet minister. I have certainly had experience moving private member's legislation over the last 13 and one half years, but there is nothing like the real thing.
What I would like to do is just take a few minutes to explain what we did and why we are proposing this legislation and then I certainly would like to, over the next 45 minutes to an hour, listen to responses from the opposition parties as we propose this bill for second reading, and Mr Speaker, you understand, we have agreed that this bill will go out for public hearings during the break.
First of all, there are two issues under the current rent review legislation that I believe are the reasons why tenant organizations and why our government and our party, when we were in opposition, have taken the position that we needed to bring in much stronger rent regulation legislation in this province.
Number one, everybody who has looked at this issue objectively -- and I would include in that category of people the member from Eglinton, who on many occasions has gone to tenants' rallies in this community -- has made it very clear that the issue of flips of buildings being sold for the sole reason of building in more financial cost which can then be passed through under the legislation that tenants now have to operate under has been a major problem.
The member from one of the Halton ridings might indicate that this is not a problem from her point of view, but it has been a problem that was experienced and expressed by tenants and certainly was an area that the former Minister of Housing expressed a concern about and the member from Eglinton has expressed a concern about.
Mr Speaker, you will also understand and remember that we raised cases when we were in opposition in this Parliament that clearly outlined why the rent review legislation that we currently operate under has encouraged flips. In fact, I raised one day in question period an example of how consultants had set up workshops in this community and the title of one of the workshops was, "Why the current rent review legislation encourages flips." That is exactly what was happening.
You can sell a building under the current legislation, you can get the increased finance costs, you can sell the building again and again and tenants continue to pay and pay. There was no protection. With the exception of the 5% cap, there was no protection for tenants. Well, it is not a fair amount of protection when one looks at the fact that with the phase-ins that exist under the current legislation, you can get the guideline that is set each year plus 5%, and then the next year the guideline plus 5%. We had examples of 10-year phase-ins, and longer, which would guarantee, with the guideline that is set plus the additional 5%, that rents would go up well over 100% for tenants across this province.
I believe very strongly that there has to be a housing strategy in this province. I think the major mistake that the previous government made was that it started a program that I believe was a very useful program, the Homes Now program, the supply program which has had some difficulties which we are all familiar with. The idea of a major supply program is obviously a major component of a housing strategy, but it is also absolutely essential that legislation has to be put in place to protect the affordable housing that currently exists. The only way of protecting that affordability has to be with a strong and effective rent regulation act.
The current rent regulation in this province simply does not provide that protection. In fact, there are so many loopholes in it that I think it gave the illusion to many tenants that there was protection, but there was no reality of that protection. That is why we felt we had to act.
The other major loophole that exists in the current legislation is luxury renovations. Again, the previous minister recognized that this was a loophole, as did the member for Eglinton. At rally after rally in the Metropolitan Toronto area, the member for Eglinton spoke, because, as I might remind the member, the former Minister of Housing would not come to tenant rallies, so the local member had to attend. The member for Eglinton came to a fair number of those meetings. The fact is that she spoke then, as we did, of the major problem that existed with luxury renovations. I do not hear that discussion now coming from the Liberal Party, but she did at that point.
The only solution that the former Minister of Housing brought forward was to use the current regulations and to say that if a landlord was involved in renovations, notice had to be given. If the tenants did not get that notice, there would be a 5% penalty. To explain the 5% penalty, because I think this is very important, if a landlord was spending $100,000 on renovations and notice was not given, then it was not 5% even of the $100,000; under the current legislation, a landlord would get the $100,000 passed through and if notice was given in writing, he would get an additional $5,000 or an additional 5% for administration. If the notice was not given, the only penalty was that $5,000.
I believe that was very ineffective and did not address at all the need to stop luxury renovations and to instil tenant consultation in the process. I would hope that as we develop the permanent rent control system in this province we will be able to work with landlords and tenants to develop a much more effective process where landlords and tenants work together to determine the priorities for their building.
Mr Mahoney: The landlords really trust you now.
Hon Mr Cooke: I would suggest to the member who just spoke that if he wants to take a look at Hansard and the discussions that took place both with the Davis legislation in the 1970s and with the Peterson legislation in the 1980s, landlord after landlord came before committees and indicated that the sky was going to collapse, that their legislation was going to destroy the private rental market. That simply was not the case under the Peterson legislation and was not the case under the Davis legislation, and I do not believe it is going to be the case under our legislation either.
I think one of the aspects of our proposal that has been deliberately neglected, for political reasons -- and that is appropriate in this forum -- is the fact that we are bringing forward a short-term proposal. The moratorium that we are proposing will last up to two years. We have suggested to the opposition House leaders a mechanism, as I did with Fair Rental and with the tenants groups, whereby that could be sped up. That process is clearly to come out in late February with a consultation document with draft proposals. We are prepared to have our own consultation process on that document, but also to have a standing committee of the Legislature look at it. We would then take the feedback, improve the proposed legislation and be able to speed up the process of bringing in the permanent legislation. Again, when the permanent legislation is in its final form we will want to send it out to a committee of the Legislature for public hearings for the final process of consultation.
1710
I believe very strongly that we will be able to bring in the permanent legislation very much more quickly than the two-year process, but for obvious reasons there had to be legislation that set out a two-year moratorium in case we did not get the legislation through the Legislature quickly enough. We could not possibly have the moratorium expire while the opposition parties were debating it and then have no protection left for tenants at all.
That process has been spelled out to Fair Rental, to the organization representing small landlords, to the tenants' groups and to the opposition parties. I certainly would be more than willing to discuss with the opposition critics and I know my House leader would want to discuss with the opposition House leaders any other suggestions they might have to speed up the process. But it all, obviously, will hinge on how quickly we can get through this process in dealing with the short-term legislation before we can get on to the permanent rent control legislation.
I found it interesting, the day I made the announcement on behalf of the government, that both opposition critics had two points of view: First, they spent maybe the first two and a half minutes slamming us for not following to a T the suggestion we made during the election of one flat increase with no exemptions, and then they spent the second half of their five minutes attacking us for going too far, which I guess is another aspect of this job I have learned, and I know others have learned it before me: that it does not matter what you do, you are going to get criticism from the opposition parties and from the extremes on both sides of the issue.
However, I want members to understand that we want to go through this process as quickly as possible. We understand, and I have made this clear in question period, that the moratorium legislation is not the right legislation in the long term, that we have to address other issues like the capital issue when we are developing the long-term legislation. So the sooner we can get to the long-term solution, the permanent legislation, the sooner that issue can be addressed. I really emphasize that with the members of the opposition parties. The sooner we get to the long-term legislation, the sooner the capital issue can be addressed in the permanent legislation.
I think they will have some ideas and we will have some ideas of how that can be done, and how the capital issue, the renovation issue -- whether it is parking garages or roofs, whatever the issue is -- can be addressed. But I will be following the principle that the permanent legislation has to offer more protection than the current rent review legislation, that in the long-term solution we will want to involve tenants to a much greater extent, and that the long-term solution must distinguish between necessary capital expenditures and luxury renovations, which have, I believe, been one of the major problems under the current legislation.
I want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the 1 October date. I understand very clearly that some landlords in this province are not pleased with the 1 October date, but I can tell members that we spent an awful lot of time discussing within the ministry which date would be the most appropriate date for an effective date for the legislation. It certainly was not an easy decision by any stretch.
Even under our legislation, 130,000 units are going to go through the current Liberal rent review legislation. Those 130,000 units will still go through the system and still be subject to the old rules and therefore, in my view, have very limited protection against substantial rent increases.
I understand there is some retroactivity involved when the 1 October date was chosen, but members also have to understand that when I spoke to landlords about what dates were possible, landlords who had not even applied for rent review, who were just contemplating capital expenditures now, made the point to me that any date would, in their view, be seen as being retroactive. If the work had started last week, if the work had started in the middle of October or 1 November or if orders had been placed for work and delivery was going to take place in November, they still viewed those as capital expenditures that should be able to be passed through. At some point we had to say, "This is the date we are choosing." Understanding that a moratorium by its very nature has some rigid aspects to it, we had to choose a date knowing there would be some difficulty with whatever date we chose.
But the object of the exercise clearly is to offer protection for tenants and try to put a halt to the system as it now exists while we develop the long-term system. I have said to the press today and I will repeat here that any issue that individuals -- opposition critics, landlords or tenants -- feel should be on the table for discussion, I am prepared to discuss when it comes to the long-term legislation. I hope these will all be issues we will discuss when we are looking at the options for the long-term legislation. But I do want to reiterate that the time frame is important. The bottom-line principle for this party is that there has to be more protection offered for tenants and that we are moving away from a system of rent review which simply offers the ability to pass through expenses to a system of rent control which will offer real protection for the tenants of this province. That is a principle we are not prepared to compromise on. We are not prepared to compromise on the principle that tenants are going to have more protection under the long-term legislation.
There is one other point I would like to make. We were very concerned that there were some costs over which there would be absolutely no control by landlords, so we deviated from the principle we talked about during the election and said there were certain costs that could be passed through even under the moratorium: hydro, municipal taxes, heating, water, insurance, cablevision, mortgage rates for renewals of mortgages. That was a major concern for small landlords when they talked to me either on an individual basis or even with the group, that there had to be some ability even under the moratorium to pass those types of costs through, so we did that even in the temporary legislation. That should be an indication that when there are costs that are real, when there are costs there are absolutely no control over by landlords, then obviously we are rational people and we are prepared to recognize those costs in the legislation. So we did that even in the moratorium legislation.
I guess I want to finish by simply saying again that it would be inappropriate for anybody in the Legislature or anybody outside to say that the current rent review legislation was working. It was not working. Tenants were not happy with it; landlords were not happy with it. It was complicated, it was bureaucratic and it simply was not understood by large numbers of people in this province. The success of any type of consumer protection legislation is obviously very much pinned to whether people can work through the system and whether people can understand the system. The current rent review system failed that test utterly. The last Rent Review Hearings Board annual report made the point very clearly that nobody was happy with the legislation.
1720
I found it interesting that while we were in opposition, Fair Rental and other landlords' groups were calling for the abolition of rent control altogether; Fair Rental had a complete lack of recognition that there were problems with the rent review legislation from a tenant's perspective. Now that we have formed a government and have said we are moving to provide real protection, some of the landlords' groups are saying: "Yes, you're right. There were abuses under the old legislation."
Well, it might have been more appropriate and we might have been able to find a solution in the past if some of the landlords' groups had recognized in the past that some of their colleagues were ripping off tenants and were not being fair with their tenants in this province. It is because of those examples of outrageous rent increases that our government felt compelled to act. That is why we spoke up when we were in opposition, and I think it would have been rather hypocritical for this party to come in and say we were simply going to tinker with the current rent review system. That would have been wrong, it would have been inconsistent, and it would not have solved the problem from a tenant's point of view.
I want to work with the opposition parties, I want to work with tenants' groups and I want to work with landlords' groups to try to find the long-term solution, but I do not think the long-term solution is going to be found if landlords' groups use all sorts of heightened, inappropriate rhetoric that does not reflect the real situation. The sky is not going to fall in. Tenants are still paying rent.
Mr Carr: The roofs are going to fall in, not the sky.
Hon Mr Cooke: Ask yourself this question. If a roof needs to be repaired today, what kind of shape was that roof in on 5 September? The way the member is talking, you would almost think that from 6 September to today, the buildings have begun to collapse. The fact of the matter is, the current rent review legislation did not address the whole issue of maintenance, did not keep buildings in a proper state of repair. All members have to do is go look at some of those buildings. What it did encourage was luxury renovations, which could increase --
Mr Harnick: You are compounding the problem. You're making the problem worse with your legislation.
Hon Mr Cooke: That simply will not happen. Look at it rationally. We are talking about a maximum two-year moratorium that we want to shorten with members' cooperation.
The roof is not going to fall in in two years. If they want to be responsible they should go out and talk to landlords and tell them they have a responsibility under the building standards in this province to maintain their buildings. They had that responsibility before 6 September. The current rent review legislation was supposed to see that that happened. It did not work, and I want to work with landlords' groups and tenants' groups in this province to find those solutions to make sure that rent is fair and that buildings are kept in a fair state for the tenants of this province. That is our goal.
I believe we can do it, but the bottom line is that there is going to be a rent control system in this province that offers real protection for tenants. That is the policy of this government and it was the policy of our party when we were in opposition, and I am determined to see it happen in the long term.
Mr Tilson: I have a question for the minister. I think the last statement made by the minister does spell out exactly what this legislation is doing. He appears to be determined to put this legislation through no matter what. In other words, he has one thing in mind. He is not listening to other people, to other interested parties.
I would like to refer the minister to a statement that came out in Maclean's magazine on 26 November. Actually, the discussion had to do with the opera house, but there was a statement that referred to the minister and his housing policy. It is on page 17:
"While some new ministers have won the early confidence of the bureaucracy, others have been privately criticized for ignoring expert advice. When Housing minister David Cooke assumed his post, ministry officials told him that parts of the NDP's promise to toughen the province's rent review system were unrealistic. Cooke had made plain his desire to make it more difficult for landlords to raise rents to recover the cost of renovations or such expenses as higher utility rates -- something that is allowed under the current system. Ministry experts told Cooke that such a plan would discourage developers from building new rental accommodation and dissuade landlords from improving existing apartments. In one official's words, Cooke responded: 'I don't care. Do it anyway.' And he instructed his staff to draft tough new guidelines restricting rent increases."
I would like to ask the minister: Is this magazine article and this statement correct? Does this show his determination?
Hon Mr Cooke: When I read the Maclean's magazine article I had to laugh, because the week before, through the press clipping service, there had been a clipping from Now magazine in Toronto saying I was an example of one of the ministers who had been captured by the bureaucracy and was not going to do the right thing for tenants. We looked at Now magazine; we looked at Maclean's. On one hand the bureaucracy was supposed to be telling me what to do, and on the other hand I was supposed to be not listening at all to any advice that had been offered.
I can tell the member that neither of the articles is correct. I never once have made that kind of comment to the people in the Ministry of Housing. They have offered me very good, very professional advice, and I have never once made that kind of statement to the bureaucracy. I have found the Ministry of Housing people to be very co-operative and to offer a series of alternatives. That same type of information and briefing material I have offered to the member through the ministry, and I offered it to the Liberal Housing critic as well. I believe she has either taken advantage of it already or -- she has. I would encourage the member to do that. I have no idea where Maclean's magazine got their quote and I have no idea where Now magazine got their quote.
Ms Poole: I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Bill 4 on behalf of our caucus and our party. First, I would like to take a look at what the minister says is the purpose of the bill. First of all, the minister would like to limit outrageous rent increases. I have a lot of sympathy for that viewpoint; the minister is perfectly correct when he says I fought this in the past. I would expect that a 195% rent increase should be unacceptable to any member of the House, including the Conservatives. Second, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that tenants would not have to finance luxury renovations or the flipping of apartment buildings. Again, I do not have any problem with that. We agree with the minister that tenants should not have to shoulder the burden of paying for luxury renovations they neither want nor need.
But I am afraid that is where we part company with the NDP government. By the way, I shall be making suggestions towards the end of my speech as to how we would suggest that these problems be dealt with. Quite frankly, we cannot agree with the minister that he has chosen the right way to fix the problem of abuse by a few landlords.
The minister himself has admitted that it is only a few landlords who have created the problem. I would like to quote the minister's own words at a press conference after he introduced the legislation: "Landlords in this province, in fact most landlords, have kept their buildings up to standards without going through rent review. It has been a few landlords that I believe have abused the system, have put in luxury renovations that have resulted in tenants receiving unreasonable and unconscionable rent increases, which is what we are attempting to fix today."
So the question we have to ask is, if it is an abuse by a few landlords, why did the minister bring in interim legislation that is so wide-sweeping that it has plunged the rental housing market into chaos? I have obtained statistics from rent review that show that since 1986 only 5.7% of all the units that have gone to rent review have had increases of 20% or over, so why does the minister not deal with those cases? Why does he not deal with those who are abusing the system?
1730
I also have some statistics from the CMHC for the Ottawa-Carleton area showing that the average rent increases in Ottawa-Carleton were 3.7% in 1989 and 4.1% in 1990. Now, that is below the guideline, and that includes all units that have gone to rent review and that have not gone to rent review. Those are the averages, and yet in Ottawa-Carleton they too are going to be affected by this legislation. Why such a draconian approach? There is no provision for capital improvements. There is no provision for major repairs and no provision for what happens to buildings that are halfway through construction.
Let's take a closer look at what this legislation is going to do. First of all, it has ensured that no capital improvements will be made to our aging housing stock in this province over the next two years. Now I know that the minister thinks not much can happen in a two-year period, but what I think he is not realizing and considering is the state of our aging housing stock.
Let me share some statistics with the House: 80% of our housing stock was built prior to 1976 and 62.6% was built prior to 1970. That means over 62% of our housing stock is now 30 years old. And 36.6% was built prior to 1960 and 8.6% was built pre-1920. Buildings that are 20, 25, 30 and 40 years old need major replacements and repairs. If they do not get that work, they can degenerate into slums very, very quickly.
I am not talking about luxury renovations. I am not talking about day-to-day maintenance. I am talking about major repairs and major expenditures: aging leaky roofs, windows that were state of the art some 20 years ago when they were put in, but now are drafty and chilly. It is a vicious opponent of any type of energy conservation.
I am talking about replacing corroded galvanized piping with new copper plumbing, replacing aging appliances which have given up the ghost, putting in a new boiler so that tenants do not freeze every time the old patched-up one breaks down, repairing salt-damaged parking garages -- that is a particularly important and expensive repair. If the salt corrosion is not halted, the building can fall down, and that is no exaggeration. Ask any structural engineer what is happening to the parking garages in our cities. These are hardly luxury renovations and yet this work will not get done over the next two years or more.
The second problem with this ill-conceived bill is that the government has ignored the disastrous economic effects of its policy. For example, this government's housing policy is causing untold hardship to the renovation trades and suppliers, and the minister cannot say that he had no warning. On 19 October the vice-president of Wind-o-Mart, a window replacement company, wrote to the Premier with a copy to the Minister of Housing. He warned the Premier and the minister that a rent control policy might trigger massive layoffs in related small businesses such as the renovation trades, and he pleaded with the Minister of Housing to consider this when formulating his rental policy.
The Premier replied: "In the months ahead the Minister of Housing will be reviewing many issues including those you have outlined. Your concerns will be given every consideration." Some consideration. No consideration was given to the economic consequences. Following the announcement by the Minister of Housing of the moratorium, $2 million worth of Wind-o-Mart's contracts were cancelled with indications that the figure would rise to $5 million. Wind-o-Mart has said that the cancellations will force the business to close, putting all 20 employees out of work.
Regal Aluminum and Regal Railings laid off 108 of their 200 employees when building owners cancelled $5 million worth of windows, doors and railings. Just today I received a fax from Ridley Industries saying that 25% of its workforce has been laid off. The bitter irony is that most of those who have been laid off are tenants.
That is only the tip of the iceberg. This government obviously has a great deal of difficulty reconciling its economic policy with its social policy.
Another example of this is occurring within the investment community. The minister will no doubt by now have seen a copy of the letters from Dr Tse of Fairwin Investments to the Premier. The Fairwin group, by way of information to the House, had invested over $300 million in Ontario real estate, primarily over the last three years. Dr Tse advised that this group consists mainly of overseas investors and that they are abandoning plans to invest another $500 million in Ontario over the next five years.
He wrote in his very eloquent letter: "It must be remembered that to a foreign investor half a world away, the Ontario government is the Ontario government, be it NDP, Liberal or Conservative. Investors still expect the same fair treatment, predictability and continuity in legislation passed. There should be no doubt in your mind that investment from overseas is currently being directed elsewhere. Investors are being invited to play a chess game in Ontario."
Dr Tse continued: "After inquiring about the rules, investors laid their money on the table and started playing the game. Halfway through the game, investors are now told that all the rules are being changed retroactively."
That brings us to the major difficulty of this bill. I very much sympathize with the minister's intention of saving tenants from more rent increases by making the legislation retroactive, but instead of being reasonable about the retroactivity, the NDP government has used a very heavy-handed approach. It has offered absolutely no chance for landlords who have completely or partially completed major repairs, in full accordance with the law, to recoup any of their losses.
The minister has said, "Well, this is only interim legislation," as if the fact that it is interim means it can be as unfair as he wants. But surely even interim legislation must be not only effective, but fair. In that respect, this legislation fails.
The minister does not seem to care that the legislation is unfair. In fact, what he has said is that it does not matter. It does not matter if the landlords pay a heavy price or the investors or the suppliers or the unemployed workers, because in the final analysis the minister says it was justified because it protects tenants. But has it protected tenants?
When tenants see their maintenance falter and their buildings crumble around them, they will not feel very protected then. Tenants will realize over the next two years that they too have paid a heavy price for the minister's shortsighted interim legislation.
The irony is that the minister says he brought in this interim legislation to create stability. In the House he said: "I agree the moratorium we have introduced is not the right legislation for Ontario on a permanent basis. It is there to stabilize the market now while we can work to develop a long-term, workable system."
Because this legislation is so ill-advised, exactly the opposite has occurred. We have frozen chaos, with tenants living in half-finished construction, necessary work being put on hold, renovators closing up shop, workers unemployed, foreign investors saying they no longer trust the Ontario government and landlords saying they will go bankrupt.
We have financial institutions wondering if they are ever going to be repaid for the loans they made and tenants who are confused by the myriad of dates that are floating before them in the moratorium -- 1 October, 28 November, 1 July -- and not knowing whether they have to pay rent increases. This is not what I call stability. In fact, I would call this chaos and I think it will only get worse.
What else has the minister said to defend this legislation? When I asked him a question in the House about what he was going to do in situations where repair work was halfway done and there was no compensation to complete the work, in effect he gave this answer: "Don't worry. We have the Residential Rental Standards Board and municipal bylaws. All is well. They'll take care of the problem."
I have news for the minister. I agree that the standards board is a great idea, but we all know it has no teeth to force the work to be done. All the standards board can do, after a long unwieldy process via rent review, is deny the landlord a right to the guideline increase. The work orders the municipality issues will not be very helpful either, since it can take many, many months, if not years, to get any action on work orders. So there will not be much comfort to the tenants at 109 Jameson Avenue or the tenants on Antrim Crescent if they have to live in half-completed construction for the next two years.
1740
I want to show members a picture of one of the apartment buildings at 11 Antrim Crescent. The photo was taken last week when I was up there after the owners stopped work on the site in reaction to this legislation. The five buildings are partway through a major structural renovation and repair program. The work being done included repairing balconies, underground garages, lighting, new roofs and emergency generators for the elevators and fire pumps. Again, it is hardly what I would call luxury renovations.
Now, because of this legislation, the owners have said they plan to complete only the work that would be hazardous to the tenants. The rest will be left uncompleted. Let's just hope that the tenants do not have to wait two long years to have this work finished.
Another ramification that the minister has not considered is the effect on our non-profit housing, such as Cityhome. For instance, l had a call late last week from the city councillor who chairs the drug enforcement policy committee for the city of Toronto. The committee had recommended strongly that to fight the rampant drug use in Cityhome buildings, its buildings should be equipped with a comprehensive surveillance system and security upgrading. Because of the provincial government's new rent freeze policy, the chairman told me these plans have been put on hold. The city, just like other landlords, cannot afford to pay the money itself, and because it can no longer have any part of the costs picked up by the tenants, it is saying it is not going to do it.
What reason has the NDP government given for moving so quickly to bring in this legislation with no consultation and little forethought? Sadly, most of the motivation has been political. Back in the spring, the minister had a very simple proposal to solve the rental problems in the province. When he was opposition Housing critic, he wanted to have one guideline amount per year with no exemptions. Does this sound familiar? Well, it should, since it was adopted as the basic NDP election platform in its Agenda for People. New Democrats would bring in rent control. That means one increase a year based on inflation. There would be no extra bonuses to landlords for capital or financing costs.
The NDP government had to do something and do it quickly to convince tenants that it meant business and that it was going to keep its promise, even though I am sure the minister himself was having some second thoughts about whether the promise was workable. So their solution was to introduce interim legislation that would have no component for major repairs and replacements. They figured if the landlords and the investors squawked enough, this alone would be proof that the legislation was good for tenants.
But what is really frightening is what I call this government's hidden agenda for people. It is clear from the interview the Premier had with the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations that he does not believe in any form of private ownership for housing. When he was asked how he would get the current private rental stock out of the hands of the large owners and into the hands of the nonprofit organizations, this was the Premier's reply:
"You make it less profitable for people to own it. I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review. Simple. There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community and you say to them, 'If you're unhappy, we'll buy you out.'"
Well, the NDP government has already taken the first step in its master plan and the landlords are squawking. This is very frightening. There are projections that we will have a flood of another two million people in the greater Toronto area over the next couple of decades. If this government does not want a partnership with the private sector, and if this government drives the private sector out of the housing field, then who is going to build the housing for these people? There is only so much that the government can bear through our non-profit housing, and I support the minister when he talks about non-profit housing and the need for it, but we cannot do it alone. The taxpayers cannot bear that burden. We need the private sector.
The problem is that after the draconian actions of this government with this legislation, I do not think the private sector will ever trust this government again, and quite frankly, I do not blame it.
I believe that another reason the New Democratic Party failed with the introduction of this legislation is that it truly does not understand our aging housing stock. Buildings are not invulnerable. Cement corrodes. Electrical work fails. Water penetrates caulking and roofing. Balconies disintegrate. Parking garage foundations fall victim to salt corrosion. Elevators wear out. Plumbing needs to be replaced. The list can go on and on.
What is the minister's response? Well, if they had done proper maintenance, these things would not happen. But it does not make any sense. No matter how good the landlord, no matter how good the maintenance, after a certain number of years these things need to be repaired and they need to be replaced.
I personally believe that there is one more reason the NDP believes in this legislation. They are convinced that the landlords are the embodiment of evil. Landlords all wear black hats. Therefore, they refuse to believe the landlords, the investors, the renovators and the financial institutions when they warn of dire consequences. But we all know that there are good landlords and bad landlords, just as there are good politicians and bad politicians. I do not intend to give any judgement as to where we in this House sit. I am sure we are all good politicians. There are also good and bad tenants. It is a matter of balance.
I am sure my words are falling on deaf ears today, because the NDP does not want to believe me either, although, to be fair, I think it probably thinks I am a cut above the usual dastardly landlords, as they twirl their handlebar moustaches and have the eviction notices in their greasy palms. But that is not all landlords.
I want to mention to members the case of Alice Guybord. Alice was in the gallery today. Some members may have noticed her. She was 74 years old and she came down from Ottawa for the rally. She is a widow. She is a self-employed landlady who owns a 68-unit rental building that she and her husband built some 25 years ago. Alice has spent 365 days a year, 18 hours a day for 25 years working on her building. There is one exception. In 1986 she took five days off to go to Disneyland. I saw her knuckles. They were worn to the bone. She too was a landlord. She put $94,000 into her building. She borrowed it from family and she used her savings. The rent increases that were to come into effect after the work was completed still made the accommodation very, very affordable.
The Alice Guybords of the world are also landlords. In fact, statistics that I recently received from Ottawa-Carleton show that out of the 41,522, 39,686 are small landlords who own only one or perhaps two buildings. I am warning the minister not to be too self-satisfied. It is true today that he has pleased a number of tenants with his rent freeze. After all, it is only normal for tenants to be pleased not to have to pay rent increases above the guideline for the next two years. But tenants will not be so pleased when landlords start to recoup their losses in the only way they feel they can. They will cut services. They will lower standards of maintenance. They will cut out the extras.
One small landlord who called me last week was an older gentleman who talked about the blood, sweat and tears he put into his building over the last 30 years. He had just finished some major repair work and he cannot recoup the money. So he said, well, there was not much he could do. It came out of his savings. But he is going to have to cut out the little extras, such as the flower beds he has cultivated for some 30 years. Now, I agree that compared to economic eviction, perhaps flower beds pale in importance, but at the same time tenants are entitled to the same quality of life as home owners. Now they will not get those little extras such as the flower gardens.
1750
I mentioned at the beginning that I intended to offer some constructive ideas of what this government could do, because I do not think it is fair only to offer criticism without putting something on the table.
First, I believe this government should only allow necessary repairs and replacements. In fact, I proposed specific legislative amendments to the Minister of Housing's predecessor, Mr Sweeney, last fall. I would be pleased to have the minister take a look at them. If I could have a page come up -- the pages are not paying attention to my speeches; I cannot comprehend this. Could you take that to the minister, please?
Second, I would put a cap on total rent increases allowed in a year, as well as establish a maximum of total rent increases that could be charged in any three- or five-year period.
Third, the legislation could have been amended so that landlords would have to get pre-approval for any capital expenditures. It would be mandatory that this be done prior to the work being done.
Fourth, I would lengthen some of the amortization periods to be more realistic.
Fifth, I would propose that the interim legislation be in effect for only one year.
Last, I would amend the legislation so that a landlord could only receive the guideline increase if he or she obtained a certificate from a municipal building inspector stating that the building had been kept in a good state of repair.
I believe that these amendments would have alleviated the situation. They would have protected tenants from outrageous rent increases. They would have given stability to the housing market until we could work out long-term solutions. They would ensure that maintenance of our buildings was carried out properly on a day-to-day basis; otherwise the landlord would not get the guideline amount. It would protect and enhance our housing stock. In other words, I believe that instead of using a sledgehammer on all landlords, the minister should have used a boxing glove only on those who abuse the system.
Madam Speaker, I am sure you and all members of this House will be relieved to know that I am in the final throes of my speech. In fact, I am sure some members would probably say I am in the death throes of my speech.
Just one final point: We must not forget in this debate and in this House that we are talking about people's homes. Most tenants today will end up being long-term renters who will never be able to afford to buy a home. Statistics from CMHC bear this out. Only 6.7% of renters in Toronto can afford to buy a home, 6.7%; 8.3% in Kitchener can afford to buy a home; 10.1% in Hamilton; 10.5% in Oshawa; 13.9% in London; 17.9% in Ottawa. That is why tenants are equally as concerned about the maintenance of their buildings as they are about the affordability of rents. Their apartments are their homes, and as I said in the House the other day, tenants want a decent and comfortable place in which to live.
I sincerely hope the minister will rethink some of his positions on the aspects of this bill. For tenants, I believe this will be a case of short-term gain and long-term pain. It may be only interim legislation, but we, as members of this House, have the right -- no, I am going to amend that. I surely think that we have the duty to ensure that this interim legislation is not only effective, but that it creates stability and that it is fair. Above all, this legislation should be fair.
Hon Mr Cooke: I would just like to take the two minutes to respond to a couple of things. First of all, I congratulate the member on her speech, a well-constructed speech. I think what she could do with the speech is that she could cut it up. She could send certain parts of it to tenants and certain parts of it to landlords. It is certainly the type of speech that tries to say all things to all people. She is certainly trying to sit on the fence.
I would certainly like the member to respond to the following questions. Number one, what cap is she talking about? She said she would put a cap so that rent increases could not go above the guideline plus a cap. Well, tell us what the cap is. Tell us what her proposal for the cap is. That is pretty important.
The other thing that I would like the member to address is, does she not realize that with the approach she is taking she is encouraging ongoing, deliberate neglect, because if a landlord can say, "I'll neglect my building for years, I'll put some money into it, pass the money through the rent review system for items that I should have been properly maintaining over the years, and then I can flip the building under the current rent review legislation and the new owner can pass through the increased financing cost," she will know, as we do, that is exactly what was happening.
The final two points: I do not understand how Cityhome is covered at all by this legislation. Non-profit housing is not covered by rent regulation and the member understands that.
With respect to the jobs issue, I just ask her to look at our capital works program and the 20,000 housing units that we are putting in that will create 40,000 person-years of work next year alone.
Mrs Marland: It is really interesting to be in this House at this time in this year, because if we were to go back approximately 15 years, we would be sitting in this House knowing that certain legislation was being passed because both the other parties, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, were in favour of rent controls. They wanted rent controls so badly as a solution to a housing crisis 15 years ago, and in fact, the Liberal Party members, like the Liberal government in the past Parliament, were the people who extended rent controls.
Mr Curling: You brought it in. Why are you complaining?
Mrs Marland: I would say, for the sake of the member for Scarborough North, that he should know that when our government brought in rent controls, it was with the view at the time that if we did not bring them in, as a minority government, the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party would in fact bring them in.
Our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, is just as committed as any other single member of any other single party in this House to the protection of tenants in this province, and I am fed up with the bleeding hearts in the New Democratic government who think they are the only people who speak for tenants, or the Liberal government that extended rent controls over new development, which is the thing that has really caused the crisis in affordable housing today.
I simply say we are concerned about landlords, we are also concerned about tenants and this bill is going to be one big mess. It is not a solution.
Mr Curling: I want to commend my colleague the member for Eglinton for the excellent way she made her presentation, and I say that very seriously, because she did not take one view, like the minister, and talk about tenants only. She was extremely concerned about tenants and the effect this bill would have on tenants, keeping in consideration that there are parties involved of landlords, tenants and government, and she made an excellent suggestion to the minister, who flippantly threw it away and started questioning it immediately before he welcomed the suggestion and looked into it and studied it a bit more.
I am concerned that I do not think he is searching for a solution, he is searching for a fight, a confrontation that will see that he may be quite popular in the eyes of the tenants. Tenants are very intelligent people and they would like to see their homes be protected and well maintained.
I want to commend the member for the excellent suggestion that she made and I would urge the minister to take his time. He has two years in which he said he wants a moratorium on all this, to look into this, this small aspect of his bill here, which is a wider view of the rent review process.
Confusion is hitting the province now. We do not know if we have rent control or rent review. At times I hear the minister talk about rent review or rent control, but it is a matter of rent review and we deliberately say rent review because we realize we have to solve the problem immediately.
Again to the honourable member for Eglinton, she should continue to be persistent, because sooner or later they will get the message.
1800
Ms Poole: I am quite surprised that the minister would say that I am sitting on the fence. I have always been a tenants advocate and I will continue to be, but I do not feel this is good for tenants. I do not think there is anything wrong in having a balanced approach. Now, I know the minister does not see things that way, but it is a balance. I think the concrete solutions I have offered will go a long way towards protecting the tenants.
The minister also mentioned ongoing deliberate neglect and that what I proposed would not help. But surely, denying the guideline increase to any landlord who did not pass a building inspection would prevent that.
Hon Mr Cooke: That is the current legislation.
Ms Poole: It is not the current legislation. The current legislation is that -- and I am surprised the minister does not know this -- the landlord automatically gets the guideline. I am saying the landlord does not even get the guideline increase unless he has a certificate from a building inspector first. That surely will help.
The minister also said, "What is the cap?" I had a building in my riding, at 88 Erskine, where they had everything imaginable done to it that one could qualify as a necessary repair -- garage work, roof work, windows, elevators, certainly the full gamut -- and the increase was somewhere around 20% above the guideline. So I would feel that most buildings certainly could do many repairs if there was a cap such as 10% per year. But then there needs to be a five-year cap put in so that the same landlord cannot go for an extra 5% or 6% above the guideline every single year. This is one suggestion, but it is something the minister can work with. He should not mistake it. This is not good legislation for tenants, and the sooner he realizes it the better.
Mr Tilson: I do have a number of areas that I wish to discuss with the House on a very important issue. However, it is now after 6 o'clock. I know the House leader has a great number of other bills that she wishes to debate this evening and accordingly, I would move that we adjourn the debate.
On motion by Mr Tilson, the debate was adjourned.
RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.
Mr Curling: It is indeed an honour to stand -- I notice that members are returning to the House to hear this very important input to Bill 1 that I would like to make comments about.
We all have gone through a very exciting election. One of the most exciting parts of coming back to the House is that we would see the introduction of the first bill, Bill 1, which would be something we look forward to, seeing the direction of where this government is going to go. I heard my colleagues make comments before -- and they have done their research -- to show that sometimes the first bill is a bill that is not of great importance. It is something that is tokenly put into the House so that we can move on for the first day. But when I saw that Bill I was about the GST and taxation in this province, I realized that this is a rather profound bill. It was the bill that they spoke about in their Agenda for People, the bill in which they spoke about a revolt in this province, a revolution that is going to happen in regard to taxation and the GST.
I read with great interest the remarks of the member for Ottawa-Rideau, my colleague the critic for my party, and the eloquent way in which she laid out the bill in great detail and showed a full understanding of the bill. As a matter of fact, I will use it as a guide because I would ask the members of the government -- maybe they should reread the Hansard of the honourable member and how she placed it out very articulately.
I have heard very often that Bill I is supposed to represent the manual for this revolution, and I looked at this Bill 1, a very thin manual, that said this is going to be the onslaught of the attack on the GST. I was excited, extremely excited. Some things came to mind too, things such as little poems like the Charge of the Light Brigade. I saw armies, I saw socialist democrats lining up, well-uniformed, heading towards Ottawa because this terrible GST is upon us, and as they said in the Agenda for People, it will be an attack to dismantle this bill. I saw many generals.
As a matter of fact, even if you want to change their coats or their hats, I saw General Mackenzie, the Minister of Labour, when he was over on this side, at times would get so irate about things that we had to cool him down and we would tell our colleagues to take it easy because General Mac may have a heart attack, he was so moved about the people and the abuse that is happening to the people in this province.
I saw the now Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, talk about attacking our Treasurer at the time, the member for Brant-Haldimand, for the attitude and the approach he was taking towards the GST. So I saw him also as a general moving and planning this attack on Ottawa. Then I took up the manual, this Bill 1. What a disappointment. There was no direction; they did not know where they were going.
As the honourable member for Ottawa-Rideau stated, it talks about parallel, all going along with the GST; no attacks, no dismantling of the GST. I presume they read the GST as meaning "Good, sock it to them."
We know, of course, that every country needs taxation, every government needs taxation, a fair system of taxation in order to run the business of the day. We know too the criticism of the Conservative government when it came in at the federal level, when its members spoke about the manner in which they found the books of the day and the deficit they had found this country in and how they were going to wipe out this deficit and how they were going to put a good tax system in place. I was rather taken aback. It caught my attention, to say that they can reduce that deficit, that they can put a fair tax system in place.
I could consider myself looking at this government and admiring the Conservative government for the first time. I was disappointed, of course, as the deficit went up and as they brought into place many suggestions of how good taxation would be. I think the GST is a very, very bad, awfully worded, mistimed bill at a time when we are in a recession, especially when it is not only in Ontario but in this country.
1810
I am not surprised at all that neither this government nor the government in Ottawa has any great plans. I have watched the government in Ottawa systematically dismantling this country, pulling it apart. I can talk about the Via Rail situation that links our country, that touched the heart and the soul from one province to the other. My golly, that went by. We fought, we talked, people protested, but dismantling continued. I saw Air Canada, which will be soon sold out to the private sector, again another link, breaking up the link from one place to the other.
Mr Speaker, I am sure you must have been listening the other day or watching the TV when they were interviewing a couple of people from New York and down in the United States. They were asking them to tell them about Canada. Where is it? Some people said, "It is up there somewhere in a cold place." They were defining where Canada was. They were asked, "Could you describe Canada?" and they said: "Oh, it's a place where you can live and your doors can be open and nobody breaks in. You can leave your bicycle on the streets and no one steals it." They said: "It's a wonderful place. It is clean and it's wonderful." It is a place where they said, "I would go and live there one day."
As I travel down in the US quite often and hear the definition of Canada, it really amuses me. They talk about a place with no discrimination, and members know we do have that. They talk about a place where there is no police harassment, but members know we do have that. They have a dream of a different way of Canada, and we would like to hold, even work towards, that dream. But this federal government -- and this government here is following suit -- is dismantling what Canada actually stands for.
I look at the constitutional talk. We heard today that the leader, the Premier of the province, has no strategy. He has no plan whatsoever. Of course, he said he would like to talk to us all, talk to the leaders and the opposition, so we can have some strategy about Canada and what it is all about.
I think the new government has an opportunity right now to be the best government ever in the province. First, they could come straight, be honest, just say to us, to the people of Ontario that An Agenda for People was something written behind a back door in a back room, and there are no plans there. Even though it sounds good, we know that rhetoric is one of the greatest skills that socialists, social democrats or democratic socialists have. They sound good. It reminds me so much of those who can talk the talk but cannot walk the walk.
But if they come clean, come honest, and say: "Listen, we don't have an answer to these things. It sounded good in the campaign, it sounded good when we asked them to send a letter to Premier Peterson, send a message to him." It sounds good, good rhetoric, but when we ask them to do the thing, to do some walking, to do some action, it is not there.
When we read the manual, we knew that we were in trouble. We, the people of this province; we, the opposition here, knew that we are in deep trouble. But there is hope, I say to my friends, great hope, because on this side, the opposition side, we can give the government good suggestions.
The first is to get rid of An Agenda for People and come clean, and to say also that Bill 1 was a joke, that the government really did not have any plan about how to charge with that revolt, to get the GST and to attack it. We can tell them to come clean and then we will work together as people of this province, elected people, to bring about a good bill. We can do that. We are quite co-operative. Look how co-operative we are today. We will stay until midnight tonight and debate the government's agenda, the way it has been set. If the government comes with that kind of a strategy, I think there is hope for us.
I also would suggest that many of the ministers who are connected in some respect to the GST should gather around the Minister of Revenue and say to her that this bill will have a great impact on them, this new law that is coming through, especially the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There are great concerns in the municipalities. They are asking: "What do we tax? When do we tax it?" There is a lot of confusion within the municipalities.
I think my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is in the House. I know that sometimes he does not want to go home, because in his area tourism is one of the prime industries and it is hurting. They are confused, they are worried, because the GST will have a devastating effect on that industry.
When I see the members looking so relaxed over there, I say they have a plan. They have a manual that they have not showed us. Bill 1 is something that is a preliminary to a great strategy behind there. I know when I was over on that side as a minister, I was working 20 hours a day -- while other members, I am sure, were putting in a lot of time -- and serving this province of course to the best of my ability. I know that some people can do it right now in five or six hours a day, but I am not one of those geniuses over there. I have to work 18 to 20 hours a day in order to put my worth in. If I could have I would have worked longer, but biologically I could not do that.
I look over there and I see how relaxed they are and I say, yes, they have another manual there, another bill that is going to tell me that: "Yes, it's a revolt. It's an onslaught on the GST. We were just fooling you here. We're going to come clean now. We're going to pull back that Bill 1. We're going to start all over again." They can. There is time to start over.
The government took a long time coming into the House. They really fooled us, because we said over on this side: "They're taking so long to come into the House. Do you know why? They're putting their strategy together." So we spent many days over on this side working before they got into the House, saying: "There is a strategy. Let's go back to all the things they said in Hansard, because they are people of their word."
Oh, my golly, they whimpingly came into the House and thought that we would have just looked at Bill 1. They said to themselves, "Yes, they will be fooled by that. It will slip past them," just as they would like us to extend the time to 12 o'clock until 20 December, when we get out of here, to do their business. First they were late coming in here and fooled us into thinking that they had a plan. Now they would like to decide to bum us out by saying: "Let's stay here as long as possible. This is the plan we want. This is the kind of strategy, the agenda we want to debate."
I still urge them -- I do not like to be fooled that long -- to bring the real bill forward, that great manual to tell us that it is not a parallel bill to embrace and to hug and to kiss the GST, but to kill it, kill it as the Liberal senators are trying their best to do in the Senate right now. The members should show some guts, show the guts they had when they were in opposition. They should get up and say to us, "Yes. we believe in it."
What an opportunity they have that both sides of the fence -- I am not quite sure about the Tories on this side. I never know where they are anyhow because at times when I think that they are on side on certain things -- for instance, earlier on today the member for Mississauga South, I think, stated about rent control that she did not believe in it, but they brought it in. We know how we stand on this side. We want to kill the GST and we want to help the government. So Bill 1 was an extreme disappointment.
1820
I want all the members to ask themselves the question, "Why am I here?" It is a deep question. I know that many of the NDP members are saying, "How the hell did I get here?" But we know why. People voted for them. People voted for them and they really expect them to deliver on the things that they said, not basically to bring in some flimsy bill and tell us that this is their manual.
I think maybe they are too busy reading Gerry Caplan's manual, How to Answer Questions. I do not know if members have read that. They should be quite familiar with that manual. I am not quite sure they got in touch with that manual, the manual that tells all the ministers here to say, "We'll take it under advisement and bring it back next day." Yes. l think they are learning that now. Lately they are saying all of that.
But I want members to go beyond that and ask themselves, "Why am I here?" They are here to do the business for the people of Ontario, what they sent them to do. They have laid out their plans already. I would say to them that their manual has been written. They should go back to Hansard, go back to the rhetoric that they used to say.
As surely as their leader, through the mouth of the Lieutenant Governor, stated that this is not only about principles, it is about reality, the Minister of Financial Institutions will be quite alert to the fact that when reality hits home, even he as minister of auto insurance realizes that there are certain principles we behave on and there are certain realities we have to act upon.
The reality is that people do not like the GST. They would like it to be killed. They would not like the government to bring in a bill to support that. If they cannot do that, they could do something like what we had done, which they laughed at when we talked about the I % reduction, putting $1 billion inside the pockets of the consumer who needs it. These are aggressive moves, not what I see here. These are positive moves.
They laughed at it and, when they were laughing at that, I myself took another look and said that maybe it is not the best plan. Maybe they do have a plan. That is why I said to them again that when Bill 1 came in, I thought it was a good plan. I tried to read between the lines, as we all do. I want to read more into it. I thought that maybe there is something I am missing and, as members know, it is so difficult to read bills. I thought I had missed it. I am not a lawyer.
Some of my colleagues here are lawyers and they seem to understand all those kinds of phrases, so I thought that I would take it to some of my colleagues here. I said to them: "Help me in this process. Help me to understand this. There is something here I am missing. This bill here is delivering something that is good for the province, is going to destroy the GST, is not going to go parallel as it said here." When I heard my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau speak about this bill, I woke up immediately and said: "I was right. It didn't say a word. It had nothing." So quickly I have started seeing through this NDP government, which promised so much.
I know how all those members there feel. They really thought they were going to deliver something. They really believe in it. That is where the big problem is. They start believing in their own rhetoric. It is extremely frightening, because I heard them over there clapping. Sometimes they are applauding things that if they heard themselves -- I urge them to go back and look at the tape because all this is videotaped, look at it and see what they are clapping about, see what they are applauding, because they would be ashamed of themselves.
The member for Victoria-Haliburton was talking about his grandmother today. His grandmother told him, and it was very wise advice, that he was to shut up if he had nothing to say. That government over there would have been quiet constantly. Can the members imagine the Minister of Financial Institutions? He had nothing to say. The member for Victoria-Haliburton's grandmother would be completely upset with him. She would have said, "Peter, be quiet."
My golly, as I said, if they go back and listen to their rhetoric, they will be surprised, shocked and embarrassed because they are all honourable men and women, and quite intelligent too. Listening to themselves they will say to themselves, "What have I done?" The first act, the first piece of legislation this government put forward said nothing. The members over there should be ashamed of themselves. But there is hope. There should be great hope.
We are in a recession. It took a long time for the Tories over there -- where are they? They left. I hope they are listening in their offices. It took such a long time for the Tories to come to the realization of anything, to begin with. They did not realize that they needed rent review until they realized they were going to lose the election, so they put in a partial rent review process. Then it took a long time for them to understand that there is a recession. Poor Wilson could not pronounce the word.
When the NDP was in opposition, were they ever using the word. "We are in a recession." A couple of days after that, after 6 September, they could not pronounce the word "recession." They started saying: "We can't do anything because there is no money. Yes, we have a recession. We didn't really know there was a recession," although they had plainly written in An Agenda for People, "Ontario is now in a recession."
Yet after 6 September they would not admit to the fact that there was a recession, so there is a different strategy by which they approach things. They had the opportunity when they put their first bill in to attack and help and give the economy a kick so it can get up and go. This government did two things, as a matter of fact. By the time Bill 4 came in, the government gave the recession another kick down.
The kick that the economy needed to get up and assert itself, to make sure that we can live in the way that all the hardworking people of the province of Ontario want, it did not get. Now people are losing their homes, people are losing their businesses, and again this government's GST manual and the attack, the revolution, the revolt it is going to do is no revolt. They are going to war with a slingshot -- I do not think anybody even heard any sounds of any arms at all -- a catapult.
The government should look at it and say, "Can this help the economy?" Let us answer that for the government. It will not help. It will not help in any way. I urge the government to use the resources here, to look at the intelligence on this side of the House. We are offering them those resources. These members would not even offer their resources when they were on the other side. As a matter of fact, can members imagine that the now Minister of Financial Institutions would use that kind of resource?
Hon Mr Kormos: Go ahead and name them.
Mr Curling: I have named him, the minister of cowboy boots. I heard he got new ones. Then what did he do? He did not help. We have not heard a peep out of him yet and I am worried. I am extremely worried that really there are no plans, that this government has no plans and that therefore we are going nowhere with regard to the assault that we have coming before us.
1830
In order to understand how I feel about Bill 1, members have to understand why I came here. Why is it that I seek to be a member of Parliament, to be elected? It is so that I could hope to make some changes in this Legislature. I ran in 1985 because I thought that the community to which I belonged in Scarborough North was not properly represented. I respect the individual who was there for years, a great man, Tom Wells, a Conservative, but somehow he was out of touch with the reality of things. So I thought I would talk to the people and understand what their desires, their needs and their aspirations were all about. Then, in meetings and town hall meetings, I responded in the way that I think showed an understanding of their needs and they responded in the election of 1985 when they sent me here to represent them.
I know how difficult it is. l want to maybe give a word of advice to the new ones, because I was new. I am just five years older than they are in this House, those who are elected for the first time and those who are in cabinet for the first time. I know how difficult it is to speak out. But I want to say to the backbenchers, and I hope all the backbenchers are listening and I hope that the Minister of Financial Institutions is not distracting them, because this is good advice, this is sound advice: When they got here they wanted to speak out about the issues, but I know that the government would like to discipline them and say, "This is the party position."
This is all relevant to Bill 1, Mr Speaker. I know you may be concerned about what this has to do with Bill 1. It has a lot to do with Bill 1. It talks about representation of the cause and the revolt that we were going to get here. I want them to speak out on Bill 1, to speak out against it.
The fact is that if the members opposite said this is a good bill, then I am surprised.
Hon Mr Kormos: Why are you so negative?
Mr Curling: I know I am so negative. The member asked me, why am I so negative? I was waiting for this positive bill, Bill 1, that they have here. He feels I am negative towards the anticipation that there will be a positive bill coming into this House. I am negative and very upset and disappointed that they pulled the wool over my eyes for a couple of days. I said that. I told them all, as I said earlier on, that I thought they delayed coming to the House because they had a strategy. I was fooled by that.
I went and sat inside the caucus of the NDP and spoke to them independently. I spoke to the Solicitor General, a very nice man, but shallow in the sense of policies where he should have contributed. I would have hoped that the Solicitor General would have made his contribution. I have tried to read inside here that there is some input that he has made into Bill 1. I feel it is not there. He is too intelligent to know that his contribution is here.
I have spoken to many, many of the members over there. I am looking for their contribution. Let me tell members this: If the bureaucrats quickly wrote this Bill 1 for them, they should start reading it. Many members are talking and I know they have not read the bill. They should read the bill and then say to themselves, does this represent our constituencies? Is this what our constituencies are saying? If it is not -- well, I am sure it is not -- then they can speak out in caucus. They may not get into cabinet, but so what? They may not get to be parliamentary assistant, but so what?
The most important role that they have here is to represent their constituencies. They have to represent their constituencies in a manner so that they are proud of them. They want to hear them speak about the ridings they are from. They want to recognize themselves. They want to recognize that this member is representing me, my cause, my concern.
If they sit there and tell me that Bill I does that -- you cannot use the big-L word, but I think the big L will be there then -- they will not be representing them properly. They are not representing the people properly. It does not go anywhere, so therefore it does not reflect what their people in the ridings want to hear. I think they have a right to hear that.
Mr Speaker, you are concerned with what this has to do with my being elected to this House. You gave me that look, like, "Get back to Bill 1." That is Bill 1. I want you to understand that, because I know you are paying close attention, Mr Speaker, very close attention, just like the members here. It must be able to reflect your constituency. I know how busy you are, Mr Speaker, and that sometimes you do not get to your constituency as often as you would like to, but you do a hell of a good job still. So do the ministers here and the members there. I know your contribution in caucus and the members here in caucus lies in making sure that every bill -- private members' bills, all the bills -- reflects your constituency.
So I would urge the government -- here is their time -- to change the complexion of politics in this province. Gone are the days when you hang on to some sort of a party policy which you cannot find. Change that. People are asking for a different kind of representation these days, and they are asking for a simple representation. They are asking for representation about their concerns, not about pie-in-the-sky kind of socialist stuff, that we are all going to share all the cows and the milk and all that together. They will not represent their concerns.
I want to say to the government that the isms are gone today. The liberalism and the socialism and the conservatism are gone. It will come together as soon as they deal with the realities and the things that concern the people in their ridings.
My disappointment, my extreme disappointment with the bill is that it is the first bill, the signal of where the government wants to go and it is going nowhere. It is a great opportunity for me to speak in this House at length, and I intend to speak at length because -- it is advice I am giving to the members here -- speaking at length was not afforded to me as a minister. At times what happens is that one is so concentrated in the job that one has to do as a minister.
I am urging many of the backbenchers here to get up and speak. If they believe in it so much, they should get up and say so. They should get up and say, "I believe in it," but not just say, "I believe in this bill." I want them to point out in that bill where it reflects their constituencies.
I am nervous about the GST. I wonder if this is going to erode my disposable income, and I get more money than many of the people outside there in my pay. I am very worried because I can hardly afford the things I want today in maintaining and affording my children to go to university. There are two who are at university now. I am sure Deone and Nicole are wondering if Dad can afford that next year, because the GST has eroded that.
1840
They asked me after the election: "Dad, the Liberals have lost the election for the government. Do you think that things are going to be worse in this province?" I told them: "I have worked with these colleagues, the politicians, for the last five years. I strongly believe, regardless of party affiliations, that they believe in their province, that they believe in this country and that they will be fine representatives of the people. I have heard them. I do not believe everything that they say, but I think they will do a good job because they love their province."
I have known many of the ministers, the present ministers now, as friends. They are fathers and they are people who are concerned about this province. So I said to them, and to my son who has just started working, I said to Tyrone: "Fear not. All this ism doesn't bother me, the socialism and all that. They love this province and they'll do a fine job." I said to them, "Just watch out." They said to me: "But Dad, the GST is something that I'm worried about, with the books that I have to buy and all the services. I have to get a haircut. I've got to put more money on that." One of my daughters has two jobs in order to help at university, and my other daughter has one job, just to help us through. All of a sudden she felt that the GST is a percentage that can be knocked off her disposable income and my disposable income in order to put them through university. This is frightening.
At that time, as I told members, I was not concerned too much at all. I was confident that whoever would be the government would charge and get the message straight through to Ottawa, relieve some of the Liberal senators who have taken over and decided that they will put a stop to this GST in the best way they know. Did the NDP at all try any support of that? No. They did nothing, but I still had hope. I said that when they introduced this bill, all that would be solved.
Alas, I am saddened today to know that nothing has been done. Sneaking through this little bill. To say that this is the revolt: I did not feel it only for my heart, I felt it in my pocket and my two children's pockets that we were going to lose the battle of the GST. It could, as it is said, sock it to them. Maybe that is how members think the GST would be.
There is still hope. We have a couple of days more. If members listened to the Minister of National Revenue, he said: "Just get it in your head that it is here to stay. It will not go away. Tell the small business people to get on with their act, because the GST is here." It is the same way the NDP government is behaving. Before the bill is passed, they are behaving like it is law. Members saw that. They saw the behaviour of the Minister of Housing. They saw the behaviour of the Minister of Revenue here. It is almost as if it is law. It is not law. It is a bill that is passing through to be debated.
Then they get upset if we debate it. The House leader today -- Mr Speaker, you heard her -- said, "I thought there would be a couple of debates and then we'd move on." The audacity of her to feel that. I am sent here by the people of Scarborough North to debate this bill, to put their cause. She said: "Well, listen, I don't think we want three or four speakers or so. We just want three here and two here and two here and it's over. We move on to the next bill."
No. My colleague in Scarborough, my dear friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, knows the emotion that is out in Scarborough and knows that we will not stand for that. If members feel that he is the only one who feels that way, the entire caucus felt that way. They are lining up, waiting in the corridors to speak on this bill, to talk about where their constituents stand on this bill. For the honourable member, the House leader, to say that she thought this would be over and done with because they were elected -- as she said, she is not into any quick election. There is no hurry. There is no hurry to go home.
I know Christmas is going to come and they want to go home to their families so they want to end the House on the 20th. Do members know what? I am not even concerned about Christmas because I do not think that I am going to have a Christmas with the way they are behaving and the kind of bill that they are introducing here. I think they have destroyed my Christmas -- not mine, but they have destroyed Christmas for my kids and for many, many people in this province, because they have put their hope in them. They thought they were Santa Claus. I really never tried to believe in that fellow, but sometimes you hang your hopes up that somehow some saviour will come in. I thought that government at times would come in to assist, to support, in this onslaught that the federal government comes on with this goods and services tax.
We intend to debate this bill, every one of us. We will speak out about it, that this is not sufficient to lay on this revolt they talk about. My dear colleague the member for St George-St David was just completely destroyed when he heard some of the proposals there. I watched him, this man who was contributing so much to the province. We have to reassure him that somehow our debate may help, because behind all those stone faces over there, behind all these people who seem to be insensitive so suddenly -- as we know, they were the conscience of the people; the NDP were the conscience of the government. They cannot even have their own conscience now. They have lost all their conscience.
There were the people they would bring within the House each day, all the poor people, people who are homeless. Yes, I am hurt when I see all this happening in my province and my country, hurt to see all of that. My golly, I seem to be somehow bringing this home to them and I am not getting any response. We heard the response of the Minister of Housing. We heard the response of the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Financial Institutions; no sensitivity, no heart. They have no heart at all.
I am appealing to them and not only am I appealing to them; I am appealing for my daughters and my son and all the sons and daughters whose money is being eroded by this GST. They have an opportunity. They should not fuzz it off on to the federal people and pass the buck. We have a very rich province here, a province rich in minerals and resources. We can stand up and speak loudly.
They should not sit on the back bench there and feel that I cannot speak. I wonder if Uncle Bobby -- they all call each other by the first name, Mr Speaker, I am not at all violating any protocol in this House: "Call me Bob, my first name, because that brings home that I am listening and I am a part of it. I am a soul, a complete part of the human race." Then when I appeal to them, it shuts down.
From the position where I am standing I can see the members plainly and I get no emotion out of them. I hope that by the time I have completed at a quarter to 12 or so tonight, I will appeal to them that Bill 1 is important. It is important because it touches -- maybe that is why you were trying to find irrelevance there, Mr Speaker. There is great relevance. It really affects the pockets of everyone.
Imagine, Mr Speaker -- I am sure you do not -- I visit the barber very often and quite a few of my friends do. I am not praying to be less hairy, but the fact is that you go to the barber and then they are going to hit you with another tax on that. You read a book. Let me put this straight, why I feel that Bill 1 and the GST are a very regressive process. Members know very well that 25% of our adults here are functionally illiterate, and they know that this is a disgrace in this country. People must learn to read and write because it brings access to a better life, an opportunity for a better standard of living. If we go out and buy a book now -- wham, the GST socks it to us. Bill 1 does nothing about it, nothing. How can they be so insensitive as not to realize the impact this would have on people? They did absolutely nothing about it.
1850
I am extremely concerned. If there is something we can do -- we have suggested a way. We can put money in the pockets of the consumers; we started with that. The only babbling I hear over there all the time is to say we are putting tax upon a tax.
I want to move beyond that. I want them to set up a committee. Let's study this quickly, because they love studies. We have heard so many studies over there and they are good at that. I know they are good at pause, delays, moratoriums. They are good at those things: "Let's wait and see." I say this is urgent business. Let's put Bill 4 back a bit. Of course, it is urgent too, but this one is extremely urgent. The reason is that the federal people are driving ahead with the GST and we, as this big province that contributes most of the tax moneys that are collected, can make a great impression, a profound mark on the GST. But if we sit back and do things as we are doing today, nothing will happen.
I know how they feel over there as government members. They would like to speak out about this bill. They would like to say: "I disagree, and I would like to tell the minister and then quietly corner the Minister of Revenue from time to time and say: 'Madam Minister, this is a bad deal, but I can't say anything outside there. Don't tell Premier Bob I feel this way, but this is a bad bill and I'd like to put something in my bulletin in the community.'" The minister would say to them: "Before you do so, would you mind bringing it to me so I can vet it? We don't want to embarrass the government." But they will be embarrassed when they go back to the polls, when the people ask them what they have done. They cannot tell them that the minister told them it is working contrary to this bill.
I am telling them to speak out. If they do not want to speak in the House so that it is recorded in Hansard or recorded on TV, they should call the minister. I know a couple of them right now are speaking to her and saying to themselves that this is a bad bill. I know that right now the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is in deep conversation, saying: "Minimum wages are coming in. The GST is destroying our industry. I was given this wonderful ministry. I had great hopes I was going to turn this province into a place where people come; they would even need visas to come here," and then he said, "It is rapidly disappearing."
As I eavesdrop on his conversation right now, he is saying: "Madam Minister, help. Is this the way we could help the economy, the tourism industry? It is going down the drain, sliding down the hill, the slopes." When he was appointed -- and he was one of the most honest ministers over there; I commend him -- he said, "Listen, I don't know very much about tourism." He reminds me of myself in that when I was appointed Minister of Housing, I said, "I have a learning curve, and I want time to learn the process and deliver." My golly, there is evidence today of that, and I will go into it another day, about that wonderful Bill 51, the rent review process which they are trying to dismantle.
In his honesty, this Minister of Tourism and Recreation said, "Listen, I want to learn it." When I spoke to him he was excited. He thought he had died and gone to heaven. I would have felt the same way. If I were given the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, I would have said, "My golly, this is the way I would want to go if I had to go."
Then what happened? He saw Bill 1. This is what I was saying. He was in great ecstasy, and I am telling you why he is speaking to the Minister of Revenue today. He said: "All those dreams, and now it's a nightmare. I woke up and, my golly, I saw the dismantling of my ministry. They hit me with the minimum wage and then they came back with this GST, another hit from the side."
Then he said: "Help, Premier Bob. Speak to Madam Minister over there. She said we have to do it because we're going to bring in a bill that will drive a revolution. We're going to rebel against the GST."
And he returned to the tourist industry and said: "Hope is alive. I am back as the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and there is going to be a fine ministry once more, because my socialist government will bring in a bill on that first day." And they said, "Please get into the House quickly." I am sure they said that. "Please get into the House quickly, because we need something to help."
And, my golly, he waited and we waited. What came in? They were late coming into the House, as I said before, and this came in, destroyed the hopes again. That is why he is speaking today and sitting beside her and saying, "Madam Minister, this is not working."
I commend him for his boldness. Sometimes in cabinet he cannot even get to speak to her. I commend him for bringing this forward. I know he cannot write it in his constituency bulletin, but I commend him for bringing this forward to the Revenue minister: "Save tourism." There is one hope for saving tourism, and the minister can do it.
That is why, again, I am saying that we are here to help. Oppositions have strategies that will help the government. We make good, concrete, intelligent suggestions, but we will not take credit for them. I know that if we had had a good bill before, they would have introduced it and sat over there and applauded, just like the applause for all the other bills we had in the mill which they introduced. They think it is all their bill, and the people are saying, "What a government." It is okay. They were so generous, too, and so polite. Many times they stood up in the House and said, "This was a Liberal bill, and we want to commend the previous government for drafting this bill," as with the Police Services Act. Therefore, if we had done a Bill 1 for them, which would be a different bill on the GST, they would have introduced it. I am saying there is hope.
Behind me here, all 35 members -- and I am sure there are some good suggestions that come from the Tories; from time to time they suggest one or two things that are good -- can then present it to the government of the day and say, "Here is a revolution, a way we can attack the GST." There is hope.
1900
I tell them again; I am going to be precise. I will make available my office all day on Wednesdays. They can all drop in and I will get some of my colleagues to drop in so we can give them the ideas to redraft this bill. Sometimes it is more difficult to amend something that has gone bad. Let's pull back a bit. It can be done. They should just pull back the bill and then we will put our brilliant minds to assisting them.
Let me just advise them and the minister over there, because by the time we have done this bill properly it will be four years and they will be calling an election -- or being socialists they may not; they may postpone the election, which cannot be done. The fact is that by that time people would not know whether we had given any ideas to the bill or not. They can take full credit and say: "You know, we're very proud of this bill. We're the ones who organized this revolution and stopped the GST and we are proud."
The standing ovation my interim leader talked about, when the now Premier talked about the Constitution in such an eloquent manner that we all got up and applauded him -- we applauded him because he was making sense. When they do this thing properly we all will get up and applaud them for the wonderful work they have done, the great work they have done.
Mr Drainville: There's not going to be any applause, Alvin.
Mr Curling: The member is right. There will not be any applause, because they will not listen.
That brings me to the word "consultation." Just as an introduction, consultation, as the NDP has stated, is opening up the door and letting people who have never touched the powers before feel the power. "Touch me" -- like a preacher. 'Touch the radio, touch the TV, and you can always feel the healing power." They are asking everyone to come in because they want to have consultation on Bill 1. Where is the consultation? "Come in, because our platform is that these corridors were never open before to people. They were all shut out."
I was trying to think who these people were. It could not be the union people and OPSEU, because when I was a minister I invited all the Leo Gerards to come in and they gave me sound and good advice. When I was Minister of Housing many of the tenants came in and gave me very good advice.
I am asking now: Where is the consultation for Bill l? I realize that the rhetoric, or the "principles," as they call it in the throne speech -- I heard the Lieutenant Governor sit right where you are, Madam Speaker, and read in his deep voice that this is not only about principles but about realities. Where is the reality of consultation on Bill l? Where are these people coming in? Have we set up any process to have consultation? No. If that is so, I do not know about it. I have not seen one person called in. Maybe the minister could tell me if there was any consultation at all -- I have not seen any -- because we would like to hear. As the backbenchers there have been muted and are not speaking on behalf of their constituencies, maybe the constituents should come in and say, "These are my concerns in regard to Bill 1."
I do not want to speak for the other members out there, but if it is necessary I may do that, because if they are reneging on their job, copping out on the job -- I realize the Conservatives are concerned that I am going to speak longer. I am going to speak as long as I can, because I am disturbed that consultations were not done on this bill and also that the backbenchers are not speaking out, so I take the prerogative to speak for them. I can be chastised later on. They are not speaking, so someone has to speak for them.
I am very disturbed about the fact that we have not consulted the people on this bill, because it is extremely important that the people's views are heard. Who is being taxed? It is not just the 130 who are in this chamber. It is everyone, the almost nine million people in this province who are being taxed each day. They are the ones whose pockets have been burning. We can recall when a dollar was a dollar; today it is a loon. Therefore, it does not mean a lot these days because the value of it is gone, and gradually Bill 1 is doing that. It is taking away money, not putting in money. We want to put more money in the consumer's pocket. If we want to hear it solidly, if we want to know what the true thinking is, consultation is the way. We had also said as the government that we wanted consultation on all of our bills, and we did the best we could. Their first one: no consultation.
People are asking me: "What is this all about? When is this government going to speak to us? They're not speaking to us." I appeal to the members opposite to call their constituents in. I want them to read petitions here every day, saying their constituents would like to sit down and talk and they are concerned about Bill 1. I am not hearing that at all. They must be proactive, not go to sleep. They just got here, they have just been here a couple of weeks. There is a lot of work to be done. I think they should do this, their first one, right, but they have started off wrong.
I know you are not proud, Madam Speaker, that Bill 1 has not gone that way. I know you are committed, because not only are you the Speaker but also a member of Parliament. You are concerned, in your other hat, that consultation has not taken place. If that is the trend of this government, we are in for some very depressing times, for some isolation from the people. This government that is supposed to be for the people seems to be distancing itself because of its lack of consultation.
I am going to wrap up now by speaking for another hour or so to say there was no revolt. There will be no charge to attack the GST. They continue to dismantle this country with their policies. All the ministers here, whom the GST will have great impact on, should get together with the Minister of Revenue and speak to her, not only the affected ministers but all the backbenchers should do so. They should take my advice and take the advice of the members of the opposition here and consult and talk to them. They have some great ideas. I challenge them to do that. Do not be embarrassed about that. I think they will be better people for it, for learning from some of our experience.
Learn from us. Learn from me, as an individual who had just come into this House and realized what kind of role one has to play. They should talk to us. They should talk to their constituencies.
1910
I say that it is a sad day. I hope we can turn this around. It was a sad day when Bill I came in and the honourable House leader felt that was is not our prerogative to debate this in its entirety, to bring to the attention of the House the disappointment we have. It is a sad day when we in this House feel, as members of Parliament, that every bill that is introduced in here, whether a private or government bill, should be debated in its entirety and listened to and learned from.
I still have some hope, because I believe that these mothers and fathers and members of Parliament and grandmothers will be proud of the member for Victoria-Haliburton. Even if he has nothing to say, he should say it. We will find within that some sort of semblance of improving this bill. I am sure anything is better than Bill 1.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Questions and comments?
Mrs Marland: The last words of the member for Scarborough North were "Even if he has nothing to say, he should say it." I think we have just had one hour of that.
Mr Elston: He gets the last word.
Mrs Marland: Yes, I realize the member for Scarborough North has the last word, but I really feel it is unfortunate that we are going through this exercise simply because the Liberal Party, the former Liberal government, has totally reversed its position on this piece of legislation.
I think it is very significant that everyone in this House, even those members this evening who were not in the former House, the newly elected members, whom at this moment I would like personally to take the opportunity to congratulate on their election and welcome to the role of representing the people who chose them as their representatives -- regardless of the partisan political roles we are all bound to play in this House, to be elected is a very great privilege and honour that each one of us shares in a collegial manner.
Having said that, I think it is important that when we rise to speak in the House we are very careful that we do not trip over words that we may have said in a previous House. Certainly we know that the Liberal government was 100% behind putting the GST on goods and services in this province and then adding the provincial sales tax on top of it. Now they are speaking in opposition to that.
Mr Drainville: I have been known at some time in my life as a person of prayer, and as the honourable member from the Liberal Party was speaking a moment ago, I must say that in that long hour many prayers ran through my head. I thought of one in particular, "Would anyone save us from this flood of rhetorical verbiage?" but that quickly passed on to the realization that there is indeed a medicine that can help us, Dr Wilson's GST pills.
Mr Elston: It's out of order, props like that.
Mr Drainville: Oh, a prop is out of order.
Mrs Marland: Everybody does it. Go ahead.
Mr Drainville: Have the members ever seen them? The pill for every Canadian, best after 1 January 1991. It has a warning on it, though. It says, "It's the hardest pill to swallow," and, "GST pills will act safely and quickly to provide safe and temporary relief from the effects of overtaxation." I would like to leave some of these in the lobby across the way for the opposition members, particularly in the Liberal Party, so that they might take a few.
I would like to say one thing, though. It was very clear in the presentation by the member for the Liberal Party that what he was sure about was that there was no revolt. Well, we know that there is a revolt and we have seen the revolt in terms of the things that have been said in this House. We know we have tried our best to fight the federal government on this issue. We will continue to do so. We know that we have put forth this legislation because it is good legislation. It indicates that we will not tolerate the pursuing of a tax item that will be divisive to the country and that will lead to further hardship on the part of lower- and middle-income people.
In conclusion, let me just say that the member needs to get his facts straight.
Mr Elston: I just want to join in complimenting my colleague the member for Scarborough North on his presentation of material. I wanted to indicate quite clearly that while there are some people who are concerned, we are speaking on the GST because we opposed the tax and have said so with a hearty series of debates here spearheaded by Liberals. My colleague the member for Mississauga South has risen to talk about us not wanting the tax on the tax. My colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who at one time thanked heaven that he was a Liberal, now just prays that he will be again because, I can tell members, he is quickly losing any sense of direction from the Agenda for People that his party ran on in the summer of 1990.
You, Madam Speaker, probably remember the Agenda for People. You may have used it once or twice as a reference point to gain the odd vote in your great constituency.
This legislation, as has been well set out by my colleague the member for Scarborough North in his remarks, is a signal of a giveaway or a give-up by the NDP government. The fact that the member for Mississauga South has stood in her place and condemned us for saying that we do not want the tax on a tax is an indication that her party has not been able to find it in its heart of hearts to stand up and tell the people that it really does not support Brian Mulroney. In fact, their buddies and chums, who wish to have the opportunity to be appointed to perhaps another federal commission, or maybe become a judge or maybe join some august body there as Tories, do not want to say they do not support the GST. We freely say we do not support the GST. We freely admit that we wish to fight against it. We will freely and fully fight against the GST.
This bill represents the government's giveaway, the giving up, the striking of the flag that signalled its earlier drive to fight the GST.
Mr Hope: Just to put a little bit of clarity on some of the comments that were made, there is hope at Queen's Park. I just wanted to make sure that was straightened out.
The other part is that we are hearing the dramatized speeches that are prepared today when we have an important issue that is being faced by workers across this province, small merchants who are faced with this problem called the GST. They talk about why we sit here until midnight tonight. Then the Liberals have come forward saying: "Why don't we extend it for later on? It's retroactive. Let's cause more burden to the merchants who have to collect this and then we will go back on them later on, so they have to straighten this up."
This is an important issue and what we are seeing is the amount of Liberal mentality that is being implemented on this GST bill that we are trying to introduce, trying to help people. They say, "Where is the fight at?" Well, the fight begins when they start taking to the streets with the people and start indicating that the goods and services tax is an unfair tax.
I went through a number of campaigns and I had a hard time finding a red tie out there signing a GST ballot, opposing the GST or standing out on the mall corner with the GST ballots and helping us in a cause that we felt was very important, to try to send a clear message to the federal government that we wanted no part of the goods and services tax and that the goods and services tax was a bad tax.
But to sit here during this time and listen to some of the comments -- they say, "What is the NDP doing?" What are they doing? Are they out in their communities being an important voice in what is going on in this fight against the goods and services tax? I think that is what it says. The people are tired of lipservice in this House. What they want to see is people out on the streets supporting their cause, not talking to the media or the papers, but to be out there with them on the line fighting the goods and services tax.
1920
Mr Curling: If that is a clear message and Bill 1 is a clear message that they are against the GST, my golly, it is a little peep I am hearing. I cannot hear any message at all. I am surprised. As a matter of fact, the only positive thing I have seen happening here is that --
Mr Elston: They've come alive.
Mr Curling: Yes, I have woken them up. They will start thinking now and I am glad. As I said to them, whether they are for it or against it, it is all right. Let them just say something and do not just sit there and oh, oh all the time.
My colleague the member for Mississauga South commented about some of the things I had said. Although she was not here, she seemed to understand it all. But I want to say that we stand very firmly and clearly against the GST. We are saying that we stand to help the government to draft a law, as a herald saying that we are against GST and that this is the strategy. We are here to help and I am going to give that invitation out over and over. We are out there.
The problem with the government over there is that he went around. He said he was looking for a red tie. Red ties do not speak. We speak to people. Let them stop speaking to red ties. Let them speak to people, like we have done. That is not the situation that is happening here. As long as members are here, they will hear the position that we are taking against the GST. I want to encourage all members to continue to speak out. I think they are doing a good job, whether they are for it or against it, but let us hear them. That is what they are elected to do.
Let them stop sitting on the back bench there, all being muzzled by the ministers and by the Premier. Let them speak out and then we can work within that line. If there is some sort of semblance of facts or some important stuff coming out, we will find it. We will put it together for them.
Mr Chiarelli: First of all, I am sure there are a number of people at home watching this on television, wondering whether this is a replay or whether we are live. I just want to reassure them that we are on live tonight from the provincial Legislature.
I am sure the question comes up, particularly for regular viewers, why are we sitting in the evening? I want to try to put that in a bit of historical perspective. We are talking about Bill 1, the first bill introduced by this New Democratic government in the 35th Parliament. To put it in historical perspective, I particularly want to bring the member for Hamilton Mountain back to 1985. I believe he was here at that time. There are about 21 or 22 members of the government here tonight in the Legislature. I think it is important that they realize what is happening now in this third week of the 35th Parliament.
If we go back to 1985, members will recall that Frank Miller was the short-term Premier. He came back into the Legislature and after three or four weeks he was defeated. His throne speech was defeated. At that point the NDP and the Liberals got together and formed, basically by agreement, the Liberal minority government. At that time there was a so-called accord, an NDP-Liberal accord.
What happened in a very short time frame was that the NDP and the Liberals sat down to intense negotiations and determined an agenda for the people. They wrote it down and agreed to it. Within three weeks from that agenda for the people, the Liberal cabinet was in place and the Legislature was reconvened. I am sure the member for Hamilton Mountain will recall that.
At that point in time we will also recall, to put things in historical perspective, that for the first bill of a new Parliament the new government came in with a $2.5-billion deficit. There was no recession at that time. While there was no recession, there was a preceding period of 10 years in which there was almost no capital spending by the previous Conservative government and very little committed to new programming.
In fact, in 1984 the Ministry of the Environment had reduced its budget, and capital spending for the whole educational system in 1984 with the Tory government was $75 million, so while we did not have a recession to deal with, we did have many years of underfunding and we came in with a $2.5-billion deficit. That is in 1985 dollars.
We look at what happened this time. This time, on 6 September at 9 o'clock, 10 o'clock at night, a lot of people were quite shocked and quite surprised. I am sure a lot of members on the other side were surprised that they were forming a majority government.
Mr Charlton: Probably a few over there too.
Mr Chiarelli: There were a few over here too, and a lot of people out there across the province. I am not questioning the decision that the people of Ontario made, but I am going to say that a lot of people wanted to know why it happened.
I think there was a common trend or thread through the assessment of the 6 September election, and that is that people were tired of the so-called old politics. There was a tremendous amount of cynicism and people said it was at every level: municipal, provincial, particularly federal. They wanted a government that was clean, that was going to live by its commitments, by its word and by its promises.
The new government proceeded slowly. As I mentioned, in 1985 in a minority situation, the Liberal government was able to put a cabinet in place and negotiate an agenda within three weeks. In this particular instance, the government waited some two and a half months to reconvene Parliament. We are now in the third week on a fixed calendar and they are saying, "Why do you want to debate?" They are saying, "Why won't you let us get our agenda through?" In fact, today in the third week they moved a motion to have evening sittings because they feel we are taking too much time debating.
I think the debate is important, and I think the debate is important on Bill 1. The debate really puts in focus the priorities, the commitment and the integrity that people expected of this new government, the integrity that people voted for when they voted for a change.
I want to refer to the speech from the throne. I am going to quote from it: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist."
I want to repeat that first sentence again: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario." In that election campaign the new Premier made some promises. One of the promises was that he would lead a tax revolt against the GST. I ask the members opposite, what do those words mean? We are now dealing with Bill 1, which is a New Democratic Party government bill to harmonize the retail sales tax with the GST.
The members opposite will say: "It's very similar to a bill that you brought into the Legislature. You should be agreeing with us because it's close to the bill that the then Treasurer, Bob Nixon, introduced." They miss the point. The point is that this government came in on the basis of integrity and asking the people to trust it to make a commitment and respect its promises. One of the key promises, everyone across there will agree, is that they would lead a taxpayers' revolt against the GST. Well, it is not there. The people across this province, particularly small business people and people with limited incomes, want relief. What do they see in Bill l? Bill l is very symbolic. Bill 1 does not give them relief from the GST. It does not give them relief from the hardships of the recession.
1930
I do want, first of all, to comment on our critic, the member for Ottawa-Rideau. She looked at Bill l in some detail, section by section, clause by clause. I think she made a very good case that the details of Bill l really were a breach of the election promise of the NDP government.
I want to put it in a little different perspective. I want to look at the rationale for Bill 1, this harmonizing GST bill, why this particular bill should be Bill 1 when the people of Ontario were expecting a lot more. What should have been Bill l? I am going to make a few suggestions on how a different Bill l could have helped very significantly a lot of people in this province and a lot of people who are looking for economic relief. I am thinking of such things as the NDP promise on Sunday shopping. The NDP made a very clear, specific promise that it would introduce a bill to create a common pause day before Christmas. They cannot deny they made the promise. They have to admit that at this time, they have not honoured that promise. The Attorney General is going to say that --
Ms S. Murdock: This is a debate on Bill l.
Mr Chiarelli: It relates to the GST because we are talking about what Bill l does or does not do for the pocketbooks of small business people. I am going to relate it to the Sunday shopping promise and the rationale why Bill l could have been otherwise.
We look at Sunday shopping as a promise. We look at what the NDP said Sunday shopping is doing to the small business person across this province. They said it was going to create a significant hardship. They had the opportunity to create a taxpayer revolt on GST to help the small business person, and they did not do it. They had the opportunity to do it on Sunday shopping, but claimed they could not do it. The Attorney General, the member for Rainy River, said: "We really couldn't do anything because of the court challenge. We have to wait for the court challenge." I want to relate that excuse to something that occurred in the last Parliament.
In the last Parliament I introduced a bill dealing with the abolition of the "notwithstanding" clause in Canada's Constitution. That bill was debated in this Parliament. The then Leader of the Opposition --
Mrs Marland: On a point of order. Madam Speaker: I did not stand on a point of order when the member for Ottawa West started on the Sunday shopping issue. I thought I would let it go by. Now he is on the constitutional debate and areas surrounding that. I do feel, in fairness to all of us who are being subjected to sitting this evening to speak on Bill l, that the speaker should in fact speak to Bill l.
Mr Chiarelli: I respect the comments of the member for Mississauga South. I assure you, Madam Speaker, that there is a connection. It is a point that the members opposite want to deny me, as a member on behalf of my constituents, from talking about what really should be done in this Legislature in terms of legislative priorities and what the real Bill 1 should be. I am talking about how Bill 1 does not help small business people, as those members promised, and I am talking about what the true Bill 1 should be. I am going to continue in that vein --
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I have been in the House for a little while; I was out and had an apple for dinner as everybody would like me to have. In the course of running debates it is customary -- in fact, it is a requirement of the Legislative Assembly -- to have either the parliamentary assistant or the minister sitting in his or her place. Neither is here and has not been here for some time.
Mr Chiarelli: I would make another point; that is, that this is a tax bill. The tradition of the parliamentary system is that particularly on a budget matter or a tax bill there is more leeway given to the type of debate than would customarily be allowed in the debate. So I am going to continue to point out why Bill l is the wrong bill to have started this 35th Legislature, that the small business people have not been well served by this Bill l and that they could have been much better served by a Bill l that addressed some real concerns that small business people have across this province. That is very relevant to the GST, because small business people are really being hit. They are being hit by the recession and by the GST.
Everyone on the other side acknowledges that they are being hit by a whole host of issues, so I want to say that they did have the option to bring in legislation to help small business people on the question of Sunday shopping or on a constitutional point. It is very relevant. The then Leader of the Opposition, now Premier, participated in that debate. I think it is very important that we understand what his position was at that point: His position was that he was prepared to use the "notwithstanding" clause to override any court case based on the Charter of Rights. The court case dealing with Sunday shopping was based on the charter. This Premier and this Attorney General could have walked in here on the first day and used the "notwithstanding" clause to introduce a common pause day to help small business people in a way --
The Acting Speaker: I have brought the honourable member back to Bill l on at least two if not three occasions by indicating that debate should be on Bill l. I do not want to have to stand like a schoolteacher and remind the member, so would he please talk on Bill l at this time?
Mr Chiarelli: I will talk on Bill l, Madam Speaker. I want to say with respect, having been in this Legislature for three years, that you are giving much less latitude than any of the other Speakers, Deputy Speakers and persons in the chair have done. I am going to do my best to stay within the confines of Bill l. I say that this is Bill l, there is a principle underlying it, there is a reason why it was introduced in the House and I think it is perfectly in line for me to talk about the rationale of this bill being introduced and why other bills could have been introduced to deal with some of the people who are supposed to be protected by Bill 1, namely, the small business person. So I do want to take exception to your ruling.
I will use my best efforts to stay within the confines of the legislation because small business people are very concerned about the GST. Small business people are very concerned about the recession. Small business people are very concerned about a whole series of issues which are making it very difficult for these hardworking people to make ends meet. I think it is very relevant for me as the member for Ottawa West to stand up and talk about what legislation should be here to address that, including Bill 1, and to discuss what a Bill 1 should include at this point for the NDP government to honour its commitments.
1940
I do want to say once again that in order to help small business people and in order to keep an election promise, the Premier could very easily have introduced a Bill 1 to help small business people to create a common pause day. He could have done that by using the "notwithstanding" clause. He is on record as being in favour of using the "notwithstanding" clause to overrule the charter. Bill 1, in terms of helping small business people, missed the point.
I do want to get a little more specific in terms of small business people and the whole area of tourism. I represent an area, the region of Ottawa-Carleton, that is very dependent on the tourism industry. We have in this bill a section that indicates that the government is going to harmonize some tourism rebates with the federal legislation by regulation. We have the opportunity to create certainty for small business people and tourism operators. We have an opportunity to create certainty for the people in my community who depend on the tourism industry. In that regard, I want to refer to how important tourism is and how important a tax revolt against the GST, as the NDP promised, is to the small business people in my community. That is very much to the point.
In my area of Ottawa-Carleton, the tourism industry in Ottawa provides 27,000 jobs. Tourists spend $460 million each year in Ottawa. The above figure is multiplied two times in economic spinoff. There were four million visitors to Ottawa in 1988-89. This figure will drop off more this year. Tourism is down everywhere in North America because of the recession, and the fears that are there because of the GST are absolutely tremendous. As a matter of fact, representatives of the Ottawa tourist bureau have indicated that the GST will murder us. It is very relevant.
In this bill, the Minister of Revenue had the opportunity to create certainty, to bring in specific legislation that would tell the small business people exactly what is going to happen. At this time, she is governing by regulation and we have not seen the regulations.
In terms of the GST and what it is doing in another part of the province: I was informed today with respect to the Windsor area. It is very significant that Chrysler Canada and Hiram Walker --
An hon member: That's no small business.
Mr Chiarelli: That is not small business but it does represent a lot of jobs for small business, which I am going to get to.
Chrysler Canada has started a policy of using travel agencies in Detroit because of the GST. Hiram Walker has done the same thing. My understanding from my information today is that there are layoffs in the travel industry in the Windsor area because major users are purchasing their travel tickets from travel agencies in Detroit. A lot of travel emanates out of Detroit by Canadian business, and they are now using American travel agencies to avoid the GST.
So I say to this New Democratic government, which is very sensitive to the loss of jobs in Windsor, that it promised it was going to lead a revolt against the GST. The revolt has not happened. What they have done, basically, is bring in a bill that says: "The GST is going to happen. All we will do is pass a bill to harmonize with it." To their credit, in a sense we had a bill similar to that which the former Treasurer was going to introduce, but he was not on record in the campaign as saying he would lead a taxpayers' revolt.
Let's look once again at the words in the speech from the throne: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario." There was a tremendous change in this Legislature on 6 September. That change took place because people thought they might be electing a government that would keep its promises. Bill 1, the first bill introduced, is a breach of a promise.
What did they do to try to claim that they led a taxpayers' revolt? They went to the Ministry of the Attorney General and said to one of their lawyers, "Would you please join that court case over there?" Yes, the same as they are doing with pension reform. They take a lawyer off a case and say: "We've honoured our commitment. We made a promise to do pension reform." What does the Premier do? He comes into the House and says with respect to the Ontario Hospital Association case, "We're pulling the Ontario lawyer off it." If the Ontario Hospital Association were to win that case and take a surplus holiday, what has the government done? Nothing. Tokenism.
In this particular instance on the GST, they did not pull a lawyer off a case; they put a lawyer on a case. Some revolt -- playing chess pieces with a couple of Attorney General lawyers. They expect the people of Ontario to think of that as being reform in the case of pensions, or in the case of GST to be leading a revolt.
The reality of the situation is that we had the free trade debate. In the free trade debate the then Premier was going to take on the federal government and fight free trade. Some of the rules changed in terms of the subject matter of the agreement, so we lost provincial jurisdiction in the free trade debate. It ended up that the Premier, having made a promise, had the ground taken out from under him in terms of the subject matter, so there was very little that could be done in practicality to fight free trade.
But this Premier promised to lead a taxpayers' revolt against the GST. What has he done? He has simply gone to the Ministry of the Attorney General and put a lawyer on an existing case. What else has he done? Zero. Some revolt.
Can I ask the members opposite: What does leading a taxpayers' revolt against the GST mean? What does it mean? Does it mean I get elected and forget about it?
An hon member: It means not electing a Liberal.
Mr Chiarelli: One of the members opposite said it means not electing a Liberal. So the people did not elect Liberals. So now what do they do with their promise? That is point one. What is point two? What is the second stage? I do not hear any answers. What does it mean, leading a taxpayers' revolt against the GST? In the election campaign their leader said, and I want to go back to the throne speech: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario." The halo is gone. The first bill that is introduced is a breach of promise.
I also want to talk about the GST in another context. Once again, it has to do with the symbolic nature of Bill 1 being the first bill introduced in this Legislature. It also has to do with the government's throne speech commitment: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario." We know that in the election campaign a number of things were said, and one of the things said by the leader of the New Democratic Party -- I am going to try to find the exact quote here if I can; yes, the quote from some of the news media was: "NDP leader calls Premier Peterson a liar." Have members ever heard that? Of course they have. It is a headline.
1950
Mr Perruzza: Is it true?
Mr Chiarelli: An NDP member says "it is true" in this House. Madam Speaker, is that appropriate?
Mrs Marland: Because it was true.
Mr Chiarelli: In any case, there is a double standard obviously developing here. Where is the integrity?
Now, why did the media say, "NDP leader calls Premier Peterson a liar"? He called him a liar because he supposedly broke an election promise.
What do we have here in Bill l? We have an election promise which has been broken. Does that give us licence to use the same language? How come in the space of three weeks, pre-election, post-election, that type of language used by one person against another person is legitimate because he broke an election promise, yet now we want a kinder and gentler Legislature? We have a broken promise.
I ask you again, Madam Speaker, can I walk outside these doors now and create integrity in government, as the throne speech says, by using that type of language? Has the Premier turned a new leaf in his book? Is he now saying, "Well, I'm the Premier and, okay guys, put the white gloves on because we are going to use proper language and we are going to have a kinder, gentler Legislature."
Let's look. We look at the promise of leading a taxpayers' revolt, which by Bill 1 did not happen. It is just the opposite. If we look at the statements from the Minister of Revenue, she says: "We are going to harmonize. We want to do this to make it comply with the goods and services tax that is coming in." Is that a revolt?
This bill is probably a good bill. That is not the point. The point is this government came in, these members came in on integrity and honesty, and Bill 1, very symbolically the very first one, is a breach of an election promise. That is important to the people of Ontario. It is important to the people of Ontario to realize that the halo is off, that the goody two-shoes on the other side are carrying on in government like all other governments and they are not so special. The people in the back benches know that because they are in caucus now and they are being told: "We can't do this now. I know we promised it. We'll have to do it later. We'll have to consult."
Oh, so what about Sunday shopping? "I know we promised a bill before Christmas to help small business people, but we cannot do it."
Mr White: Point of order.
Mr Chiarelli: Madam Speaker, do you want me to give the statements to the member? He is going to say that I am straying and I am not talking about Bill 1. We know the point of order, and Madam Speaker, I am going to say to you that by reference, two or three or four sentences to relate something to Bill l is totally appropriate and I am going to continue to do it because these people on the other side do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear that in point of fact they are breaking their election promises, including Bill 1.
Mr White: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member refers again to an issue which is not under debate and very clearly he just indicated that he has no intention of desisting from that. Under standing order 15(a), you have the right to request him to desist.
The Acting Speaker: I have been listening to him. I find he is staying within the guidelines we have asked him to stay within. He does refer to Bill 1, and I am letting him talk. If I find that he is not staying within the guidelines that I have asked him to stay within then I will call him to order.
Interjection.
Mr Chiarelli: I find it rather humorous. People at home might want to know that the Treasurer is now in and he says he finds it rather humorous that the Liberals can take any position on any issue. I want to say that one of the biggest issues facing the people of Ontario is integrity in government, and integrity in government means living by your promises, including the issue of the promise of the New Democratic Party to lead a taxpayers' revolt on the GST.
I did want to refer to that broken promise point again, and I was rudely interrupted, so I want to get back into my train of thought. I was indicating that in the election campaign the then leader of the New Democratic Party, now Premier, indicated that for breach of a promise he called Premier Peterson a liar. I was trying to relate that to the present Bill 1, which by all objective accounts represents a very significant breach of promise on the part of the New Democratic Party to lead a revolt against the GST.
Madam Speaker, I can see you are rolling your eyes and making faces, thinking that I am not on point. With respect, I am on point. I am talking about Bill 1, and as long as I am referring to Bill 1 I am on point. As you are well aware, body language says a lot. I am trying to tell the people at home what the body language of the Speaker is. She is showing impatience with my referring to the broken promise of the New Democratic Party. I think perhaps she is reacting slightly to the people on the other side, who are a little concerned about being reminded of their, I guess, mortality, fallibility, call it what you want.
[Applause]
Mr Chiarelli: That is the biggest ovation I have had in the last year. Thank you very much.
Interjection.
Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, I noted your remark that the Acting Speaker is doing a good job. I think she is too, and we have a lot of respect for the people who sit in the chair, although we frequently might disagree with some of their rulings or some of their comments.
I was talking about Bill 1, and again, I do want to say to the people who may be watching at home that this is really live from the provincial Legislature. It is live because we are working on a motion by the New Democratic government to have evening sittings so that enough people from our caucus can debate on a bill which we feel is very important. That bill is Bill 1.
Bill 1 is a bill introduced by the Minister of Revenue of the New Democratic government which basically says, "We want to harmonize the retail sales tax in certain ways with the GST." I do want to say for people who may have just tuned in that in the last election campaign the New Democratic Party, including the Premier, made a promise that it would lead a taxpayers' revolt against the GST. I have been trying to find out how Bill 1 in any way reflects that election promise. I have asked the members opposite to try to indicate to me how anything that this government has done represents in any way, shape or form a revolt against the GST. In fact, it does just the opposite. It looks at the GST as a fait accompli. It looks at how it can harmonize, and those are the exact words that the Minister of Revenue used when she introduced the legislation. I do want to find her specific quotes here and refer to them, if I can get my hands on them.
2000
Mr Perruzza: Take your time.
Mr Chiarelli: The members opposite gratefully said, "Take your time." I certainly appreciate that.
I have got the Hansard here from the Legislature on 5 December 1990. It is the comments introduced by the Minister of Revenue that I do want to refer to. In particular she indicates, "Amendments in sections 2, 7, 9, 10 and 14 are for administrative purposes and bring retail sales tax into line with similar GST measures."
What does that really mean to the voters in Ontario? What does that mean when people reflect upon this government's promise in the election campaign to lead a taxpayer's revolt against the GST? And certainly what does it mean in terms of the throne speech promise, or commitment: "My government's first challenge is to earn the trust and respect of the people of Ontario. My government's integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve. Our task is to guard against institutional arrogance and the abuse of power wherever they exist"?
I do want to raise the question as to whether or not, in point of fact, when we look at an abuse of power --
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know in the procedural rules of the House there is a limit to the amount of reading that can be done when one is making a speech. Personally, I take exception to the fact that we are sitting tonight. Christmas Day is two weeks today. We are sitting here this evening legally under a procedural motion of the government which we supported in the interests of proceeding with the business of the House. I really thought that when we were going to be sitting here this evening we would be hearing innovative, refreshing argument from those members who wish to speak to Bill 1. I think at this point that the member for Ottawa West is not complying with the rules of the House by reading at length and, with respect, he has been off the subject of the bill a great deal of the one hour that he has been speaking.
The Speaker: No doubt all members are aware of the standing orders which prohibit extensive reading from printed material. There is, however, nothing in the rules with respect to being innovative or refreshing in your comments.
Mr Chiarelli: I will endeavour to be more innovative as we go along. I do want to mention to the member for Mississauga South, who with her intervention on a point of order -- first of all, I wish to thank her for the break. I had a chance to have a sip of water and refresh myself for a few seconds. But second, I think she has a lot of nerve when her federal party is introducing the GST and she will come in here and try to deny me the right to talk on the GST.
The members opposite, who are harmonizing provincial legislation with the GST, have an ally in the provincial Conservatives on this point. I want to say that we do not have any Conservatives in this House speaking to Bill 1, which is a bill which harmonizes with the GST, because they want the New Democratic Party to harmonize with the GST because they support the federal government on the GST.
Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I do not plan to sit here without taking exception to the comments of the member for Ottawa West in suggesting my motives for my comments. If he wishes to interpret my comments as that I am personally in favour of the GST, that is up to him. The reason the Conservative caucus is not speaking against this bill is that it supports it because this bill is not adding the tax on the tax. It is not saying that we support any of the tax.
The Speaker: No doubt all members are aware of the standing rules, which prevent members from imputing motives. On the other hand, sometimes it is the ear of the beholder that interprets comments and construes them to be imputing motives.
Mr Chiarelli: I do agree with the ruling and the principle not to impute motives, and if I did that to the member for Mississauga South, I apologize for that. But I do think it is worthy of comment to point out that the Conservatives are not debating this particular bill. I am not imputing a motive.
The statement was just made that they are opposed to the tax on a tax. That really gets us back on the point, because we are talking about the tax that is below, the GST. Tax on a tax? We are talking about the very coming into existence of that other tax, and we are talking about what people are trying to do in this country and this province to prevent that tax from coming into existence. That brings us right back to square one, which is that this government made a promise that it would lead a taxpayers' revolt against the GST.
I say to the members we would not have to worry about a tax on a tax if these people honoured their commitment to kill the GST. There would be no tax upon which to put another tax. I am saying, and I said before, the issue is not particularly the terms of this Bill 1. The issue is that Bill 1 has been introduced at all by this government which promised the people of Ontario that it would lead a taxpayers' revolt and this government which indicated that it was going to bring back integrity in government.
The member for Oxford indicated at one point "What about 6 September?" when I was referring to the historical context. I want to refer to the historical context again -- why Bill 1 was introduced, when it was introduced and why we are debating it here this evening. In 1985, as I indicated, the NDP and the Liberals formed a minority government and within three weeks they not only set out their agenda in written form but the Liberal minority government had introduced --
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have been listening to the member now for quite some time, and I certainly have been listening very attentively to what he has had to say with respect to this bill and with respect to some other matters as well. Although he makes some good points with respect to the legislation and with respect to the tax revolt that this government is leading in regard thereto, I have heard this argument once before and I understand that the standing orders stipulate that once a member repeats or rehashes the same argument over again, he should at that point cease debating and he should be sat in his place. He has made this argument already.
The Speaker: I appreciate the member's attempt to establish a point of order and certainly appreciate that you, like me and others, have been listening carefully. The member for Ottawa West.
2010
Mr Chiarelli: I will say to the member that the legislative process, the political process, can be very complicated and has a lot of dimensions. Statements that may exist in something like the speech from the throne can have a lot of implications and can be related to a lot of things. There is Bill 1 and the implications of the fact that it is the first bill and why it was introduced. Why we are debating it here tonight I think is very relevant.
I wanted to put it in historical perspective. In that regard, I want to say that I can sympathize with the government House leader who wants to get some legislation through before Christmas. I can sympathize with her that she might be impatient because some members on this side want to debate Bill 1 with some substance and some significance because it is the first bill. I think it is relevant that we are here scrambling for minutes and hours to get the legislation through. Again, we should look at the historical perspective as to why, in this third week of the 35th Parliament, we are confronting this time pressure that we have now.
In 1985 we had the minority government, the NDP-Liberal accord, which in three weeks put together an agenda to represent the commitments of those two parties. In three weeks a cabinet was in place. In three weeks the Legislature was convened. In three weeks the Liberal government, with the assistance of the New Democratic Party, was actively and vigorously legislating a reform agenda.
This government has waited two and a half months to convene the Legislature and put a cabinet together. Now it is saying to me, the member for Ottawa West, that I cannot come in here and debate, that I am wasting time. Shame on them all. They had the obligation to reconvene the Legislature. Why did they take two and a half months when they agreed -- the Treasurer is there -- in three weeks in 1985 to convene the Legislature with Premier Peterson, and start a reform agenda and introduce all kinds of legislation? They are backpedalling on their promises.
Hon Mr Laughren: This is part of it. Support this.
Mr Chiarelli: I will not support the breach of their own commitments in their speech from the throne. They called for integrity in government and the first bill they introduced is a breach of their promise. I am saying that for the people at home and to the Treasurer who is starting to banter with me.
Hon Mr Laughren: What do you think this is? If you support it, support this. Are you going to vote for it or not?
Mr Chiarelli: I say to the Treasurer that he should best look at his promise to lead a taxpayers' revolt against the GST, because he is well aware of the problems in Windsor that I referred to when he was not in this House a few minutes ago, which I will refer to again.
In Windsor, Chrysler, Hiram Walker and a number of other companies whose names I will have tomorrow, have indicated that they are now going to Detroit to make their travel plans. They are booking through Detroit. Travel agencies in Windsor are laying people off because of the GST. People are buying in Detroit because of the GST. I am saying to the Treasurer that he was party to the election promise to lead a revolt against the GST. What he is doing is harmonizing.
My goodness, we have to look at the words of the Minister of Revenue when she introduced the bill. She is harmonizing. She is saying, "We want our provincial legislation to harmonize with the GST." Admittedly, she is saying, "We do not want a tax on a tax," but the government said it would not have the other tax come in in the first place.
It is very important the people in Ontario understand that this particular government is on record in the election campaign as wanting to lead a taxpayers' revolt. I asked the members opposite to try to indicate to the people in Ontario where they can show one fact that has anything to do with leading a taxpayers' revolt.
It is very important, as I mentioned, because in the middle of the election campaign, some three or four months ago, we know that the Premier, at the start of the election campaign, called the former Premier, Mr Peterson, a liar. He called him a liar and the quotes are here. They are in the member for Brant-Haldimand's comments and debate and I have them here as well, quotes in the media, and nobody across there is even going to deny that the then Leader of the Opposition called the Premier a liar. He called him a liar because, according to the then Leader of the Opposition, now the now Premier, Premier Peterson had broken an election promise.
I ask the members opposite, because Bill 1 represents a breach of the promise to lead a taxpayers' revolt, does that give me licence to use the same language, either in this House or outside the House? No, it does not. I could walk outside this House and say it, but if I did say that, if I did call the Premier by that name outside the House, which maybe is acceptable outside but not in here, I would not be acting appropriately according to the new standards of the now Premier. If members look at his throne speech, he asks for integrity in government and he asks for this to be a kinder and gentler place.
How can we take him seriously? The people of Ontario, some 37%, elected a majority New Democratic Party government to honour its election promises. There is no question that the issue was cynicism in government. People wanted a new wave, a wave of honesty. They wanted their politicians to be forthright and to deal with issues in a way that people, voters, would appreciate.
It is so symbolic and it is so significant that the speech from the throne would say that the first challenge is integrity in government. Bill 1 is a breach of an election promise.
Hon Mr Farnan: What is your second point?
Mr Chiarelli: The Solicitor General asks what is my second point. My second point is that I can recall, as can the Solicitor General -- then the critic in opposition -- that he used to take his glasses off and look over his glasses at the opposition and harangue us. He used to be on his feet for two hours and three hours. He used to accuse us of breaking our promises and hurting the people of Ontario. The Solicitor General is now there as the leader of the orchestra for all the backbenchers, getting them to make points of order, to interrupt me, to break my train of thought, to prevent me from representing the people in my riding. People in Ottawa West --
Mr Hansen: What about Bill 1?
Mr Chiarelli: The comment across there is, "What about Bill l?" I am going to say, "What about Bill l?" I am going to talk directly to the senior citizens in Ottawa West, who are becoming informed as to what Bill l is. To those people in Ottawa West I want to say, what would you say if you really knew that the New Democratic Party government here at Queen's Park introduced Bill 1, which is a bill to harmonize the retail sales tax with the GST? A lot of senior citizens, many of them in my riding, are going to be hurting from the GST. I am going to tell members that the NDP doubled its vote in my riding in the last election.
Some hon members: Yea.
Mr Chiarelli: They can say yea and they can cheer and the people at home can hear the cheer. I will tell them why they did it. They thought they were getting rid of cynicism. They thought they were going to have a government and a Premier that lived up to their election promises. They have got the first bill, which is a breach of an election promise, and I, as member for Ottawa West, have an obligation to show those people what is happening here at Queen's Park. They will hear it and they will hear it time and time again. The backbenchers who are here for the first time will hear it on another bill from the Conservatives and they will hear it on other bills from the Liberals.
They are going to understand that they are fallible, that they are not angels from heaven. They have serious problems and they are not going to be able to honour their promises and their commitments and come clean with the people of Ontario. If they were to come forward and say, "We can't lead a taxpayers' revolt against the GST with Bill 1," people would have respect for them.
Mr Malkowski: Then you should practise what you preach.
Interjections.
Mr Chiarelli: Now they are saying they are just like all the other governments in the country. I say to them that this is not acceptable to the people of Ontario.
I want to say that the whip is really out for the NDP on this particular issue because we have a number of Liberals who want to speak tonight and we have a fairly big audience here tonight. They are obviously interested in Bill 1. I am sure that every one of them has read Bill 1. There are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11 --
Interjections.
The Speaker: There is quite an interesting rule in this House. While members are not permitted to make interjections, should they wish to make interjections, it must be from where they are seated.
Mr Mahoney: What is the Minister of Revenue doing? It is hard to make one from where you are not seated. Try that one. I am a ventriloquist, not a contortionist.
2020
Mr Chiarelli: I am happy that this lengthy debate is having a bit of levity. I am glad to see that the members opposite are starting to loosen up and enjoy themselves. I think they have probably come to the recognition that there are a lot of people out there who are interested in the GST and that what their Bill 1 does to the GST is nothing close to a taxpayers' revolt.
The honourable Minister of Revenue on 5 December introduced Bill 1. She mentioned among other things, and I am quoting from Hansard, "Visitors to our province will benefit from changes to the tourist rebate program on goods removed from Ontario and on transient accommodation to parallel the limits in the federal legislation."
My goodness, what could that possibly mean? This New Democratic government, the minister, a minister of the crown, some three weeks into the first Parliament they are governing over indicating "accommodation to parallel the limits in the federal legislation." To the people at home that means they are passing legislation to harmonize, to make it compatible with the GST. They are talking in particular about tourism, about visitors to our province.
There is a lot of uncertainty about the goods and services tax. What does this minister do and what does this government do? If members look at, I believe it is section 3 of the bill, it says, "We shall do it by regulation." They say on the one hand that they are going to introduce the bill as Bill 1 to create certainty and to harmonize. I am saying to all the people at home, how could this possibly help to alleviate the uncertainty when they say they are going to do this by regulation? There is no indication when the regulation will occur. It could be next week. It could be five weeks from now. Perhaps they are still wrestling with it. I think they are probably looking at how to make the retail sales tax more compatible with the GST.
In conclusion, and I am sure the members opposite will be happy to hear that I will be concluding soon, I want to say to the people in Ottawa-Carleton, to the many people, 27,000 jobs that rely on the tourism industry, that this government has demonstrated in its first bill that it is not honouring its promise of integrity and that it is not honouring the throne speech commitment to bring integrity in government. I am saying, what a hell of a way to start a new government -- Bill 1, a breach of a promise.
The Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Johnson: This is the first opportunity I have taken to rise to speak in the House and it has been with some reluctance because I have a little bit of difficulty dealing with some of the conversations that take place back and forth across the floor of this House. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your election, the first elected Speaker to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I would like to congratulate all the rest of those people who have been elected.
Having said that, the member for Ottawa West has reminded us tonight that we have a great audience here. I want to take advantage of that and tell the audience that is watching that with regard to Bill 1 -- I am not sure what relationship it has with regard to our war, our fight against the GST -- I want to let the people of Ontario know that it is the Liberals sitting on the other side of this House tonight who are demanding more time to speak about this bill. The option is theirs whether or not we speak at length or until midnight tonight or beyond that.
With regard to the integrity of the parties, the integrity of the Liberals or the integrity of the New Democrats, I think that they lost on their lack of integrity and so we see them licking their wounds right now. We won because we were perceived to have some integrity. I think our integrity is intact. In fact, the Liberals on the other side are still displaying their lack of integrity by the charade, if I may call it that, that we are experiencing tonight, where they really and truly have the option whether we debate this bill at length or not.
Mrs Marland: I know that when there was support by our party for the extension of the business hours of the House earlier today, it was our understanding that there was some relevant debate necessary on Bill 1. I also thought that the debate would have been relevant not only to the bill, but to the content of the bill.
We have had up to now -- it is now almost 8:30 -- two speakers. We have had the member for Scarborough North and we have had the member for Ottawa West, both of whom, ironically, at the end of this debate, I am sure as I am standing here tonight, two weeks before Christmas, will stand in this House and vote in favour of this bill. If these members are going to stand here and criticize the integrity of other members, be they on campaign trails with campaign promises or not, or the merits or demerits of the bill, personal integrity is where you stand in a debate and you speak either for or against a bill.
All we have heard from these two speakers tonight is a debate against the bill. We will be watching very closely to see how these members, who are making us sit for this evening sitting, will totally reverse their position when they vote. What is even more significant is that the position they will show when they vote is a total 180 degrees from the position of their party when they were the government a few short months ago.
Mr Hope: The question was asked, "Why we are here?" I am a new member here. I want to put clearly to the people who are watching this, who are probably wondering what is happening in this House today, that they are probably wondering what the content of this bill is. What this government is trying to do is put money into your pocket, not like the previous government which used to sit on this side of the House, which put money in one pocket and then took it out of the other.
What we are saying to the people is that we are trying to help. We are trying to do our best on this side, as the government. When we sit here and listen to the shows that are going on on the other side, the people are probably falling asleep. It is very important that we send the message out, no matter what double-talking is taking place on the other side of House, that the main issue of this whole bill is to put money into the pockets of the people of Ontario instead of putting it in and taking it out.
When people elected me to come to this House what they did not want was these long-winded speeches we have been hearing. What they want is the issues, and the issues are: "We're putting money in your pocket and we're doing it today. We want to make sure legislation is in there to protect you when the GST comes through, but we will help in trying to stop the GST within our limitations."
2031
Mr Duignan: I wish to remind the member for Ottawa West of the reason for Bill 1. The reason for Bill 1 was to break a Liberal promise and that promise was to tax the tax and gouge the taxpayers of this province of over $500 million. The purpose of this bill is to put that $500 million back into the pockets of the people of this province.
Mr Klopp: Some accusations were made by one honourable member that we are breaking a promise. I can remember in my conversations during the election that we said we would not tax the tax. In fact, about two or three weeks ago, business people in my riding, one in particular, asked, "Is your government going to come through on that promise to not tax the tax, because we're going to have to change our equipment around?" I said, "I believe we are, but we're going to have to wait because you never know what happens." Now this bill clearly came out that says we are not going to tax the tax and that was one of the promises we had; so I am firmly in favour of this motion.
Mr Jamison: I have a couple of comments to make from the comments that were made by the member for Ottawa West. He took us down memory lane, history. He took us back a little bit, and I would like to also take that stroll with him just for a couple of minutes. I would like to take him back to the campaign in 1987 when in fact certain things were said by the Premier of the province at that point in time that afterwards he had to renege on. What I would like to say is that we have remained consistent from our campaign. We have said all along that we are not going to tax the tax. This is what we are doing here. We have introduced a bill that simply does that.
By the way, just a few short weeks ago there was an election campaign. They put forward their position on the GST. They put forward their position on what should happen as far as the tax is concerned. We put forward our position. We were elected. We were very clear on the statements we made. They were also very clear on the statements they made. We have formed the government, we have introduced the bill and we have remained consistent and we will be seen as being so.
I have difficulty in understanding why the Liberal Party mounted a campaign against the GST that garnered 70,000 people by phone across this province. We garnered 1.2 million. Who is more serious about it?
Mr Chiarelli: I want to refer very quickly to an article that appeared in the 10 December issue of the Ottawa Citizen by Queen's Park reporter Chris Hall. The article is talking about the NDP government: "They're already thinking about re-election. That is why they are not proceeding with any of their own election promises." The article refers to historian Desmond Morton; I think members are all familiar with him. He is an NDPer. It goes on:
"Historian Desmond Morton, a long-time observer of Ontario politics, believes the NDP strategy is quite deliberate. Morton says, 'The experience of NDP governments in other provinces has shown there are two ways to proceed: the hell-bent approach taken by former BC Premier Dave Barrett or the slow and steady approach used in Manitoba by former Premier Ed Schreyer.'
"At the same time, Morton says the slow pace of reform is an indication New Democrats didn't plan sufficiently to have clear objectives from the outset."
That is why we have a Bill 1 that does not make any sense.
Mr Brown: Members will have to indulge me a little bit in that for the first time in three years I get to be on this side and get to speak. I sat on those benches over there for three years and listened to members speak through six hours of the evening. Once or twice I remember sitting all night and, I will say, that is a very interesting experience, very interesting.
We are here to speak about Bill 1 today and I think that is a very important bill that everyone in this House should participate in. We should hear everyone's views because this is important to the people of Ontario and has something to say about what government in this province and what politicians are about.
I can remember back to the summer of 1990, and I was not at the beach or boating or doing those wonderful things with the family. Presumably like every member of this House, I was going door to door and there was a rather unique phenomenon going on, strange, and only in the world of politics can this happen.
I and the New Democratic challenger both were trying to convince people we were more opposed to the GST. When you think about it, it is reasonably absurd. Who is more opposed? Both parties said they are opposed. There is no reason to doubt that both parties are opposed. When during the election campaign we collected a great number of signatures on a GST petition, my opponent was saying: "Well, these guys aren't for real; they don't oppose the GST. We would revolt. We would lead a revolt. Yes, we would revolt. We would make sure this tax does not happen." That is what they said.
Now I knew, and presumably they knew, that this was a matter within federal jurisdiction; this was a matter that the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada would deal with. We both knew that. The GST is a federal matter. That is what it is about. Yet we had this kind of smoke-and-mirrors flim-flam, the thing that discredits politicians more than anything, as we spoke about our opposition to the GST. I think all members will recall that.
What do we see here in the first bill from a New Democratic government, the people who were going to lead the revolt, who were going to circle Parliament Hill in their limousines, who were going to chain themselves to the Peace Tower and who were going to stop this? What are they going to do? They introduce a bill to harmonize Ontario's retail sales tax with the GST. Quite remarkable. Very remarkable.
In case some members do not recall what the bill actually is about, maybe I should refresh their memory. What it does is provide for a parallel structure to the GST in order to harmonize with the GST. That is what it does, and it does some other worthwhile things. It takes a look at the tourist rebate, which is important. It does some housekeeping things, which are important. It provides a little bit more money for the vendor, the retailer, the small businessman who has to adjust to the GST. Those are important, and a lot of those measures were in fact put forward by the former Treasurer. That is the way it is.
2040
What really are we talking about here? We are talking about smoke and mirrors. We are talking about a group that told the people of Ontario straightforwardly -- I have a quote here somewhere from the present Premier of the province -- "We are committed to making taxes fairer by saying from the beginning we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney GST." That is what the Premier said.
Even after the election, what does the Attorney General say? He says, "Fighting the GST is a major priority of this government." Wow, we are impressed. The province of Ontario sends a lawyer to join two other provinces in what is likely a very hopeless, lost action against the government of Canada.
I think the people will think that is revolt. And this is from a party that knows about revolting. This is a party that knows, and I respect them for it: "If there is a strong issue we know how to do that. We can chain ourselves to bulldozers. We can sit on roads. We can get ourselves arrested." That is what their party has said. That is what their party has done about issues they think are very important to them and to the people of Ontario.
So what is this? This is a harmonization of the GST to the provincial sales tax. I think it is significant in that the provincial sales tax has been levied at the retail level for almost 30 years. It would seem to me if the government wanted to have nothing whatever to do with the GST it would ignore it, it would do nothing; and if that increased the revenues of this province, then there is a way to fix that. It lowers the provincial sales tax. It is really simple.
My friend the Treasurer says this will save and put $500 million in the pockets of Ontarians. They can do the same thing by merely reducing the sales tax by 0.5%. That is what they can do. It does not take a harmonization measure. It does not take all this flim-flam. All they have to do is reduce the sales tax. I think that is what Liberals talked about in the last election campaign, only we thought that, given the recession, we should reduce it by 1%. It would put $500 million more into the pockets of Ontarians. That is what we were talking about.
We were not talking about taking steps to harmonize the GST. We did not want Son of GST, or GST 2, or the sequel. We thought the easiest thing for the Treasurer of Ontario to do was absolutely nothing if he disagreed with the GST. Simple -- maybe too simple for politics. I know that we politicians often like to confuse and baffle, but I think at the end of the day the people always see through that. They see what is really being done, and this is one of the great juggling acts.
It reminds me of what happened in this House just a couple of weeks ago. My friend the Minister of Northern Development stood in this House and she made a statement about this report called Concerns Regarding the Implications of the Recent Tax Measures for the Economies of the North. That is really important. Now what has she done about it? Nothing. Zero. Not a thing.
The minister had the report and she stood here and pointed out, "Northern manufacturers will face special challenges because transportation costs will be taxed under the GST." So what is she doing about it? Nothing. "The GST will also reduce demand for the northern tourism industry by raising the cost of visiting that part of our country." What is the Minister of Northern Development doing about that? Nothing. They bring in a bill to harmonize Ontario's taxes with the GST. It says municipalities, universities, hospitals and schools in the north will also bear higher overall costs because of the GST.
We are looking forward to the Treasurer bringing in his transfer payments some time in January or February, if he ever gets around to it.
Hon Mr Laughren: January. Come on now.
Mr Brown: Okay, January. It is usually November, but January is fine.
Is the Treasurer going to take into account the special costs built in by the GST for northern universities, schools and hospitals? We will be looking forward to seeing if he can accommodate those.
Hon Mr Laughren: Look forward to it, but don't hold your breath.
Mr Brown: He says, "Don't hold your breath." That is quite incredible.
The Minister of Northern Development says:
"The report further states that the impact of the GST on the costs of transportation, energy and housing in the north will be felt by every northern resident. The expenditures for transportation and energy are higher in the north and they will become more costly because of the GST."
I think that is particularly important because, as all Ontarians know, the GST is being applied to electricity rates for the first time on 1 January. I know in my constituency office one of the complaints I get most frequently is about the high cost of electricity. Many of my constituents heat with electricity. I know that is a no-no, that is not the way to do it, but the fact is that in rural areas where you cannot get natural gas, where even oil is difficult to get, your choice really is electricity.
The GST is going to increase costs for senior citizens on fixed incomes, for people with low incomes and for people on family benefits with small children. It is going to cost them remarkably more. What is the government of Ontario going to do to offset that? I do not think it is going to do a thing.
Mr Charlton: Ground-source heat pumps.
Mr Brown: The parliamentary assistant says, "ground-source heat pumps," and that is great. That is a really good idea. I understand it costs about $10,000 to put it in the ground. I understand there is a rebate from Ontario Hydro. I am not sure of the exact amount, but it is reasonably generous. But it is not something that people with low incomes can afford to put in. They cannot do that. Senior citizens cannot do that. The GST hits all those people.
What does the government's bill do? It harmonizes the GST to the provincial sales tax. People in Ontario have been taxed on tax since 1962, the year that the retail sales tax came in. This tax-on-tax business is not new. Nothing has changed. And guess what? After 1 January and this bill is law, they will still be taxed on tax because they are taxed on municipal tax. One may say, "Oh well, that doesn't count." Every time we buy something we pay a little bit of that municipal tax because the merchant has to pay it, he has to pay business tax, and it is passed through. The government is still taxing a tax. It always will be.
From my point of view, I think the approach the government should have taken, the reasonable approach, was to say: "The GST is a bad tax. We should not have had anything to do with it whatever. We should ignore the fact that it's there if we can't stop it." Ignore it if we cannot stop it. Do not change Ontario's rules. If there is a problem, lower the rate. That is what this government has done. That is what it has done essentially by paralleling the tax. I see no great advantage to what the government has done other than to harmonize its tax with the GST.
2050
I think we should talk for a minute about the $500 million in revenue that this government is forgoing. I think that is quite legitimate. But let's just think of some things in my area he could do with $500 million. The Treasurer and the Agenda for People talked about $200 million for economic development in the north every year. He talked about spending $100 million on Highway 17 every year. Yes, he could do a lot of that work with the $500 million. It would be good revenue. Now, he can make other choices, and obviously he has. That is fine.
Hon Mr Laughren: We didn't say that. You know I didn't say that.
Mr Brown: It is right in the Agenda for People -- $200 million each year for two years, $400 million for economic development in the north. It says $100 million for Highway 17, the Trans-Canada Highway.
Ms S. Murdock: Just the Trans-Canada. It doesn't say Highway 17.
Mr Brown: Okay, sorry, the Trans-Canada Highway each year till it is done -- $100 million.
Hon Mr Laughren: Are you opposed to that?
Mr Brown: I think it is a great idea and I am looking forward, as all northerners are, for the Treasurer to do that. As a matter of fact, I think one of the better places for him to do it, one of the better places for him to start with Highway 17 is in the Elliot Lake area along the north shore of Lake Huron. It is the perfect place. We have high unemployment. My constituents in Elliot Lake are suffering worse than in any place in this great province. We have lost 2,600 positions in Elliot Lake in the last three months. That is significant hardship for those people.
We have families in Elliot Lake who are split. The mother has stayed with the children, the father has gone off to find work. He sometimes gets home every weekend, sometimes it is every second weekend to come home. Families are in distress. Most people are wondering about what is going to happen in their future. Announcements by this government have not helped what their future might be, but they are very concerned.
One of the things the Treasurer could do in capital expenditures is to spend $100 million each year until he finishes Highway 17 between Espanola and, say, Iron Bridge. It would really help. There would be jobs for people. We really look forward to that.
Obviously the amount of money the Treasury takes in relates to the expenditures that it makes. I really have to talk about the Treasurer's statement for a moment, because revenue and expenditures obviously relate. One of the things that I am quite surprised at is there seems to be -- and the government has done a good job of this, of convincing the people that there is a $2.5-billion deficit in this province that was left from that heinous Liberal government that ran this place for five years.
The Treasurer opens up with his statement and he says there is going to be a $2.5-billion deficit. That is what the Treasurer says. I would ask the people of Ontario to look at the last page, where it says -- that is where he talks about his progressive and responsible measures -- they provide an additional $1.4 billion for jobs. Well, that may be a good thing. I am not saying it is not, but do the maths: $2.5 billion minus $1.4 billion means there is a $1.1-billion deficit. But then the Treasurer says: "Gee, we happen to get $500 million from those great feds. God, we didn't know that was coming. We didn't know that. So, Jesus, the deficit is about $600 million. Wow. Hey, we expect another $250 million, so now the deficit left by those big, bad Liberals is really $350 million." That is what we are talking about.
So we get this flim-flam. We got flim-flam about budget, we got flim-flam about tax measures, we got flimflam about revolt. I think in this age of cynicism about politicians, in this age of people not trusting government, we have to ask ourselves why. We find that people who should know, politicians, people who represent their folks here in the Legislature, should have the ability to make issues clear to people. They should not say, "We are going to have a revolt, we are going to stop this," when they know full well that is not in the realm of possibility.
I find much to commend in Bill 1. It is a rational bill doing rational things, some of them housekeeping, that need to be done. But on the other hand, what I find is very difficult, and it saddens me and I am disappointed, is that we have another broken promise by a government that was elected as the pillar of integrity, so to speak. I think that as we go out over the next four or five years that people are going to remember the broken promises. People are going to remember the flim-flam that was used in the Agenda for People, the promises that will not be kept, and indeed the promises that will be kept.
To the Treasurer, as a colleague of mine said the other day, "You know, the problem is not that you should keep all your promises -- everybody knows you cannot keep all your promises -- but keep the smart ones, not the dumb ones."
Hon Mr Philip: Oh, you mean keep our promises and not yours?
Mr Brown: On that question, I am kind of interested in the performance of the government so far in my own particular riding. Again, this relates directly to Bill I because it relates directly to revenue, which relates directly to expenditure. I understand that most of the promises, maybe not all, but most of the promises made by a Liberal regime in Elliot Lake -- a $10-million diversification fund, a commitment to a detox centre, a commitment to a road to Blind River, which I am sure will be funded --
Hon Mr Laughren: Ministry of Transportation, tell us about that. Tell us about that one.
Mr Brown: MTO, yes. We are having 50 jobs moved by the Ministry of Transportation to Elliot Lake, and we are very pleased about that, and we are looking for the 450 more that we expect to be coming.
In winding up my comments on this important measure, I want to say that my constituents are going to be most disappointed. They were looking for a government that was going to do what it said it was going to do. It was going to stop the GST, it was going to revolt, it was going to do things that people thought New Democrats really could do. But they found out that New Democrats have no interest in keeping their pledges, they have no interest in keeping their commitments, and therefore we are getting this flim-flam Bill 1 as a first measure.
Mr Hansen: I am a new member in this House, and I am very surprised that we are talking about Bill 1 tonight when we actually have not debated Bill 1 at all. We have talked all the way around it, with GST and everything else. Section 1 here, the amendment to paragraph 4 of section 1 of the act ensures that the proposed goods and services tax will be excluded from the calculation of the fair tax value on which the retail sales tax is paid. That is what we are talking about.
I have a letter here which my wife received just the other day. We have a business.
"A message to retailers on GST signs. Under the proposed goods and services tax -- GST -- legislation, retailers of goods and services will be able to choose between two pricing policies. The first option is to include the tax in the price, in which case you will be required to indicate this on your invoices or by posting signs visible to your customers."
This is what we have. Prices include 7% tax, or 7% GST will be added to the prices. The problem is, if we do not pass a bill like this, the people of Ontario are going to be paying more tax. What we are trying to do is protect them now and then fight the GST.
I am not going to talk for an hour on this, because the first thing we are doing -- we are the only province to date right now that has protected its citizens. If we take a look at the other provinces, they have not taken a move. Ontario is in the forefront of taking the first move with Bill 1 here.
2100
Mr Mills: Tonight I was planning on going and doing a bit of Christmas shopping, and I heard the news that we would be sitting here till midnight. I must say that I was excited to hear that, because I thought I would be sitting here tonight listening to some scintillating debate. I thought it would be a real inspiration to me to spend the evening and the late evening here listening to the experienced politicians.
I have been very sadly disappointed. When I went from door to door campaigning in August this year a number of people said to me: "We are not going to vote for anybody because we are fed up with the lot of you. We have got no confidence in you."
Tonight, when my honourable friends the member for Scarborough North, the member for Ottawa West and the member for Algoma-Manitoulin spoke such gibberish nonsense that does not make any sense to the people who are watching this show, I would just like to say that they have done nothing to generate more feeling among the people that next time around they will want to vote for politicians. They have done nothing to help that. I am sure that people look here and think the members are crazy, and I have got to agree with them.
Mr Sola: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and I would like to talk to the members of the government who are complaining about the lack of relevancy of the speeches from this side of the House.
Having sat in government for three years, I must say that my colleagues have taken as a role model the former members of the official opposition and of the third party. I must say they have been very bad students because there has been much more relevancy in the speeches of the members for Algoma-Manitoulin, Ottawa West and Scarborough North in their brief speeches here today than I heard in three years sitting in government from all the then opposition members combined. I must say that if they think this is bad, they should tune in some of the speeches of their colleagues on the front benches. If they have trouble going to sleep, they will certainly have no trouble after listening to them.
Hon Mr Farnan: What bill are you talking about?
Mr Sola: Any bill the honourable member wants to talk about, particularly the ones that he tried to explain, like Sunday shopping, where he went off on every tangent. At least our members kept referring back to Bill 1, kept referring back to the relevancy of Bill 1 to their constituency and the relevancy of Bill 1 to the people of Ontario at large. I would like to congratulate them once more for getting up and saying their piece. They must have been quite successful, especially the member for Ottawa West, who was interrupted numerous times for points of order because he was getting under the thin skin of the government.
Mr Sutherland: In an earlier speech the backbenchers of this side were accused of being silent. I just want to state for the record that we have not been silent and we are willing to speak on the issues, but we are only going to speak when there is something of relevance to speak about. For the people of this province who are watching on television right now live, I want to give them a piece of advice: If you think what you have heard in the last three hours is not relevant, then I want you to call Queen's Park tomorrow. I want you to call the office of the leader of the official opposition. I want you to call the members of the official opposition. Call their offices and tell them to stop wasting the people's time and wasting this House time.
The members of the opposition here have been complaining left and right. They have been complaining that they have not had enough time. They talk about how important these issues are, that they need lots of time to discuss them, and then when they get up and speak, what do they say? "Well, it is not an important bill. This is an irrelevant bill." The members of the opposition cannot make up their mind as to what they want. Is it important? Is it irrelevant? They should make up their minds. I mean, how much time do they need to speak about this bill?
Surely the members of the opposition, particularly the experienced ones, can make their points very succinctly and get their point across -- whether they support this bill, whether they oppose it, what is good about it; maybe, heaven forbid, even some constructive criticisms, but I do not know if we could expect any of those from the opposition. Surely the members of the opposition could get to the point very quickly and we could put this issue to rest and get on to some new business.
Mr Brown: I find this really passing strange. They talk about our not being relevant and yet all they do is criticize style. They do not speak at all about the measures that are in this bill. We have been waiting for the government to stand up, for the members on the back bench, the seals, to stand up and say, "Why, this is a good bill." We have been looking for the revolt. The members are revolting. They know how to do that. They really know how to do that. They should go chain themselves to bulldozers. They should go circle the Peace Tower. They should go do anything, but they should not tell the people of Ontario that this bill is revolution, because it is not. It is a harmonization bill, it is a bill to make the province's taxes work with the federal taxes.
The federal tax we are talking about is the GST, the wonderful GST that the member's constituents and mine do not seem remarkably pleased about. I tell the members they have to stand up and talk about substance. They have to quit the flim-flam, talking about style, talking about what the opposition might do. They have to start saying, "This is how the revolution is going to be. This is what we are going to do, this is how we are going to do it," and rather than having, in the bill, a section that says that this provincial measure will take effect on 1 January, the first day of the GST, the government will do something to stop the GST. If they cannot, they will stand up and tell the people of Ontario: "We had a little problem with our election promise. We did not mean it. It was just to get us elected."
Mr Phillips: I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the bill, and if the members opposite wonder why we are spending so much time on it, I think we do view it as an important bill. It is the first bill that the government has introduced. I think we have been looking at it as the signal of how the government does plan to fight the GST.
I think it is fair to say the government regards it as kind of the crown jewel in the fight against the GST. The GST, by all accounts, is likely going to come in on 1 January, so if the government is going to fight it, this is the bill that it is fighting it with. I think Mr Mulroney and the federal government will be looking at this as the first test of how the government is going to deal with the federal government. They are going to be looking at it as the test of how the government has led its tax revolt. I think Mr Mulroney will be frankly surprised at this bill for two reasons.
One is that it contains two major elements. The first, of course, is that the government is not planning to put the tax on the tax. There is a lot of merit in that, but it does cost the taxpayers of Ontario about $500 million a year, by the Treasurer's account. So I think they have taught Mulroney a real lesson. This is a real lesson to Mulroney. He introduces the GST and what is the response in terms of the tax revolt that they planned? The response is that the Treasurer now will have $500 million less in his Treasury.
2110
The second part of the bill that he will look at is that they are harmonizing the Ontario tax system with the GST. So they have acknowledged and they accept the GST and the Treasurer will now have $500 million less in the Treasury. I understand that.
Mulroney will be laughing at them. The tax revolt is nothing. This is their response to the GST, the crown jewel, as I say, and it is an extremely weak response. It is the first thing they have seen out of this provincial government on a major piece of federal legislation, in response to it.
When they all head home on the 20th and talk about the big fight that they have led on the GST, I think their constituents are going to be surprised when they ask them: "Well, how did the battle go? How did the big revolt go?" You're all exhausted now. What happened? Have you stopped the GST? Have you had any impact?"
No. They have done two things. They have passed Bill 1, which harmonizes the Ontario tax system with the GST. The second thing is that the Ontario Treasury will now have $500 million less than it had before. I think that when you position it that way, people will wonder about this amazing tax revolt that they promised during the election. I do not think there is any question about that.
The members opposite ask why we are spending the time on it. It is because they have said they will have a tax revolt. They have said this is their response to it. It is no response in terms of a tax revolt against the GST. Believe me, they are going to have a lot of difficulty explaining that to their constituents: "That was your tax revolt? I don't understand it. The Treasury has $500 million less now. We've harmonized with the GST. Where was the revolt?"
The second thing is that when we look at the Treasurer's economic forecast of a few days ago, we see that he is saying we are having substantial difficulty in funding some programs. There is $500 million now gone from the Treasury. We heard today a response to one of the questions in the House about, "Will we have a wage protection fund or not?" I was looking just recently at the statistics on layoffs. If members look at the layoffs since this government came in, 1 October, I have the layoffs here and they are substantial. Just for the month of October, and these are permanent layoffs, it is 1,970 people. If you look at the next three months, November, December and January, over 10,000 permanent layoffs in the province of Ontario will take place.
That is as many people who will be laid off permanently from manufacturing jobs in this province as their entire program of job creation. These are substantial challenges and yet we heard that the Minister of Labour does not have the funds for his wage protection fund that was promised by the Premier four weeks ago.
The reason I raise this is that I think we are going to find a series of groups that will come before this Legislature, come before the Treasurer, all desperately looking for help. The wage protection fund is but one. I think we will find that the Treasurer will be wrestling over the next few weeks with his grants to school boards, municipalities and hospitals and nurses, yet the response we see is that $500 million of revenue that previously had been planned for the Treasury is gone as a result of Mulroney bringing in the GST. So the tax revolt, the one that was designed to stop the GST, simply has not worked. What this bill represents is $500 million less in the Treasury of the province of Ontario.
Hon Mr Laughren: You were going to reduce the retail sales tax by $1 billion. Make up you mind.
Mr Phillips: I think what we will find, as the Treasurer looks at helping groups over the next few weeks, is that this money would be better spent in dealing with these groups. I think we also should look at the unemployment rates. The unemployment rates --
Interjections.
Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention standing order 20(b) which indicates, "When a member is speaking, no other member shall interrupt such member." We hear, on a regular basis, interruptions from the other side. This government has indicated that it is going to have a kinder and gentler Legislature. I think it should sit and listen. We have a very reasoned, rational discussion on Bill 1 by our member, and all we can hear are catcalls, including from the Treasurer, and I would ask the Treasurer and the members opposite --
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Thank you for your advice.
Mr Phillips: What I am pointing out to the members opposite is that as we look ahead over the next few months, believe me, the Treasurer will be saying to the members on the back bench, "We have no money." Some $500 million worth of revenue was planned as a result of this. I think there is some merit in the proposal, but that is $500 million that will not be available in the Treasury.
In January the hospitals, the school boards and the municipalities will be looking to the Treasurer for the grants. We look at nurses in this province, extremely deserving. I think the Premier has already made substantial commitments to the nurses. These will be funds that must be provided. The Treasurer has provided reassurance on that. But again it is revenue that we are now forgoing as a result of the GST coming in and the Treasurer's response to the GST. Far better that the revolt had taken place, that the actions the government promised during the campaign had taken place, rather than this particular response.
Again, I go back to the unemployment levels, which I think all of us now recognize are severe. The one that perhaps most concerns to me is the unemployment rate among young people. Certainly as I look at the October numbers -- I do not yet have the November numbers -- we have seen almost a 50% rise in unemployment rates among young people, and yet to date we have seen nothing in the job creation programs that the government has announced, 10,000 jobs, that would address this very critical need. These are funds a portion of which could have been available for dealing with youth unemployment.
We look down the Agenda for People and we see time after time postponement or study on commitments. There is one thing that I would have thought might have been appropriate in dealing with the Retail Sales Tax Act, seeing that the Premier announced the establishment of the Fair Tax Commission. I might have thought that this might have been one of those issues that could have been dealt with by that commission. Rather, we have taken one element of the tax system in Ontario and dealt with it in isolation, recognizing that the GST is coming, but this is an area the government has now predetermined, made the decision on and essentially taken that way from the Fair Tax Commission.
As I said before, I also feel that this particular element of the retail sales tax could have been considered by that Fair Tax Commission, could have been looked at within the total context of it. I might also say that the Fair Tax Commission could do with fine and well-defined terms of reference. I think that what we have seen to date is the announcement of the Fair Tax Commission, but without clear direction. I would have preferred that this could have been one thing that the Fair Tax Commission could have considered.
2120
I go back to the bill to say that there are two aspects of the bill. The reason I think we are so exercised about it is that we had fully expected this tax revolt. We fully expected that there was going to be energy expended by the government, in whatever form it had in mind, to delay or to kill the GST. Instead, as I say, the very first bill that they bring in is, as far as I can determine, the crown jewel in their fight against the GST.
Again, if you are the federal government, you say, "Well, what is the response by the provincial government to the actions we take?" Honestly, any objective analysis of this would say: "You haven't hurt Mulroney with this. You haven't made a big statement to the federal government, 'Don't do things to the people of Ontario that hurt the people of Ontario or we will take action that will have an impact on the federal government.'"
Rather, the government has done two things that I frankly think will encourage them in the future. The government has made the introduction of the GST easier for them and it has introduced legislation that harmonizes the GST. Both of those statements, I think, will in the end pave the way for the federal government's saying, "Perhaps we are dealing with a government here that is easy to deal with." As I say, both the responses on this bill would support that.
The challenge in the lost revenue -- I am glad that the Treasurer is here tonight -- is that there is no question the Treasurer is going to be under intense pressure over the next few weeks and few months. I think if he had to do it all over again, he might be looking and starting again, knowing all the numbers he has, wondering, "Is this a source of revenue we want to give up totally?"
The members are going to find here that there are going to be a number of extremely worthwhile projects that the Treasurer, the Premier and the government will find difficult to make decisions on. Certainly, as I said before, one I see coming right up is on the nurses of this province. They deserve an increase. They will be looking to the Treasurer for those funds and will be expecting them, frankly.
But that will not be the only thing: job creation, the government's 60% commitment to school boards and the whole area of dealing with workers who are impacted by those numbers that I outlined. Think about it. There will be 10,000 people permanently laid off in November, December and January in this province. It is already announced and planned, permanent layoffs, more than the total creation of the government's $700-million capital program. Yet as the Treasurer has told us, we are going to find that funds are scarce. The government may not be able to do the things it wants to do for those workers.
That is why we are debating Bill l. It is recognition that for the people of Ontario it does provide some relief from the GST, but we would have far preferred a different revolt, one that did not end up with this bill, which essentially is acquiescent to the federal government and penalizes the people of Ontario.
As I said before, I think the bill will simply create problems for the people of Ontario in terms of our relationship with the federal government. I think it will be a signal that this is a government that is easy to deal with, and the next big issue, unless there is a better response, I think will put the people of Ontario in jeopardy.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I appreciate the opportunity to get my views on the bill on the record, and to express to the backbenchers in particular that as they go back to their ridings and their constituencies on 20 December, and they ask: "Well, how did the tax revolt go? Has it been successful? Have you impacted the GST?" I would be embarrassed to say that was our response because it just penalizes the people of Ontario.
For the Treasurer, I think he will be looking ahead at his revenue sources with substantial pressure on him and this is one thing he has done that will reduce his revenue. Yes, the taxpayers benefit in the short term, but the people who are looking for services are going to be penalized in the longer term.
I am concerned that the government already is delaying and postponing many of the promises. It says it will still implement them over the life of the government, but many of the promises were to do them over the next two years. The people of Ontario are looking for that. The government now has less revenue to do that with.
As one of the previous members said, luckily it does appear that the revenue the government is getting from other sources is higher than it thought. I cannot tell from the statement of 4 December, but I guess we will know in more detail in the next few weeks. When the government releases its next quarterly report, we will know what the true revenue is. Luckily, it looks as if it is up substantially.
For this year, the government is able, as the Treasurer said before, to maintain the $2.5-billion deficit. I suspect it is a result of substantial increases in revenue that the previous Treasurer had originally thought would be there.
Hon Mr Laughren: It didn't show.
Mr Phillips: We will see. I will say that a little side bet might be that I might put more money on the previous Treasurer's estimate of revenue for this fiscal year than the one that the current Treasurer had in his October statement, just a little side bet.
Hon Mr Laughren: You're so partisan.
Mr Phillips: No, I will watch that because when the estimates were made about the deficit this year, it was that revenues were going to be down about $1 billion. We are watching that. We will see, I guess, at the end of the year when all the numbers are in and we look at what the revenue would have been with our budget. As I said, I will put a little side bet on it. I think we may find that the revenue the former Treasurer had estimated for the year might have been closer than the one the present Treasurer estimates.
Hon Mr Laughren: How about expenditures?
Mr Phillips: We are talking about how the $2.5-billion deficit was explained to the people of Ontario. It was explained as a $1-billion revenue shortfall. I would just suggest to the members on the back bench to keep an eye on that because treasurers have a way of saying that there is no money there, but watch carefully because at the yearend they may find there was more revenue there than the Treasurer had shown in October. I may be wrong but I will look forward to that.
The reason I raise that on the bill is that I believe that as a result of the Treasurer's move on this bill -- or the Minister of Revenue's, I should say -- the revenue this year will be down about $70 million as a result of the introduction of this bill and $500 million for next year.
Again, I appreciate the tough decisions one has to make, but as the members on the back bench look at the groups they have made those commitments to, and the Treasurer says there is no money, they should recognize that Bill 1 takes $500 million out of revenue. That is a decision the government wants to make and that is a decision it is making, but it will be a decision that members will have to answer for to a variety of groups that will say, "Was that the right approach?"
I realize the Treasurer made that decision several weeks ago, but now he is going to find that revenue is gone, and it is gone for ever. At the same time, over the next few weeks and months, all of these other commitments that the government has made will be at the door and will be looking for the response to the revenue that was lost as a result of Bill 1.
To conclude, the members opposite may wonder why we are spending the time on the bill. It is because the government introduced it as its first bill. It is very proud of this bill. It is its jewel in the fight against the GST. I would not want to hold it up, personally, as the way I took on Mulroney and won. Frankly, this government has not even begun to take him on. All it has really done is cost the people of Ontario substantial revenue and substantial challenges in terms of implementing its own agenda.
That is why we are talking on the bill. It is important to this party. It is important to the people of Ontario. I am pleased to have a chance to get my thoughts on it on the record.
2130
Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciated the comments of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt in his, as always, very reasoned and balanced approach to these matters, but I would like to remind him that while he stands in his place and criticizes us for taking $500 million out of revenues for the province -- and he is quite right, that means we have $500 million less with which we can cope with rising pressures on the system out there -- at the same time, it was his government that promised during the election campaign to lower the retail sales tax by 1%, which would be $1 billion out of revenues, not $500 million.
I think the member for Scarborough-Agincourt should be fair in that regard, as he usually is, and keep in mind that while he is criticizing us for reducing our revenues by $500 million, his government was going to reduce revenues by $1 billion. So I think, to be fair, he should keep that in mind.
He did mention one thing that I thought was most appropriate, and that was whether or not our Fair Tax Commission should be taking a look at the GST rather than us bringing in Bill l, which puts the retail sales tax beside the GST instead of on top of it. I think that is fair comment, and we hope the Fair Tax Commission will indeed look at the whole question of the GST in the province and how it fits in with taxes in Ontario.
On the other hand, I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that if we had not done this, if we had said we are going to put the retail sales tax on top of the GST, I suspect that he and others in his party would have been in their places, most vehemently, most aggressively and, quite frankly, most appropriately condemning us for living off the avails of a tax to which we were so adamantly opposed. And I think that he would have been right.
Mr Hope: As we have been sitting here most of the night, most of the backbenchers of the government are getting a well-educated course on how the Liberal government operated for the last two years and probably the last five years.
There are a lot of backbenchers who sit on the government side who are very vocal and very instrumental in what they do in their jobs and how they believe in representing the people of their constituencies. The unfortunate part is that viewers -- if there are any left -- who are watching this program must realize what the opposition is now trying to communicate across to this side is the whole strategy of their government when they were in government and how they were trying to put muzzles on people other than cabinet ministers. I must make clear that this is not the way this government will operate and I do not think any of the members will operate in that fashion.
I think it is very important that we are talking about an issue that is something a lot of us have dear to our hearts, that we have been out on the streets in many of our battles pursuing this. I am sure most of the members here would like to get up and make comments but, as we drag on to the extreme -- I guess -- boringness of the conversation dealing with the whole issue of the GST and how the Liberals are telling and educating the backbenchers of this government, I think it is important that we really move on and start addressing the whole issue. The whole issue is helping people to put money into their pockets, and helping people by understanding what the Liberals were doing in their program of lowering the tax and then piggybacking it, and then as they piggyback it, the GST will escalate and what they will be doing is taking more money from the Ontario people.
Mrs Marland: The member for Chatham-Kent, who just was on his feet, is right on one score. I am sure that anyone who might have been tuned in to channel 34 at this point would have found something superior to this debate. Maybe it is the TV listings or the weather channel, but anything at this point would be superior to the debate we are being subjected to by the extension of the hours of the House to sit tonight, except for the contributions of some members of the House and perhaps the singular member for the Progressive Conservative caucus.
What is really bothering me more than anything else is that I think we could all stand here tonight and make a wager, except as gentlemen and ladies we do not wager. But if we were betting people, we could certainly bet that the people in the Liberal opposition -- and I thought the member for Chatham-Kent complimented them when he referred to "the other government." They are actually at this point only the opposition party; they were the government. But now, as opposition, they are taking a position that is totally the reverse of the position they took as government.
First of all, they were going to reduce the retail sales tax by 1%, a little plum they plucked out of the air on the campaign trail. But they were going to impose the retail sales tax on top of the GST. This bill is not going to do that, and they are speaking against --
The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.
Hon Mr Philip: There seems to be a considerable inconsistency in some of the things that the honourable member has said. First of all he says, "Thanks to this bill, there is going to be $500 million less in the Treasury." Then in the next moment he says, "We are in a recession and we somehow have to fight our way out of the recession." What he does not say is that there is going to be $500 million more in the pockets of the taxpayers to help fight their way out of the recession.
Talk about inconsistency. I have listened to the various positions of the Liberal Party as members have spelled them out there -- almost as many positions as Jean Chrétien and his colleagues have had on free trade and on the GST. The only one in the federal caucus who was consistent on either of those was Sheila Copps. What do we have here? Here we have the former minister who says he wants to protect workers. This is the man who, as Minister of Labour, introduced five amendments to the health and safety legislation to weaken it, to weaken the power of workers in the field of health and safety. That is the same person.
He talks about the present economic situation and says that somehow he is against free trade and against the GST, but somehow he wants to speak against this bill and yet somehow he is going to vote for this bill. Talk about inconsistency. He talks about unemployment, and yet it was the former government that introduced free trade legislation in the trucking industry. You can go around this province and see how many trucking companies are going bankrupt, and you can blame the Liberals and their colleagues in the Conservative Party who brought in the free trade deregulation in the trucking industry. That is how inconsistent they are, and now they are talking out of both sides of their mouth on this bill.
Mr Phillips: I was interested in the last speaker's comments on occupational health and safety, a good piece of work. There is not one mention in the throne speech about how the government is going to change occupational health and safety. The minister accepts it. There is not one mention about improvement in it, because he likes the bill. There is not one change in it, not one mention, and the Minister of Labour has not indicated he is going to make any changes; so where is he on that?
Let me now turn to the Treasurer's comments. Someone asked who it was who commented on the $500 million. It was the Treasurer's comment that there will be $500 million less. All I am saying -- and the backbenchers will appreciate this -- is the Treasurer is going to have tough decisions ahead. He is going to have tough decisions. He has $500 million less revenue now. That is fine, but he should recognize, when the groups come before him looking for support, he has given up the $500 million. That is fine, and that is the decision he has made. I am just saying he should learn and live with those decisions, because he is going to find in just a matter of a few weeks that groups will be asking, "Where is the money, and what will you do for me?"
I am pleased, as I said before, to participate in the debate. I am pleased that we have had a chance to get our comments on Bill 1 on the record. I think we will find, and government members will find, as they head back to their constituents, extreme disappointment in terms of this being the response that the government has provided for the GST.
2140
Mr Mahoney: Good evening. Nice to be with you this evening, Mr Speaker. Nice to be here among this jovial, happy group to address this very important issue.
First of all, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga South for bringing me the four glasses of water. I see her sitting over there making her confession to the reverend. I just want members to know that I am particularly proud of the member for Mississauga South. Why are they all leaving, by the way? I am particularly proud of her. In fact, I was her campaign manager for leader when the member for Nipissing was running to become Taxfighter Mike, and I thought the member for Mississauga South should have been the leader of the Tory party. I thought she would have made an excellent leader. I was her campaign manager, and that shows you how far she got.
I will start over. In all seriousness, I have heard some comments from people here that seem to suggest we should not be here this evening. I find that a little strange coming from a government of new, eager --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Well, that is what they are really saying. They are saying that they do not like the debate, the things that are being said. I think one comment from the honourable member for Mississauga South was that people could turn and watch the weather channel.
It seems to me that what we are talking about for the benefit of the taxpayers of this province is taxation, and a particular form of taxation that those people and the gentleman who normally sits here, the leader of their party, the Premier of this province, said he was going to fight.
Government members can throw this stuff about free trade over here if they want but, as I said to them the other day, we are not the government. We got the message on 6 September that for a short period of time the people, at best, want them. At worst they made a mistake, but at best they want them to be the government.
Now let's talk about what they said, because that is what is really important. I must tell them, by the way, I am impressed. I have done a quick count and there are more than 20 here. I remember when we had some difficulty later in our term having people in the House. I am impressed with the House leader and the whip who I know, as I said before, should be dubbed the Iron Lady of this room, have just got those guys cooking. I am impressed with that. But remember something that some members might recall I and other people here have said in the past, and that is that they have to go home and explain what the Premier and some of his people are doing.
Mr Hansen: They can watch it on TV.
Mr Mahoney: Well, they can watch it on TV, but if I were an NDPer, I would sit there and go, "Boy, I'm proud of my guys and my gals and my people. I'm proud of them. Look at that -- a cabinet minister. She didn't expect to be one. She was surprised. 'Holy cow. I'm in the cabinet. Now I are the minister. Amazing. Had to wait for the workers' comp claim to come through, but now I am the minister, and here I am'" --
Hon Mr North: That's cheap.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I do not mind. I mean, did it happen or did it not? The member should not get his nose out of joint. That may be cheap to him, but it is a fact; so he should stand up and talk about it when he wants to. Getting a little sensitive over here, are we? Getting a little sensitive. Maybe the skin is not too thick.
The Deputy Speaker: The issue is Bill 1. You have to debate on Bill 1.
Mr Mahoney: I would be happy to speak on Bill 1 but, as you would appreciate, Mr Speaker, having been a debater of some renown in this place, when people take shots at you across, there is a temptation to respond. I will try to refrain from responding too much. With all the backbenchers over there, I will try to restrain myself.
I really find it interesting. The Treasurer spoke about saving the taxpayers $500 million. Do members know what this is like? It is like my wife, God bless her, wonderful lady, running in the door and saying: "I just saved you $200. I got a coat on sale." "But honey, you didn't need the coat." "Well, that's beside the point."
Think of the logic. What the government is really saying is that it is saving the taxpayers this money and putting it back into their pockets. Folks, there is a recession on out there. They cannot spend it in the first place. They cannot afford to spend it in the first place.
The government should be looking at something that would be positive -- cutting the sales tax, for example, a suggestion put forward by this party, a suggestion for which we were ridiculed; now people are saying: "Boy, that was not such a bad idea. Maybe that would really put some money back in the pockets of the consumer out there."
Instead, the government comes up with this cockamamy idea. As I said, if I was an NDPer, and I am sitting out there and I want to be proud of this government, I would say: "I don't understand. How come they are supporting Mulroney? How come the Bob Rae socialist government is passing a bill that supports the federal government?" If I were an NDPer, I would be totally confused.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: The member for Durham East talks about it. Wait, I am telling him, he had better just relax and stay calm because he has some serious heart attacks coming his way. Trust me. I am no longer with the government; so he can trust me. He has some serious problems coming his way.
Here we are debating a bill that is the first bill introduced by this government and it wonders why we are here late. Maybe if the government understood the legitimate serious concern of my colleagues in this caucus -- obviously, the Conservatives are in support of the GST. They have left the poor member for Mississauga South here to defend the entire thing by herself. She is sitting there with the ship sinking and her finger in the dike. She is doing a great job, but she is all by herself.
Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, I am rising on a point of privilege. The member for Mississauga West has referred to the fact that I am alone this evening in the House representing our caucus, which is absolutely true. But all members of this House know that our caucus had planned its annual Christmas party this evening because the House was not scheduled to sit. However, the House is sitting because we are being subjected to the diatribe from the Liberal members who have reversed their position 180 degrees on whether to put the GST on top of the retail sales tax.
I think in fairness the member for Mississauga West should withdraw his criticism and suggestion that my caucus colleagues are not here because they agree with him.
Mr Mahoney: I am happy to withdraw it, and I hope the member and all her colleagues are having a good time here this evening. I am sorry that I made that reference.
In speaking to Bill l, I think it is important that the folks at home -- my mother-in-law, Edna, will be watching this; she watches all the time -- seriously recognize the kind of flip-flops that this government is doing.
2150
Mr Speaker, you can forgive those of us on this side of the House who used to sit over there -- as Sam would say, "I used to sit over there and I used to sit over there and now I am here" -- and you will forgive us if we are astounded at their position on Bill 1, at the complete turnaround. I wonder if they have actually gone home and answered the telephone. I would not if I were they. The phones will be ringing with their constituents who are going to say to the member for Oxford and to the member for Durham East --
Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am rising merely to correct an incorrect identification -- unless the member is referring to this empty chair -- of the member for Durham East. If he is referring to me, I am the representative for Durham West. I am very proud to be here and very proud to be standing and listening to this incorrect information coming, and to be voting in favour of a bill that is not going to harmonize the tax and will save the taxpayers of this province $500 million, which they will then be able to use in discretionary spending.
Mr Mahoney: What was that old saying by Winston Churchill? An empty cab pulled up and the member for Durham West got out. I cannot recall that one. It was something like that. I was in error; it is Durham West I was referring to.
But the issue we are debating here, which government members seem to have some difficulty with, which even the member for Mississauga South seems to have some difficulty with, is our right as a democratically elected group of men and women to debate a government bill. Well, we are debating the government bill. We are astounded that those guys would actually stand up in favour of something like this. They have to go back and explain to all those socialists who voted for them that they are actually doing this.
Mr Wiseman: Are you going to vote for it?
Mr Mahoney: That is irrelevant. Do not worry about how I vote. We are talking about how they vote.
Mr Waters: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would just like to remind the gentleman from the opposition that there are more than men over here. Even I, as one of the men of the caucus, have a problem with "you guys" all the time.
Mr Mahoney: I think I said men and women. If the member takes exception to my use of the word "guys," that is his problem. I think he should be a little less sensitive and a little less insecure about stuff like that.
Hon Mr Farnan: Shame.
Mr Mahoney: There is some shame in this House, there is absolutely no question, Solicitor General. When I sit in this Legislature and hear comments from you and your colleagues over the last three years and see the utter nonsense you spout in here, you should be ashamed.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate should not be between the member and the government. The debate should be on Bill 1, and please direct your remarks to the Chair.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I am delighted to do that, but as you know and as I said before, they are provoking me to react. Generally I am well able to control my emotions, but I really have some difficulty with the nonsense I hear.
Let me go back to Bill 1, if I might. I have heard this stuff about small business. I understand small business. My riding of Mississauga West, indeed my entire city is a city that has grown to great levels of success because of small business.
Mrs Marland: You were a small business advocate.
Mr Mahoney: In fact, I was the small business advocate. I hope this is not true, but I am told that this government is no longer going to have a small business advocate. I have it on fairly good authority that they are not going to do that. That would not surprise me. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has a parliamentary assistant over there, but I do not think he has found out about the small business advocacy.
Hon Mr Philip: Are you telling fibs, or is that true?
Mr Mahoney: I said I had heard it and hoped it was not true. It is not a fib. It is a statement, I say to the Minister of Transportation. When trying to implement Bill 1, I would encourage him and his government to have an advocacy for small business because it is the engine that drives the economy of this province and it is extremely important. Let's talk about what is happening to small business as a result of the GST and Bill 1.
Interjection.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the member for Downsview take his seat?
Mr Mahoney: Yes, he should get in his seat if he is going to catcall.
On the small business side of things, just picture this. I believe what the federal government is going to do is very similar in the long run to what has happened in Europe. Anyone who has bought anything in Europe knows that the price is $19, value added tax included. Just follow me on this for the small business. If the federal government turns the GST around into a hidden tax and allows it to become included in the retail price, we will have an item in a retail store that is $19.95, GST included. The retailer under Bill 1 would then have to say, "Okay, what I have to do here is deduct the GST, then charge the provincial sales tax, then add the GST on top."
The small business community had better get ready to go back to school. They are not going to have time to worry about their small businesses, which are going down the tubes, which this government is doing nothing about, simply saying it is going to consult, simply saying, "We're doing the best we can," over and over again. That simply is not good enough. The government was elected. It has a mandate. The members opposite are now the government. Instead of messing around with going to be with Brian Mulroney, it should be coming up with plans and programs to help the small business community.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business on the GST --
Hon Miss Martel: They're going down because of free trade. You guys did nothing on free trade. Come on, get serious.
Mr Mahoney: The Minister of Northern Affairs and others are getting awfully exercised. I am doing the best I can to control myself.
The Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr Mahoney: I appreciate the decorum you bring to this place.
I have documentation from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and over the past five years it has become apparent to it that the only viable option around which a broad base of support could be developed was a harmonized federal-provincial multistage sales tax. That may be a position members opposite can support or not, but what is so frustrating to us is that those people have said they are going to fight the GST. If they took the position of CFIB, that might be a step in leading that fight, maybe a little. They could go to Mulroney, as some members of our Senate are doing, and say: "This isn't good enough. This is bad for small business. Would you please reconsider this on behalf of the people we represent as the government of Ontario? Would you please change your GST?"
That is not what the government does at all. What does it do? The very first thing it does when it gets into office is pass a bill. They just pull back the sheets and slide into bed beside Brian and pull up the comforter and snuggle right in. Honest to God, I cannot believe they are doing this. They are sitting there. They are not even worried. That is what is amazing. They have to go and explain this back home. They want to understand why the minister is doing this.
2200
The CFIB, in relationship to the GST -- and Bill 1 directly impacts on the GST -- goes on to say, "Some of the worst situations will be faced by retailers dealing with goods that are treated differently under their province's retail sales tax compared to their treatment under the GST."
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: This is not a waste of time. This is important to the small business community. This is important to the retail community. To suggest that we should not be here discussing this just shows those guys are cynical, and they have only been around here for a few weeks.
Mr Elston: Too long.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I was prepared to give them a chance, and I do not think they should throw that chance away. I think the people of Ontario are prepared to give them a chance. It is not a waste of time that we talk about the implementation. It is not a waste of time that we talk about the GST, the most hated tax this country has ever seen. What do those guys do?
Mrs Marland: You should be in the Senate.
Mr Mahoney: I might be in the Senate one day, but it is still a little early.
Hon Mr Philip: Which one of Chrétien's positions do you take?
Mr Mahoney: I do not worry about it. What has Mr Chrétien got to do with this? I should have gone --
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, this is so frustrating. I am trying to ignore the interjections. I am trying. Mr Speaker, you must agree. Hansard will show that I am doing my best to ignore these rabble-rousers, and I am definitely --
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: Would the member quit laughing, please?
The Deputy Speaker: Order. I just want to make a suggestion. Do not challenge the hecklers.
Mr Mahoney: That is a wonderful suggestion.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: See, they are starting again.
"Some of the worst situations will be faced by retailers dealing with goods that are treated differently under the province's retail sales tax compared to the treatment under the GST. Small grocery stores, combination food stores and restaurants" --
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: This is from the CFIB. I did not make this up. This is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, people members should care about, people who run this country, who make this economy go. "All retailers will face problems with the differing federal and provincial rules of application in such areas as discount coupons, gift certificates, cash discounts, the sale of used goods, deposits, the repair and maintenance of personal and real property, transportation costs, supply-and-install contracts" and so on.
We are having a changing of the guard. Now I am in trouble. Madam Speaker, they are making terrible remarks about you. I would not accept that.
Again from CFIB: "A two-tiered tax system is also inordinately costly to govern," something I do not believe comes into the NDP philosophy, concern about cost to government. I mean, we could be facing what -- $8-billion deficits in this province with those guys? Maybe more, they are saying: $10 billion? I am concerned about the cost of government, and I believe the members opposite should be even if they are not going to be. I guess it will be our job to hold them accountable for that over the next while, which we will certainly try to do.
But if we go back to Bill 1 and the GST, we are concerned about an enormous new federal bureaucracy.
Mr White: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: It seems to me that the member has diverged somewhat from Bill 1. Perhaps some of his colleagues could remind him that that is the substance of the debate.
Mr Mahoney: I do not mind points of order, but I guess I would like them to be a little close to the mark. I have strayed on occasion this evening from Bill 1, but I am reading from a document from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that refers to the GST. Perhaps you could help me, Madam Speaker. Does Bill 1 have anything to do with the GST, maybe a teeny bit? I think it does. So I do not have any idea where this gentleman is coming from on a silly point of order. Maybe he is now going to tell me.
Mr White: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I have not yet heard the Speaker's ruling.
Mr Mahoney: This is fun. Anyway, I do not know where he is coming from. It does not matter, because I am attempting to put forward the viewpoint of the CFIB on Bill 1 and on the GST. I happen to feel --
Hon Miss Martel: What about Bill 208?
Mr Mahoney: I will talk about Bill 208 all day long. I am deathly afraid about what those guys are going to do in that area.
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Order. I am sure the honourable member will be finishing up his debate here on Bill 1 should we give him the chance to do so.
Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not sure. I was prepared to finish some time ago, but I am not being allowed to get my views across.
The CFIB goes on to say, "In an attempt to get a handle on the true impact on prices of the move from the FST to the GST, we" -- being the CFIB -- "conducted our own research project."
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: It is all right for those guys to stand up and speak on behalf of the Canadian Labour Congress or some of those folks -- Madam Speaker, you would not do that, I know -- but I have some documentation that I think is important to put on the record that shows that small business is very concerned about the impact of Bill l about the impact of the GST and about the impact of many things this government is doing.
I find it somewhat disconcerting that members over there would not agree with that position, because whether one is a socialist or not, one recognizes that small business is the engine that drives this economy. It is not done by taking everything over and putting it in government hands.
The CFIB said that in an attempt to get a handle on the true impact on prices of the move from the federal sales tax to the GST, it conducted its own research project, and since the vast majority of the FST revenue is paid on the products of large firms -- and this is important -- the removal of this tax will mostly affect the big business sector. Accordingly, during the summer they wrote to senior executives of 132 large businesses in a range of industries asking for information on how the removal of the FST would affect their prices to the best of their knowledge. The answer they got from 132 large businesses was, "We have no idea."
Maybe this government, instead of just climbing into bed with the federal Tories, could have come up with some kind of assistance for these people in dealing with the GST. Maybe it could have led its revolt with just the slightest bit of seriousness. Maybe it could have tried to help the business community and tried to do something that would allow them to improve their position -- attack the recession, do something, lead a revolt.
We talk frivolously about chaining ourselves to the Peace Tower, but in reality the government has done nothing about fighting this recession and it has done nothing --
Mr Drainville: Where are your chains?
Mr Perruzza: Where were you when you were the government?
Mr Mahoney: Never mind where we are. We are in opposition, and we accept that for the time being. We will do something to change that later. Just stick around and watch. There will be a few members opposite who will wind up over here and get lucky like me and get out of those back benches and down closer to the front, maybe, but I would not hold my breath. Like I said before, they should look to their right, look to their left, then look in the mirror, and the chances are those three people will not be back here after the next election.
2210
They are not doing anything to fight a revolt. They should be embarrassed and they obviously are not. I find it difficult to understand. The CFIB and the people in small business, particularly the retail sector -- I mean, think about the retailers --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: I am sorry for speaking while the member is interrupting. Where was I? I think I had better start over. What are we on? We are on Bill 1.
Mrs Marland: Have you lost your train of thought?
Mr Mahoney: I have; I have totally lost my train of thought. But I can get it back; do not worry.
Mr Elston: Just circle for a while until you find it.
Mr Mahoney: No problem. I will just sort of move around, just hover. I feel it coming, it is coming back. It is Bill 1.
Hon Mr North: More water?
Mr Mahoney: No, I have plenty, thanks. I have enough.
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: The member will not stop. Anyway, in all seriousness, I guess what kind of bothers me and the people I represent in Mississauga West and other people -- I note the constituents of my good friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt feel the same way -- is that the Premier and some of those guys came riding in here like they were on some kind of white charger, kicking the boots, spurs -- he took his spurs off, anyway.
Hon Mr Kormos: That was no horse; it was a motorcycle.
Mr Mahoney: Oh I know, it is mighty lonely up here in the saddle since my old horse died. Anyway, they came riding in here like they are on some white charger, and the fact is that now the people can see that all they are on is some kind of high horse. I mean, we see the minister is answering our questions about Bill 1. We see the response, pointing their fingers and nodding like they know best.
Well, let me tell those folks, some of those new men and women are going to find, as the halo gets tighter around their perfect socialist heads, that they are going to have more and more difficulty explaining what their Premier and their cabinet are doing to the people of this province, starting with Bill 1.
I think my simple message to the men and women in this Legislature and to the people of this province is that this party is not living up to what it said it would do. They have said they would fight a revolt. They are not doing that. They have climbed into bed with the federal Tory party. They have climbed into bed with the most hated person in this country. They have climbed into bed on top of the most hated tax in this country and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Mrs Marland: It has been very educational to hear the member for Mississauga West speak on behalf of the CFIB. It has been particularly interesting because when they were the government, they in fact did not listen to the CFIB. I feel that, although not representing the government any more but as Liberal party members, it is really incredible for them to say they have to be here to discuss this bill and to be totally discussing this bill in opposition to it, when we know that when it comes to the vote they are going to vote in favour of it. Frankly, although I am not able to say they are misleading the public, they in fact are, because they are suggesting that they are opposed to this bill.
We know that the member for Mississauga West, along with the other members, will be voting in favour of the bill, because the bill is in fact saying we will not put the retail sales tax on top of the GST. The Liberal Party planned to do just the reverse of that when it was the government. When they were the government, they agreed they would put the retail sales tax as a tax on the tax. So it is amazing that here tonight they are prolonging this debate by being opposed to something which they themselves were opposed to at one time and they have done this complete reversal.
I hope that when he talks about those members in the House who are supporting the Prime Minister with the goods and services tax, he is referring to some members for whom I cannot speak, because the position of our caucus in fact is that the goods and services tax in its present form is not something that we support.
Mr Drainville: What can I say? Hubris, histrionics, hyperbole. We are the recipients of this avalanche of verbiage that we receive from the members opposite.
Let us speak about embarrassment. The member across the way indicates that we should somehow be embarrassed for our position of supporting Bill 1. How can this be the case? Clearly we have gone to the people of Ontario through the election period, and now after the election period, and what do we hear from them? We do not hear that they are saying they support the GST. We do not hear that they are saying we should back off from our bill. Rather, when I go through the communities of my riding, what I hear is exactly the opposite.
The member mentions the small businesses. Indeed they are the engine that drives the economy in Ontario. What are they saying in Victoria-Haliburton? They are saying that they support this action with Bill 1 because it indicates plainly to all people in the province that our commitment is to the people of the province, to fair taxation and an end to the best that we can do to the GST. And they know that in Bill 1 the least we are doing is indicating our abhorrence of any such taxation.
The member opposite says to us that we are in bed with the Tories. I must say, if anyone is in bed with the Tories, it happens to be the very party that he belongs to. If you look at the support behind the Liberal throne, we know in Ottawa that it is Power Corp, the big of the big corporations. And who supports the GST? Indeed, all those large corporations and businesses that have always funded the Liberal Party. The issue is plain. Bill 1 says that we are against the GST and we want to maintain that policy.
Mr White: I am struck with what I have heard from my colleague and from the member for Mississauga --
Mr Mahoney: West.
Mr White: South. Thank you.
Mr Mahoney: She is South; I am West.
Mr White: Other side.
Mr Mahoney: We are in the Legislature and this is Ontario. It must be Tuesday night.
Mr White: Very good, I say to the member. He has got it. Yes, Durham West, Durham East, Durham Centre, right here.
I am really struck, because I was of the understanding throughout the long and rather arduous diatribes of the member for Mississauga West that they were in favour of the GST. After all, that is what their party was doing while in power, piggybacking a tax upon a tax, and to be consistent with their stance in bleeding the people of Ontario, they should come here and surely be voting in favour of the GST and opposing this bill. But the member for Mississauga South says --
Mr Phillips: You are Durham Centre.
Mr White: I thank the member. Well remembered.
The member for Mississauga South says that they are not opposed to it. They have changed their position. All these positions keep changing. The Tories are opposed to the GST. The Liberals are opposed to the GST or they are in favour of the GST. It all is very confusing. and I am glad that the member for Mississauga South was able to clarify it for us.
I know, though, that throughout the election period and now in this House we have not changed our position. Unlike the members opposite, we do not have to chain ourselves to flagpoles. We have the opportunity to change legislation and we are doing so in favour of the people of Ontario.
2220
Mr Sola: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Mississauga West for an excellent speech. At the same time, I would like to comment on a new accord in this House. It seems from the comments of the member for Mississauga South and the comments of the government side that they are together on the GST. Now I understand how come they have changed horses in midstream.
During the election they were opposing the GST. Now, with the help of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, they have decided to ride side-saddle along with the GST and pretend they are fighting it.
So far, every comment that the member for Mississauga South has made has been to attack the positions taken by members of the official opposition in regard to opposing the flip-flop of the government on its so-called revolt against the GST. And now we get in the comments from the government side the member complimenting her on her stand and apparently agreeing to the positions taken by her party. I have to commend the member for Mississauga West for an extremely humorous debate.
An hon member: Diatribe.
Mr Sola: Well, diatribe. If we would compare it to what we had to suffer through for three years, this was very, very mild indeed.
I would like to close on that. I thank the member for Mississauga West for cleaning up the situation.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.
Mr Mahoney: Don't say that like you really don't want me to say anything.
Madam Speaker, I think the first thing we should do in this House is eliminate all this north, south, east and west. You should be number 1 and number 2 and we could all stand up and say, "I am number 100." Maybe that would make it easier, especially at these late evenings.
One of the things the member for Mississauga South does, and she knows it bothers me, is the way she says the word "Liberal." Listen to her. It is like she is not feeling well. It is like the Liberal government. Honest to goodness, I do not know what we ever did to her, but wait until she gets to going socialist and NDP a couple of years from now, guys and girls, men and women. We are going to find it somewhat difficult.
To some of the other members, I say they should understand what the real issue is here. The Minister of Natural Resources would understand that he is in cabinet representing a government that had said it would lead a revolt. That is the issue. The government is revolting all right, but in the wrong direction. It is not leading any kind of revolt.
What the government is really doing is the very first thing it does when it gets into power. It finally grabs hold of the keys to the washrooms and the kitchen. It gets the key to the kitchen. It gets to know the chef and opens the bar and writes this bill called Bill 1, which says that it is just going to endorse what it told the people of this province --
Hon Mr Kormos: How would you know?
Mr Mahoney: Come on, Cowboy Boots knows it. The government is just endorsing what it told the people of this province it was going to fight. They were going to be their champs. They are now their chumps. Let's face it. They are going to have to explain it to them when they get home.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate. The member for Welland-Thorold.
Hon Mr Kormos: From the heart of the Niagara Peninsula, and here we are. It is 10:25 pm. People who watch this on cable TV often mistake the evening session for a rerun of what happened earlier. They are far more likely to mistake indeed this live telecast for a rerun in terms of what we have been hearing from the opposition members.
Let's not forget what is going on here, please. The Minister of Revenue had the very distinct honour of presenting the first bill of her career as a member of this caucus, as a member of this government, as a member of cabinet, and the first bill of this government, one which is designed and does in fact give effect to long-stated policy of this party here in Ontario, and that is to say it is legislation that guarantees that the retail sales tax does not piggyback on the GST. That is what people like the Minister of Revenue campaigned on in her riding up north. That is what 74 other successful NDP candidates in this province campaigned on during their election campaigns prior to 6 September and that is what the people of this province endorsed when they elected this government at Queen's Park.
Now, I ask members to listen to me. We are here until 10:30 at night and, it was mentioned earlier, to the great inconvenience of a whole lot of staff here at Queen's Park. To them we sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. The fact is that the Liberal opposition had no intention of abiding by standard procedures with the House leader and the Liberal opposition had no intention of debating the issues here at Queen's Park. We have heard it from them for the last four and a half hours, and the people who have been watching their telecasts have been watching it for the last four and a half hours. The House leader has tried to order the bills to be heard. The House leader has been compelled to interrupt --
The Acting Speaker: Mr Kormos, I have pointed out to you on three occasions in the last little while that we are debating Bill 1. I would like you to return to that debate, Bill 1.
Hon Mr Kormos: Madam Speaker, far be it from me to ever deviate from the main course of discussion. Please, give me a break. The fact is that people across Ontario have been more than tolerant with the drivel that they have heard from the Liberal benches during the course of this evening session. The fact is that I am proud of the Minister of Revenue. I am proud of this government's policies. This government is doing with this legislation exactly what it promised to do. And do you know what the most remarkable thing is, Madam Speaker?
Mr Miclash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think this member must get back on to Bill 1. There seems to be a double standard in the Chair. I just hate to admit it. But this gentleman must get back on to his subject, and the Speaker seems to have let him go on to other things. It is Bill 1 that we are discussing. I would suggest that he gets back on to the topic.
Hon Mr Wildman: I would just like to rise in support of my friend the member for Kenora. If he can return to his seat, our member can return to Bill 1.
2230
Hon Mr Kormos: Madam Speaker, dumb as a bag of hammers, ain't he? I cannot for the life of me imagine what the Liberals of this Legislature are trying to tell the people across Ontario who are watching this right now on their TVs.
I am going to be very brief. I am going to say that I support this government and the Minister of Revenue in her presentation of this bill. I support the speedy passage of this legislation because of what it is going to do for taxpayers here in Ontario. I resent the efforts on the part of disenchanted, frustrated, annoyed, clearly angry, clearly crying-in-their-soup Liberals trying to detract from the main issue here, and in the course of that, quite frankly, not impressing anyone. I suspect the one reason these fellows insist on this going so late is that if it were not because of the Legislature sitting late their moms would never let them stay out until this time at night. In that regard, I hope all of them get out of here in time to take public transit home.
But it is an incredible attack on the system for these clowns -- I am sorry, Madam Speaker. That is probably inappropriate language. I am glad I caught myself in time. It is incredible that the opposition would be taking this sort of tack when in fact its hold, its participation, its role in this whole assembly is really so tenuous. In fact, what we have seen is the bizarre spectacle of a whole bunch of leadership candidates, any of whom would be quite acceptable to the New Democratic Party in terms of the inadequacies they have displayed. In that regard, Madam Speaker, I retire for the evening.
The Acting Speaker: I appreciate your concern. It is now time for questions and comments.
Mr Sola: It takes an awful lot of gall for the member for Welland-Thorold to give lectures on staying up until 10:30 at night. If anybody has expelled more hot air in this chamber since its inception, it is the member for Welland-Thorold. I think he has done more to debase the level of debate in this House and in committee than any member in the history of this chamber. This I have to say, because I was on the --
Mr Klopp: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member should stick to the discussion, not past history of whatever the honourable member has done years ago.
Mr Sola: These are comments on the member's speech. He never once referred to the bill, so therefore I do not have to refer to the bill.
Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: There is a difference between the comments on what has been said and the comments on the person. That is ad hominem and totally unacceptable in the House.
Interjections.
Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Can we have some time on the clock, please?
The Acting Speaker: Yes, I would ask that it be put back a minute.
Mr Sola: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is incumbent upon me to reflect upon the member's previous statements, because he was giving us a lecture on decorum in this House. I do not think it is up to us to take lectures from a person who has used words recorded in Hansard which, if I repeated here, I would be escorted out of the House. Therefore, I do not accept the slap in the face from the member for Victoria-Haliburton, because he was not here and he did not have to endure and did not have to get red in the face for statements made by a member in opposition.
Mr Drainville: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: He is talking about Hansard in the past. We are talking about a debate on Bill 1. Comments were made, and he should talk to the comments and not talk about Hansard in the past. This is totally out of order.
Mr Sola: I would expect that the Speaker would rule me out of order. If that member is the Speaker, I suggest that he get in the chair and rule from there.
Mr Hope: As the honourable member for Welland-Thorold clearly put it, we are trying to discuss a bill here that is of value to the citizens of Ontario. We are trying to have some constructive debate, which we have not heard all night. We have workers in this building who are seeing their tax bracket move up because we are sitting and listening to rhetoric from the opposition. I think it is very important that if we are to debate the issue and the content of this bill we had better stick with it, or else we are talking from two sides of our faces. We have people who are here, upon request of the opposition, to have in-depth debate, constructive criticism, talk about the bill itself. Meanwhile, we are harming people outside this door and around this building, moving up their tax bracket. I think it is very important that we move the debate back.
As I sit here and listen to a lot of the debate taking place today, it kind of makes me feel sad to be here. In the community, we were getting better response on the GST issue and what the government should be doing, instead of listening to a lot of rhetoric coming from across the floor on this whole issue, an important issue to the people of Ontario. We hear about the people they represent who may not have a Christmas. I sat here and listened to members from the Liberal Patty explain how they would not be able to buy gifts for the kids. Believe it or not, we are here to do that. This is an important issue we must pay respect to. This is a bill being introduced that is very important to the people of Ontario. We want to put money into their pockets. What we are seeing is the opposition taking money from people's pockets by prolonging this debate with irrelevant information.
Mrs Y. O'Neill: I had a lot of difficulty with the comments made by the last member. First, I think it is a rule of this House that we do not refer to people by their names, that we always refer to them by their ridings, and there was absolutely no correction of that over and over again. It would have even been acceptable to refer to the minister.
I also find it more than unacceptable that people on one side of the House judge consistently over and over again the motives of people on the other side of the House. We feel very strongly that this bill is of importance in this province, as they seem to, too. We have a different perspective and that is our right to have. To judge why we are saying the things we are saying or how we are saying the things we are saying is certainly a judgement they have no right to make.
The other thing that has to be underlined here for those people who are new is that we often have night sittings. The people who work in this building realize that, and we only do them on occasions when we feel there is a matter of importance. Certainly Bill 1 is a matter of importance.
2240
Mr Perruzza: In my humble and not very extensive experience -- the member for Mississauga West is now reentering the House. I suspect he has drunk his water and eaten the salted nuts. He delivered some salted nuts across the floor, but he did not bring any to this side of the House.
The way I understand debates and what I thought would be coming from this debate is that opposition members would be making constructive, positive amendments to our bill if they disagreed with it. The member has spoken at length about how vehemently opposed he is and how bad this legislation would be. I suspect when we actually vote on this bill, the member opposite, the member who exposed so much hot air in opposition to this bill, will vote against giving Ontario consumers a $500-million tax break. That is the reality of it: a $500-million tax break. If he votes against that, his opposition in the next provincial election, certainly his NDP opposition, should take that recorded vote, should take Hansard and distribute it to every resident of Mississauga West, because they deserve to know how he voted on this very important legislation that gives Ontario consumers a $500-million tax break.
Mr Elston: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for inviting me to participate this evening. I was prepared to start a little while ago, but we got sidetracked; it was like old times. I was listening with interest to the member for Welland-Thorold. As members can understand, I used to listen with interest a long time ago when he used to read out telephone messages with numbers, names and addresses. It was quite elucidating and actually interesting for me to see him in the House this evening. He came in rather late, but the hours seem to be appropriate; he seems to perform much better at this time of night than at others. He did very well in contributing to the debate -- whatever debate he was contributing to, because it certainly was not with respect to Bill 1.
However, I am going to speak to Bill 1. I want the people to understand why we find this bill particularly difficult to accept. The people over there are trying to convince the people in the province that this represents their answer to the revolt on the GST. They are now saying, "This is the best we can do." That is a particularly fine line that has become the weapon in every one of their quivers as they stand shaking in front of the people of Ontario. Each minister in turn stands and says, "It's the best we can do," and that is how they have cast themselves around Bill 1. It is the best they can do to provide their opposition to the federal Tories and their GST. It is not very good.
The principle of this bill is that there will not be a tax on a tax. That is a laudable principle upon which to base legislation like this. It is good as far as it goes, but this bill does not really deal with the principle of not taxing a tax to the best possible degree. There are people sitting just behind the Speaker's chair and under what is reserved for the press gallery who would tell the members that the retail sales tax will still be charged on top of the tire tax. If these interesting individuals across there, the New Democratic government, were being consistent, they would want to let members know they were not going to charge the retail sales tax on top of the tire tax nor on top of the GST nor on top of any other tax.
But what have they done with this Bill l? They think they can capture the imagination of the people of the province and let them think they have principles which are consistent and -- what will we say? -- inviolable, because they are saying: "We won't charge a tax on a tax. We won't charge a tax on the GST." But they have sneaked through this piece of legislation the ability to continue to tax the tire tax.
Let them talk about that. Let the new minister -- I think one of the group of 11 just named by Chatelaine as women of the year, for which I congratulate her -- stand up and explain to the people of Ontario that while she says she is not taxing the GST, she will continue to tax every other tax she can lay her hands on, that in fact the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act does not do what they are saying is a principle of this bill, which is to remove tax on tax.
Why does the minister not come clean with the people of Ontario? Why do not the people over there stand, each in their turn, to say they are going to move an amendment on second reading that will take the retail sales tax off all taxes if that is a principle of this bill, if that is a principle of that party which has been elected to serve the people of the province and to wield power in a fair and reasonable manner? Well, I believe the new minister probably cannot convince her assistants who are sitting just down here that they should remove the tax on all the taxes that are charged; but maybe she will wish to bring that in. And, Madam Speaker, we wish to inform you that on second reading, or at least after second reading as we deal with the issue in committee, we will want to discover why the minister will not extend the principle of not taxing the GST to not taxing any other taxes that are charged before the retail sales tax is added. Maybe they will do that, but they have not said that is what they are going to do. There does not seem to be any consistency with respect to not charging tax on tax.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: Liberals are such purists.
Mr Elston: The member for Ottawa Centre has awakened from her perch down there in the front row of the government benches to add but one small comment for all time on the second reading debate.
Actually, while I am at it, I would just like to go through some of the comments that have been made by some of the members over there, as the member for Ottawa Centre has awakened my curiosity as to the debate contributions by the following members.
I have here the pictorial of the new members from the New Democratic Party, and I will use this. Actually, it belongs to the member for Mississauga South. She has been very kind in sharing it with me. But let me talk to members about the contribution of the member for York South on the second reading debate. I checked Hansard before I came in this evening. He did not say anything on this debate. Let's go to the member for Wentworth North. I checked. He did not say anything on this debate. They did not talk, either of those two. If the member for Ottawa Centre invites me, I will go person by person as to their contributions on this debate. They did not talk about the consistency or lack thereof with respect to charging taxes on taxes.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: Purist.
Mr Elston: As I am invited by the member for Ottawa Centre to speak about her members' contributions, the member for St Andrew-St Patrick said nothing on second reading debate on this very important bill.
When you think that this is the first shot, the first arrow pulled from the quiver of political action of this New Democratic Party -- they were using a crossbow but longbow arrows -- it has fallen dismally short of the mark, and they really are out of step with what they promised the people.
Let's talk about what the member for Hamilton West has said on the second reading debate. I checked in Hansard before I came in this evening. He did not say anything on second reading debate, and this of course is a big, highly principled bill. This is a very important bill.
Just so everybody understands what the role of ministers is, they do not generally speak to how the ministers feel, so what I will do is skip the members who are also ministers and I will examine individually what has been said by the backbench members of the New Democratic caucus with respect to this bill.
I examined the record to find that the member for Cochrane South has not said anything by way of debate. He made a couple of comments -- in fact, we found they were really interested in making comments at appropriate times. The member for Hamilton Mountain used to be quite talkative in this House. When I came here in 1981 he was already ensconced in the back benches of the NDP, the third party at that time. We used to share the odd committee assignment. We used to do some interesting things in committee to the then Tory ministers. The remnant of that party, of course, is now sitting next to me on my left.
2250
Mrs Marland: On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I am not a remnant of anything. I am very proud to be the member for Mississauga South, re-elected, I might say, with the highest plurality of any member. The suggestion that I might be a remnant of any former Conservative cabinet is not true, and I would ask the member for Bruce to withdraw his comment, because it is totally inaccurate. I am not a remnant. I have been here since 1985 and I would appreciate him correcting the record.
Mr Elston: I do apologize to the honourable member for Mississauga South. I said, "The remnant of the party that was in power at the time I first came in sits to my left." I am sorry that she took offence, and I wish to withdraw anything that would say she is other than a fixture here in the Legislative Assembly. There is no question about her electability, in my view. She has obviously proven a staying power that is beyond many other members and I congratulate her on that. I thank her for lending me this particular diary of statements by the members of the New Democratic Party.
Let me talk a bit about the member for Hamilton Mountain. Before I was interrupted by or at least caused some problems for the member for Mississauga South, I was talking about the debate contribution by the member for Hamilton Mountain. I checked Hansard and he has not spoken on second reading debate; this is of course an extremely important bill with principles which all of us here believe to be worth while debating. It seems to me, as I said earlier in my remarks in the House on another matter which has caused me no shortage of concern as members noticed this afternoon, these people are really and truly members of the silent majority, the silent, compliant majority. The diligent silence with which they have approached the debate on second reading of this bill has encouraged me to make sure that the people of Ontario are able to examine in detail what Bill I says.
Bill 1, although it is not written in clear words and phrases on this piece of paper, is really saying to the people of Ontario: "We give up. We raise our hands in surrender. Brian Mulroney, move over. We're coming to sit on your knee. We'll make sure that we're going to be paralleling our tax with yours because we accept without any concern for the people of Ontario the fact that the GST is for us a fait accompli and, unlike what we said in August and September of this past summer, we are not really going to lead any kind of revolt at all. This is the best we can do." Along the lines of every minister who has had to answer a question in this House to this stage of their mandate, "This is the best we can do" becomes their working phrase. If it is not "This is the best we can do," it is "We will study it."
I was very pleased to hear the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, who was dealing with the remarks of one of my colleagues -- I think it may have been the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, although I am not certain -- stand up in this House earlier this evening and say that the Fair Tax Commission which he has established to study tax will actually take a look at the place of retail sales in the province of Ontario. That was encouraging, but it was an admission that he and his colleagues do not really know what to do with this and that this is a shot in the dark that is done more for publicity's sake than it is for any real benefit or effect in the province of Ontario.
I am really concerned about that. I am also concerned about the fact that he did not admit that he would have that Fair Tax Commission look at the problem of this bill not going further and taking the retail sales tax off all taxes. That is a principle which I disagree with. If that is what he is really saying this bill is standing for, he cannot do it for one and remain clear and not do it for others so he had better be sure that he is going to pursue it.
The member for Ottawa Centre has invited me to examine the record of the member for Hamilton Centre and his contribution with respect to second reading debate. I checked Hansard and although he has made some interjections from time to time, which we have found helpful to deviate from the debate of the time, he has not performed in actual debate on this bill. We unfortunately would have liked to have heard more from him, but he has been very diligent again in his silence. We have a whole group of people who I am sure I can add to the list, and as soon as they invite me I will go back to the record of those individuals and their contributions to the debate.
Let me take a look at another part of this bill and the principles upon which it is established and some of the things they are talking about. They have indicated quite clearly, and we agree at least with the assessment by the minister herself and by the Treasurer that some $500 million will be forgone tax revenue.
Mr Christopherson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I understand that I have the right to stand and ask that the record be corrected when something is totally incorrect. In fact, I was the --
The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): No. You can only correct your own record.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: I hope you will correct your record because you just said something totally incorrect.
Mr Christopherson: I was the second speaker for our government.
Mr Elston: I apologize for that. I looked at his seat, and in fact he is one of the people who has contributed -- not very well, but he did contribute. I am quite pleased that he was able to contribute to the debate.
Let me go on to the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has from time to time stood in reply but who has never really actually launched his own debate on this matter. He has not debated the issue on second reading.
We might talk about the member for Halton North. Just in case we want to go on, while I apologize to the member for Hamilton Centre, who has made some contribution, the member for Halton North has been unable to speak on second reading of this.
I might also say that the member for Kitchener is unfortunately not able to speak on this bill either, although this is the big item in the fight against the GST. Where were they all?
Let me go on to some of the principles of the bill. I will be invited again at some point during my remarks, I am sure, to speak at length about what the record of some of the other members is on this second reading debate. I am quite prepared, with the assistance of my friend the member for Mississauga South, to go through the record because I now can identify each because their pictures are here with their names and their seats. While I may make a mistake here and there, I am willing to admit it. With the assistance of fine people like the member for Hamilton Centre, I will stand up and apologize if I do make a mistake.
Let me go through some of the other things that are in here. I was talking for a few minutes about the fact that the Minister of Revenue, the member for Port Arthur, admits and has indicated quite clearly, and the Treasurer as well, that $500 million will be forgone in tax revenue as a result of this paralleling and the refraining from taxing the GST. That is a very fine part of this bill, and it is very laudable.
As members know from the comments of the Treasurer in replying to another speech this evening, he indicated that we had a plan to reduce the retail sales tax by one percentage point if and when the GST came in place and that in fact would have cost roughly $900 million. In fact, he was quite correct. What he has not said about the principle of this bill is that it goes on much further.
It does not just stop and talk about paralleling the retail sales tax with the GST; it talks about doing some interesting things which none of those people over there would speak. It says, for instance, that they are going to take out of the current legislation and put a clause in that will allow the minister on her own whim to make regulations to deal with a whole group of things like the remission of tax or rebating tax paid on tangible personal property purchased in Ontario by people who live outside. She will be able, through regulation, to remit taxes paid for transient accommodation by a person not resident in Ontario. It is an interesting principle of the bill that they are taking out of the legislation and moving to a discretionary authority by this minister allowing her, through regulation, to make legislative change on the amount of tax to be rebated.
I wonder how many of those people over there, while they are lauding this GST non-taxability issue, have forgotten to check about a return of that government to an age-old pattern of governing by regulation without reference to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. How many of the members opposite know that they have given a minister of the crown sole discretion to pass regulations to decide at what rate, when and how they will rebate those two particular taxes? How many of the members opposite realize that the principle of this bill is that their minister is going to be the sole arbiter to set the rate at which those taxes will be rebated? How many of those people realize that the principle of this bill is really for a diminution of the authority of the Legislative Assembly and putting it into the bosom of the executive council of this place?
2300
The member for Sudbury East, who is not in her seat, is chattering away about what she thinks is a change of habit. I listened for a long time to the member for Welland-Thorold and his colleagues and the colleagues of the member for Sudbury East talk about regulations which were to be put together in some of the legislation for which I was responsible at another time. They were quite consistent in saying that the minister ought not be allowed discretion, and yet here are those members -- with the principle of this bill being the accountability of the members in this Legislative Assembly to the electorate -- removing the authority of the Legislative Assembly and putting it into the executive council of this province again.
Is that not an interesting change of attitude? Did the members know that this was what was happening? By the way, they said this bill is a great giveaway to the people of the province -- "We are not going to take $500 million," they say; those are their estimates, and I will agree with them for now. But did they also know that through this bill, their Ministry of Revenue not only will be allowed to go back three years but will be able to go back four years to harass the people who -- their minister might say -- have not paid enough money through retail sales? Did they know that they were limited to a three-year backwards movement to assess what tax was due? Did they know that they now, through the principle of this bill, have allowed their ministry officials to go four years? Did they know that will allow them to do more to collect more money from more people in this province?
Did they know that they will be able to harass the small business people for four years now about accounts that were dealt with four years ago instead of three years ago? Is that not the principle of this bill? Is it not the principle of this bill that this is an extension of the authority of the minister of retail sales taxes to go back into the pockets of small businessmen and women in this province to take out what money they can extract at what price we do not know yet? And have we heard any of those members over there stand up on second reading of this and say: "I want to tell you a principle of this bill is to allow the Ministry of Revenue deeper into the pockets of small businessmen and women of this province so they can extract more money for the insatiable palate of the Treasury and of the Minister of Revenue of this particular province"?
Interjections.
Mr Elston: I seem to have hit a sensitive chord. Are the members really that sensitive, because they have not read that they can go back four years to bother the small businessmen and women of this province? Have they understood that this is what this does, what they give with one hand they are in fact taking with both the hands of newly hired people who are going to be out there going back four years instead of three? Did they know that was in there?
I cannot tell the members enough about the principles upon which they have said this bill is based.
An hon member: Principle? You are the last person in the world to talk about principle.
Mr Elston: The member for Welland-Thorold, who also does not appear to be in his seat, is a very interesting participant in this debate.
The Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold, who likes to add his assistance to those who are speaking, would have a better opportunity to do that if he were seated where he belongs.
Mr Elston: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to take a little bit of a breather there, and I appreciate your assistance in allowing me to think about some of the principles of this.
I spoke about the fact that the Minister of Revenue will be able, through regulation, to take some action with respect to rebating taxes. Members would probably also like to know with respect to the tire tax that the Minister of Revenue is also taking provisions out of the bill itself and putting it into regulation.
Mr Hope: Who put the tire tax on?
Mr Elston: We put the tire tax on. The member for Chatham-Kent wants to talk about who put the taxes on. We put it on. But I can tell the member that when we put it on it was clearly in legislation. What the Minister of Revenue now can do through regulations is apportion what she decides is the amount to be applied on account of tire tax and other things to various people who do the following; that is, apportionment of the tire tax payable under subsection 2b(1) of the act among all purchasers who lease for a period of less than 30 days. In other words, what it allows people to do is spread the tire tax among several people who lease the same vehicle. Did the members know that the minister can do it by regulation, that she does not have to come here and set up the formula?
Hon Mr Kormos: Stick to Bill 1.
Mr Elston: The Minister of Financial Institutions says we should be dealing with Bill 1. Well, this is Bill 1. He has not read the thing. In fact, I can tell members that his contribution here did not talk about the bill at all but about some of his positions with respect to some of the other members' contributions. That is fine; he can do that. But he should not be telling us what we should say about the provisions of the bill. This is in the bill; it is in the bill. I talked about that.
Mr Dadamo: Get to the point.
Mr Elston: They want to know what the point is. Well, it is a real change in philosophy to have this group of people taking provisions out of legislation and removing them to the discretion of a minister of the crown. They always argued, in other days, that the minister of the crown should lose the discretion or at least be pinned down in the legislative provisions rather than going by regulation. Well, they are not doing it. They are doing something different once again. That is a principle of this bill. Partly, I can understand that. I can understand it particularly with revision, and I did not raise this provision earlier, because I can understand there is a certain need for flexibility for the Minister of Revenue to be able to create regulations upon which to base the retail sales tax and its paralleling with the goods and services tax.
Once you get over the problem of admitting that the goods and services tax will be a tax and that you have given up the fight to prevent it from coming into play, the Minister of Revenue should have the ability to do certain things through regulation to make sure that you do the paralleling of that particular bill with the GST. I have no real problem with that, and I did not raise it, but it does stand out as an interesting situation that confirms that this government will not be a government by legislation but will be a government by regulation, by discretion of ministers who will remain unaccountable to the people of the province through the Legislative Assembly. That is an interesting departure, but it is understandable for this group of people.
Interjections.
Mr Elston: These people are yapping away at me, and I suspect that they are probably not feeling very happy about the fact that they believe the only principle was that the GST would not be taxed by the Retail Sales Tax Act. That is not true. In fact, it will require these people to do certain other things which will allow them to go deeper into the pockets of small businessmen and small businesswomen in this province.
It is very interesting to hear those people over there, because they did not really know what was in here. They keep talking about the GST, and that is fine, that is in here, it is clear. But these other principles also are here. How many members like the idea that their ministers will never even really have to come to them for approval on what they do by regulation? I find that a little interesting. Maybe the members over there will too, now that I have brought it to your attention.
I have some other interesting things. What they are doing here as well is trying to indicate that they have some sensitivity with respect to the amount of money they will pay the retailers for collecting retail sales tax. That is fine. It will take place in due course if they will increase the amounts that would be paid to them, and there were some indications that would have been done by the other government as well because there is an awful lot of paperwork involved. But those people have not talked to the principle of having those individuals deal with the paperwork surrounding the GST, the retail sales tax and other items.
For instance, if the GST ends up being a hidden tax -- ie, $19.95, GST included -- that will cause a really interesting hardship for the men and women who are in business in the province of Ontario in terms of calculation. I was happy to hear the member for Mississauga West bring that up during his discussions. That was not raised before. The principles of fairness and equity in taxes, which is the subject matter of the commission which the Treasurer is establishing, should look at what has been done through this bill, because the fairness in this is not there at all.
I have lots of other things I could talk about. Actually, I have been invited by several members over on the other side to go ahead, and I think probably I will.
There is a whole group of sections that are described only as housekeeping items, and, in fact, one of the interesting things about this Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act is that some of these points were raised by the previous Minister of Revenue and had been considered for some time. What the new party in power, the New Democrats have done, interestingly, is they have grafted the GST item on the side and made it look as if this is a substantial bill when they really have not contributed that much to it, but they sold their new members on this piece of legislation by saying it dealt only with the GST and the Retail Sales Tax Act. But it did not. They did not lead them to believe that there were any other issues to which they should pay attention.
2310
There is a whole bunch of other things in here that talk about the liability of corporations for not remitting tax. It talks about the setting of interest rates by the minister herself on a compound basis for unpaid taxes. It also says that the minister can make regulations that will tell how much money she will pay, on a compound basis again, for overpayment of tax, except it can leave a business person in the lurch for up to four years because he or she will have to keep the records that much longer because the retail sales tax department can go back that far.
I think something is happening. I think what they are doing is setting it up so that when they require business people in this province to keep their records that much longer on the goods and services that they purchase, they are trying to establish the basis on which this government, in its mandate because that seems to be a favourite phrase, within its mandate will be able to expand the base upon which the retail sales tax is situated.
We made it very clear as a government that when the GST came in, and when there was a request from the federal government to join with it in a tax on the same areas of goods and services, we would not pursue an expansion of that. Well, the basis is being laid by way of the keeping of records, the requirement for the keeping of records on specifics of goods and services, tax remitted and otherwise to the feds, for the expansion of the retail sales tax to those very same areas.
There are some very unusual and difficult things to accept about the goods and services tax and I know that a good number of those people over there, in fact probably most of them, if not all, share our concern about the expansion of the goods and services tax to the new areas that the federal government has tried to exploit.
There is the cost being added to the men and women who wish to have music lessons for their kids, the cost of going to have your hair styled, Mr Speaker, and you are neatly coiffed this evening; I think we should get the name of your stylist.
Mr Mahoney: He puts it in a microwave.
Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I will have you know that your microwave looks fine to me. With the help of the member for Mississauga West, who has taken me off my remarks, he no doubt has noted that you have not yet had to pay GST for your hairstyling, but after 1 January, if that tax comes into play, you will have to pay that and that is what some of us take as a bit of an assault by the federal government into the area of taking more money from the pockets of men and women in this province.
The record-keeping and some of the other things that are required by this bill will allow this government at some future date to expand the basis upon which retail sales tax is levied. We have not heard from the minister or from the Treasurer or others a firm commitment that they will never, within their mandate, expand the retail sales tax base for this province.
What happens, for instance, if the commission set up by the Treasurer comes back and says, "We don't think it is fair that the retail sales tax is only charged on a small portion of the items which the GST is charged on. You should make sure. If you are going to have a parallel tax, then you should parallel the taxes fully."
Hon Mrs Gigantes: Purist.
Mr Elston: Will this government have the staying power to say -- this bill allows them to have all the records available -- "No, we won't expand that," particularly when we know about the insatiable nature of the spending of this new government. They need the money and anything that looks like easy pickings will probably fall prey to this particular organization. This bill would allow that.
Hon Mrs Gigantes: It's heavy going when you are talking.
Mr Elston: While we have spoken at length -- I apologize for going on a little longer, but I was encouraged by the member for Ottawa Centre who, from time to time, pops up for air and wishes me to speak a little bit more about the contribution of her members to the debate -- we have some real concerns that this lays the basis for other tax grabs that these people will require. We know they like to spend their money. We know that Bill 11 allows them to do that. We know, actually, that Bill I does a number of other things, which is to protect people who collect information.
For instance, did members know that under this bill it is a principle that the Ministry of Revenue officials can share information about who is paying what tax, when and how much with the people who are in the Treasury? There does not seem to be any indication in here that this Bill is going to be subject to the usual discreet conveyance of information about personal -- I am getting instructions from the Speaker, I think. I will carry on here in a minute.
They have not said anything about whether or not they will specifically comply with the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. It would go unwritten, but in this day and age it would seem to me that provision ought to have been assured that this would have applied. I know it would, but it is not spelled out here. But it does spell out the protection of individual members of the Ministry of Revenue staff if they happen to divulge information to the Treasury about who is paying tax and how much.
Did members know that they can go ahead and tell anybody, under the provision of section 8, which under this bill amends section 15 of the act? It shall be amended to say, "No person employed by the government of Ontario shall be required, in connection with any legal proceedings, (a) to give evidence" or otherwise, but it goes on to say that they can use and provide the information to other government agencies. While it says, "Except as authorized...no person employed by the government shall, (a) knowingly communicate or knowingly allow to be communicated to any person any information obtained by or on behalf of the minister," then it says that they can talk to each other in the government departments. Generally, you are not supposed to communicate information collected by government by one department for the purpose of another department at all without getting the written consent of the individuals about whom that information is collected.
I know that is probably a bit of an oversight and there will be an explanation, I am sure, when we are dealing with committee work on this as to how that is going to fit together, but the principle of that section ought to be explored a little bit more fully.
I just brought it to the attention of yourself, Mr Speaker, so that you could let the government know we would be interested in their remarks on that. I just wanted to raised these extra issues because I thought it was important that while the people on the other side of the House have stood up on each occasion to indicate about the $500-million give-back, so to speak, or $500 million in forgone revenue, they forgot to speak about the other items which allow their Ministry of Revenue officials to much more efficiently and easily grab tax money from men and women in this province who are in business.
That is serious. It is understandable because everybody wants to be more efficient. In fact, sometimes when the auditor makes reports about the Ministry of Revenue, he will say or through the writings of his staff will say that we are not collecting enough money in the province, that some people are getting off without paying enough money to the government through their tax remittances.
But those members, when they stood up and said what a tax giveaway this is, forgot to acknowledge to the people of the province that this allows a more efficient harvest than ever before. In fact, it allows the harvest to be taken back more years from the date of the passage of this than ever before. Maybe that is a concern, or maybe it ought to be a concern of those people when they think about how much money they are giving away and how much more quickly they will be able to go back and collect what they lost.
It is a principle of this bill that there is more efficient tax harvesting. An efficient harvest means better funding for many social programs. I, like those members, understand that, but they should not feed us the bunk that is only giving money away, because it is helping a very efficient and good group of people in the Ministry of Revenue to become even better.
There are bigger fines if you do not keep your records up. If you have men and women who have been in business -- I know the member for Elgin has been in business and probably has remitted retail sales tax from time to time, although I understand a renovation business would not be purely retail. He will have remitted tax. He will understand the nature of having to be required to keep his records for an extra four years and be subject to an audit over four years. It is a difficult thing to do. I know that he will be representing his ministry's interests to the Minister of Revenue about the lengthening of the keeping of records for the tourist industry. All of those things are important.
2320
This is a tax bill. This allows a more efficient harvest of tax money. It allows a widening of the scope to collect tax money. By the way, the high-profile item, the item which all of them have been selling us on all these days that we have been debating it, is in fact that $500 million will be forgone revenue. Do members know what? That is correct, but only if the people of this province are able to purchase at the rate they are now purchasing, because all of the speculation about the amount of tax revenue lost is based on estimates made some time ago.
There is a concern on my part that while these people think they are giving real money away and are putting money into the pockets of the people -- I do not disagree with that totally -- they have overestimated, because of the radical downturn in our economy, the amount of dollars that the Ministry of Revenue will forgo.
That is an important problem for the people of this province to understand. If I am unemployed, I am not going to be buying as much. If I cannot pay the mortgage on my house, I am not going to be buying as much. If I am not running a farm that is profitable, I am not going to be buying as much. If I cannot find assistance to get back into meaningful play in the economy of this province, I am not going to be buying. The $500 million, although still forgone revenue, quickly turns out to be very unreal in its size and expectations.
There is no question in my mind that the intentions are good. Our intentions were likewise good when we decided that there should be a decrease by one percentage point in the Retail Sales Tax Act. It would have applied to all of the things that people would be purchasing and we would have gone from 8% to 7%.
It was made on a case of real concern with respect to the ability of people to buy, but it recognized the fact that the GST will take away the purchasing power of individuals, just as the federal government has recognized that. When they talk about this fair tax there are none of us in this House -- I am glad that the member for Mississauga South straightened us out on more than one occasion about her party, with the indication that they do not think the GST is a fair tax in the manner it is cast.
The federal government has indicated that it is not fair either, by ensuring that there will be rebates to particular people in this province. How in the world can a government bring a new tax in and then say, "It is fair tax, but by the way, in case it is not, we are going to give money back to people by way of rebate cheques," which will probably bear the smiling signature of the Tory Minister of National Revenue? How fair can that tax be? It cannot have started out being fair. It cannot have started out being anywhere close to being fair.
What happens in this bill? The government has decided that it will parallel that unfair federal tax, not that it believes in the federal tax, but it has decided it will parallel an unfair tax with what then, equally, must be an unfair tax. That is the principle of this bill and I do not think it is the right thing to do. It is particularly not right when that party has canvassed and campaigned at the doors of the people of the province on the basis that it will resist the passing of the GST, that there will be a tax revolt. This is all there is.
But what revolts us all the more is that while the government has shown the GST as part of the bill and is paralleling the GST, it does not tell the people that this is a tax harvesting bill thinly disguised with words about the GST. That is a problem with the principle of this bill.
I thank members for being attentive and allowing me to speak on this issue and the issues associated with this. I could talk a little bit more about some of the other, more philosophical differences I have with those people, but I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that they should answer the questions I have raised.
The Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Christopherson: I was greatly disappointed in the speech from the member for Bruce. I came in here with a fairly clear recognition of what I thought was a very well deserved, honourable reputation and I was disappointed that at the point where some dishonour crept into his speech, the opportunity to correct it was not taken as straightforwardly as I might have expected. I was also surprised that it would take place in the first instance.
I am referring to the fact that the member talked about who had spoken on this issue at second reading and who had not. It does not bother me personally. I have a very thick hide. I have been in politics a long time. The fact that he did not do his homework is what disappointed me. Clearly he did not plan an awful lot of what that speech was about because what he talked about was nothing that would require any research. Other than talking about the half a billion dollars that is our major part of Bill 1, what was talked about was everything that was in Bill 158, which was a Liberal bill. All the horrible things that the member suggested were motivated by our Minister of Revenue were actually the remnants of Bill 158 after we had a chance to fix it.
The opposition has constantly talked about the fact, has tried to defend the fact that small business is being hurt in this bill. The reality is that what we left in place was the $22 million for vendor compensation. We are not going to fight the GST on the backs of small business as the Liberals would have us do. We will provide the kind of national leadership that should be in place. If more Liberal governments in this country followed the lead of this NDP government, we might win that fight.
Mr Sutherland: I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Bruce because he is one of the few people of his party who actually spent his entire speech talking about the actual bill and the content of the bill. So I compliment him for that.
Hon Miss Martel: I want to make three points with respect to the comments made by the member for Bruce, and the first is this: He talked about what his government, if it were indeed the government, would have done; that is, it would have lowered the retail sales tax from 8% to 7%. I remind all members in this House that it was his government, when they were in government, that increased that rate from 7% to 8%. So it is pretty hard to come in here and talk about taking away something they imposed upon the taxpayers of this province.
Second, he talked about how little impact $500 million in savings in this bill would mean to people who did not have jobs. I would remind all the members again that it was his former Premier who did nothing to stop the free trade deal, even though he campaigned all over Ontario with respect to that in 1987. He went down to Windsor and said to all the good people that there would be no deal unless six conditions were met, got back into the House and totally collapsed, did nothing, did not even have the decency to move a bill or anything in this House to try to fight that. He did not make any constitutional motion or anything in court and did nothing in this House to try to stop that. So the member has a lot of nerve talking about jobs and who has flip-flopped on these things.
Finally, I want to say one more thing about what this debate is really about, because I am really incensed for this member to talk about the contributions and say who did not say what.
The contributions by the Liberal members, as the people in here should know and the public should know, are only because there are so many of them trying to run for the Liberal leadership that they are crawling all over each other to try to get some points on the record. These people do not care about trying to save the taxpayers $500 million. They do not care about voting for this bill, which is something they should be doing. They are going to come in here tomorrow and vote for it, even though they have been here for the last four days speaking about it, around it and against it. I call that the height of hypocrisy.
The real point is that these people are not interested in dealing with this bill; it is only to get so many on so they can all have something to say during the leadership, and that is what this has been all about.
Mr Chiarelli: I want to compliment several people. I want to compliment the member for Bruce who addressed Bill 1.
Hon Mr Wildman: All of the potential candidates.
Mr Chiarelli: No, I am not a candidate for the leadership. I did spend one and a half hours on my feet before. I want to compliment the member for Bruce for a very good debate on Bill 1. He addressed the sections. He addressed the implications of the bill. I watched as people across were listening. They were listening to what the member for Bruce was saying.
I also want to refer to the member for Hamilton Centre. The member for Hamilton Centre spoke very well in commenting on the member for Bruce, and there was the member for Sudbury East.
Bill 1 is an important bill and the debate is a good debate, and that is why we are here. They wanted to debate it for an hour and a half, they wanted to sweep it under the carpet, but if we look at the debate tonight, the people of Ontario want that dialogue, they want that debate, and I think from this side, speaking personally on important revenue legislation, we are going to continue to debate it when debate is necessary.
2330
Mr Mahoney: I would like first of all to thank the government House leader for launching my leadership campaign. I appreciate those comments a great deal.
Hon Miss Martel: You'll not get a cheque from me.
Mr Mahoney: But in all seriousness I find it interesting to hear the somewhat histrionic criticism of the member for Sudbury East, I believe it is.
Hon Miss Martel: I didn't speak; Murray did. You are supposed to speak to his comments.
Mr Mahoney: The member was speaking to his comments, but she was all over the map on this thing. In fact, she was even talking about the sales tax increase. What she did not mention was what our government did. We increased spending for capital for schools from $72 million a year the year we came in --
An hon member: Baloney.
Mr Mahoney: It is not baloney -- to $300 million a year, $1.5 billion. What does the minister do? She comes in here and she introduces this bill and then she has the gall to say -- in her campaign she did not --
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Margaret, be quiet for a minute.
She did not go to the people of her riding, of her constituency, and tell them that she was going to do this. She told them she was going to lead a revolt. Every single member of the government, led by the Premier, said they were going to fight the GST, they were going to fight Mulroney, they were going to stop this unfair taxation. What does she do? She gets into this position where all of a sudden, as I said before, she has the keys to the kitchen and she brings in a bill that is just unbelievable. She just saddles right up, and then she can get up and give great demonstrations.
I am impressed. As a matter of fact, I think the minister should be the leader of the NDP, not the member for York South. As far as Power Corp is concerned, remember, the Premier's brother works for those guys. That is who works for those guys. So if they are pulling the strings, she should talk to her Premier.
Mr Elston: The honourable member for Hamilton Centre actually did not spend much time listening to this. Bill 1, their bill, includes all of those old pieces of Bill 158. He is right, they are in there, but I want him to be very clear when he talks to all of his people that when they give money back through the GST paralleling and non-taxing on top of the GST, he also tells the people that this bill is a tax-harvesting bill. That is what was there. It was designed to make it more efficient for the Ministry of Revenue to get its money. They are going to get it and they are disguising it with this GST thing. But they will take a lot more money from those business people.
Why are they giving a little bit of extra money to the retailers of this province and people who remit tax? It is because they are going to make them keep records longer. It is going to mean that they are going to be subjected to a longer time period in which the Ministry of Revenue can visit to extract more money. While the minister, who is part of the group of 11 who are women of the year in Chatelaine magazine, wants to be known for the fact that this government is giving $500 million to men and women in this province, she should also understand that she should be known for putting a system in place that is a more efficient and effective means of harvesting tax dollars.
Why? Because the Ministry of Revenue thinks it can get more money from the people of this province by being more thorough and by giving itself an extra year in which to go back over the records. We should understand that. I only want to point that out in this part of the debate so that everybody knows that those things are there.
I pointed out again that the tire tax is going to have retail sales tax charged on top of it. That is inconsistent with the principle that they have been speaking about, and I merely wanted to make it very clear that in fact if they do not want taxes on taxes they should amend the sections appropriately.
I have been pleased to hear the final shots by the member for Sudbury East, and while they are very helpful, they were not on this bill at all. But I accept that she wishes to make it clear that she does like my speaking on the bill.
Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I have listened with interest to the debate on Bill 1. Perhaps it is not surprising that many members rose to speak on this tax bill, because it contains part of the government's response to the federal goods and services tax and, as we all know, GST is an emotionally charged subject not only for members but for the business people and the consumers of Ontario.
Much was made by members opposite of what they see as implicit support for GST in Bill 1. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Apart from reversing the previous Liberal government's decision to piggyback RST on top of GST, Bill 1 is drafted to accomplish three specific objectives with GST looming ever larger on the horizon: first, to reduce unnecessary confusion and disruption to vendors and consumers if and when GST becomes a reality; second, to ensure that retail sales tax revenues are not unduly affected by differences in the administrative powers of the two taxes; and, third, to recognize the extra cost faced by vendors as a result of GST by increasing vendor compensation from a maximum of $1,000 a year to a new maximum of $1,500 a year.
Moving on to specific criticisms made by some members opposite, the member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Halton Centre were both concerned by section 3 of the bill which deletes from the act the tourist rebate program known as Ontario -- Incredible. Subsection 15(2) of the bill gives the authority to prescribe the rebate by regulation.
As explained in my opening remarks, the government's intention is to change the Ontario -- Incredible time limits for claiming a rebate and for the minimum amount of claim so they coincide with a similar GST tourist refund program. In this manner, less confusion about the rules will arise in the minds of tourists. My staff is consulting with federal excise staff on other ways in which claims can be made easier for tourists. We feel this will be an excellent way to encourage tourism in Ontario.
The member for Ottawa-Rideau and the member for Mississauga West seem to think that section 5 of the bill repeals a long-standing exemption from retail sales tax for production machinery. This is not so. The detailed definition of items qualifying for the RST exemption is presently contained in the federal Excise Tax Act. The federal GST bill will repeal the definition. Section 5 of Bill 1 permits me to re-establish the required definitions by regulation.
The member for Halton Centre and the member for Ottawa-Rideau also complained about legislation by regulation instead of coming to the House. In the case of section 5 of the bill, relating to the production machinery exemptions, the definitions required amount to several pages. It therefore makes sense to place the definitions in the regulations where minor changes can be achieved relatively quickly rather than taking up the valuable time of the Legislature on minor changes.
Subsection 15(2) of the bill permits regulations on the Ontario -- Incredible program. This allows greater flexibility and a faster response to our tourists if the federal GST rebate-rules change. I should point out that the GST bill permits changes to tourist rebate rules by federal regulation.
The member for Ottawa-Rideau suggested that Ontario's failure to broaden its base to that of GST was only giving Quebec a competitive advantage. Quebec consumers will be paying 7.56% more for taxable services than Ontario consumers. Using the member's own argument, because of Bill 1 Ontario has a competitive advantage.
Several members opposite mentioned communications with the public and with vendors in the face of GST. So far, GST communication measures by the ministry have included a special notice with vendor return cards distributed to over 350,000 businesses in October, two press releases and seminars for small business and trade associations.
In future, the ministry plans daily, weekly and ethnic newspaper advertisements on Bill 1, two information bulletins on GST, revisions to 55 sales tax guides on GST issues and a constituency office fact sheet for MPPs and MPs. Most of these measures are already complete and await royal assent to the GST bill before costs are incurred.
2340
The member for Etobicoke West offered his views on the tire tax and the commercial concentration tax. I know that the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, will be interested in his views of these two Liberal taxes in his preparation for the 1991 budget.
I would like to thank the members opposite for their comments on this bill. I realize that this has been the first bill debate for many of us, and it has been very enlightening. I would like to also give special thanks to my colleagues on this side of the House for their support during the debate.
In closing, Bill 1 demonstrates three things: First, it demonstrates our commitment to fulfil our campaign pledges. We said before the election that the GST was the wrong tax on the wrong people at the wrong time. We promised that, unlike the Liberals, we would not stack the retail sales tax on top of the GST. This bill fulfils that promise and, along with our court challenge, shows that this government will do everything it can to prevent this unfair tax from punishing the people of Ontario.
Second, this bill shows the people of Ontario that this government is committed to acting quickly, as this was our first bill. We are aware of the unfair tax burden on the people of Ontario and we are moving quickly to protect them.
Finally, this bill shows our commitment to real tax fairness. Our Fair Tax Commission will undoubtedly make other recommendations for tax reform and we will follow up on proposals that will make our tax system more fair. However, we are determined to make a start on tax reform and we are taking action with this government's very first piece of legislation. The decision to not stack the retail sales tax on the GST is only the first step to a fairer tax system. There will be more, but this bill deserves the support of all members of this Legislature for the people of Ontario.
The Speaker: Miss Wark-Martyn has moved second reading of Bill 1. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Mrs Marland: What is this?
Mr Elston: This is not supposed to happen.
The Speaker: Call in the members.
Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I might explain to people, this is not supposed to happen. The vote is not going to take place until tomorrow. However --
Mr Elston: Not even this vote was supposed to take place.
Hon Miss Martel: This is the vote I am talking about. However --
The Speaker: Can we have one point of order at a time? We will start with the government House leader.
Hon Miss Martel: The vote on this bill will not take place until tomorrow. However, under the standing orders the bells do have to ring. We will put a deferral motion, as it is already prepared by the government whip, and we will move it until tomorrow.
Interjections.
The Speaker: To the government House leader, first of all, the Speaker is not aware of any agreements made among House leaders. We follow the normal procedure, and the procedure calls for ayes and nays and subsequently a bell. Before you can decide whether to hold a vote at another time, the bells must ring. That is quite clear.
Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Obviously I am here without my own House leader, but there was no question that there was an agreement that there would be no vote taken tonight. In fairness to the minister, if, when she finished her speech two minutes ago, she was not aware that she was to adjourn the debate, then let's correct that error. Let's not get into taking a vote for which there was an agreement that no vote would take place. I would respectfully suggest that it is quite in order for us to revert --
Mr Elston: It's a voice vote.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me. It is quite in order for us to revert to the minister with a consensus of the House. You certainly would have agreement from all three parties that we could revert to the minister. She can finish her speech and move adjournment of the debate. That is the procedure that we should be in at this point, at 15 minutes before midnight. I respectfully would ask --
The Speaker: We have advanced along the path of a proper procedure. At this point, the bells will ring. The moment that the Speaker is --
Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, if I might, I will try to clarify this. If we have to pull back, I will do that, but I do not like being accused of breaking an agreement so I really would like just a minute to explain what is happening and perhaps that will settle people down.
I was not given any indication that in fact we would not be having either a standing vote or a voice vote and I had assumed all the way along, and I might be incorrect on this, that we would have a standing vote on this tomorrow. We had a deferral motion prepared and when the bells were to ring we were going to put that motion in and hold off the vote until tomorrow after routine proceedings. I had no --
Mr Elston: We haven't got any members here.
Hon Miss Martel: No, we are not going to have a vote tonight. Those are the points I am trying to --
Mr Elston: There is a vote. A voice vote was just held.
Hon Miss Martel: My apologies, Mr Speaker, but I was not under any impression that there would be a problem to move to this. I have not done this purposely. We assumed there would be a vote taken tomorrow when all the members were back, and we had a deferral motion ready so that there would not be a vote taken here at all this evening in terms of a standing vote.
If I am not correct about that, my apologies, but I certainly did not mean to break any agreement because I was not aware that there was not supposed to be a standing vote. I assumed there was.
Mrs Marland: In the proceedings of the House, if we are going to take a voice vote and there are dissenters to that voice vote, then the only way that can be recorded is by those of us who are present standing in our place and asking. That automatically then becomes a recorded vote.
What I am saying to you, with respect, is that in the normal proceedings, at this point, if the minister by error did not move adjournment of the debate, which I think is clearly what has happened now, if we were to revert to the normal proceedings, then my caucus would have an opportunity to have a closing comment before any vote is taken on this bill, but by proceeding even to a voice vote, my caucus is disfranchised.
It is clear that there was an agreement, Mr Speaker. Obviously I do not expect you to be aware of the agreements between the House leaders because that is not part of your role, but certainly everyone knew and everyone has known all evening why I have represented our caucus and why my caucus is not here. So I think in fairness, not to violate the privileges of my other 19 members, we would ask you to revert to the Minister of Revenue after completing her speech to move adjournment of the debate, and then we do not have a voice vote that necessitates a standing in our place.
The Speaker: All members may be aware that, first of all, it is normal procedure that if there are no other members to participate in the debate, then closing remarks are allowed for the minister who is carrying the bill or any other minister in the House. That terminates debate.
Debate on Bill 1 has been terminated. We have now started into voting procedure. Part of the voting procedure allows for the bells to ring and while they are ringing, if the government whip presents the Speaker with a letter asking for deferral, then the vote will be deferred until the next day. Of course, I have to wait for a letter.
Mr Mahoney: Could I ask for unanimous consent of the House to revert to the Minister of Revenue to request her to put a motion to adjourn the debate?
Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --
The Speaker: We will deal with one at a time.
Hon Mr Wildman: I was just going to comment on that. I think that by unanimous consent this House can do just about anything. We appreciate the comment by my friend across the way and we would certainly welcome unanimous consent of all three parties to revert to the minister so that we can resolve this muddle.
The Speaker: A motion asking for unanimous consent on a particular course of action at debate has been completed.
Mr Mahoney: I am not quite sure what you are looking for, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: You had proposed wording for unanimous consent.
Mr Mahoney: I was seeking unanimous consent to request that we revert to the Minister of Revenue.
The Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed to.
Hon Miss Martel: I would agree with that, but may I also put on the record for all the members that I was not doing this in order to subvert the process in any way, shape or form. I was under the impression that there would be a vote; it had never been clarified whether it was a voice or standing vote. So at this point in time I apologize. I was certainly not doing anything to try to subvert that or misenfranchise or underenfranchise anyone. My apologies for that. I will ask the minister to proceed then to withdraw.
On motion by Ms Wark-Martyn, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 2352.