Hansard Transcript 1991-Apr-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Brown: It is springtime on Manitoulin. The ice has moved out of the bays, the grass is turning green, the smelt are running, the splake are biting, the golf courses are open, and in Gore Bay the garbage is beginning to stink.

The townships of Gordon, Barrie Island, Burpee and Mills and the town of Gore Bay have not had a dump since 1 January. The municipalities have gone the master plan route. They are no closer today to a permanent solution than they were three years ago. The process does not work. It is overly bureaucratic, it often defies common sense, it pits neighbour against neighbour, it is not environmentally sound and, most important, it does not give you a landfill site.

My constituents are becoming expert at reducing, at reusing, at recycling, even at composting, yet there is still garbage. Unfortunately, they are also becoming expert at burning it in their backyards. Surely the Minister of the Environment will replace her rhetoric with action in the real world.

The mayor of Gore Bay, like the mayor of Kirkland Lake, cannot meet with the minister. She tells him to talk to her officials. The time to change the system is now. My constituents need a landfill. The weather is starting to warm up and the garbage is starting to smell.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: My statement today is directed towards the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In May 1990, the universities were invited to submit proposals for program adjustment grants. Universities, in good faith, submitted projects to support government initiatives in technological studies, health promotion and nutrition and an off-campus, part-time bachelor of science in nursing program, to name only a few.

Procedures were worked out at considerable pain and length with the ministry, the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the Council of Ontario Universities. However, I say to the minister, these procedures were not followed.

In a recent memorandum from the Council of Ontario Universities, the minister's decisions were described as "ill informed, arbitrary and without foundation." They disregard the allocative procedures which were agreed to by the Council of Ontario Universities, the Ontario Council on University Affairs and the government. A new government may have new priorities, but I am concerned that the minister did not consult with the universities.

We are interested in learning the criteria the minister used to explain why certain projects were funded and others were not. If he is truly taking the advice of his advisers, why did he change the procedure without consulting them? He asked for advice and he ignored it. The university community, including students, is losing confidence in a government that promised to be better.

JOHN EAKINS

Mr Drainville: When speaking with the dining room and security staff just after I arrived, I would introduce myself as the new member for Victoria-Haliburton. Many people expressed how kind and considerate John Eakins, my predecessor, had been to them. John Eakins, who sat in this House from 1975 until 1990, always seemed to have a good word to say about someone or something. He is described as a truly gentle man.

On Friday 26 April, John Eakins was recognized by people of all political persuasions at a retirement dinner held in his honour in Lindsay. In the 1960s, John became a councillor in Lindsay. He then became the mayor of Victoria-Haliburton's largest town. After two unsuccessful attempts, John Eakins became the MPP for that riding in 1975. During his time at the Legislature, John not only represented his constituents but also was Minister of Tourism and Minister of Municipal Affairs.

The retirement dinner acknowledged almost 30 years of public service. John said he is "just a poor pensioner on a fixed income now," but I and many others know that John Eakins continues to serve the community whenever asked.

I would ask the members of the House to join me in congratulating John Eakins on almost three decades of public service and to wish him well in his new life.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Sullivan: The Minister of the Environment said just three days ago that the main reason her party formed this government was because of the high priority it gave to environmental matters. The minister must be acutely embarrassed as her government's real commitment to the environment is exposed. I could not help but note that actions speak louder than words.

In the budget yesterday, we saw that funding for the environment had increased at a level that is just slightly above inflation. Following Liberal budget increases of 22% last year and 19% the year before, the NDP commitment of a 7.8% increase is nothing short of paltry. Not only has the rate of increase in allocations for the environment dropped by two thirds, the total share of the budget for the environment has dropped.

This must be a surprise to the voters of Ontario who listened to the minister and to the Premier about the new environmental age in the province. There is no new money for clean air or clean water. In fact, there is very little new money for anything. Again we see the minister unable to move much beyond garbage.

People in Ontario believe that environmental protection must be increased. People in Ontario believed the NDP would do this. There are a lot of disappointed people in the wake of the Minister of the Environment's failure to secure the necessary resources and to meet the promises.

1340

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Stockwell: Yesterday the Treasurer announced the establishment of a Treasury Board to help control government spending. It seems to me, looking at yesterday's budget, that it is a bit like announcing that you are creating a fire department after you have burned down your house. Not only is the creation of a Treasury Board an admission that Management Board and the Management Board chairman have been asleep at the switch, but it is also an exercise in futility.

The budget shows that the Treasury Board is doomed to failure. Between now and 1994-95, this government plans to spend a total of $234 billion, and by 1994-95 will be spending at a rate of nearly $65 billion annually. The NDP definition of spending control is clearly much different than ours. If the Treasurer was genuinely interested in controlling government spending, he would have acted on some of the recommendations put forward by this party. He would have controlled civil service growth, he would have capped pay increases in the public sector, he would have frozen taxes. He would have in fact done some of the things which every other Treasurer in this country has done to control the cost and the size of government.

So I say to the Treasurer that listening to him talk about spending restraint is a lot like listening to a Liberal talk about holding the line on taxes. It is amusing, but it sure ain't credible.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr Martin: Today I would like to congratulate certain members of my constituency who will be receiving Volunteer Service Awards from both the Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ministry of Citizenship. These volunteers must be commended for their excellence and continuing efforts to commit of themselves and of their time to the people and the city of Sault Ste Marie. As we are experiencing difficult times across the province, it is essential for a community to pull together, particularly as volunteers.

Therefore, I would like to sincerely thank and recognize the outstanding work of the following individuals: Irene Bolduc, Mr Boschetto, Helmut Brandstetter, Lido Christian, Tara Coulterman, Harold Crowder, Mrs Facey, Francis Fata, Michel Faucon, Barbara Fiacconi, Edna Fisher, Vardys Fleming, John Fleming, Carol Gartshore, Maria Georgas, Madge Grosjean, Paula Harrison, Tom Hendrie, Harry Houston, Maria Karadimos, Jean King, Mr Klemm, Katie Kopec, Alberto Leva, Opal Litalien, Sandy Maggetti, Patricia Maninos, Anna Nardini, Paul Nykanen, Velma O'Hara, George Papadogianis, Mr Peristeridis, Marie Pettalia, Rosemary Pritchard, Anneliese Rausch, Lorenzo Romani, Carol Rowland, Perry Short, Leonard Stortini, Marie-Reine Taillefer, Irene Thibert, Gunther Thom, Ann Tonkin, Nency Wagner, Joan Walamaki, David Walsh, Mike Yannelis and Ruth Zaffini.

NURSING HOMES

Mr McGuinty: I wish to make a special plea on behalf of St Patrick's Home of Ottawa, a charitable home located in my riding. My plea is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

St Patrick's has a long and venerable history in Ottawa, where it first began accepting residents in 1866. As a charitable home, St Patrick's receives significantly less assistance from the ministry than do municipal homes, although it provides the same quality of service. This inequity in our system of funding charitable homes was addressed in Strategies for Change: A Study of Long Term Care for the Aging, a report commissioned by the previous government. This report makes specific recommendations which the minister has yet to act on.

The board of directors for St Patrick's recently drafted a proposed budget for the fiscal year ending 31 March 1992. The projected spending deficit exceeds $1 million. Approximately $850,000 of this amount is due solely to extended care obligations assumed by the home.

Last year, the Ministry of Community and Social Services commissioned Touche Ross to review operating expenses at St Pat's. This study concluded that the home has operated efficiently and economically.

The only means of redress available to the home lies with the minister. In the short term, the minister must assist St Pat's with a special grant to enable it to meet its obligations for this fiscal year. In the long term, the minister must assist St Pat's and other charitable homes by introducing legislation in this House which will address the existing inequities in the funding of charitable homes.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Jordan: It was announced yesterday that Denison Mines is shutting its uranium mine in Elliot Lake. This devastating blow to northern Ontario will put about 1,100 people out of work. The unemployment rate there now is over 60% and will now go to over 80%. Prior to the election, the current Premier of this province told the people his government would increase, not decrease, the purchase of uranium from Denison Mines. This promise has obviously been broken, as the Minister of Energy in conjunction with Ontario Hydro have broken their contract to buy uranium from Denison Mines.

The monetary cost to the people of Ontario is not clear at this time. The government's failure to honour its election commitments shows it was more interested in making irresponsible promises to secure votes than in developing responsible policies to secure the future of 1,100 employees. How can the members of this government face the people of Elliot Lake when prior to the election they filled them with these false hopes? Now the government is putting the final nail in the coffin of Elliot Lake.

RAYMOND KANE

Mr Abel: It is with great pleasure that I stand in the House today and pay tribute to a Wentworth North constituent, Raymond Kane of Dundas. On Wednesday 24 April Ray was chosen Dundas Citizen of the Year, an award he well deserves.

As a resident of Dundas for 35 years, Ray has served nine of those years as a member of St Joseph's Villa board of trustees where he is now completing the second year as chairman. Ray has contributed a significant amount of volunteer time for the development and future direction of St. Joseph's Villa as well as negotiating with the provincial government to secure a dependable service to the seniors in his surrounding community. During Ray's service at St Joseph's Villa, I had the opportunity to collaborate with him on some funding concerns for the villa and during that time he has proven to be a dedicated and tireless individual.

In addition, Ray served 14 years as a member of the Dundas Public Library and two years as chairman, and four years as a member of the Dundas Community Development Council and one year as vice-chairman. During that time he has proven strong leadership while on the building committee of St Augustine's church.

In closing I ask the House today to join me in congratulating Raymond Kane for his contribution of time, service and dedication to the community. We are all very proud to have Ray in our community.

VISITOR

Mr Malkowski: I would like to introduce a very distinguished visitor who is here visiting with us from Italy and his name is Sciarra Donato, and his wife, who are sitting here in the gallery. They are here visiting their brother. He is the president of the Abruzzi Region of the Deaf as well as deputy to the Italian National Association of the Deaf and he works as an assistant to the chief of the regional government in Abruzzi, Italy. I would like him to stand please and be recognized.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Treasurer. That would be no surprise, probably, to anybody. In light of the loss of confidence in the Ontario economy brought on by this Treasurer's budget, which includes a $1-billion deficit, and his projection that the provincial debt will nearly double in the four years of the Bob Rae government; in light of the effect that massive borrowing by the Rae government will have on interest rates; in light of the fact that the Treasurer raised taxes by $1 billion in the first full year his budget takes effect; in light of the fact that he projects that he will further increase tax revenues every year by some 9.8% for the next four years; and in light of the Treasurer's renewed commitment of yesterday to increase corporate taxes, could the Treasurer inform the House why any employer in this province would not pack up and head to some other jurisdiction. Could he inform the House why anyone looking at these statistics, this budget and these circumstances, would invest in the province of Ontario. In other words, why would he bring forward a budget of this kind, which would discourage people from staying in Ontario and discourage people from investing in the future?

1350

Hon Mr Laughren: I thank the member for St Catharines for the question. It was not unanticipated. I think there are a few assumptions built into the member's questions that are totally wrong, absolutely wrong. I regret very much that he, as a member of this assembly, does not have the confidence in the Ontario economy that those of us on this side do; I can tell him that much.

Mr Stockwell: They are excited about this, Floyd. They are standing in line to congratulate you.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West will have an opportunity later for questions.

Hon Mr Laughren: I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Ontario is the best place of any jurisdiction for any business operation to locate. I have no hesitation in saying that. We have, in this province, a very sound infrastructure. We have a well-trained, well-motivated workforce. We have a health care system that is second to none anywhere. It seems to me that when the business community is looking for a place to invest, it will indeed continue to look at Ontario.

Mr Bradley: The lack of confidence, as the Treasurer would know, is not in the province of Ontario; it is in the government of Ontario at the present time. I think the Treasurer will agree that I am always fairminded when I direct questions to him. Any fairminded individual in the province of Ontario would conclude that in a deep recession of the kind that we have at the present time, it would be necessary to incur a deficit in order to deal with that recession -- at least, that is one of the many tools that might be employed in that regard. While that is the case, many financial observers, including the Dominion Bond Rating Service in Canada and Salomon Brothers in the United States, have expressed grave concern about the enormous size of the NDP deficit for this year and subsequent years. It is a fact, because of course it was on the CBC at noon, so it must be true.

Would the Treasurer not agree that a $10-billion deficit will send the wrong kind of signals to the international business community, and may result in taxpayers paying even greater rates of interest on a provincial debt that is projected to grow by leaps and bounds under an NDP government?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member is quite right. He is, generally speaking, very fairminded, and I appreciate having a critic who fits that mould normally. He is quite correct that the Dominion Bond Rating Service has put Ontario on credit watch. When it saw a deficit go from $3 billion to $9.7 billion with this budget, I can understand why it would do that. If I was running a credit agency, I would too. I trust that the bond rating agencies, which we will be meeting with in the next couple of weeks -- which is traditional in the province following a budget anyway -- when they have an opportunity to meet with us and to examine the components of that $9.7-billion deficit, will understand, perhaps as members opposite do not, that what we did in the province of Ontario was decide that this was going to be a short-term recession and that we wanted to be well placed when the recovery begins later this year. We have not done what other jurisdictions have done and pulled the plug on major services such as health care and education, because we believe they must be maintained.

I understand why the member opposite believes that we should have slashed spending and programs. Perhaps he believes that in his heart of hearts. He did not seem to when they were in government just a short time ago but, nevertheless, I disagree with the member completely, entirely. I believe that we must maintain those programs. I think they are absolutely critical and I guess where I really part company with the member is that I believe the quality of life we have in Ontario makes us competitive in itself.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer is living in a world somewhat as he lived in when he was in opposition, a world that is somewhat Utopian. But the fact is that today we live in a very competitive world. We live, first of all, in a world where there is a serious recession in this country, and particularly in this province. We live in a world where the level of competition in international trade is unprecedented. Whether we like the free trade agreement or not, it is in effect. The federal government has implemented it and it is talking seriously about a free trade agreement with Mexico.

In view of that and in view of the circumstances that he faced, and I recognize that he does not want to be slashing programs wildly to be able to bring his deficit way down, or to balance the budget, or anything of that nature, I ask the Treasurer this question: Why did he and the busy Chair of Management Board not get together and carefully scrutinize and examine every program within every ministry to determine those which are no longer relevant to 1991 Ontario and those which may not have to -- if it is a new program -- proceed at this moment in time, or to stage programs in such a way as to allow himself more flexibility to devote the resources that he had at the present time, without raising taxes, to fighting the recession in the most appropriate way?

Hon Mr Laughren: That is a most appropriate question and the member would not believe it if I told him how much time the Chair of Management Board and I have spent together in the last few months.

Mr Bradley: Qualify that.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I will not qualify it at all. I can tell the member that what he suggested is exactly what we did. We examined all the programs of every ministry, and if he talks to the ministers they will tell him how they came to Management Board, under the able chairship of the Chair of Management Board, and now the Minister of Health as well, and they will tell him that all of those programs received very close scrutiny. It is one reason, though, that we feel we are going to put in place a Treasury Board which is going to help us look at a whole reallocation process, because I do not quarrel with the premise of the member's question. I think it is essential that we take a look at entire programs, rather than nibbling around the edges at all of the existing programs. So I do not disagree with what the member suggests at all.

Mr Bradley: The change from Management Board to Treasury Board is simply a change of name and an effort by the Treasurer to wrest some of the control over the economy back to his department and away from the Chair of Management Board.

The Speaker: And the new question?

Mr Bradley: However, you want a new question, no doubt.

TAX INCREASES

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer will remember that last week a number of Ontario truckers in rather desperate financial straits were protesting unfair competition from American transporters. During this particular protest, and he will recall the various methods they used to call attention to their concerns, they indicated that the cost of doing business in this province was making them uncompetitive and that one of these factors was the price of fuel. The Treasurer is raising gasoline taxes by 30% over the next eight months. He is raising diesel fuel taxes by 32% in the next eight months.

How does driving up truck and rail transportation costs help business compete against jurisdictions south of the border, which are undergoing in some cases restraint measures? Second, how do the massive tax increases that he has announced help our struggling trucking industry compete with the lower-cost alternatives from the United States?

1400

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish the member had asked his own colleagues that question before they deregulated the trucking industry in this province.

First of all, I do understand the difficulty in the trucking industry, and I think that the member, being fairminded, will recognize the fact that just last week the Minister of Transportation put a moratorium on the issuance of new licences. That was a major commitment to the trucking industry in this province.

I acknowledge the fact that the trucking industry does not like any kind of tax increase on gasoline or diesel fuel. I understand that. It is one of the components of their costs. I would also put to the member that the basic problem in the trucking industry is not the price of gasoline; it simply is not. It is much, much more complex than that. There simply are a lot of truckers competing for less business than is healthy for the industry. I think the member should understand that we are not prepared at this point to make exemptions on the tax levels.

As well -- I see the Speaker looking at me; I will sit down and wait for the supplementary.

Mr Bradley: Today the major North American auto makers announced further substantial financial losses, which will be reflected, no doubt, in continued layoffs of Canadian workers who make parts and who assemble North American vehicles.

Would the Treasurer not agree that increasing taxes on many of these vehicles and increasing fuel taxes at a time when the auto industry is deep in recession and facing unprecedented competition from south of the border and from offshore will cause further loss of jobs in yet another vital sector of our economy, a sector which in itself is important but also affects so many other areas that supply it?

Hon Mr Laughren: One does not make these tax moves without worrying about what the member is talking about. At the same time, I believe that the position of this government and its commitment to energy conservation and the environment is not something on which we are prepared to compromise. Those changes were both for conservation purposes and for environmental purposes, and we stand behind them. We are proud of those moves.

I might add as well that by doubling the gas guzzler tax we are simply doing what has already been done in the United States with gas guzzlers. There is no question about that.

I think the member should understand, as a former Minister of the Environment, that one cannot just be populist about environmental regulations and environmental controls in a commitment to the environment. Our commitment to the environment is resolute and we do not intend to compromise it by making exemptions on things like gasoline taxes.

Mr Bradley: The response of the Treasurer would be much more credible if indeed he would designate those funds specifically for the purposes which he has mentioned. But they of course are going into the consolidated revenue fund, as we all recognize.

The Treasurer has clearly ignored the advice given by his own members on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs by the cross-border shopping task force during the pre-budget consultations. That group which made the presentation, including many of the mayors of those municipalities representing retail businesses and representing the municipalities themselves, suggested that many Ontario communities are hit hard by cross-border shopping and recommended decreasing, not increasing, the gasoline tax and other consumer taxes on such things as cigarettes and alcoholic beverages -- those alcoholic beverages are reflected in the price of meals as well in communities across the border -- until at least after the recession recedes and Ontario regains its competitive edge. What made the Treasurer increase these taxes against the best advice from those experiencing that problem?

Hon Mr Laughren: We got a lot of advice from a lot of people, and if we had followed all of the advice, the deficit would have been a lot higher than $9.7 billion, I can tell the member.

I think the member should understand that the whole issue of cross-border shopping is one that is bedeviling a lot of us; it is a very, very complex problem. It is quite serious; I do not mean to minimize its seriousness at all. There are 14 border crossings, I believe, in the province and it is a problem in those communities. There are border crossings in other provinces as well and it is a problem there too. The federal government is trying to wrestle with the problem; it does not know what to do either. We have asked for advice on this specific issue from the standing committee to see what its opinion is on what we should do.

As well, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is working with the mayors of the border communities. The Minister of Revenue has written to the federal government asking for support in the collection of provincial taxes at the border. It is not as though we are simply sitting on the sidelines watching it happen, but it is a very complex problem. We are not giving up on it, because we would like to see a solution as well.

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

Mr Harris: Since the Premier is in Detroit today, no doubt picking up a couple of shirts while he is there, my question is of the Treasurer. Yesterday the Treasurer told us that by allowing the deficit to rise to a whopping $10 billion, he was going to create or sustain 70,000 jobs. I assume what the Treasurer is doing is saying that by allowing this $9.7 billion, or close to $10 billion, to be in the economy, 70,000 jobs would be created. That is 70,000 jobs, at a total cost of $9.7 billion, and it works out to nearly $140,000 per job. I wonder if the Treasurer could help me tell all the phone callers I am getting to my office from unemployed Ontarians exactly where they can find these $140,000-a-year jobs.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I want to assure the leader of the third party that the Premier is not only in the United States today; he is also in Windsor, where he is going to take part in a ceremony where there are going to be some new manufacturing jobs created.

The 70,000 jobs referred to in the budget are very clearly a reflection of our commitment to fight the recession. What we are saying -- and I thought it was clear in the budget statement -- is that if we had taken the advice of the party opposite and some others at the federal level and reduced the deficit to zero or a balanced budget, we would have cost this province at least 70,000 jobs, and there are other people who say it would be closer to 80,000 jobs. So we decided that for this year we were going to fight the recession, maintain those jobs and maintain those essential programs in Ontario.

Mr Harris: I hear what the Treasurer is saying; I just do not know how it adds up that $140,000 per job that he is saving -- how he feels this is good value. However, that is NDP economics.

I would like to read from the Treasurer's own budget on page 39: Anti-recession spending of $670 million will result in 18,200 new jobs. Further down this chart it lists tax increases of $670 million, resulting in only 4,000 job losses. I wonder if the Treasurer could explain to me how it is that, spending $670 million, somehow or other this money creates four times more jobs than are lost by removing $670 million from the economy. Can the Treasurer tell me how it is four times more jobs when he spends the money than it is job losses for $670 million worth of tax increases?

1410

Hon Mr Laughren: I would be glad to try. First of all, I should say that when we launched that anti-recession program, we thought it would create about 14,000 jobs. As it turned out, it is going to create 18,000 jobs, so we are getting better value for our money. That anti-recession package is the most aggressive anti-recession package in all of Canada, and we are very proud of the fact that we decided to fight the recession.

I think the leader of the third party would agree that the money spent was direct job creation in capital works project -- very direct -- whereas there is not such a direct relationship between jobs lost with tax increases as there is with direct job creation under our capital works program.

Mr Harris: The Treasurer cannot have it both ways. He cannot tell us the deficit, this $9 billion, is going to create all these jobs when at the same time he has a difference of four to one. If he increases taxes, it only loses one fourth of a job; if somehow or other he increases the deficit, it creates four. The Treasurer cannot have it both ways.

The Treasurer said in response to my questions, and yesterday he said in response to this $10-billion deficit, that it was 70,000 jobs -- he said maybe even 80,000 jobs -- and that he is going to fight the recession. That is why the Treasurer thinks it is okay to have a $10-billion deficit. Can the Treasurer explain to me why, in the second year, in the third year, in the fourth year of his forecast, when he says we will be out of the recession, we will have growth, everything will be hunky-dory, we will still have $6 billion, $7 billion, $8 billion, $9 billion worth of deficits, when there is no recession?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, I do find it a little bit much to be lectured by the member from the third party on job creation when his federal counterparts cut $100 million out of the Canadian jobs strategy in their budget. We make no apologies whatsoever for making a determination this year to fight the recession in the province, a recession that even the member of the third party I think will admit was contributed to mightily by his federal counterparts.

Mr Harris: I guess the answer is, when you do not have an answer or what you are doing is stupid, you blame somebody else.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Harris: Because the Premier is over gassing up with cheap gas in Detroit, my second question is also for the Treasurer.

Mr White: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I believe in the standing orders there are comments with regard to allegations. It is certainly against practice to make allegations about any member, particularly one who is absent. The leader of the third party has twice made allegations about the Premier that are unfounded. He now states not "if" or "perhaps" but "while." I think it is outrageous to permit that.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party certainly caught their attention. There is definitely a difference of opinion and that is to be expected. I also expect that all members will temper their language as they ask questions and respond.

Would the leader of the third party place his question, please.

Mr Harris: Perhaps he is over getting cigarettes for the member for Durham Centre.

The Speaker: Would the leader of the third party place his question, please.

Mr Harris: I wonder if I could get on to my second question to the Treasurer. I would like to quote some of his own words of wisdom from 1988.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just wait a minute. Just be calm for a moment. Members will note that I have stopped the clock. I want to draw a couple of observations to your attention. I will in a moment recognize the member for Oshawa for his alleged point of order or privilege. I ask members to recall that by practice what we try to do is that if there are points of order we try to raise them outside of question period so as not to interfere with members' opportunities to both ask questions and respond. I think that for the most part those of you who are familiar with the rules will know that allegations are not easy to determine in terms of the rules, that usually we have a difference of opinion, often a point of irritation, but not often a point of order. I will ask the member to briefly state his point of order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Mr Speaker, you have very aptly served the purpose of my interjection. Thank you.

The Speaker: It is obviously not a point of order. If we are ready to proceed, if I recall correctly, we were with the leader of the third party who was going to succinctly place his question.

Mr Harris: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am sorry I have offended the member. He might be checking out incinerators if he wants to dump garbage in Durham. I do not know.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Harris: My question is this: I would like to quote the words of wisdom from 1988. The now Treasurer said: "The Liberal government has put a siphon directly into the pockets of working people in northern Ontario. Those pockets will soon be empty if this government keeps up." He went on to say, "With gas tax increases they have hurt, not helped, northerners." Could he tell us what has changed between then and now.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am pleased that the leader of the third party, given the fact that we have some very serious economic problems in this province, has switched from his somewhat silly, scurrilous allegations about the Premier to a more serious economic question. I appreciate that.

There is no question that the problems in northern Ontario are serious. Not only do we have the highest unemployment rate anywhere in the province, but there are entire communities that seem to be under siege, including places like Kapuskasing, Elliot Lake and Sault Ste Marie. It is very serious.

We know that overall in Ontario, with a loss of 260,000 jobs last year, we cannot -- and the leader of the third party would be the first one to complain if we did -- move in and utilize the public sector to pick up the entire tab. We know we simply cannot do that.

The leader asked specifically about taxes, I believe, in northern Ontario, and gas taxes in particular. I do wish the private sector, the petroleum industry, would get the message that we are unhappy with the way the pricing of gasoline is occurring in northern Ontario. We are not happy with that at all. It seems to me it would be in their interest to do something about that. We know as well that the --

The Speaker: Have you finished?

Hon Mr Laughren: All right.

1420

Mr Harris: The double-barrelled gas tax increases, surely the Treasurer will know, come at a time when Ontarians cannot afford the higher costs of doing business.

Two years ago, here is what his party called gasoline taxes: The Treasurer said they were regressive. He said it was a tax that hit northerners. He said it was a tax that hit seniors and the disabled. He said it was a tax that hit school boards. He said it was a tax that hit middle- and low-income groups. His party voted against that tax when the Liberals brought these increases in, as we all remember, and that was at a time of relative prosperity in this province.

Now that we are in a recession, is the Treasurer telling us that in a recession somehow or other these taxes take on a different meaning and are not recessive, do not hit seniors, do not hit northerners, do not hit school boards, and are good for us now? Is that what he is trying to tell us?

Hon Mr Laughren: I guess none of us ever likes to pay more taxes on anything. I understand that, but at the same time --

Mr Eves: What about what you said in 1988 and what you are saying now?

Hon Mr Laughren: I thought the member wanted an answer.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am responding to the question by the leader of the third party. It seems to me that -- as I started out to say before I was so rudely interrupted by the member for Willowdale -- at a time of recession we had some very difficult decisions to make. We could have not raised those taxes and, in return, either allowed the deficit to rise higher or cut programs in the major expenditure areas such as health and education. Quite frankly, we made a clear decision to fight the recession rather than to sacrifice those much-needed programs.

Mr Harris: Fight it on the backs, according to the Treasurer's words, of the poor, of seniors, of the tourism industry.

In this House a couple of days ago, the Minister of Transportation said, "It is crucial to remember that regardless of the assistance our government can provide, the Ontario trucking industry must be in a position to compete." He said the provincial government could not do everything. There were other responsibilities, other governments, other things that were causing it, but he said, and certainly left the impression, that the Ontario government would do everything it could within its power to help the trucking industry compete.

I wonder if the Treasurer could tell us how increasing gasoline and diesel fuel taxes contributes, in his small way, to helping the trucking industry compete.

Hon Mr Laughren: Coming from the world's number one disciple of deregulation, that question is a bit hard to take. As I said earlier to my critic from the official opposition, I understand the problem in the trucking industry. I do not believe it is entirely based on gasoline prices or gasoline taxes. The Minister of Transportation last week announced a moratorium on new licences. I think that went a very major way to helping resolve the problems in the trucking industry.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Cleary: The Treasurer knows that Ontario's net farm income will decline by some 15% this year, to the lowest level in five years. The Treasurer should be aware that agriculture is an important part of the rural economy and yet he has refused to make any commitment to funding the new federal-provincial net income stabilization account program, which his Minister of Agriculture and Food strongly supported last fall.

In this open letter from both the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Ontario Agricultural Commodity Council, representing over 80,000 farmers in this province -- and that is 80,000 farmers -- the letter calls on the NDP to implement the NISA program this year. I want to know why the Treasurer can find $220 million in his budget to increase pay to civil servants but cannot find a mere $10 million to fund the NISA program this year.

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the question from the member for Cornwall, and I know of his abiding interest in the farm community, but I want to assure the member that this government has an absolutely fierce commitment to maintaining and supporting the farm community. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has already announced major expenditure programs. I think the member for Cornwall is not being fair when he implies that we are not doing enough; we are doing the best we can.

Mr Cleary: Two weeks ago the federal government contributed its contribution for the net income stabilization account program to encourage provincial support of this program. If the province commits $5 million to the program next year, the federal government will pay out $35 million to Ontario farmers this spring under the NISA program. If the province pays its $10-million share this year, the federal government will pay out over $40 million to farmers this spring. This means an extra $50 million going to the farmers this spring, when they need it most, and costing the province only 20 cents of each dollar of support. If the province refuses to make a commitment, farmers will get nothing, and that is nothing.

When will the Treasurer listen to the farmers of this province and support the NISA program?

Hon Mr Laughren: We do indeed listen to the farmers in this province and we have now a Minister of Agriculture and Food who understands the needs of the farm community as no other Minister of Agriculture and Food has. I do understand the needs of the farming community, and all I can assure the member for Cornwall is that, in consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, we will be keeping a very close eye on the farm community and we will do what we can for the farmers in this province.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Stockwell: Today the border towns reacted angrily to the Treasurer's announcement. The mayor of Sarnia called it a neutron bomb for border towns. The mayor of St Catharines this morning on a talk show was beside himself. In fact, the Niagara region chairperson, Wilbert Dick, said the tax hikes on gasoline and other commodities are aggravating matters for those trying to keep Ontario shoppers from crossing the border.

In Sault Ste Marie, on 23 January, the Premier said: "We are looking at all kinds of suggestions. I don't have anything to announce. We are going to do our part." Is the Treasurer's part raising taxes on gasoline, raising taxes on alcohol and raising taxes on cigarettes, thereby creating more jobs south of the border than are being created in this province? Is that his answer to the border towns?

Hon Mr Laughren: I tried to indicate earlier what a difficult problem the cross-border shopping one is. It is extremely complex, very difficult. As a matter of fact --

An hon member: Blame the feds.

1430

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I am not blaming the feds. I want to quote something that the federal Minister of Revenue, Otto Jelinek, said: "The federal government will not take steps to block Canadians from shopping in the United States because that would be contrary to Conservative philosophy."

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: You did not have anything more to add, did you?

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Stockwell: What has that got to do with the question? When is the Treasurer going to stand up and defend his taxes? No Tory was in the back room putting a gun to the Treasurer's head to raise those taxes. Why does he not stand up and defend his decisions? Border towns are closing. Gas prices are going up. Let him defend his budget, his $9.7-billion debt, his billion-dollar increase in taxes. Jobs are being lost.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr Stockwell: The question stands: Let the Treasurer defend his budget. Answer the people in the border towns.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is very difficult to give a --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I take it we all heard the question. I guess now that perhaps the person who asked the question would like to hear a response. I would like to hear the response.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is difficult to give a thoughtful and meaningful response when the members who ask the questions are hyperventilating.

Mr Stockwell: I am not the only one. Take a look at the taxpayers.

Hon Mr Laughren: I rest my case. The member is hyperventilating again.

If the members opposite would think seriously about the taxes that we did raise, they would realize they were not simply revenue-generating moves. They were moves that were based on environmental principles, on energy conservation principles and on health principles. It seems to me that those are very defensible tax moves.

Finally, Mr Speaker, because I can see you looking at me, I must say again to the members opposite that we in this government are proud of the fact that in this year we decided to fight the most severe recession in this province in 40 years.

NATIVE SELF-POLICING

Mrs Mathyssen: My question is to the Solicitor General and it pertains to first nations policing. Given that this government has a commitment to working towards native self-government, what is the Solicitor General doing with respect to self-policing arrangements for first nations?

Hon Mr Farnan: I and my colleagues are committed not just to the concept of self-policing but to the reality of self-policing for first nations people. We are negotiating currently several first nations agreements with the federal government and first nations. We have ongoing negotiations for province-wide first nations policing that will cover the period 1991 through 1996. We have active negotiations with the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, again in the area of self-policing. We have a model example among the Six Nations of a self-government in policing area. I am optimistic that we can enhance and accelerate the move towards self-government in the area of self-policing and I am optimistic I will be coming back to the House with very important announcements in this area.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Brown: I have a question about public cynicism in the political process. I have a question about integrity. I have a question about trust. I have a question about the politician's responsibility to the people. My question is about Elliot Lake.

On 31 January 1990 the member for Algoma, now the Minister of Natural Resources, told the Premier at that time that he must "direct Ontario Hydro to purchase all of the uranium it needs for its nuclear generators from Ontario sources." In August of the same year the present Premier confirmed that commitment. In March of this year at the New Democratic convention, the NDP unanimously passed a resolution which read, "Be it resolved that the Ontario New Democratic government direct Ontario Hydro to buy 100% of its uranium supplies from Elliot Lake mines."

These commitments by the New Democratic Party are clear, they are straightforward, they are indisputable. They stand on their own as the policy of the NDP government.

Yet at 2:30 yesterday afternoon the Premier, through Ontario Hydro, announced that he was cancelling Ontario Hydro's contracts with Denison Mines, and 1,100 people are losing their jobs because he cancelled them.

I have a question to the Minister of Northern Development. I want her to tell the people of Elliot Lake how she can stand in this House, knowing that she has betrayed her government's promise, she has betrayed her party's position, she has betrayed her own integrity and, most important, she has betrayed the workers and the families of Elliot Lake.

Hon Miss Martel: I know the passion that the member who represents that riding feels. Let me respond on behalf of the government.

First of all, I should clarify one point with respect to the announcement he made at the convention. He would know that the referral motion read very clearly, and I point out, "The elements of the planning process should include an acknowledgement of the ONDP's stand on 100% uranium sourcing."

When this government came to power, for the first time ever it was allowed to see the confidential documents with respect to the contracts between Hydro and Denison and Rio Algom. We were stunned to learn that the fact of the matter is that over the last 10 years this province, Ontario Hydro, has paid over $1.2 billion in premiums to those companies over and above the price of those contracts.

For us to continue that contract at Denison Mines would have cost Ontario Hydro and in the end the people of this province over $500 million more. That is not a position that this government, Ontario Hydro, nor the taxpayers of the province could afford to take in this time of recession.

I am pleased to say on behalf of my ministry that we have put together a working committee. That group is meeting with us on 13 May to give to us its ideas with respect to diversification, not only in Elliot Lake but on the North Shore. The member for Algoma-Manitoulin is a part of that, as the federal member is, and we look forward to meeting with representatives of the community at that point.

[Applause]

Mr Scott: People are put out of jobs, 1,100 people were put out of work, and you applaud. What's going on?

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David may know that his colleague is waiting to place a supplementary, and I would like to be able to hear the supplementary.

1440

Mr Brown: That is nonsense. The minister knew, because Premier Peterson, in response to a question from the now Minister of Natural Resources, told her that last session. He told them that it would be four or five times world price. They still made the commitment, and they made it over and over again.

They have cancelled their promise for a $400-million northern fund. They have cancelled their promise of $100 million for four-laning in the north. The Minister of Northern Development herself promised equalization of gas prices, and yesterday they increased gas prices by 3.4 cents.

The Speaker: The supplementary?

Mr Brown: The cancellation of the Ontario Hydro contract means that there will be 85% unemployment in Elliot Lake.

The Speaker: And your supplementary.

Mr Brown: After telling Denison Mines that their jobs are cancelled, is the minister going to tell Rio mines that their jobs are cancelled? Is she going to cancel Elliot Lake?

Hon Miss Martel: The former Premier never told anyone, either in this House or outside, that over the last 10 years Ontario Hydro had spent $1.2 billion in premiums over and above the price of those contracts.

Mr Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is in Hansard. He clearly told the member what the situation was.

The Speaker: Not a point of order, but the member for Fort William.

Mrs McLeod: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I had thought that perhaps the minister had inadvertently indicated in her first answer that there had been a payment over and above a contracted price. I think that that is a fairly serious issue. I was also privy to information about those contracts during my term as minister. I do not have a recollection of there having been a payment over and above contract price. I would ask that the minister check the facts and determine whether in reality what was being paid was a difference in market price, not a premium over and above the contract, so the record can be corrected for the sake of accuracy.

The Speaker: The member may know that it is not a point of order, but it certainly is an excellent question.

Mrs McLeod: I would appreciate that the inaccuracy be corrected. It could be a serious piece of misinformation.

Hon Miss Martel: If I said that price was over and above the contract price, I will withdraw. What I meant to say was that in fact the $1.2 million was over and above what the price on the market or the spot price would have been, and when we came to that conclusion, it was the decision of this government that we could no longer continue making those kinds of payments. We want to use part of that money instead to plan for economic diversification, not only in Elliot Lake but in all those communities along the North Shore, so that five years from now we will not be in the same position that we find ourselves in now, that is, a total reliance on the uranium industry and nothing else.

Two more points that I would like to raise: Members of this House know very well that Ontario Hydro is in negotiation with Rio Algom at this point. This government is not in a position to make any comments with respect to those negotiations, but as I said in Elliot Lake and I will repeat here, we believe that Ontario Hydro does have an obligation to the community. When those negotiations are complete, we will be able to give the House the details of that obligation.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Treasurer: He knows that farmers have told him, and so does the Minister of Agriculture and Food, that funding GRIP, the gross revenue insurance plan, without NISA does not complete the plan. Quite obviously he has totally ignored NISA, the net income stabilization account. Therefore, farmers cannot expect a complete plan. The Treasurer is funding GRIP, and then he is funding a $50-million interest rate rebate program. However, in the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food we have had an increase of $21 million when what he has announced will cost more than $60 million. What is he cutting in Agriculture and Food?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, that is not fair. Not only are we funding what the Minister of Agriculture and Food has already announced, but negotiations, as I understand it, are still ongoing between the provincial Minister of Agriculture and Food and the federal government on the NISA program.

Mr Villeneuve: The Treasurer has made a mistake. The budget for Agriculture and Food last year was $555 million. The projected budget for Agriculture and Food is now $576 million. By my arithmetic, that is an increase of $21 million. The Treasurer has announced $50 million in interest rebates, and the participation in GRIP will be slightly more than $10 million. Where is he cutting?

Hon Mr Laughren: I can understand the confusion on the part of the member, but that is simply not the case. We have not made the cuts which the member is implying. I would be very happy to get back to the member on more specific details, but the member is simply wrong in his inference that we are cutting these programs.

Mrs Haslam: It seems to be an agriculture day, except this time my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. We all know that farmers are experiencing difficult times, especially in this recession. They are hurting. We have been talking about budgets, so I would like to know how the ministry's portion of our budget is going to help the farmers.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to answer that question. As many of the members I am sure are aware, there are two programs that have been announced so far, totalling about $90 million, in the budget for agriculture. The farm interest assistance will provide assistance to those farmers in greatest need. The GRIP program will provide assistance to grain and oil-seed producers as well as horticultural producers.

I would like to point out to the member, though, some things that I believe the agricultural and rural community should take note of, and these are things that in fact were not in the budget. I am speaking about two things in particular. One is the fact that the farm tax rebate has remained intact. The second is the fact that this budget, unlike budgets of the past, did not announce programs and then lay the cost of those programs on the municipalities. Farmers and rural people are very pleased that this government is not putting the cost of new programs on the property owners out in rural Ontario, and for that, I am sure, the farmers and rural people in Ontario are going to be very pleased.

Mrs Haslam: Back to debt control. I understand that the information and the program that was introduced from the Hayes report dealt with the short term. I wanted to know if there is something further we could look forward to, especially in debt relief, from the ministry.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Yes. There has been a lot of noise in the House today about the NISA program. I would like to correct a couple of the figures that have been thrown around.

The federal government threw a proposal on the table two weeks ago for third-line defence. Everyone should know that the ministers of agriculture across the country and the federal minister agreed that third-line defence money, which is assistance to farmers in greatest need, would be funded by the federal government. At the last minute, the 11th hour, the federal government threw a proposal on the table to try to bring the provinces into funding the third line of defence, which more or less breaks the spirit of what was agreed to in Regina a couple of months ago. We will continue to negotiate with the federal government to get a better deal on NISA. Second, we are looking at a long-term interest relief program which we think will help all the farmers in Ontario who are in greatest need, and not target one group or another depending on what crop they grow.

1450

INCOME TAX

Mr Nixon: Perhaps if I may use the last few seconds for a question of the Treasurer. Exactly a year ago, actually 26 April 1990, the Treasurer said in the House: "In this province, a single person earning the minimum wage of $5 an hour will still pay income tax in this province totalling $368 a year. That fact makes a more important statement about this government than all the statements this Treasurer has ever made in this House or ever will make."

Yesterday, the Treasurer announced what he called the largest enrichment in the history of the Ontario tax reduction program. We had already removed 625,000 who pay federal tax from the rolls, and he has raised that to 700,000.

I want to point out to the Treasurer that in Ontario under his leadership a single person starts paying Ontario income tax when his earnings exceed $8,500. In fact, an individual earning the minimum wage of $5.40 that is up 40 cents an hour since a year ago -- and in spite of the NDP promise to change the minimum wage there has been no action -- can expect to pay $400 in Ontario income tax. How can the minister, having made such a definitive statement previously, now come before the House with a budget that does not move towards correcting the same anomaly that he criticized a year ago? Who is in charge there? The Treasurer or Attila the Hun?

Hon Mr Laughren: I have been called a lot of things in my day, but never Attila the Hun. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that we committed $50 million to the Ontario tax reduction program. That is indeed the most substantial commitment that has ever been made to low-income taxpayers with dependents in Ontario. We are very proud of that. It raises to 700,000 the number of people who will not be paying provincial income taxes now because of that.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Members may wish to welcome to our gallery today a former member for Northumberland, Howard Sheppard.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of personal privilege. During question period a certain amount of time was lost due to the time taken by members of the House who in their own minds had points of order to make, and this caused the clock to pass without there being an opportunity for more questions being taken. In order to address this point of privilege, I would appreciate it, Mr Speaker, if in the future, if members are going to sacrifice the time of all members of the House by calling for questions of personal privilege or order, the clock can be stopped and those points be done after question period. Would you take that under advisement?

The Speaker: First of all, I very much appreciate the point the member has raised. You may recall that earlier today I mentioned how it is our practice --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I intend to complete my remarks. The member may recall that I mentioned earlier that it would be appreciated if members would raise alleged points of order and privilege outside of question period. The Speaker is placed in a very awkward position. If a member stands to raise a point of order I have a responsibility to listen to it. What it does, of course, is help destroy the time that is set aside for members to ask questions. I do take what you have raised under advisement, and I will be communicating with you later.

Mr Cousens: In that spirit, possibly I can have time to ask my question.

The Speaker: I am sure it is an excellent question which you will bring back to the House tomorrow.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that Mr Dadamo and Mr Malkowski exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Brown: I have a number of petitions to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced, and without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro, which is ultimately responsible to this government, made commitments to Elliot Lake and its mining companies which resulted in the community's rapid and widespread expansion in the early 1980s;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"To fulfil that promise to the people of Elliot Lake by instructing Ontario Hydro to purchase all of its uranium requirements from within the province of Ontario, namely Elliot Lake, until economic diversification efforts in the community are successful."

I agree with this petition, and I will sign it.

Mr Ramsay: "Whereas the cancellation of the out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment in Elliot Lake is more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

I agree with this petition, and I have put my name to it also.

Mrs Sullivan: I have a petition from a number of people addressed to the Parliament of Ontario, reading:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

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

The Speaker: Stop the clock for a minute, please. I just remind members before we continue that if you do have a great number of petitions and they are all the same, we do have a time constraint. Members will recall that we have 20 minutes allotted for the presentation of petitions, so guide yourselves accordingly. You may wish to simply read the bottom portion of it. The time is yours, but it will fleet.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Cooper: I have a petition signed by 62 people, and it was sent to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to amend the existing legislation with respect to automobile insurance in order to return to the victims of motor vehicle accidents the right to institute legal actions without the present threshold requirement."

TAXATION

Mr Sorbara: I have a petition that has an extremely long preamble to it. I will not read the preamble, but it is signed by about 45 people from in and around my riding. It petitions the government to lower the taxes the people of the province pay.

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

Mr Chiarelli: I will read the full preamble because I think the people from Elliot Lake are quite concerned. It is signed by a number of people and addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas economic diversification efforts require time before results can be experienced, and without a strong anchor industry in Elliot Lake, any diversification effort becomes tremendously difficult;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

It is signed by a number of people. I have affixed my signature to it and I agree with the petition.

Mr Offer: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario and it reads:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

I have affixed my signature at the bottom and am in full support of this petition.

Mr Miclash: I have a petition that is of particular interest to the people of Elliot Lake and to the people in northern Ontario as well, and it is to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

I have attached my name to that petition as well.

Mrs McLeod: As a resident of northern Ontario, I am happy to join in presenting a petition on behalf of the residents of Elliot Lake and to state once again their concerns for the benefit of this House and for the record.

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

Ms Poole: I too have a petition which is of critical interest to the people of Elliot Lake, and as a former northerner I am very proud to present it on their behalf.

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

I have proudly appended my signature to this petition.

Mr H. O'Neil: I have a similar petition. In support of the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and in support of the people of Elliot Lake, I would also like to present this, which reads:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

Mr Sola: As a former northern Ontarian and having been raised in the neighbouring city of Sudbury, I am proud to join my colleagues in petitioning the Parliament of Ontario in the following manner:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

It is signed by about 80 people.

1510

Mr Offer: I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the cancellation of out-of-province contracts has resulted in more than 2,500 job losses in the mining community of Elliot Lake;

"Whereas the unemployment rate in Elliot Lake is at more than 62%;

"Whereas Ontario Hydro has the means to stabilize the economy of Elliot Lake; and

"Whereas Premier Bob Rae and his New Democratic government made a specific promise to the community;

"We petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

I have affixed my name to the bottom of this petition and am in full support.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr Bradley: I am pleased to be able to have the first response, at the very least, if not the only response to the budget that has been presented to the House by the new Treasurer of the province of Ontario.

As I begin my remarks this afternoon, I must say I was genuinely surprised by what I saw in the budget. Sometimes one can make a prediction, and there were a lot of predictions and a lot of speculation took place. But I was genuinely surprised by a few things in the budget that I will deal with in just a few moments.

Of course, the fact which emerges quickly, as one reads the budget, as one flips through to the relevant sections of the budget, is that we have an unprecedented deficit in Ontario of some $10 billion, something that I think not too many people contemplated.

I know there was some jocular speculation about how high the budgetary deficit might go in Ontario, but I think few people were aware that the Treasurer was serious about raising the level of the deficit to some $10 billion, and subsequent to that, and I think it is as important, to I believe $9 billion the next year and $8 billion the two years after.

One could have anticipated in the deep recession -- and we are in a deep recession at the present time. We incurred a deficit of over $3 billion back in 1982 when Frank Miller was the Treasurer of Ontario, and I think it was expected at that time that we would use the fiscal tools we had within the responsibility of the provincial government to address the circumstances that faced us.

Most of my colleagues and I expected that we would see from the Treasurer an increased deficit. As he said, we would see about $3 billion in this fiscal year and we might see an increased deficit of another $1 billion or perhaps $2 billion, and he knew even in those circumstances he would face some criticism. But to open the budget and find that the deficit is $10 billion really has the effect of realizing the worst anticipation of those in the community of what kind of fiscal control we would have under an NDP government in this province.

No one expected we were going to see a government that is aiming for a balanced budget at this time. Economic times do not dictate that. It would be extremely unfair to suggest that would be the case either this year or next year or perhaps even the year after. That would be unreasonable to expect of the Treasurer of this government, if we were not to make the situation worse in this province. But I believe that by having a $10-billion deficit, we are going to have an effect which is unfortunate for this province.

One of those effects is psychological. I have never been one who is a great fan of the bond rating agencies, be they here in Canada or in the United States, but it is one of the realities we face. I guess one of the things I said to the Treasurer today as part of one of my questions was that I wish we did not live in a difficult world. I wish we did not live in a highly competitive world. I wish we were facing circumstances in Canada and in Ontario, as we did in the post-Second World War period, where there was considerable growth in this country, where there was considerable economic activity which would produce employment for our young people and for those who were advanced in age. But we are not in those circumstances today. We are in much more difficult circumstances.

We are in the midst of a North American recession, one which has been made worse, in my view, by some of the policies of the federal government. Each of the government members has a sheet on his or her desk which will say what he or she is supposed to say, which is (a) that it is the GST; (b) that it is high interest rates; and (c) that it is free trade that is causing all the problems. Indeed, I think with some justification one could make a case that each of those contributes to the problems that exist in the province of Ontario, but that does not mean you simply hide behind the circumstances that exist on a national level or behind federal government policies in order to take no specific action which is beneficial to this province.

Therefore, we have to face reality in our province. We face a world where we have a free trade agreement. I happen to have disagreed with that free trade agreement. I think if one examined the details of the agreement very carefully, one could not help but come to the conclusion that many of our industries would be attracted south of the border because they would not have a reason to stay in Canada, that there were not those tariff barriers, that there was not the need for the presence of even a branch plant in our province. I think we could have foreseen the deindustrialization of Ontario if this agreement were allowed to proceed as it has. Now we have the federal government talking about a free trade agreement with Mexico.

Both Premier Peterson and the current Premier indicated their opposition to these free trade agreements, and both indicated they would do what they could to attempt to thwart those agreements. Unfortunately, neither Premier Peterson nor the current Premier -- though I will chide him in the House from time to time in perhaps a humorous fashion or a less-than-humorous fashion about making the claim that he was not going to co-operate in the implementation of the free trade agreement and then turning around and doing so, the reality is that we do not have that option, that there is little a provincial government can do if the federal government is determined to proceed.

Once again, we live in an economic recession. We live in a world where there is a free trade agreement with a huge trading partner to the south, a large economic and military power. We live in a circumstance where other countries are becoming real competitors against North Americans in terms of the products that they produce. We have a European common market which is coming together, a European Community which is getting ever stronger, is breaking down its own barriers and is coming across as being somewhat of a trade threat to those of us in North America.

My colleagues from the Niagara Peninsula would know -- the member for Niagara Falls is present and she is one of the people who would know -- the effects on the grape and wine industry of that kind of competition, not just from the free trade agreement in the US but from the GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, of which we are a signatory. We face that reality. Therefore, when we want to ensure that we have jobs for people in this province in the future, we have to be sure that we can retain the industries and the businesses that are here and that we can attract new businesses.

I have mentioned in this House on more than one occasion that it may seem somewhat unusual, but as a Treasury critic I do not come from a business background. My family is a labour union family, a family that worked in industry over the years. I have gone through all the cycles that some members of the House have gone through and that some of their families have gone through in terms of permanent layoffs, in terms of relocation from one community to another, in terms of my father reaching a circumstance where at 49 years of age he was given next to no notice of his termination of employment for no good reason. A whole portion of a plant was closed down by then International Nickel, now called Inco. So I know the dislocation that exists.

1520

I know that we live in this world all of us would prefer did not exist, rather than in a world where we were without that kind of competition. When we live in this world, we have to be able to keep investment here, keep jobs here and attract new investment. I suggest to members that we do not do that by running huge deficits of the kind that are contemplated by this government. Again, the business community, while it will make some noise about a deficit, will understand a deficit that is used as a tool for fighting a recession. I think the progressive members of the business community would understand that and be supportive of that. What they look at, however, is the size of the deficit, and again, as we attempt to attract people to our province or to keep them here, they look and say the deficit is far too high.

The second thing they will look at is the fact that in the midst of a recession this government has chosen to increase taxes. If members look at the full years -- they call it annualization, I guess -- of the taxes that they are implementing in the government of Ontario today, it is about $1 billion they would be taking out of the economy, and taking it out of a good cross-section. When I say "good," I use that word advisedly; taking it out of a real cross-section of the community, not only of people who are already working, but of people who are not working, who have to have the transportation that they have and have to pay the money they pay for gasoline prices. I know particularly the people in the north and the east have registered complaints about this.

We have hit cigarettes and we have hit alcohol. Just because people are unemployed does not mean that they do not from time to time use cigarettes or alcohol as part of this society. Indeed, we promote and will be promoting Ontario wines in this House a couple of weeks from now, as they will be served here in the Legislature. I got an invitation to that. I think the Speaker is in charge of that or someone is in charge of it and I am glad to see that they are promoting our product. We are looking at raising taxes on those products.

It is going to hit everybody and I suggest that a deep recession is not the time for tax increases. In fact, leaving more money in the hands of consumers will allow them to make purchases, which will have a good spinoff effect and which will in fact generate revenue for this government. I think the Treasurer is hoping that some of his policies will generate that kind of economic activity. I am not convinced that all of them will, but there are some measures in the budget, in fairness, that I think may have that effect. The government members will speak of those, extolling the virtues of those measures. I will leave it to the government members, knowing that they will carry out that responsibility on behalf of the Treasurer, as he himself has stated.

We also must look at how one governs in these circumstances. The people who are going to invest in Ontario look at that deficit, look at the tax increases, listen to some of the rhetoric that they hear from this government, which is anti-business rhetoric, at the very time they are trying to make some decisions. They will not always go before a television camera or talk to reporters about this, but very often when you run into these people on a casual basis you will find them expressing grave concern in some circumstances and uncertainty in other circumstances about Ontario.

I was talking to an individual the other day who was selling part of his operation and going to Florida, and he said, "Well, I'm going to watch over the next few years and see what happens." It is a major operation. He had reached a state where his taxes where extremely high even without the new tax increases. He had listened to the rhetoric and read the platform of the new government and said, "I simply will not continue to invest." This is not some kind of wild, right-wing ideologue we are talking about. He is a person who has had a lot of interest in a community in the Niagara Peninsula, has an interest in investing there and has seen his business grow rather considerably. He is now saying: "Hold on. I've just seen the deficit, I've just listened to the potential policies coming forward and I do not think I want to invest in Ontario."

That means jobs for my neighbours. I live in a neighbourhood where most of the people are auto workers; the overwhelming majority, in fact, in my particular neighbourhood, my street. On one side, two down, there are auto workers, perhaps three down across the street on the other side, all working in various plants in the city of St Catharines or in nearby Thorold. It is automotive parts in that particular case.

They are going to be worried when they see in the midst of a deep recession, at a time when they are facing really tough competition from offshore and from the United States, that this government is going to double one tax on vehicles. It is an enviable goal that the Treasurer has set out. In good economic times particularly, you try to achieve those goals. But we are really facing tough circumstances. I know the people in Windsor. I cannot believe that the people in Windsor would not understand that, and the people in Oakville, Ontario, and the people in the Chatham area and Tillsonburg and St Thomas and so on, in Oshawa and St Catharines.

These people recognize that the automotive industry is going through some tough times now. There is a shakedown out there; there is a rationalization. My prediction would be that we are going to see plants moving whole operations and parts of operations from the United States into Mexico and then backfilling the jobs from Canada into the United States.

We want to ensure that does not happen. One of the pluses we have going for us is that we have a good work force in this province. We have a skilled work force. Some of the people who have particular skills are aging at the present time and we do not have as many young people with those specific skills any more for industry, but we have a good, skilled work force and we have a determined population within the plants in the province of Ontario to be competitive, to do the best job.

My fear is that with the policies we see in this budget, with the tax increases -- and the Treasurer, in answer to one of my questions, said, "Well, of course, this is an environmental tax." I know, of course, that that money is not going into any environmental fund, that in fact it is going into the consolidated revenue fund. In that way, he is the same as every other Treasurer in the province of Ontario. If there is one thing that Treasurers have in common, it is that they do not like designated funds. They like to horde all the money in the consolidated revenue fund and then divvy it up the way they see fit.

I see that the Treasurer is now not only going to be the Treasurer, but is going to be the Chair of the Treasury Board as well. That is changing the name of Management Board to Treasury Board and taking some power away from the new Minister of Health and the Chair of Management Board. They are taking many of the powers away from her, contrary to what some of the predictions were over here.

We did not expect, on this side of the House, that there would be indiscriminate slashing of the budget. But the Treasurer, when he says he is establishing a Treasury Board -- though he will not admit it and I do not expect him to admit it -- concedes that he and the Chair of Management Board were not as effective as they might have been in scrutinizing and examining carefully every proposed expenditure that there might be for the ministers.

In fact, I stated -- the Treasurer will say with some exaggeration; I would not agree with that -- that he simply opened the vault and allowed the ministers to reach in and grab as much as they could. Those members who have not been in the cabinet may not recognize this. They can keep trying to get in there, and I am sure a lot of people will have those ambitions. But they would not recognize that every minister comes in looking for as much money as possible to create new programs, to expand present programs, to increase staff and to build capital projects. In some cases, those are very good expenditures.

I can recall that when I was Minister of the Environment I wanted to get as much money as possible, and the Treasurer used to scrutinize carefully, as did the Chair of Management Board, those particular requests and then give a 22% increase. But it did not mean that in other cases they were not tougher in terms of looking at things. They looked at their priorities and said, "Here's what we must do."

I suspect that did not happen this time. I suspect that the Treasurer did not look as carefully as he might. As I said, he does not want indiscriminate slashing. That is not productive. I agree with the Treasurer when he says that is not a productive way of dealing with the recession. But I happen to know, having sat for five years, three months and four days on the Management Board of Cabinet, that in fact that is a very important function.

1530

I do not think the government has faced the reality yet, but it will this fiscal year, to understand that it has to be very careful in assessing those potential expenditures. Perhaps the implementation of a Treasury Board will have that effect. Time will tell.

I saw a figure which I think is true, because I saw it in our material, which says that the borrowing will be $1,000 for every man, woman and child in this province to finance this deficit, and it will be $3,500 by 1994-95 because of the projected increases that the government has at that time. I am going to suggest that people from around North America are not going to be looking with much favour on those kinds of continued deficits.

The Treasurer was not here and I want to reiterate it while he is here: I do not think that realistically he could be looking for a balanced budget next year. Nobody could say that. This year naturally he would have to have an increased deficit. But I implore the Treasurer that he and his government will have that kind of flexibility to designate the funds where they are most productive in stimulating the economy and achieving the policy goals and that they take that kind of careful look at each of the ministries that I suspect has not been taken in this particular year.

I want to look at effects on certain industries as well. The Treasurer is here now and this bears repetition because he comes from a part of the province that provides some natural resources and the processing and extraction of those natural resources.

When the automotive industry is booming, industry in Sudbury, my old home town, the place where I was born, tends to do better, Inco is doing better, Falconbridge is doing better, and there is more employment there. There has been an attempt, with some success, to diversify. This government made some contribution to it, the federal government and others. This new government no doubt will attempt to provide those kinds of opportunities as well, we would hope.

But when the auto industry is down, the ore industry and the processing of ore is down, the steel industry in Hamilton, which is nearby, and in Welland, which is nearby, tends to go into a recession as well. Not that it is the only product that goes into an automobile -- in fact it is a diminishing product because a lot more plastics are used today -- but it is still important, and when we see taxes in that area, we know that it is not going to be very helpful to that industry.

We mentioned the trucking industry. The Treasurer has discovered, as has the Minister of Transportation and others in the government, that there are no simple problems and no simple solutions. But one does not compound the problems or increase the problems for an industry by increasing taxes.

One of the factors in competition between our truckers and the US truckers -- and those who have been involved in the trucking industry in one way or another in this House will understand this perhaps better than others -- is that this competition is tough and that as soon as you put additional taxes on Ontario truckers you are going to find that they become even less competitive, less able to compete.

It is not so much that I expected that somehow the Treasurer of this province and other ministers would wave a magic wand and solve the problem. I did not expect that. But I also did not expect that they would make the problem worse for those who are attempting to compete in this particular time in which we find ourselves.

I look at the issue of cross-border shopping as it relates to that. I live in an area which is close to the border. It used to be that when I visited St Catharines -- when I lived in Sudbury I used to visit St Catharines -- not all that many people went, as we say, "over the river." The same thing would be in Windsor and perhaps in Sault Ste Marie. They talk about "going over the river," because the river is what separates our two countries. What we are finding now are tremendously long line ups at the border.

On Sunday of this past week I had to speak in Lewiston at the Presbyterian church. I was talking about some environmental issues. It was called, "A Cross-Border Dialogue." One of the things I had even forgotten about, despite watching on television the long lineups that existed there, was that when you go over the border, the lineup is not so long. When you try to find out how you are going to get back, and the member for Niagara Falls would know this -- she does not cross the river to shop, I know that -- she could see across the river the long lineups of people coming back.

Hon Mr Laughren: I have seen you cross the border with an empty tank.

Mr Bradley: Always with a full tank. Anyway, I went to the Presbyterian church to speak. Those people there, I think, recognized the problem as they came back over the border and realized that a lot of their fellow citizens in adjacent communities are going there.

There was a time when it was the people in Sault Ste Marie, perhaps in Cornwall, perhaps in Port Colborne and Fort Erie and Niagara Falls, who went across the river to do their shopping. Today people are coming from far greater distances. You have now got an influx, what I would call an outflux, I guess, or an exit, from Hamilton, Kitchener, Oakville and Mississauga, places like that, of people who are heading to the border to do their shopping.

There are about three loss leaders that attract them over there. One is the cost of gasoline, and people will go over to fill up their gas tanks. A second is the cost of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, and they will go over there to purchase those products. There are some other products as well.

One of the points I made in my question to the Treasurer earlier today was that it is not simply somebody going over to buy a case of beer, although I understand that a case of beer is much cheaper in the United States than it is in Canada -- that is what my colleagues who live in the peninsula tell me -- but it is the fact that it makes meal prices cheaper on the American side, so the restaurants that are on the American side are able to offer meals at considerably less than on the Canadian side. A lot of that is based on the fact that the cost of the alcoholic beverage, the bottle of wine or another drink that one might be having with a meal, is somewhat lower.

What we have seen in this budget is an increase in taxes on all those items. I am the first to be fair with the Treasurer and say I do not expect that he has got all the answers to a complicated problem. But again, what he has done, in my view and I think the view of the mayor of St Catharines -- I heard him on the radio this morning -- is make the problem worse with those kinds of tax increases. I would hope that in reconsidering he might withdraw those taxes, though I suspect that is not on his mind at the present time.

I want to look at the problems confronted by families who are facing unemployment. We have in our community, as there are in many communities, an unemployed help centre which is funded by the Ontario government. The president of the local labour council, Gabe MacNally, who has always been an activist on behalf of working people in St Catharines, wrote a letter to the Minister of Labour and to MPPs from the Niagara Peninsula outlining the position of the labour council on that and looking for some additional funding. He was surprised that, first of all, our local labour council was not apprised of the fact that there might be more money available, and second, it was not designated as receiving some of that funding.

The reason I raise this issue is because during times of deep recession, during times of high unemployment, people go to unemployed help centres almost in desperation to get counselling, to get assistance, just to get some moral support at a time when it is very difficult for them and their families. It is not always pleasant at home when father or mother is unemployed or perhaps both are unemployed and the kids come home from school and it has been a tough day. They have been out looking for work and there are not jobs there and they have got to face that reality. From time to time family violence results from this, whether it is in terms of a husband-and-wife confrontation or whether it is the children who receive the kind of treatment they should not receive because the people are at their wits end in dealing with the unemployment circumstances.

1540

What we are seeing today, and I quoted this in the House previously, is what Gord Wilson had to say when he visited St Catharines. This is an interesting figure that I see a lot of people are picking up on, and I give him credit for coming forward with this. It is that the people who are losing their jobs today are losing them permanently at the rate of 48%. Back in the recession of 1981, 1982, 1983, about 27%, somewhere around there, of the people who lost their job were not going to get it back; that job was disappearing for good. That has changed now. It is 48%. It is much tougher for those who are facing those circumstances to contemplate that when they know there is not going to be a return to a job.

My voice is going to improve perhaps with this excellent glass of Toronto water, which of course is perfect water, no doubt, now that the NDP is in power. At least I have not heard anything about it being --

Mrs Marland: It was perfect when you were there.

Mr Bradley: It was perfect when I was there, said the member for Mississauga South very kindly.

A couple of other items I want to dwell on. One is Elliot Lake. Again, being from Sudbury originally and having relatives up there, I know the great difficulties facing the people of Elliot Lake. Many of those people have already had to travel from job to job. They have been in the ore extraction industry and, when tough times come, they often have to move somewhere else. When you are in southern Ontario, oftentimes you can get a job in an adjacent community or even in your own community. The economy is diversified sufficiently that you can find other employment. If you get into a place like Elliot Lake, it just cannot be done.

I could multiply that by many across the north, where people in largely single-industry towns and cities and villages face the prospect of having to lift the whole family up and move perhaps hundreds of miles away or to go to another area where there is mining taking place. Very often the people who are working in those industries are suited to those industries -- they have the skills for those industries -- and cannot easily move to another job where some substantially different skills are required.

I know that the older members -- I should not say the older members -- the long-serving members of the NDP who served in opposition will be somewhat forgiving of those of us on the opposition side today if we recall promises, because we recall that members such as the member for Nickel Belt, who was vociferous and vocal in his criticism of previous governments, Liberal and Conservative, and justifiably so from his point of view, would expect that we would remind the government of the promise in Elliot Lake: the promise that in fact employment would be maintained because Ontario Hydro would be directed to purchase in the province of Ontario its product to operate its nuclear generating stations.

There was an understanding. It has been there since years ago. A legislative committee looked into the pricing of that particular product many years ago, I recall. The Conservative government of the day decided that it would allow Ontario Hydro, or perhaps even encourage Ontario Hydro, to purchase its product right here in Ontario and generate employment.

What we are seeing now is a situation where these people are being left aside, where the promise of the government is falling by the wayside, where the same speeches that the NDP members made in opposition are changing considerably today as they talk about the realities of office. Once again the public sees that the NDP is like other parties, not worse than other people. Some would say perhaps in a partisan sense that the New Democrats are awful, they are a pack of socialists, they do not care about this and that. I do not say that. I simply say that the NDP in office is similar to Conservative governments and Liberal governments in that it recognizes when it gets into office that there are certain realities and it has to make some tough choices. They made a choice in this case to allow heavy unemployment in Elliot Lake by not directing that the uranium purchased by Ontario Hydro for the nuclear generating stations should come from Elliot Lake. The people in that area will suffer for that.

Again, I got a letter from people in my local labour council whose advice I have valued over the years, whether in government or in opposition previously and today, and have acted upon, in many cases, the suggestions that they have made to me. I had letters from some of those people imploring that all members of the Legislature do what they could to ensure that the people of Elliot Lake would be allowed to have their jobs continue, that the purchases would take place. Unfortunately, I am going to have to write back to them and inform them that the NDP government is not prepared to see that happen, as I would have to if they had written to me about Varity Corp which the now Premier said in opposition should never be allowed to go to the US, or Consumers' Gas. Again, a lot of people out there who looked at the NDP -- I even was convinced at one time, sitting on the government side, that the NDP was close to perfect. They always seemed to have this air of morality about them, and I think where it comes from --

Mr Nixon: Pseudo-morality.

Mr Bradley: Pseudo-morality, says the interim leader of the Liberal Party, but I must say they were effective in conveying the viewpoint to me that they were somehow substantially different from others in politics, and I find out that they are not. That is disappointing. It is like finding out that something you believed in -- I cannot say this because I do not want little kids to find this out -- really does not exist.

Mr Nixon: It's disappointing.

Mr Bradley: It is disappointing for me. I always used to look for the NDP to be on the cutting edge of certain issues as well, and I find out that when it gets in public office it is not, and I miss that. I would say there are probably some people in the New Democratic Party who wish they could have been in opposition for ever, because they could be pure for ever. They could be seen to be assisting governments by prodding them into action.

I know that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the member for Elgin, who voted for the tax increase for tobacco, is a person I like. I happen to like that member. I think he has a great personality in terms of dealing with the members in the House, and he has a tough job. What I really feel today is that the Treasurer has cut off his legs at his knees because he said to him -- that is what the Premier once said about me, for some reason; he said somebody did that. But I am saying the Treasurer has done that to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, because he is working hard out there. He is working hard to attract people to the province of Ontario, and yet the Treasurer of this province raises gasoline taxes and other taxes and discourages people from coming to the province of Ontario. So there is all the work the Minister of Tourism and Recreation does, staying up till 2 and 3 in the morning, no doubt, developing new plans, going around the province of Ontario encouraging people to be upbeat about tourism. What happens? The Treasurer turns around and takes money out of his pocket. I feel badly for him.

The former Minister of Tourism and Recreation -- the member for Quinte was that at one time -- would understand that very well, because he knows that he is going to have fewer visitors in eastern Ontario as a result.

There are some areas where the minister did not produce, as well. He has not cured unemployment. In St Catharines it is 14.1%. In Windsor it is a little over 14% -- it is even higher than that. He would say, "Well, it's only eight months now since we've been in office, so how can they expect anything?" I think people were expecting a little more than they got so far. He will tell us to be patient, as he should, but people on unemployment insurance cannot be patient.

I am going to go back to education, because I have many friends in education, and I was a teacher. In my previous incarnation I was a teacher and a member of the teachers' union; in fact, on the executive of the teachers' union. Some of my colleagues thought I was very militant in those days, back when teachers were getting 1% and 2% increases in their pay, and indeed I was militant at that time.

1550

One of the things I was always aiming for: One of the reasons I got into politics, of course, was because of the member for Brant-Haldimand and his encouragement back in 1967 to get into politics. He was working at that time on having the province assume 80% of the cost of education and I thought, "Gee, that sounds like a good idea." We worked hard at it, certainly, and found that it was difficult to achieve.

If you put together the payments into the teachers' superannuation fund, and if you put together all the other possible things you could throw into the pot last year, for instance, you could say the province was supporting education to the tune of about 57% or 58%. But, of course, that is not what the NDP said it was going to do. It was going to raise its share of the cost of education to 60%.

What happened? As I saw in the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation update -- this is the elementary school men teachers' federation -- the government has in fact lowered its percentage of the cost of education that it was paying in the province of Ontario. It has actually gone down.

This will be disappointing to some of the members who were elected on the government side of the House who campaigned so hard on this issue. They now have to go back to their local federations and explain why it is going down and why it is unlikely to be increased to that 60% because of some of the other commitments this government happens to have in the field of spending.

One thing the Treasurer did do, which I think is worthy of some praise, was to continue the Liberal program of providing new capital funds for elementary and secondary schools in this province. He has said he is going to extend that program of $300 million a year for another year, and I think that will be helpful. A lot has taken place in terms of construction in the past five years and I am sure that will be welcome to them. They will say: "This is a good policy on your part. It is nice to see you continuing to implement those Liberal policies."

I am happy to see that the Treasurer is continuing the Environmental Youth Corps that was established by this government to give young people in the province of Ontario a chance to participate in improving the environment while at the same time being able to earn some money. This is exceedingly important to those of us who sit on this side.

When the Treasurer was spending money, when he was looking at all the money he had to spend and deciding what his priorities would be out of the money he had available, I would have hoped that he would have put a tremendous amount of money into sewer and water projects. He will say he put some significant sums in.

I remember a letter I received from the Treasurer -- I think I mentioned this in the House once before -- where he said, "Why don't you start acting like an Environment minister and put your money where your mouth is?" That was pretty plain English coming from the now Treasurer to the then Environment minister, because he wanted something in his riding, and understandably so. I can understand that. I wrote back a letter saying that we were doing the best we could -- does that not sound familiar, "doing the best we could"? -- and that in the framework of fiscal responsibility, and where the needs were the greatest for the environment, we would be channelling that money.

The Treasurer had a chance -- and he still has a chance -- in the middle of a recession to channel a tremendous amount of money into water and sewer projects. First of all, the rules have been made tougher. I saw in the St Catharines Standard where one of the engineers from the regional municipality of Niagara was stating -- I will not say lamenting -- the fact that the rules and regulations governing sewage treatment plants are much tougher now than they were a few years ago. I deliberately did that, and I knew it would cost more money for the province of Ontario for that to happen. What is required now is a genuine upgrade of those sewage treatment plants to meet those new requirements, and that means the province has to pay its fair share.

The member for Welland-Thorold was present on an occasion when we were involved in opening a new sewage treatment plant. Indeed, he informed me that he had worked in this particular plant at one time as a student and asked on that occasion that I indicate some strong support for and recognition of the people who were working in the plant. I thought that a most appropriate suggestion on his part. He was delighted on that occasion that we were having an improvement to that sewage treatment plant. I cannot speak for him, but I am sure he would be pleased to see this government, if it is going to spend its capital funding, spending it on improving those plants because they must meet our environmental objectives. At the same time, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities said, they have a tremendous economic impact on our communities in terms of job creation. Much of that job creation comes from the private sector.

What we have in the province, however, facing us today, instead of these kinds of what I consider smart ways of spending money -- our agricultural critic, the member for Cornwall, suggested one way today that we could spend money smartly to assist farmers who are having a difficult time staying on the land, even though those of us who live in urban areas would like to preserve agricultural land. He suggested there should be some increased assistance designated for farmers. I think most people who are fairminded in this House would say that should be the case.

I am looking in this budget, when I go through it, for one single measure that would turn the economy around, instil confidence, attract new investment, new jobs, and retrain displaced workers. I heard a lot about retraining and some potential announcements forthcoming. I think one of the areas where, if we are to be competitive, we have to be involved, is very extensive retraining of members of our work force.

When I started out as a kid and then as a student going into the work force, I assumed that the job I had would likely be the one I would have for a lifetime, unless of course I got elected to public office. I suspect most people my age would have felt that. Today, people going into the work force recognize that in fact they are going to have many different jobs. To be able to do so and be competitive in that job market, they are going to have to be retrained. That is where I think this government has failed in one specific area to put sufficient direction and funding, into that field of retraining which would be a productive expenditure, not only in the short term, but in the long term.

I notice that the government did something, again that business people recognize probably better than I, with the small business tax. You can say, "Well, we're going to get the person who has been" -- I would use the word "successful"; the government would say the person who has generated a lot of profit -- "by nailing them with a change in that tax structure." I go back to the point that when you do it, the workers ultimately are going to suffer from it. Yes, that person may lose some profit. That person may decide to move his or her money somewhere else. That person can do that, but it is not as easy to move one's job somewhere else. So I would like to see that kind of retraining and training and skills development money expended in this province.

The Treasurer announced job creation of some 70,000 due to this budget. Indeed, the Treasurer claimed this was his reason for running such a high deficit. I think an objective examination of those figures would say that they will not hold up to careful scrutiny, that in fact the generation of 70,000 jobs is simply found only in the budget document itself, and that it cannot be so. It is the result of what we call the macroeconomic model, based on estimating the number of jobs that can be created when X number of dollars is spent. However, that money must be spent on direct job creation for the figure to be valid. In each of these cases the money is going to almost everything but job creation, so we are unlikely to see even those 70,000 jobs that the Treasurer suggested are actually being created.

The government is introducing a $57-million manufacture recovery program, which will offer loans and loan guarantees to small- and medium-sized manufacturers that happen to be in difficulty due to the recession. That covers an awful lot of them. This is estimated to preserve -- not create new -- 6,000 jobs. I commend the government on this specific measure which, though it is not a major step, is a modest step that can be helpful.

1600

But I think we have to really look at what circumstances we are facing in the province. The new economic outlook for this government is much grimmer than it might have anticipated when it took office. Ontario will continue to suffer a recession that is twice as bad as in the rest of the country, and that is a fact that a lot of people have not taken into consideration.

One of the reasons obviously is we are the major industrial province and industries are hit hard. That means the government has to have policies which are specifically designed to turn this economy around. The economy is expected to decline by 3.3% in 1991, with another 184,000 jobs lost. The Canadian economy is expected to decline by only 1.6%, so people around us are doing better than we are.

Unemployment is estimated to average 10% in 1991-92 and decrease very slowly to 7.8% by 1994-95; this with a government in power which says it was always in favour of full employment. Inflation is estimated to increase from 4.8% in 1990 to 5.6% in 1991. Consumer spending is estimated to decline by 1.5%. I should note here, however, in the long term the Treasurer's estimates -- I think it was about 4% that he said inflation was going to be, or perhaps even less than 4% -- are quite optimistic when we look at the fact that this deficit will have an effect on interest rates and costs in this province.

Housing starts are expected to fall from 93,000 in 1989 and 62,000 in 1990 to about 46,000 in 1991. Real business machinery and equipment investment is expected to decline by 4.3% in 1991, while real business non-residential construction is expected to fall by 9.1% in 1991. Ontario exports -- and we know how much we rely on our exports in this province -- will plummet by almost 8% this year, compared to 2.2% growth in 1990. I wish we had the market here to say we are self-sufficient. There would be different kinds of policies we could develop. We have to export, however, and we have to be competitive to export, and we also face some North American conditions, to be fair. But that is a fact of life: They are going to decline by 8%.

The government is putting forward extremely optimistic and doubtful projections for growth of the economy of 3.4% in 1992, 4% in 1993 and 3.6% in 1994. Now, if you included inflation, you might say that, but I think if you exclude inflation, the real growth will simply not be that. Based on this optimistic outlook, the government is also projecting an average growth of 9.8% in tax revenues over the next four years. If these projections are off, Ontario will live with a $10-billion-plus deficit throughout the Premier's regime.

Now one of two things is going to happen to meet those revenue increases in a percentage term. Either the economy is going to grow and the government is going to get that money -- and it might have grown, by the way, if it had cut some taxes instead of increasing them -- or it is going to face the other consequence: It is going to have to raise taxes again. Again, it will be tough on the people of this province and tough to attract people who want to invest money in the province of Ontario.

The manufacturing work force has decreased by about 10% in 1990 and that is pretty well attributable to the inflation. I will not attribute that to the new government's policies or people scared of it. That was a fact of the recession and the problem is, it is continuing to dwindle. The construction work force has been cut by one third. The service sector is now being adversely affected.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment in Ontario was 9.9% in March of this year, compared to 6.4% in September. In March 1991, Ontario had a seasonally adjusted total of 520,000 unemployed people. The unadjusted total was 569,000. When the NDP took power, unadjusted unemployment figures were at 316,000. This is an increase of 79% in six months, pretty grim for the province of Ontario. The prescription provided by the Treasurer, while it may in part have some effect on alleviating that -- I do not want to cast it out and say it is a totally useless document; that would be unfair, unrealistic and untrue -- is not going to address that problem sufficiently for the working people in this province and, more important at this point in time, for the unemployed in this province who want to work, who want to be productive members of our society but are left without that opportunity.

I mentioned earlier the problem of the scarcity of skilled people in certain jobs. I could be wrong on this one, but I used to think of General Motors in St Catharines. They talked about tool and die makers and other people with specialized skills and they talked about their average age being somewhere around 55 years old. These people, if they had 30-and-out, would be able to retire after 30 years in General Motors. Many chose to stay on. I am not convinced we have necessarily all those kinds of skilled people available today, and yet there are going to be opportunities for them at some time in the future. That is why I want the government to address that problem.

Youth unemployment has increased rather drastically over this period of time. They are going to face the same challenges as everybody else as we go into the future. It is very discouraging as they come out of school when they do not have a job to go to and they do not have an opportunity. It means when they are talking to their friends that they will tell their friends that all the education they got was for naught.

One of the most telling figures is the duration of unemployment now. Again, people used to be able to hop from job to job from time to time. The member for Brantford is here today. I remember my father at one time, when he was unemployed in St Catharines during one of the recessionary periods, had to go to Brantford to work. He had to work from 12 to 8, which were not very pleasant hours to have to work, or 11 to 7, one of the two. I think it was 12 to 8 in his particular case.

People could go from place to place in the province of Ontario because there might have been jobs in an adjacent community. The member for Brantford and the member for Brant-Haldimand, who are both here, know of the difficulty that community has faced over a number of years with unemployment. I guess many communities are facing that now and people do not have that chance to go back to jobs.

I mention the telling statistic: In 1982, 21.5% of all layoffs of over 50 people were due to complete plant closures, and today that is 48%, as Gord Wilson had told us some time ago. At the same time, there were even more companies on the brink of trouble, with 1,921 Ontario firms accessing federal wage subsidy programs in January, compared to only 314 a year ago.

Bankruptcy statistics continue to soar. Ontario registered 78% more bankruptcies in March 1991 than in March 1990, for a total of 2,455. From January 1991 to March 1991, 1,015 businesses went bankrupt in Ontario; 77 of those were manufacturers, and 24 manufacturers went bankrupt in March 1991 alone. It is a pretty grim picture because it is the people who own the businesses themselves who are affected and it is the people who supply them and supply services and products to them who are affected, and of course it is the workers in those particular operations who are badly impacted by this.

I wish that things were somewhat different, but they are not, and we find that the solution the NDP has is to raise 11 different taxes by some $1 billion, fully annualized over the first full year. Only one tax for those living below the poverty line was reduced, and I am pleased that in fact the Treasurer has taken that upon himself; that is, for low-income people. He has followed the lead of the previous Treasurer of this province in reducing and enriching a program which meant that low-income people in certain categories would not have to pay taxes. It is good because it puts money back in the hands of those people to make expenditures that are required. When he follows the lead of the previous Treasurer in matters of that kind, he cannot go wrong.

1610

But here he is in other matters where he is wrong. Gasoline taxes are going up 1.7 cents a litre to 13 cents a litre for unleaded gas and 16 cents a litre for leaded gas immediately. On 1 January 1992 the gasoline tax will go up another 1.7 cents a litre. This is a 30% increase on the unleaded gasoline in less than eight months. Revenues to the province will increase by $205 million as a result in 1991-92; $410 million over a full year.

It is a tax grab. The government will disguise it as something else. We know how those disguises work. We know how the government does those things and now it is doing it, as other governments have. It is involved in a tax grab.

There is a difference now. We are in the midst of a recession. That is not the time to be involved in a tax grab. When the economy is booming, the government has the opportunity to adjust upward some of the taxes it has.

Hon Mr Laughren: What would you have done?

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer says, "What would you have done?" I would not have raised taxes in the province of Ontario.

Treasury officials estimate that an average Ontario driver will pay $88 more a year in gasoline taxes and northern drivers, some of the people who elected the Treasurer, $110 more, based on greater distances.

Diesel taxes have gone up 1.7 cents a litre, with an increase of 55 cents a litre on railway locomotive diesel tax. I can remember the NDP members -- the member for Renfrew North will remember this -- when they stood in this House to try to encourage the federal government to retain rail service. Now what do they do to the rail service? Do they enhance it? Do they encourage it? No, they put a tax on it. The provincial government puts a diesel tax on the locomotives in this province. On one hand, they say, "Please save Via Rail, please save the freight services," and on the other hand, they turn around and tax them and make them less competitive. To me, that does not make a good deal of sense.

The NDP chose not to lower the threshold income level for the high-income surtax of 10% from $84,000 to $65,000. Rather they increased the surtax from 10% to 12% in 1991 and to 14% in 1992. This is estimated -- and the Treasurer is always interested, he rubs his hands in glee when this happens -- to raise $60 million in 1991-92 and $90 million in the full year. This will affect taxpayers earning more than $84,000 a year, which will mean members of the cabinet. I do not think anybody else in the House is affected.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Oh, it does not affect members of the cabinet. Oh, yes, I realize that. Here I thought it affected members of the cabinet, and it is just too low for that. I will not comment further on that. But here I was wrong. I am glad the member for Renfrew North pointed that out to me, because I did not recognize that immediately. I thought, with that very healthy stipend ministers over there have, that it would affect them, but apparently it does not because some portion of that -- okay.

What else can I be critical of in this budget? Oh yes, effective 27 May 1991 the volume levy on alcohol is increased by five cents a litre to 29 cents per litre on spirits and wine. I say "spirits and wine" again because we have tried so hard to save the wine industry in this province, and what does the Treasurer do? Bang, he puts a tax on it.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food would understand this. I will not ask him to intervene in the debate, but he will understand how difficult it is to keep our grape and wine industry competitive. He must privately think in his own mind, "Isn't it awful what the Treasurer has done to the wine industry in this province by increasing that tax?" And beer -- they have put up the price of beer again.

Ms S. Murdock: How many times did you increase it?

Mr Bradley: Not only did this government let the beer companies raise the price -- I happen to know that has to go through cabinet. A lot of people in this province do not know, and I would venture to say that even the person in the chair today may not be aware, that the cabinet must approve all increases in the beer price; not just the taxes but beer increases have to be approved by cabinet.

All the working people out in this province who enjoy the odd beer here and there, in the Golden Pheasant Tavern in St Catharines or the Mansion House Tavern or any of these places in any of our communities, who enjoy the odd ale are going to find out that the Treasurer of this province and his colleagues in cabinet approve all those increases in the price of beer. Then on top of that, after they have approved the price -- notice I say after they have approved the price increase -- they put a tax on top of that, a tax on an increase. I certainly believe that this is not proper at all. I know the Speaker who is in the chair, who is formerly from St Catharines, would very likely agree with me if she had the opportunity to do so.

There are other tax increases that I want to go through. Oh, I like this one from this angle on it. I was trying to figure out, with the premiums for -- everybody's but mine, I must say -- car insurance going down in the province, this government must have said, "This is not very good, because if premiums are coming down under the present program where the private sector is providing car insurance in this industry, people will say: 'Why would the government intervene? Why would the government now want to set up a government-run insurance scheme?'" To do that, they put the tax back on, and they know that of course will be reflected in the premiums. The premiums will go up and then the government will say: "See, we told you the private sector is increasing the cost of insurance. We need government insurance."

That is something that perhaps the Treasurer himself did not think of, because he is an honourable gentleman, but I know many of his colleagues probably thought of that and suggested to him this might make good sense. In fact, as I read the -- he is pointing in the House now. I will not say to whom. But perhaps some of the gurus who advise him and advise the public for $800 at their seminars suggested this might be a good idea.

I am one who is reluctant to use names in the House, but I will because it is a public person. When I want to know what the government is going to do, I listen to Gerald Caplan. He is on with the other two people from the other two parties in the House. Gerald Caplan suggests what this government might do. Then I know that some would do the opposite and some would do what he suggests.

Then the next thing I do is I read Michele Landsberg in the Toronto Star. She gives her advice. These are people giving public advice to the NDP. I get to know then just what is going to happen in this regard.

I was trying to figure out how I could work into this speech the new appointments system, the radically new and different, unpolitical, non-patronage appointments system that the Speaker would be very aware of. This is one time she cannot respond, because she is sitting in the chair. I will fit it in because it costs money. That is how I can fit it into a budget debate.

When the member for York South was elected the Premier of Ontario, I heard him say and I heard him announce in this House, with a good deal of fanfare and with a lot of people believing him -- and I have said in the past that I actually, from a politician's point of view, straight politics here, admire the fact that this government is able to convince a lot of people that its system of appointments is radically different and much more fair than existed previously. It is not; it is a sham to say that.

This is not to say that I believe this government does not have the right to appoint. We in opposition will watch and see what they are doing, and we will make comment, but they won the election. When you win the election, even if it is with some 38% or some 37% of the vote, you win. Those are the rules.

Mr Cooper: With 74 members.

Mr Bradley: That is right. It elects 74 members with 38% of the vote, but those were the rules when we went into the game, and that is fair, even though I know that a lot of New Democrats who used to be in favour of proportional representation have faded into the woodwork now that they have won the other way. Those are the rules, and I believe that if they got elected by the rules that existed, they deserve to be there.

Ms S. Murdock: We used to play football, right?

Mr Bradley: The member for Sudbury was interjecting. I should say in the House that I used to live down the street from the member for Sudbury, Sharon Murdock. You are not supposed to name people, but that was her name then. Now she is the member for Sudbury. She lived at the corner of Eyre Street and Albert Street and I lived at the corner of Albert and Whittaker, and we used to even play together in St Albert's schoolyard.

Mr Nixon: Ah, God.

Mr Bradley: Football, she said.

Ms S. Murdock: You know I could beat you.

Mr Bradley: She was a better football player than I was, I must concede that.

This has sidetracked me, but anyway, she would be interested in knowing that the appointments system that the government has advertised and the appointments system that it has delivered are two different things, that there is a major gap between reality and perception. If this government said: "Look, we're going to run things the way the other people did. We won the election and we have the right to appoint New Democrats," I would say, "Sure, you're entitled to do that." If the members opposite say, "We're going to set up a committee and the committee can at least interview the people and that's a step forward," not a big step, I would say, "Okay, I'll concede that to you, that's a step forward."

But it is characterized out there, and I even read it in a column once, that somehow the committee has the right to veto, that the committee has almost unlimited access to ask questions, that it can have third parties -- that is, people who have an interest in it -- make comment either in writing or otherwise and that it can look at reappointments and so on. It can do none of those things. From that point of view it is a sham. I only say it is a sham because of what it is portrayed to be, not because of what it is. I am happy to be able to sit in the committee from time to time and meet some of the people whom the government is appointing. Not all of them are going to be New Democrats. They will wisely choose some high-profile Conservatives and Liberals to appoint to things, so they can say, "See, we're nonpartisan." Yet the overwhelming majority of people will be New Democrats, and that's the way it is, as Walter Cronkite used to say.

That got me off my thoughts here, but I want to go back to some of those thoughts.

The corporation tax: Again, I do not have shares in corporations or anything like that. I am like most Canadians who have any savings at all. You put them in Canada Savings Bonds and in the bank or something like that; and there is precious little there, I must say. I just filed my income tax form and it would verify that. However, there are people who are risk-takers, people who are prepared to take a chance and make a profit, who are looking and saying: "This NDP tax commission" -- members opposite call it the Fair Tax Commission -- "what are they going to do to me to take away any potential profits I can make? While I'm making those profits, by the way, I'm going to generate some economic activity." That is the kind of rhetoric and that is the kind of promise that is going to make people, at the very least, hesitant to invest in this province.

The government promised a packaging tax on virgin materials or selected materials like batteries to serve as a deterrent to manufacturers who package goods with unnecessary and non-recyclable packaging. I did not see that in the budget. If the government had it in the budget, it would be a tax increase. If they had offset that tax increase with a tax decrease somewhere, they could justify it, and if they would do as they said in opposition, that is, designate it for a specific area -- the Treasurer will tell me what you call those kinds of funds; designated funds -- in fact, one could have said they had some form of justification. Two conditions: one --

Hon Mr Laughren: I think Bradley needs a new challenge. Run for leader, Jim. Come on.

Mr Bradley: I am encouraged by the Treasurer to run for leader.

Mr Nixon: Did he announce?

Mr Bradley: I have not announced that.

Mr Bisson: A whole bunch of people around you are turning white.

Mr Bradley: I am a member of the moderate middle in this province. Where was I? Oh, yes, designated taxes.

Mr Nixon: There's only one thing that would make him announce.

Mr Bradley: There is only one thing that would probably draw me into the race, and I will not say what that is.

Mr Nixon: That's if I were to announce.

Mr Bradley: Someone suggested it would be the announcement that the interim leader was going to run, but they are just jesting; it would not really be the case at all.

Anyway, had the Treasurer come forward with the kind of tax with two conditions -- one, designate the funds in a specific area and, two, have an offsetting tax decrease -- he would not have heard opposition from people in this party to that. I think he will do that, probably, in a further budget. He can remind me on that occasion, if the circumstances are as I have described them, that we said we would not oppose such a tax under those circumstances. But it did not appear. Instead, he certainly hit the people on other taxes that are rather important.

Where does this take us as we go into 1991 and 1992 in various ministries? The Minister of Energy would want to encourage conservation as much as possible, and she has some new money for that. She should be delighted about that. I hope she uses it wisely to encourage conservation, because that is a major plank in the NDP government's platform of energy in the province; I will not say the provision of energy, but energy in the province of Ontario. I wish her well. I think she would need more money than has been indicated for those purposes if she is going to meet her goal of avoiding having to build new generating capacity, but I hope that money, used wisely, will encourage and educate people to be more energy efficient.

Somebody made fun of the now Minister of Financial Institutions when he suggested that everybody should get a free fridge; some people in opposition even made fun of it. Well, the concept is not out of line. It may be that the specific proposal was not on target, but it generated some interest and I think it really points to the fact that our appliances in our homes should be much more efficient. I think the government of Ontario, through Ontario Hydro, could actually pay industry to convert its machines to more energy-efficient machines, and therefore diminish at least, if not eliminate, the need for new generating capacity, because all of us recognize that there is no benign way of producing electricity in Ontario or anywhere else.

We have nuclear generating stations. We have had safe and efficient generating stations so far. People have concerns about what you might do with the waste, and people are working on that problem. Some people express concern about that way of producing electricity, even though it is our major way of producing it now and Canada has established a good reputation in that field. Others have expressed concern about fossil fuel plants, because they contribute to global warming and cause pollution in terms of sulphur dioxide and NOX emissions.

A third group -- I remember appearing before the House of Commons committee on acid rain. A member from Quebec irritated me for some period of time. He asked, "Why do you call it Ontario Hydro?" He kept emphasizing the word "Hydro" because he wanted to make the point that we burn coal in this province. Well, we do burn coal, and it does produce emissions which are not good for the environment, and we are working on those. When he continued to press the question, I put it to him that if Ontario wanted to flood its native people out of their homeland and wanted to leach mercury into their waterways, I guess we could call it Ontario Hydro. He had no further questions.

1630

The point is, there is no benign way of producing electrical power, which is why the conservation efforts of the government will be so important. This is not to suggest that there will not be a need for some capacity. That will be determined by the Environmental Assessment Board, looking at the arguments put forward with a good deal of objectivity, and if it is needed, those individual projects will be put before the Environmental Assessment Board to determine if the adverse environmental effects can be overcome, and that is as it should be. But the portion of the increase, even though in percentage it is great, given to the Minister of Energy to carry out her responsibilities is rather meagre, in my view.

There are 6,000 medium and small businesses in Ontario, and this is where I get into this tax. They move to eliminate exemptions for insurance premiums, and that is going to raise insurance premiums. They are going to cap the mining tax exemptions, at the very time when people in northern Ontario are struggling to get more activity in the mining area -- I think that is going to be a step backwards -- and they claw back exemptions for 6,000 small and medium businesses in Ontario. For a full list of taxes, I could provide for them yet another series of comments, but I will not do that.

Again, small businesses, just because they are successful, should not be taxed out of business. Do not just look at those who are unsuccessful as being worthy of some support, or at least benign neglect in terms of not taxing them. Look at some of the successful people in the province and allow them to generate jobs.

The current cost allowance, which provides tax incentives for the purchase of new manufacturing equipment, will be phased out 1 January of next year. It will remain for pollution control equipment. That is good. I think that it should apply equally for process changes, not just the abatement equipment itself.

But what happens when they take out this cost allowance at a time when we are in a recession is they may have the satisfaction of saying: "We just got the corporate sector. We just showed them. We're not going to give them breaks." But who ultimately benefits or does not benefit from it? It is the working people of this province. What we have to get back to is, what is the effect for the general population -- as Ed Broadbent used to say, the average Canadian -- when we do those --

An hon member: The ordinary Canadian.

Mr Bradley: The ordinary Canadian, as he referred to them.

There is $1 billion in the technology fund set up by David Peterson, and it had its allocation actually reduced this year from $132 million to $131 million. This fund is crucial to aiding in technology transfers, startups and research and development and was needed in this budget more than ever. I would have thought that it would have been a good idea to advance those funds even further.

I was talking to the CBC in Sudbury today, for instance. They asked me about some of the effects on northern Ontario. Really, only the northern members experience on an ongoing basis the different circumstances up there. When I lived in Sudbury, I remember, for instance, the difference between the south and the north.

An hon member: How long ago was that?

Mr Bradley: Many, many years ago now.

The member for Essex-Kent would know -- he has similar land to what I have, I guess, in the peninsula -- that all you do when you want to put in a sewer in your area is get the back hoe out. In Sudbury they are blasting all the time. It is an additional cost. So every time you can keep the cost down --

I was up in Timmins in March, and in Sudbury, not on a political visit in this case, but looking at the old communities. I was actually watching basketball at the time. St Catharines teams were playing in both Timmins and Sudbury and I went to see them in action.

You really get an idea of what the road system is like. We in southern Ontario drive on four-lane roads. You go into northern Ontario and there are not many places where there are four lanes, and you really see that the promise that the government made for those four lanes is a promise which has not been kept. I see that the four-lane highway, the $100 million per year in the north, are two important things that should have happened up there.

I listen to some people in southern Ontario who say: "Don't the northern Ontario people always cry about things? Aren't they always saying this or that?" They have to understand that those people live in different circumstances. Some of the members in the House on all sides are from northern Ontario. The members from the east understand some special problems there. We cannot have programs which are geared in blankets to the whole province without modifying them to satisfy certain parts of the province.

Now the Agenda for People, I noticed, because I looked carefully -- tell me if I am wrong; someone in the opposition will -- was not mentioned in the budget. Is that correct? I did not see it. I kept looking for it and said: "It's got to be there somewhere. I just haven't had a chance to look at it." It is not even there.

The Ontario tax system, to go back to that and how important it is for the whole province, does rely on certain breaks in the system or incentives in the system to get investment. We built a corporate tax system which placed less reliance on fixed taxes that are payable regardless of profitability. This was designed intentionally to make Ontario a more attractive place to invest, and those who need that investment recognize that importance. Our tax system in Ontario is also designed to provide tax-based incentives where appropriate, rather than lower corporate rates across the board. This provides the necessary incentives for new investment and new development. The government had a tool for that.

Ontario is currently experiencing competitive disadvantages, frankly, as are other Canadian provinces and the northern United States -- the northern US understands this as well -- from the southern US, Mexico and other newly industrializing countries with low labour costs, low taxation and few regulatory guidelines. Some American jurisdictions, and indeed other provinces such as Quebec and New Brunswick, are now offering tax holidays and other government incentives to Ontario manufacturers to locate in their locales.

It is nice to say, "On principle, we're opposed to that," but what it really does is put you out of the ball game. It does not allow you to participate as others did. You can say it is a bidding war. You can say what you want. I go back to the point that in this province we are living in a world of reality and not in a Utopia and it is important that we always remember that when we are bringing forward a budget of this kind.

I could mention many other items that are of importance to my colleagues. They will get a chance to do so. Our critic for Colleges and Universities, the member for Nepean, is here today, and he has raised some issues about tuition, the fact that tuition went up 8% this year, again in a recessionary period of time. He has expressed the needs for good education, for retraining and proper funding of that.

The member for Fort William is here. She has served in government and knows of many of the problems that exist in the north. She will be looking carefully, she would have scoured this budget for items that would be of particular importance to the north and would have had to find a magnifying glass to find those items which would be particularly advantageous to the north, despite the fact that we have six ministers from the north. We would have thought that would have been translated into action.

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: And nothing for the east. The member for Ottawa South says there is nothing for the east as well.

When we have all of this collection, when we have a budget -- as I look for my final amendment to the budget -- I think the resolution put forward by the Treasurer should be amended to show nonconfidence in the government, nonconfidence because it has produced a document which, first, extracts $1 billion out of the Ontario economy in the middle of a difficult recession and, second, which has a $10-billion deficit this year, unprecedented in this province, one third of the federal deficit, uncontemplated by any reasonable person in this community, and that has failed to address the pressing problems in the province of Ontario, problems it said it would address in its Agenda for People and subsequent to that; a government which is not encouraging but discouraging investment through its policies, not in a deliberate sense but is discouraging it; a government which is encouraging people through its policies to leave Ontario, to take the jobs to other jurisdictions; a government which is discouraging people from placing any new funds in any long-term investments in this province which would be beneficial to working people in Ontario.

When I see a budget like this presented, the first opportunity a socialist government has had in Ontario to show what it is all about, it comes forward with a document which is sadly lacking in addressing the problems of the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Mr Bradley moves that the resolution moved by the Treasurer on 29 April "that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government," be amended by deleting the words following the words "that this House" and adding thereto the following:

"recognizing that the 1991 budget fails to fulfil the promises made by the New Democratic Party during and following the election campaign of 1990, and that the 1991 budget does nothing to encourage investment and create jobs in Ontario;

"Therefore, believes that this government lacks the confidence of the House."

The House adjourned at 1644.

April 30, 1991

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

JOHN EAKINS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

VOLUNTEERS

NURSING HOMES

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

RAYMOND KANE

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

TAX INCREASES

ANTI-RECESSION PROGRAM

GASOLINE PRICES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

NATIVE SELF-POLICING

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

INCOME TAX

VISITOR

QUESTION PERIOD

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TAXATION

PURCHASE OF URANIUM

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE