Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

POACHING

Mr Brown: I have before me an article which appeared in the Sault Star. It says that according to a Ministry of Natural Resources staff person in Lake Superior Provincial Park, which happens to be located between Sault Ste Marie and Wawa, regulations are not being enforced during the hunting season. Rather than the patrolling and enforcement work, this person is being told to do maintenance work. Last week this employee, who should be lauded for his initiative, investigated on his own time a moose kill in the park. A moose calf had been poached.

While MNR has done some spot checks, this is just not enough. Poaching is a difficult and terrible problem, but it is avoidable. Let's make sure our competent MNR employees are allowed to do the work they are trained to do and should be doing. Poaching is a crime, and its seriousness is amplified when it occurs in our provincial parks.

CANADIAN FOSTER FAMILY WEEK

Mr Johnson: I have an important announcement I am sure everyone will want to hear today. On behalf of the government and all the members of this House, I would like to join the Canadian Foster Family Association in declaring this week, October 20 to 26, Canadian Foster Family Week.

Foster Family Week gives us an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the contribution of approximately 5,000 foster families in this province who provide safe and caring homes for more than 19,000 children every year.

I take great pleasure in declaring this week because my parents, June and Murney Johnson, were foster parents to approximately 30 children. From the time I was nine years old until I was 19, my parents shared our home with up to four children at a time. It was a positive experience for all of us, and I was always sad when the time came for my foster brothers and sisters to leave us. I have had the opportunity to see at first hand what an important role foster parents can play in the development of a child and the significant work they do in providing a secure place for children to grow up in.

The theme of this year's Foster Family Week is, Wanted: Someone to Hug and Bug. I have pins with this slogan for all the members of the House.

I am proud to have been part of a foster family and very pleased to take this opportunity to congratulate foster parents throughout Ontario and tell them they are truly appreciated, not just this week but every week.

HEALTH SERVICES IN BRAMPTON

Mr McClelland: Some months ago in question period I asked the Minister of Health whether she would respond about the status of the Chinguacousy Health Services Board proposal for a health care facility in Brampton North. I had put a question to her predecessor, who then undertook to look into the matter and advise the House in terms of the status of that project. I was not only dismayed but quite frankly shocked that the current minister was not aware of what was taking place with that project. However the minister indicated to me at that time that she would report back to me in the House in terms of the status of the Chinguacousy Health Services Board project.

Since that time we have had some good news. The good news is that there is a new project under way in Brampton that will bring some 70,000 new people into the community in the next three and one half years; 42 months from now we will have 70,000 additional people. Our population will be approaching 344,000, and we remain with one hospital in the community.

The Chinguacousy Health Services Board has had a project in place on the books for some time. A tremendous amount of work has gone into this. In the spring of 1990 it was at the point of going to architectural drawings, so it was right at the threshold of being under way.

The people of my community are concerned about what we are going to have in terms of the provision of health care. It is an essential ingredient for the quality of life, the things that people deserve, not only for the present population but for those additional 70,000 people who will move into that community. I urge the Minister of Health today to report back to me as soon as possible in terms of the status of this very important project.

WATER QUALITY

Mr Cousens: The government has not called a by-election in Brant-Haldimand and the people are not being represented, so I would like to speak out on their behalf in this House. My concern is with a spring located on the west side of Highway 24 between Cambridge and the North Dumfries township cutoff for Glen Morris.

For decades this spring has been an important water source, often the major water source for many families in the Brant-Haldimand area. Now, because of some apparently conflicting reports on the state of that spring water, this government is playing games with residents in that area. First this government was going to improve the site of the spring, then it said it would shut it down and now it says it will look at it again.

We are all concerned with the safety of drinking water in this province, but as long as this spring remains an important water supply for families, this government must stop splashing around and start making decisions. I call on the government to investigate and clean up the source of any contamination of the spring instead of threatening to shut it down, in effect trying to tell the residents of that area to dry up.

We have a community that is not represented in the House. It is time, since this government is not going to respond to their needs. The government ignores them. Maybe then we can have someone sitting on this side of the House for the Progressive Conservatives to show them how it is going to be done.

1340

SENIORS INFORMATION HANDBOOK

Mr Malkowski: I am very proud to rise today and inform the House that the S. Walter Stewart library of East York hosted a reception for the launch of our East York Seniors Information Handbook. The honourable Minister of Citizenship and the member for Lambton were among the guests there.

The seniors' community in East York is second only to that in Victoria. The seniors' handbook will be of help to the seniors in our community because it provides general community information, housing information and other resources necessary to find the services they require. It is accessible by being done in large print and easy for the seniors to read. We have printed 1,500, which are ready for distribution.

The member for Lambton was there because she is our oldest MPP in the House and an important role model for our senior citizens. She gave a wonderful speech, which was very inspirational to our seniors.

The handbook, which I have right here, is full of information. It can be received through my constituency office.

NEW ENTERPRISE STORE

Mr Bradley: In an increasingly global arena, industrial age standards of conducting business and exporting resources are no longer enough for a country to maintain its standard of wealth. Enterprise, innovation and adaptation to change and technology are what make a country thrive and able to compete. Canada has the potential to join the top 10 industrialized nations. This can be achieved if we provide Canadians with the opportunities and means to be enterprising and self-reliant.

Thanks to leaders in the Niagara region, where unemployment is among the highest in the province, the opportunities now exist. Considered a haven by entrepreneurs -- 80% of the region's businesses employ less than 50 people -- the Niagara region is the perfect business breeding ground. The Lincoln County Board of Education and the Burgoyne Centre for Entrepreneurship are proud to introduce the first venture of its kind in Canada to launch entrepreneurial initiatives. It is called the New Enterprise Store. An actual storefront property in the business district of St Catharines, the New Enterprise Store is where fledgling entrepreneurs have a chance to turn their vision into reality.

With the assistance of the Lincoln County Board of Education, the assistance of Brock University through the Burgoyne Centre for Entrepreneurship and the assistance and enthusiasm of so many volunteers and professionals, we now have that opportunity in St Catharines which has been missing for so long. Thanks to Eugene Luchzkiw, formerly of Governor Simcoe Secondary School and now at Brock University, young entrepreneurs have a chance in Ontario.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mrs Marland: This government has repeatedly voiced its commitment to provide affordable housing. However, its support seems to be misguided. Since September 1990, this government has directed its efforts in supplying affordable housing solely to the construction of non-profit housing.

They have sadly forgotten about those who desire to own their own homes. Affordable housing should not apply only to those who live in apartments. It also includes those who are capable of affording homes of their own. Yet the capability of those who wish to own is seriously impeded by the cost of exorbitant development charges which in some municipalities are currently being tacked on to the cost of a new home. New home owners in municipalities across the province are bearing the cost of municipal development and, as a result, fewer and fewer people can afford to purchase a new home.

These costs are the result of the Development Charges Act, which allows a municipality to pass a bylaw which provides for an increase of 5% in the development charges. This means that in a municipality which has enacted a bylaw, at least 23% of the cost of a new $165,000 home comprises purchasing taxes.

The reality is that the ability to purchase one's own home is becoming more and more unattainable due to these development charges. Yet there is still hope. This government has it in its power to extend the November 23 deadline by which the province has directed all municipalities to enact development charge bylaws. Instead of enforcing this deadline, the province would be better served by opening lines of communication between developers and municipalities to seek better ways of providing affordable housing.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr Frankford: In my riding of Scarborough East, residents are very concerned about security and safety on the streets. Anti-social uses like prostitution and drug offences are understandably most distressing to people who live in affected areas.

Solving these problems requires short- and long-term solutions. Policing is where it starts and I am pleased to inform the House that there has been a concerted response by our local police division. It has been made aware of the local needs and has been providing extra resources. Concerns and suggestions have been brought to the attention of management and security staff of Metropolitan Toronto Housing locally.

Community organizations are of great importance in combating crime and making people feel more secure. The feeling of residents that they are not in control of their streets has led to several community meetings. From these meetings has developed the formation of the Scarborough Neighbourhood Action Committee, which will bring people together from all over the area to identify problems and find solutions.

For the long term, we will not only require policing but also improvements in housing, employment, traffic and social services. I believe that innovative approaches to urban planning can make an enormous difference. It will require co-operation from all four levels of government. I am pleased to see vigorous community organizations starting to stimulate action.

VISITORS

The Speaker: I invite members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, a delegation of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, United Kingdom branch, headed by the Honourable Robert Boscawen and accompanied by Messrs James Cran, James Dunnachie, Tony Favell, Alun Michael and Lord Taylor of Gryse. Would you please welcome them to our midst this afternoon.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker: I would also invite members to welcome to our midst our newest group of pages. They are:

Ben Alton, Oakville South; Jay Banerjee, Scarborough East; Odelia Bay, Wilson Heights; Sara Bragg, Durham East; Lauren Clarke, Kitchener; Michael DaCosta, Mississauga North; Elyssa Elton, St George-St David; Samantha Farmer, York Centre; Cindy Gangaram, Brampton South; Sara Henderson-Neale, Willowdale; Leanne Hughes, Niagara South; Ilia Karatsoreos, Yorkview; Steve Kuhn, Waterloo North; Jason Lac, Guelph; Janye Lee, Don Mills; Lydia Lovric, Hamilton Mountain; Wesley Netchay, Lincoln; Siobhan Quinn, St Catharines; Justin Thomas, Oakwood; Ben Tinholt, Wellington; John Trueman, York North; Andrew Udit, Mississauga East; Leo Van Wyk, Durham Centre; and Emily Wong, Markham.

Please welcome them to our chamber and to our assembly.

Hon Mr Rae: I believe there has been some discussion about unanimous consent with respect to the commemoration of a significant anniversary in the life of one of our members.

Agreed to.

MEMBER'S ANNIVERSARY DATE / ANNIVERSAIRE D'UN DÉPUTÉ

Hon Mr Rae: As the song almost says, it was 20 years ago today that the Deputy Premier and Treasurer was elected to the Legislature. A number of us, including the member for St Catharines -- who I can tell his colleagues spoke with extraordinary effectiveness and eloquence; indeed, I have rarely heard him speak with such trenchancy and effectiveness. Certainly there was a large crowd of people there to hear him, as well as the former Deputy Premier and former member for St Catharines-Brock, Mr Welch, who spoke on behalf of the Conservative Party at a very enjoyable occasion. There were a number of other speakers, I might add, who spoke on an occasion in Sudbury where we had an opportunity to commemorate this event.

I simply want to say today, and I know that I speak not only for members of my own party, that the member for Nickel Belt has contributed as much to the public life of this province as any of us and as anyone. He has shown enormous integrity, great good humour and a capacity for work -- work cheerfully performed, I might add. That is, I think, a symbol to all of us.

The Deputy Premier and I have a very close working relationship.

1350

Mr Scott: I thought you were going to say an on-again, off-again policy.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, the Deputy Premier did not support my coming here in the first place, I might point out, but I would say to members that once I got here he proved to be very supportive. So I appreciate that and I know that is a view that will be shared by others.

I want to say that the Deputy Premier and Treasurer contributed enormously to the life of this place when he was a member of the third party and when he was a member of the official opposition, and does so now that he is a member of the government. His capacity for hard work, his effectiveness, his integrity, his commitment to the good of the public life of the province are, I think, something shared by every member. I can only say to the Treasurer that I hope he has 20 more good years as we celebrate this halfway point in his public life as a member of the Legislature of Ontario.

Le député de Nickel Belt a fait une contribution énorme à la vie publique de la province. Il a servi dans le troisième parti, dans l'opposition officielle et maintenant dans le gouvernement toujours avec l'intégrité, la bonne humeur et le bon sens que nous associons tous avec la personnalité du député de Nickel Belt. Nous célébrons cette journée, ce 20e anniversaire, avec un sens de tradition, de fraternité et de sororité dans la Chambre aujourd'hui.

Mr Bradley: It is, as everyone always says, indeed a pleasure for me to be able to pay tribute to the member for Nickel Belt on this the occasion of his 20th anniversary of election to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. He is an individual who has had not simply a long career; there are a lot of people who have long careers, I suppose, in various occupations. The member for Nickel Belt has had both a long and a distinguished career and will have one for certainly a number of years yet to come.

One of the things I think members of the Legislature have to understand -- and I am going to depart from the normal practice of simply referring to his riding, if I may -- about Floyd Laughren is the fact that he is an individual who comes from modest roots, and most important has not forgotten those modest roots. There are many people who climb the ladder politically or in business or in anything where they gain a good deal of fame, and those people often forget the people they started out with and their own roots. The member for Nickel Belt is one person who, whether we disagree or agree with him on any specific issue, has not forgotten those principles and has not forgotten those roots.

Indeed, he is one member of the New Democratic Party whom I have always looked to as a real New Democrat, as a person who is never afraid to be called a socialist, as a person who was a member of the Waffle wing of the NDP at one time, the radical wing of the New Democratic Party, and one who, I suspect, in his heart of hearts, as the Premier always says, still believes in the principles he enunciated at NDP conventions over the years as he and his fellow travellers on the left wing of the New Democratic Party put forward their policies for consideration.

I know we can expect to see International Nickel, now known as Inco, as part of the government of Ontario. It will be nationalized in the lifetime of this particular member for Nickel Belt. I know I will be able to drive to Sudbury, my old home town, on a four-lane highway up Highway 69 or Highway 17. I know that many of the things he set out to do in his career he will certainly do.

I guess the thing that most of us on this side, and on all sides, like about Floyd Laughren is that to put it in a rather trite way, I suppose, what you see is what you get. He is a genuine individual. He is not a pretentious individual. He is one who is sincere in putting across his point of view in this House, but who can also do it with a good sense of humour.

One serious point: I know it will not embarrass the member for Nickel Belt, but I think it worthy of saying because in politics this happens to many people. I saw an incident surrounding his wonderful dinner in Sudbury on October 4, one which kept me away from the opening of the National Hockey League season simply to attend. There was one bit of cloud surrounding it. I do not wish to be unkind today, but the member was being criticized by some people because of the location of this particular dinner. It was not located at the United Steelworkers' hall in Sudbury; it was located instead at the Caruso Club.

The reason I think it is worthy of mention is that I find it ironic and unfair, because anybody who knows Floyd Laughren, the member for Nickel Belt and the Treasurer of this province, an opposition critic who was very vociferous over the years, knows that Floyd Laughren has done as much as any member of the Ontario Legislature to defend the interests of people in the mining industry, in the smelting industry, in the milling industry and in the refining industry of Ontario. I know it did not represent the viewpoint of everyone within that particular organization, but I thought it unfair that he should be the target of any criticism over this, considering his long record of defence of the issues that they consider to be important in the Legislative Assembly and to them.

At the end of his political career, whenever he chooses that to be or whenever the electorate chooses that to be, he will be able to look back with some satisfaction and pride, I think, on the fact that he has left his mark on the province of Ontario. Longevity does not ensure that one is remembered, but a record and a set of principles such as the member for Nickel Belt has demonstrated over the years will certainly do so.

Mr Sterling: I am going to be brief this afternoon. Floyd and I learned a long time ago never to say, "I'm going to be short this afternoon."

I have enjoyed the friendship of Floyd Laughren for some period of time. Before Floyd was Treasurer, before I was elected to this place in 1977, I came to know Floyd through his sister-in-law, who lived down the street from me in Manotick.

During that period of time before I was elected to this place, I was one of three subscribers in Ontario to Hansard of the Legislative Assembly. During that period of time, because of the acquaintance of Floyd Laughren, who was a member of this Legislature, I would happen to look through Hansard from week to week to examine what Floyd had said or not said. I can remember remarking to his sister-in-law, I think in 1975 or 1976: "Where is Floyd? I haven't read any speeches that he has made in the Legislature over the past weeks, months, six months." I can remember Floyd meeting me some six or seven or eight months later at a social event down the street, and he was absolutely shocked that anybody would have any idea how often he spoke in this place.

Floyd Laughren came from humble beginnings. He was born in Shawville, Quebec, just up the Ottawa Valley and across the Ottawa River. His beginnings were not unlike my beginnings. I believe he was perhaps brought up in circumstances which were more difficult than mine but not unlike mine. It has always amazed me how two individuals, probably with the exact same goals in terms of what they strive for in the end, can end up so differently in terms of the ends of the political spectrum that they find themselves on.

1400

I have from time to time talked to Floyd over the last 14, 15 or 17 years. I have shared with him and he has shared with me his enthusiasm for the legislative chamber over that period of time. As I and many members of this Legislature who have had the privilege of being here for a longer period of time find -- and there seem to be fewer and fewer of us -- we go through periods which are high and periods which are low. I am happy that Floyd has been able to withstand those periods when the achievements here seemed to be few and far between and the discouragements were many. Those times come to all of us as legislators, and we should learn from Floyd's tenacity and his dedication to the political process in coming to where he is now.

Of course Floyd, like all politicians, has been ambitious. Now the Premier has ensured he has no political future by making him the Treasurer of this province.

My party wishes him all the health and happiness he can have. When the economic winds change in this province, he should just hope that they are extremely strong, because in a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is more like what I have grown to expect around this place.

I will speak very briefly in response and thank the members for their kind words. The Premier is quite right when he indicates that I did not support his being the leader of this party. I supported another candidate for the leadership, but when he got here and I found out that he and I both had been born in log residences, I realized that perhaps we had more in common than I realized. Mine was a cabin, his was an embassy, but so what? We actually have gotten along very well since then.

The remarks today of the member for St Catharines are a lot different from his remarks in Sudbury, at which point he called me something awful. I want to thank him for his attendance at that roast. I appreciated that very much.

To the member for Carleton, I too remember meeting him a number of years ago. I remember I did not realize then how unusual it was -- I just thought it was strange -- that his lawn always had an NDP sign on it. It was only after he became an elected member that he put one of his signs up as well.

It has indeed been 20 years to the day. There is one thing I want to assure members opposite: Had I spent my entire political career in opposition, I would not have regarded them as wasted years, so take heart. I did enjoy my years in opposition, although I can say that the challenge of being here and trying to fly in a strong wind when the economic winds are blowing against us is difficult indeed but I have enjoyed it very much.

As far as Inco goes, I have always believed there is a good future for Inco in this province. I want to dissociate myself from the comments others have made that if I ever got the chance I would nationalize Inco and call it the People's International Nickel Co, or PINKO for short. That is simply not the truth. That was a rumour started by the former member for Sudbury East, as I recall.

I want to thank the members for their comments. I can remember sitting on the other side and squirming when people would make comments about Bob Nixon's years here. I always swore to myself that I never wanted to be the dean of the Legislature, but it happens anyway.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALARY OF ONTARIO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

Mr Conway: My question is for the leader of the government. Later today this assembly will be asked to pass judgement on second reading of the New Democratic Party's hydro policy incorporated in Bill 118. There are some questions I would like to ask the Premier on behalf of at least my constituents concerning aspects of this bill and the policy. Some of these questions are ones we have had an opportunity to discuss earlier in this session.

My constituents still want to know whether Marc Eliesen, the Premier's friend and appointee as chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro, which appointment was made by the Premier earlier this year, will be paid retroactively to that date of appointment in June 1991 a salary in the range of $400,000 to $500,000.

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the honourable member that I understand the second reading debate will conclude today. The bill is then being referred for consideration with respect to amendments and discussion of amendments.

Mr Mahoney: So it is already carried.

Hon Mr Rae: No, not at all.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It is going out for public hearings.

Hon Mr Rae: It is going out for public hearings, and there will be ample opportunity there to consider questions of amendments to the bill or questions surrounding the overall administration of Ontario Hydro.

I think the member is familiar with the situation as it relates to the decision of the Hydro board. The Hydro board has made a recommendation with respect to Mr Eliesen's compensation. That matter is now under review in the form of being referred in general, along with all the other salaries, to the Ontario Energy Board. As well, I think it is fair to say that the general question would also be subject to discussion in the committee and at public hearings.

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

Hon Mr Rae: I think that is the clearest possible first answer I can give to the member for Renfrew North.

Mr Conway: When the government announced its hydro policy some four or five months ago, it said that the hallmark of that policy would be openness and accountability. I think we all applaud that. Nothing could be clearer than that the man to whom the ultimate responsibility attaches in this matter of the remuneration of the chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro is none other than the Premier himself.

I repeat, as the leader of the government, as the architect of this policy of openness and accountability with respect to Ontario Hydro, will the Premier, as the leader of the government, confirm or deny that his friend and associate and nominee to the chairmanship and CEO position at Ontario Hydro, Mr Marc Eliesen, will be paid retroactively to the date of appointment in June 1991 the reported salary of in excess of $400,000?

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to my friend the member for Renfrew North, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to prejudge what the final legislation will look like after it has been considered by committee -- if one wants to have a process where the committee process is working, it seems to me that has to be considered -- or to prejudge in any way, shape or form the discussions at the Ontario Energy Board. We have asked for a review in those two areas and I think it would be wrong for me to prejudge either of those two things.

Mr Conway: I respectfully submit to my friend the Premier that it is not a matter of prejudging anything; it is not a matter of reviewing anything. We all accept that the buck stops on his desk, and the Power Corporation Act makes it plain that it is his job and the responsibility of the cabinet, of which the Premier is the leader.

So very simply, what were the terms and conditions of the appointment of his good friend, that well known NDP apparatchik, Mr Eliesen, to the chairmanship of Ontario Hydro? I do not need, nor do I want, the OEB view on this. The people of Ontario have elected the Premier to make those decisions. He has the right and the responsibility. What has he decided?

My constituents are looking at these rate increases, now rumoured to be over 45% for the next three years. The salary is in excess of $400,000, triple what Mr Eliesen was receiving as deputy, and there are reports that he has asked for and may very well get a pension benefit of some 75% of his salary base after six years. The farmers and loggers of Renfrew County are appalled to think that could happen, and they want me to ask the Premier what he decided when he appointed this man, accepting that it is his ultimate responsibility to make that decision.

1410

Hon Mr Rae: Let me answer that question in as clear a tone as I possibly can. I do not think the member's characterization of Mr Eliesen is a fair one, but I do not expect it to be a fair one. I do not expect that.

What were the terms and conditions? There were no terms and conditions, either considered by cabinet or discussed by cabinet, other than the fact that Mr Eliesen's appointment took place with the understanding that his salary would be what it is today as we speak, which is that of a deputy minister, and that we would ask the Ontario Hydro board and the board of directors to consider compensation. That is the form of the amendment that was put forward in the Power Corporation Act.

When that figure came out, I think it is fair to say that I said and a number of people said that it seemed to be high. It was the one that was deemed appropriate by the Ontario Hydro board. We have asked for a review of that judgement and we continue to seek that review.

I repeat to the honourable member, rhetoric aside, that there is now the question of the matter going to committee and of the review to the Ontario Energy Board. These are the reviews that are taking place and I want to say to the honourable member that there were no other terms or conditions. There were no other discussions with respect to Mr Eliesen's salary that were held either by me or by members of cabinet. That is the beginning and that is the end of it and that is the full story.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Sorbara: My question is of the Solicitor General. I just want to say by way of preamble to the Solicitor General and his colleagues wearing orange flowers today that if they were not paying so much attention to British Columbia and Saskatchewan, they would be wearing not orange flowers but black armbands.

I want to tell the Solicitor General that this has been one of the most violent weekends in the history of this province. On Sunday morning, two young men were shot to death in Metropolitan Toronto. A shopkeeper was murdered while he was making a deposit of some $1,000 at a night depository. Two grandparents and one grandchild were murdered in their homes in Chatham. This has sent a shiver of terror among the people of this province.

The murder toll in Metro has risen to some 70, nearly double what it was last year, and it shows no sign of stopping, yet the Solicitor General muddles around trying to defend the abolition of the oath. He equivocates and dallies with the political rights of police officers. We are waiting interminably for his amendments to a a Sunday shopping bill. He has not even remembered that his primary responsibility in Ontario is for the safety and security of communities.

While in opposition, these members were the outspoken advocates of reforms that would deal with what they referred to as murder and carnage in the workplace. We have murders of untold proportions on our streets. I ask the Solicitor General, what does he have to say to the parents and the relatives of these victims and what does he have to say to the residents of Ontario, who would prefer not to live their lives in fear?

Hon Mr Pilkey: What the Solicitor General would have to say to the parents and relatives and friends of any person who has been affected by violence and unnecessary crime is that we would extend our sympathy and concern to them in those very trying circumstances, circumstances which none of us appreciate, nor do I think they are circumstances that should be the subject of political motivation either. Quite frankly, I think that reaches a level of questioning that is not very desirable.

In terms of the policing community, I have every confidence and respect in the Ontario Provincial Police, the RCMP and our local police officers, all of whom work on a day-to-day basis to serve and protect the people of this province and indeed the people across this country. We continue to try to implement new circumstances, whether it be through community policing, through additional employment equity on our police forces, sexual assault initiatives, race relations and other programs, all of which try to mitigate these kinds of difficulties, although I must say, notwithstanding any programs this or any other government in this country or this world brings forward, they cannot at all times stop senseless acts of violence.

Mr Sorbara: I will just tell the Solicitor General that if the now Premier had had to listen to that answer in opposition, he would have gone through the roof. This has nothing to do with employment equity; it has nothing to do with race relations; it has to do with the Solicitor General's responsibility for policing in our communities.

While the Solicitor General has just equivocated on this issue, his friend the member for Rainy River, the Attorney General of this province, in a press release was bragging about how much money his ministry had saved by not prosecuting people who are accused of crimes in this province. I quote from a press release from Friday. The Attorney General notes:

"Cancelled court appearances have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages and overtime. In addition, there have been substantial savings in court time, as civilian witnesses were also freed from court appearances."

We have argued over on this side that it is important the justice system bring criminals to trial.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Sorbara: I ask the Solicitor General, has he talked to the Attorney General? Has he pleaded in cabinet to take those hundreds of thousands of dollars that have been saved by not prosecuting criminals and bolster the resources our police forces need to provide good quality community policing and deal with this terrible problem that has everyone in my constituency and all around the province living with a sense of fear that is not appropriate for Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think the actions of the Attorney General should be applauded. What he did, quite frankly, was to take situations of pleas of guilty and free up the police officers, the policemen and policewomen of this country, to get out on the street, to not be tied up in those matters that are already decided or agreed upon or not tied up with minor infractions, but allow them to be out on the street to combat the very kind of difficult problem the member raised in the first place.

Mr Curling: Crime is the most important issue in the greater Toronto area. It is on the minds of everyone in greater Toronto. This is a good reason why the Solicitor General may not know that in the OPP jurisdiction, province-wide, by last July there had been a 15.8% increase in the homicide rate over the previous year and a 70% increase in the robbery rate, as my colleague just pointed out.

This government has left the municipalities and the private citizens on their own to make their communities safer. The Solicitor General's ministry has been sitting on a report of a Metro Toronto task force calling for a crackdown on illegal after-hours clubs, as well as other measures intended to bring crime rates down. Two weeks ago, when he was asked, he stated that he knew nothing of the report but undertook to review the recommendation and respond. Will the minister advise the House whether he has yet to review the Metro recommendations and whether he will take steps to implement them? Will his government support the citizens of Ontario who want to make the communities safer and places in which they can live?

1420

Hon Mr Pilkey: The answer to the question is that of course we will support the citizens of Ontario, and as a matter of fact every citizen in this country and others who support law enforcement and law and order in our times. I think that is rather a silly question to ask in the first place, but that none the less is the response.

In terms of the question, I believe the member refers to a question asked by the member for Parkdale, to which we are deriving an answer. I would have answered it directly, except that it may fall under the purview of the Ministry of Transportation or within the federal government, but I can assure the member that the answer to that question is being sought. If I recall the question, it was something about people who are involved in drug deals. If they have their driver's licence suspended, somehow it might mitigate this problem. I will have that specific response from the appropriate ministry, but someone mentioned to me that he wondered what kind of concern it would be to somebody who was involved in illegal drug matters that he feared his licence might be suspended. They were not sure that was much of a deterrent for that kind of crime.

SALARY OF POLICE BOARD APPOINTEE

Mr Harris: My question is for the Premier. By the way, before I get into the question, I want to say congratulations to my friend and colleague the member for Nickel Belt, in the spirit of true non-partisanship and co-operation. That being done, I now have a question for the Premier.

I was struck by two different headlines today, "Rising Crime in Ontario," in Toronto, on our streets, and "US Crime Continues to Decline." It seems to bear out views that have been expressed by a number of people that criminals are finding it too tough in the United States and quite easy here and are moving north.

My question, though, is to the Premier. Last spring, despite much opposition, he endorsed Susan Eng as chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. Last Thursday, Ms Eng is reported to have asked for a salary increase that would hike her pay close to 50%, from $90,000 a year to as much as $133,000. With police forces forced to cut back, with the obvious imbalance of resources available to the police to fight the rising crime we are experiencing in Toronto, in Ontario, indeed in Canada, I would like to ask the Premier if he approves of his personal choice for chairman of the police services board's priorities of where these scare resource should go, ie, "A 50% salary hike for me, Susan Eng."

Hon Mr Rae: I am not aware of the information the member has put forward, but I will ask the Solicitor General to perhaps answer the question.

Hon Mr Pilkey: There is a very direct and brief response to the leader of the third party. On the question about Susan Eng's alleged request for a salary increase, I do not believe there was a direct request. The information I have is that it emanated from somebody asking a question about whether per diems should be raised and the newspapers reported that she perhaps thought the compensation should be on an equal basis with other appointments. I am not aware of any direct request by that person, but even if there were, I would like to inform the House that Metro council, not the Ontario Legislature, sets the salary for the Metro police board.

Mr Harris: Metro council did not appoint Susan Eng as chairman. That was the Premier. It was his appointment. This is his choice. This was the NDP priority for fighting crime in Toronto. Now we find his appointee -- in fact, two of them. The article goes on to mention another NDP appointee. Somebody will have to help me here.

An hon member: Laura Rowe.

Mr Harris: Laura Rowe. Their top priority seems to be, "How do we get our own salaries up?"

Metro Toronto hit a milestone we would rather forget, 70 murders committed in this city in 10 months, and two NDP appointees to the police services board are worrying about lining their pockets. I say to the Premier, through the minister, since that is who I now have to direct the question to, even though the minister, I am sure, had nothing to do with this appointment -- he has to live with it and I respect that -- given the amount of money the province pays for policing, given the fact that it is the province that controls the police board, given the fact that these are his two appointees to the police board, does he agree with the priority of his NDP appointees that this is where scarce resources should go, to hike their own salaries?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not sure how long Susan Eng has been chair, but it seems to me it has been quite some time, not too long after the life of this government began. This is the first time I have heard of this suggestion, and therefore it would seem to me to deem that this is not a priority of hers or anyone else's, that it has come up at this late time.

I do not have it verified beyond this context, but it was reported in the Toronto Star on October 19 that the members of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board want no part of a proposal to pay them at the same rate as citizen appointees to boards. After having determined that it is not a priority of the chair and having the board say it wants no part of it, I can only conclude that the question is now one of a political nature and really does not deserve any further response.

Mr Harris: The minister says it is Metro council that sets the salaries. That is not true. It is the police board itself that sets the salaries, and the NDP now, with its appointments, controls the police board. That is the fact of the matter.

I say to the Solicitor General by way of final supplementary that the only thing the Premier's personal choice of boss of the police services board is known for to date is to snub the Queen and to ask for more money. Since Ms Eng is too busy working on her own salary to concern herself with the real problems, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether this government has any sort of plan to bring safety back to our streets here in Ontario.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government did not snub the Queen. I believe the reference is to the oath. I would remind the leader of the third party that those changes under the Police Services Act, which emanated from the previous provincial government, the Liberal government, which this party then carried on and enacted, had the full consultation of the Police Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the Ontario Police Commission.

As to the question, in terms of what this government is doing to assist in the prevention of crime in the streets, I believe I adequately covered this in response to a previous question this afternoon.

Mr Harris: They appointed Eliesen, but, "It wasn't me asked for $400,000." They appointed Eng, but, "It wasn't me who asked." Who controls what is going on over there with these appointees? This is really getting silly and I think the Premier would agree.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier as well. On April 7, 1988, as Leader of the Opposition, he stood in this House and moved a resolution declaring April 18 as a day of mourning for injured workers. It was a very passionate speech. It was a very emotional speech. How times have changed. Today's headline in the Globe and Mail is, "Injured Workers Say NDP Betrayed Them." If the injured workers of this province cannot trust the Premier, who can?

Hon Mr Rae: Since the member has asked me personally about this, I can only tell him what I know with respect to the details of the situation, and that is that with respect to asbestosis, the board is continuing to review claims and continuing to review the criteria of the claims. I think we all know well the emotion that is felt by people whose claims have still yet to be accepted by the board and I can perfectly well understand and appreciate the emotion that lies behind those who are suffering from illness and whose claims have not yet been recognized.

I would hope the leader of the third party would also recognize that he would be the first one on his feet attacking me personally were I to intervene personally and tell the Workers' Compensation Board which claims to recognize and which not to and on what basis.

With respect to asbestosis, that is something which has to be done by the board. With respect to establishing an association between aluminum and degenerative brain conditions, again, that is something which has to be determined by the Workers' Compensation Board. It is their requirement and they have to do it. I cannot think of anybody who would be attacking me more vociferously than the honourable member were I to simply step in and say to the board: "Look, these people are complaining. Go out and change your policies." That is not the way we can do business in Ontario.

1430

Mr Harris: "Nick De Carlo of the Canadian Auto Workers union, which represents the workers, said Mr Rae...appeared at demonstrations and denounced the previous Liberal government several times for its policies on aluminum poisoning and asbestosis in industrial workers." The Premier had the answer while he was in opposition. He had the answer in 1988. He condemned the Liberals. Now he says it has nothing to do with the government; it is up to the board. Mr De Carlo said he was "told the situation was more complicated now that the NDP were in power." I wonder if the Premier could tell me what has made this situation more complicated now that he is in power as opposed to when he was in opposition?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, if I as Premier were to intervene and tell the board what to do with respect to the assessment of individual claims because of a point made by the president of a local union, can members imagine what the leader of the Conservative Party would say about the New Democratic government and its leader? We all know what he would get into. He would give us his anti-union diatribes and statements and he would accuse us of simply following what the unions wanted us to do.

We have the Workers' Compensation Board, which has very clear responsibilities under the law. We have a requirement that the board has to be satisfied with respect to the relationship between the exposure to a substance and the cause of a disease. That is the way the law works. We all very much want the board to be sensitive to the claims of workers and sensitive to the needs of workers, but it simply is not possible for the Premier to step in and say, "Recognize this claim and do not recognize that one." That is not the way we can do business.

Mr Harris: I find it ironic that the Premier's defence now is that he is concerned about what I, the member for Nipissing, would think. If that is his concern, he can invite me to the cabinet table and I will straighten him out on hundreds of other issues too.

It seems to me a little more than ironic that while the Premier has turned his back on the injured workers of this province, an NDP backbencher, the member for Downsview, is asking the Board of Internal Economy to erect a statue on the lawn at Queen's Park to honour those workers. The injured workers do not need passionate speeches and days of mourning. They do not need statues on the lawn at Queen's Park. They need help and support, not statues. Obviously his commitment while in opposition was not written in stone. We now know that. The statue matter is to be voted on soon by the Board of Internal Economy. Does the Premier not agree that any money for a statue on the front lawn of Queen's Park should in fact go directly to injured workers instead?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member wants to have a serious discussion about the board's policies with respect to compensation for particular diseases or claims, I am happy to do that and I think it is an important thing to do.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: If the honourable member wants to have a discussion about whose lives we should be commemorating and whose achievements we should be celebrating on the front lawn of the Legislature, I am happy to have that discussion as well. I do not see anything wrong with our having a serious reflection on the contribution and the sacrifice made by hundreds of thousands, indeed millions, of workers in the province. I do not see anything wrong with our commemorating their achievements as much as we commemorate the achievements of former premiers.

EMPLOYMENT

Mr Phillips: My question is of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It has to do with jobs and taxes. He will be familiar with the major problem of cross-border shopping. I think his ministry has completed a study which indicates that up to 14,000 jobs have been lost as a result. Later today in the Legislature, as he knows, we will be debating a bill which will increase the tax on gas by, I believe, 30%.

At the same time, the minister will know that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs completed its work on cross-border shopping and that a major recommendation out of that report was, "The Ontario government should produce and make publicly available an analysis of the impact on jobs of any relevant legislation or regulations it proposes to introduce or amend as it relates to cross-border shopping." That was an extremely important recommendation, supported, I might add, by all three parties on the committee.

What is the impact on jobs of this new tax on gas?

Hon Mr Philip: There is no study that shows directly the impact of any one factor on cross-border shopping. We would be happy to share any studies we do have with the honourable member. I shared with him considerable information during the estimates, when he had an opportunity to ask me questions.

Mr Phillips: I asked for three pieces of information at that estimates meeting and I still have not got them. I ask the minister to bring them forward.

This, however, was a commitment made by the committee to do the analysis. If the minister looks at the budget, the Treasurer has done job analyses on virtually all of his tax proposals. It is not impossible to do this. We are not asking a difficult question here. It is an extremely important question for the cross-border communities. It can be done. The Treasurer can acknowledge that it can be done. It has been done on the budget. As I say, it is important for the cross-border communities.

When will that analysis be done? If, as in the case of the gas guzzler tax, it is proven that it is going to cost jobs, will the minister go to the Treasurer and say: "It's simply not worth it. We're going to lose more jobs that it's worth"?

When will that analysis be done? When it is available, will the minister go to the Treasurer and review his gas guzzler-job guzzler tax?

Hon Mr Philip: We will provide the member with the information he requested in the set of estimates. I assure him of that. We will certainly supply to the honourable member any other studies we do.

1440

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Marland: My question is for the Minister of Housing. Today on Ontario30, Radio-Canada's French-language public affairs show, it was revealed that the Ontario government is subsidizing a housing project in Sudbury called Centreville which consists of 56 one-bedroom units. In deciding who should be accepted for occupancy, this project will give preference to single persons but will also consider couples, married or living together, without children, according to a project official.

Ministry of Housing official, Gabriel Marceau, is quoted as saying there is a demonstrated need for assisted housing targeted at low- and middle-income people who live alone. As well, an official of the project says it is like other affirmative action programs for persons who have historically faced disadvantage or discrimination. Does the minister agree that her ministry should award housing subsidies to a project which will give preference to single persons?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I have not had the opportunity of hearing the program, though I understood that interviews had been going on with some ministry officials. My understanding of the project is that it is one which has been designed to meet specific needs within the community. It has therefore been constructed with one-bedrooms and is suitable for certain kinds of families and single people, including single-parent families.

Mrs Marland: An official of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Gilles Lapalme, says the Ontario Human Rights Commission has not received complaints from persons who believe they have been discriminated against because they are single. Therefore singles have not been recognized as a group which should receive special treatment under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Mr Lapalme is concerned that the limitations on the Centreville occupants could prevent an apartment being made available to a single mother with one child, for example. He also says the Ministry of Housing should have consulted the Ontario Human Rights Commission about subsidizing a project which will give preference to single persons.

It appears that the Ontario Human Rights Commission was not consulted about the Centreville subsidies. Will the minister agree to meet with the officials of the Ontario Human Rights Commission about the Centreville housing project to ensure that Centreville and similar projects which receive assistance from her ministry do not contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code?

Hon Ms Gigantes: In my view -- now I stand to be corrected on this and I will certainly give it more thought -- if we have established a need for housing in a community by people who have a core need -- in other words, have to spend over 30%, sometimes 40% or 50% of their income in the private market to find a suitable place to live -- if a proposal comes forward at the community base and suggests that we should be building single-bedroom units, it seems to me entirely suitable that we should be doing that. In my view, it is not a question of discriminating against anybody; it is a question of providing for the needs of the people in the community.

EASTERN ONTARIO VEGETABLE GROWERS' CO-OPERATIVE

The Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food has a response to a question asked earlier.

Hon Mr Buchanan: On October 16 the member for S-D-G & East Grenville asked a question about the Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers' Co-operative and the Deputy Premier took it as a question of notice at that time.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Buchanan: The co-operative the member referred to is one of only two remaining vegetable processing plants in eastern Ontario and is very vital to eastern Ontario. Some 12,000 acres of vegetables are in fact processed at that plant. I would like the member to know that all of the processing plants across the province have been experiencing difficulty because of the high dollar and free trade.

My staff, in fact I myself, have met with representatives from the co-operative and from Produce Processors, which is associated with the co-operative. We are studying their request. There is no current program that would deal with their request, but we continue to explore what options we have. We believe the horticultural part of the emergency assistance programs we have already announced will provide the growers with some money. We will continue to have ongoing discussions with the co-operative to do the best we can to make sure this continues to be a viable business in eastern Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: The Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers' Co-operative represents 147 farm families. As the member mentioned, 12,000-plus acres of vegetables are grown. Their direct competition in Quebec, La Conserverie Snyder et Fils from Bedford, Quebec, received $1.5 million to cover 90% of the cost of effluent treatment facilities. The Eastern Ontario Vegetable Growers' Association had to pay $1.5 million on its own. They lost $1 million last year. They are making it up at about $40 per acre. They are asking the minister for $500,000 to assist them because 75% of their production goes to the United States; $500,000 is about the salary that Marc Eliesen will receive from Ontario Hydro for one year. We are looking at 147 families here. The minister should have a good, close look and compare.

Hon Mr Buchanan: As I said earlier, we are concerned about this. We are studying it. We are looking for ways to assist this co-operative. The governments of Ontario and Canada have assisted this co-operative and the associated business in the past. In fact several millions in loans and assistance packages have been put together over the last number of years. This government intends to continue to support farm families, the family farm and the processing of food in Ontario. We will continue to do that.

PURCHASE OF CARPETS

Mr Scott: I am sure our television viewers will notice that the NDP members are wearing orange flowers. I understand that is to celebrate not only their own arrival in office but the arrival in office of a government in British Columbia that is NDP and, they believe, of a government in Saskatchewan today that is NDP. What the people of those provinces will want to remember is that when NDP members get into office and get their hands on the taxpayers' money, they spend like crazy.

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Scott: To the Minister of Government Services, the chief buyer for the government. All across government offices in the last two weeks everybody has been getting new carpets. I want to show members. This is only the smallest carpet. They are all monogrammed with the Ontario crest and they are sent out to everybody who wants them. These carpets cost up to $300 each, depending on the quality of the weave and the quality of the monogram.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: I am cutting off my microphone here.

I want to draw to the attention of the Minister of Government Services that these are not replacement carpets, but carpets that sit on top of the carpets we already have.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Scott: I want to ask the Minister of Government Services if he will be good enough to let us know today how much these carpets cost, where they were purchased, what the per-unit cost is and how the tendering process was conducted. This government is spending like a drunken sailor and I want to know what it spent on this.

Hon F. Wilson: The information should be readily available. I will see that the Board of Internal Economy releases that information to the House, hopefully today. Also, I will make sure the member gets his carpet, hopefully by today also.

Mr Scott: The minister does not understand. I have a carpet. Everybody who got one of these already has a carpet. They are not worn out. This carpet sits on top of the old carpet. I do not want one. My voters do not want me to have one.

The Minister of Government Services, by way of supplementary, has not been able to answer a single question in this House yet about government expenditures, whether it was Eliesen's salary --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Scott: Members really get quite exercised about this, do they not? I think some backbenchers will be concerned about these carpets, and like me I hope they will reject them when they arrive, because they are unnecessary.

The Speaker: The interrogative part.

Mr Scott: I want to know from the minister -- I put this in the same class as the wallpaper, the caucus furniture, the caucus carpets and the new furniture for the Minister of Community and Social Services -- when are we going to draw the limit on this kind of unnecessary expenditure, which has not occurred over the last 10 years? The minister should know that sooner or later somebody is going to say to him that this government is using the taxpayers as a doormat.

Hon F. Wilson: The member will notice that the carpet is upside down, for one thing. We are not talking about government expenditures here, we are talking about activities of the Board of Internal Economy, activities of the Legislative Assembly. I will, for the member, take it as my role to find out the information for him and I will proceed to give it to him.

As far as my answering questions in the House is concerned, I will answer questions in the House from wherever they come, from whatever quarter, to the best of my ability. I would hesitate to say that the questions I have been getting have been greatly involved, but sometimes are in three or four parts or three or four irregularly shaped periods. With respect to the member who put these questions forward, I take my time in answering them. My answers will come in due course.

The Speaker: I trust the honourable member will return the rug from whence it came.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I will respond to your question.

The Speaker: No, it is not a question.

1450

REMARKS BY APPOINTEE TO POLICE SERVICES BOARD

Mr Runciman: I have a question for the Solicitor General. It relates to an announcement he made in the House last Thursday. As he is aware, an NDP appointee to the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board was quoted in the Toronto Star as indicating that she believed policemen and policewomen routinely lie in court to protect other police officers.

The Peel regional board, endorsed by Peel regional council, called for an inquiry under the Police Act into the allegations with respect to the NDP appointee to determine if what she said was accurate or if indeed her denial was accurate. The minister has rejected that request and in effect has said: "We can't get to the bottom of this. We have two differing points of view and can't get to the bottom of it." He has not really tried to get to the bottom of it. He has reviewed the correspondence. He has looked at the news articles.

What I am asking the minister today is a very specific question. Is he not concerned, as the top police officer in this province, that he may have appointed an individual to a police services board who is going to sit in judgement of policemen and policewomen, that the person he has appointed may indeed have an anti-police bias? Is he not prepared to take this at least through an investigation, to make the best possible effort to determine whether he has made an appropriate appointment?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I did share information with the House, I believe on Thursday, that I had indicated in a letter to the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board that based on the information forwarded to me, it was not conclusive. As a matter of fact, it was quite contradictory and there appeared not to be any basis that would be fruitful in enhancing the positive relationship we desire with our policemen and policewomen in this province. In the absence of anything more concrete than was forwarded to me, I saw no purpose in engaging in further activity at this time.

Mr Runciman: I do not know how the minister can have a positive relationship when he has essentially done nothing. He has left it hanging in the air. The police officers believe their reputations have been sullied. This minister has a responsibility to try to get to the truth and he has done absolutely nothing. I suggest if these charges or comparable charges were laid against a police officer, the government would go the extra mile to determine whether there was any truth to them, but when it is one of the government's appointees, it is forget it; sweep it under the rug; do nothing about it.

I want to say that we have the police chief, we have Mayor Hazel McCallion, we have very responsible citizens in Peel region who are extremely concerned about this. I ask the minister to reconsider, to go that extra mile to determine whether this individual is an appropriate appointee to be placed in judgement of policemen and policewomen in Peel region.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Certainly if that information was the fact, I would share in the level of concern that has been raised here today. As I indicated, based on the information that came to my desk and to my attention, there is an absolute conflict in the claims of those who are involved. It appears to be irreconcilable. I do not believe there is anything to be gained by fostering information based on the type I personally received.

In terms of these being NDP appointments, I might indicate that we are committed to opening up the government process. Under this government we now have generic application forms. This is a significant change from the previous government. All these employees are in fact screened through a particular committee to see whether they are meritorious for this kind of appointment. These are not just straight partisan appointments.

CHILD CARE

Mrs MacKinnon: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on her appointment.

On Friday, the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care held a news conference on the crisis in child care work in Ontario. As the minister is aware, I am sure, rural child care in Lambton county is a very integral part of the rural riding I represent. Indeed, without such programs, many farm children would be without proper care while their parents keep their farms going. What is the government doing about this child care, as we heard on Friday?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am happy to have an opportunity to respond to the concerns the child care coalition brought forward on Friday. I join the coalition in those concerns. Child care is a priority for this government and for me. We have already begun, in terms of the number of spaces that were allocated by the previous minister, to ensure that there is more availability. All 5,000 of those new subsidized spaces have been allocated. They are all at various stages of implementation and we expect them to be fully in place by the beginning of next year.

The larger step, of course, is that we need a thorough revamping of the entire child care system. We need to pay particular attention to rural child care. As a result, in consultation with the members of the provider community, we will be releasing a major consultation paper in the new year. It will focus on all the issues, particularly affordability and availability, that were raised by the coalition. That will give an opportunity to the people across the province to build a consensus on how to deliver child care to every child who requires it and every parent who chooses it.

Mrs MacKinnon: The coalition is calling for the government to assume 100% funding of subsidized spaces instead of cost-sharing with municipalities. Will the minister be looking seriously at this, and if so, how soon?

Hon Mrs Boyd: At this point in time we are already paying both the provincial and the federal governments' share of the new spaces. The spaces already announced have to be paid for without the benefit of a contribution from the federal government because of a cap on the Canada assistance plan. This results in a revenue loss to Ontario of over $1 billion. The coalition's request needs to be considered seriously because child care is in a crisis, but it must understand, as must all people in Ontario, that we are facing a very difficult economic reality.

The other issue is that we are in the process of looking at disentanglement between the provincial and municipal governments around such issues as the delivery of child care. This whole issue has to be considered in relation to that disentanglement exercise. So while we are going ahead with the consultation, all these issues will be on the table and will be considered very seriously.

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

Mrs Caplan: My question today is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In July 1990, the then government expressed a provincial interest under the Planning Act in the GTA portion of the Oak Ridges moraine. We know the importance of the moraine and that it contains significant natural features, and probably most important for people in this area, the headwaters of some 30 watercourses, which include the Rouge and the Don and provide drinking water for some 10 communities including King City, Aurora and Stouffville.

The June 24 announcement of the Oak Ridges moraine implementation guidelines for the greater Toronto area included this statement: "In areas of the moraine outside the GTA, municipalities will be strongly encouraged by the province to adopt and apply the principles of the implementation guidelines." What specific actions has the government taken with these affected municipalities to encourage adoption of the minister's guidelines?

1500

Hon Mr Wildman: The member is correct in the quote she gave from the announcement made in June regarding the Oak Ridges moraine. As she knows, the statement made at that time, as had the previous government's expression of interest, dealt with the GTA area mainly, but we are indeed prepared to engage in discussions with municipalities outside the GTA to assist them to implement changes which would be of similar import.

Mrs Caplan: I am even more concerned after hearing the minister's response. He said "prepared to engage in discussions." That sounds like a lot of words and no action at all. The fact is that there is not even a process within his ministry to organize any of the biophysical information that is required to be collected. This seems to me to be just a waste of time and energy. This is of importance to the people of the greater Toronto area.

To those who are concerned about safe drinking water as a result of the protection of the moraine, I would say that the Minister of Municipal Affairs recently has refused to declare a provincial interest in the Kirby Estates case. That is located in Durham. He has said it is not a matter of provincial interest. That was requested by the Save the Ganaraska Again community group. We know that the chair of the Ontario Municipal Board has stated that this refusal to declare provincial interest has damaged the public group's case. He also pointed out that the minister's guidelines were just guidelines and they were not etched in stone.

The Speaker: Would the member place her supplementary, please.

Mrs Caplan: Since his interim guidelines are supposed to protect the moraine and the headwaters, what specific contingency plans has the minister prepared and what does he have in place given the test case of the Kirby Estates, which I believe is seriously endangering the headwaters of the moraine?

Hon Mr Wildman: That was a very long and involved question. It reminded me of answers that the member used to give when she was on this side of the House. I would simply say I will not comment on the Kirby case or the statements made by the representatives from the Ontario Municipal Board. The questions raised would more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I should say that it is most inappropriate for this member to stand in the House and suggest that the statement I made on behalf of the government in June is unimportant, when her party, when it was in government itself, expressed provincial interest in the GTA, and the member knows clearly that the main thrust of the statement made in June was the protection of the GTA section of the Oak Ridges moraine.

VEHICLE LICENSING OFFICES

Mr Turnbull: My question is of the Minister of Transportation. Is it the minister's intention to close the privately operated driver licensing and vehicle registration offices and turn their operations over to the insurance industry as a payoff for their support for his government's forthcoming auto insurance proposal?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The world is upside down but only in the eyes of the beholder. There has never been and there will never be a payoff. This administration is open-minded. It does not get involved in payola. We are satisfied with the 288 people -- the private system at its best -- since they are dispensing the most essential of services, that of privilege, courtesy and, yes, perhaps the right of those 6.3 million licensees in Ontario.

We have a $30-billion investment in the infrastructure in terms of roads and transfers to municipalities in this province. The system is working quite fine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Mr Turnbull: When it comes to payoffs, I wonder what we would call the appointment of Marc Eliesen and Susan Eng.

An hon member: And Bob White.

Mr Turnbull: Yes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: This minister's government has called for the proposal from the Insurance Bureau of Canada on how it would like to operate these offices. The assistant deputy minister announced at a meeting with industry representatives that the government is planning to establish a schedule 2 crown corporation to be responsible for this service. Surely we do not need any more bureaucracy. Will the minister come clean and tell us why he is going to destroy this efficient, private sector industry in favour of more bureaucracy and a payoff to the insurance companies?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest of respect to the critic and distinguished member opposite, he does not even take yes for an answer. What we have here, I repeat, are 288 small, private enterprises located throughout the province. They are conducting approximately 90% of all vehicle licensing transactions and 63% of all driver licensing transactions -- and I am quoting from our records, the honourable member's and mine -- and it is working very well.

By way of conclusion, this is what those fine soldiers are doing, and it is not terribly lucrative. They are doing it because they believe in providing an essential service. They process over 12.5 million transactions, collecting approximately 85% That is $665 million. I know the member opposite will want to join me in congratulating those fine women and those fine men who are providing the service for all Ontarians.

CORRECTION

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, last Thursday, October 17, 1991, I raised a point of privilege in the House. On page 2999 of Hansard, I am reported as having said, "I, as an MPP, was required to pay personally to the legislative library researcher close to $300 to get this information."

What I intended to say was, "I, as an MPP, was required to pay personally to the ministry via the legislative library researcher close to $300 to get this information," and I would like to correct the record.

PETITIONS

SOUTH LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL

Mr Henderson: Mr Speaker, I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas South Lincoln High School in Smithville, Ontario, is in desperate need of additional classrooms and a gymnasium,

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

"That they provide the funding necessary for the addition to South Lincoln High School through whatever means possible within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education."

I have affixed my signature to this petition, and it has a total of 437 signatures.

TOBACCO TAXES

Mr Jordan: Mr Speaker, I have a petition from the Niagara Regional Fair signed by 959 citizens to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the present high levels of taxes on tobacco products are excessive and contrary to the interests of Ontario's two million smokers; and

"Whereas high tobacco taxes are contributing to retail theft and to our province's cross-border jobs and shopping crisis; and

"Whereas these punitive taxes and resulting lost sales are contributing to inflation, as well as costing jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas high cigarette taxes are regressive and unfair to low- and modest-income citizens;

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

"That Ontario's tobacco taxes should not be increased in 1991, and further that these taxes should be repealed and a new, lower and fairer tax be introduced."

This is signed by 959, and I affix my own signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

Vote différé sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi118, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de l'électricité.

1515

The House divided on Mr Ferguson's motion for second reading of Bill 118, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M.Ferguson pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 118, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour -- 66

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 36

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Chiarelli, Conway, Cousens, Curling, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Henderson, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Morin, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité permanent du développement des ressources.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Lambton today asked what I thought was a very important question. I wonder whether the Speaker, the House or the House leader for the government could indicate to the member for Lambton that when she raises a question about the Agenda for People, which she was asked to campaign on, and that promise is not kept, she has the option of being dissatisfied with the answer and debating that at six o'clock, bringing forward that concern. I think it is very unfair that she was asked to campaign on 10,000 spaces this year and 10,000 new spaces next year when the minister refused to honour that. I wonder if you could being that to her attention.

The Speaker: I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, in drawing the various rules and standing orders to the attention of other members.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Reprise du débat ajourné sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi83, Loi portant modification de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

The Speaker: The member for Simcoe Centre had the floor when we adjourned the debate. Then by rotation to the official opposition. Are there any members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: I view the debate about Bill 83 on the surcharge on income tax as a very important measure of the direction this government will take in strangling the economy. It is not just another tax grab. What the government must realize is that the excessive tax burden is driving many people out of Ontario. Speaking as the member for one of the most affluent ridings in the province, I am very aware of the number of entrepreneurs saying to me, "I'm not going to stay and fight; I'm simply leaving."

I am sure the government members are very sincere in their expression of the fact that they want to protect workers and make this a fair place to live, but I suggest that Ontario is a very fair place to live in right now. The province was a very fair and admired place when the Conservative government last was in office here. This province moved so far in terms of social justice that we were the envy of the world.

It is becoming harder and harder to get companies to expand or even stay in this province and it is becoming harder for companies to recruit top executives. Multinational companies are finding it difficult to get executives to come to this province unless they can have a very special tax deal where part of their income is paid overseas, which has the effect of draining away taxes.

This government should not think it can just tax ad infinitum. Eventually the system will back up on them and they will not have the revenue because they will not have the jobs that will drive the taxes to pay for all the social programs I know they are sincere about.

It is one more nail in the coffin of Ontario. I say this with great feeling because I came to live in Canada in 1969 and believe Ontario is a wonderful place to live. It has always been a place that has encouraged the entrepreneurial spirit. More than anything else, the tax grabs of the previous Liberal government, 33 of them, and the $1 billion worth of extra taxes they have levied so far in their last budget, are driving away business.

The ministry estimates that 3% of Ontario taxpayers will be affected by this tax. They may say: "Who's worried? We're the government. We don't have those people voting for this." I guess that is not correct according to what they are going to pay Marc Eliesen, but as members know I do not have a great deal of sympathy in that area. My concern is the loss of jobs, the loss of businesses and the loss of entrepreneurs. Once they have lost the entrepreneurs who create the small businesses that create the greatest number of job opportunities, we will have very little and we will be left with the situation we have: large companies that will be encouraged more and more to have a branch plant mentality.

I would like to turn to the budget, which was the greatest blow, in terms of contributing to the economic growth of Buffalo. Ask anybody who has anything to do with Buffalo -- real estate and businesses -- and Buffalo is going through a boom. It is very interesting that the rust belt of the United States, which went through a similar downturn in the last recession, has responded by realizing that you do not tax businesses out of existence. You encourage business to locate there because businesses translate into jobs, and jobs into prosperity.

If we continue to spend like drunken sailors there will be nothing left. When we find out the error of the NDP government's way, its knee-jerk reaction is to talk about the federal government's deficit. The fact is that the federal government took over a huge debt and is struggling with it. This government is increasing the debt and taxes the same as the Liberals before it.

The Liberals increased taxes and spending during the best five years this province has ever known. These are not the best five years this province has ever known. These are arguably the worst times we have had since the Great Depression. It is important that we maintain an economy which is capable of employing people, and the confidence of business is the thing which, above all issues, drives the economy. If we have people who say, "No, we can't succeed in Ontario," business will not invest money. They will invest it overseas.

Money is very portable nowadays. Even 20 years ago, when Britain was going through so many of its socialist antics, we saw that money was tied down in Britain. That is not the case in Ontario, because we are one province in Canada and money is entirely portable throughout Canada. So long as the NDP does not control the federal government it cannot keep the money in Canada, but if it did form a federal government I suspect that would be what it would do; it would bring in exchange controls. Exchange controls were the very thing that killed the British economy. It was only when they had a good dose of free market spirit that business developed again in Britain.

When they start controlling spending, as I believe they are beginning to understand they must, that smacks somewhat of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. To date the controlling of spending is only $460 million, which is in fact deferred to next year. They have to consider reducing the number of services the government gives and privatizing a lot of services. This does not suggest for one minute that the Conservatives are against supporting workers, unemployed people and single mothers. We believe in a healthy social agenda which will consider everybody, but the way the government is going about it is wrong. The government is going to double the provincial debt in just four years.

1530

It is fundamentally unfair, at a time when we know the country will be coming out of a recession, that the government will continue to pile on enormous debts. The minister should be compelled to balance the budget within the term of office. That does not mean in individual years the government has to balance its budget but, unfortunately, we are now dealing with our children having to pay our debts. Pretty soon we will working on our grandchildren having to pay our debts.

The government is going to get this province into the same unfortunate position that the federal government is in, one in which it will never be able to pay back the debt. We know that at the federal level one third of all government spending is with respect to servicing the debt. Is that an admirable direction? I do not think so. Unfortunately, that is what the government is doing.

We look at the accumulated deficit and put it in perspective. When the Conservatives left office, it was $26 billion. The Liberals, in just five years, added $10 billion. I can tell members that for more than any other reason, I ran in the last election because I was so outraged at this galloping spending. I never could have believed in those times that we would be looking at increasing the debt to $70 billion.

I really put it to all the members of the government -- and I am not attacking what the members believe is right -- that we are on a slippery slope and we may never be able to fix the economy of Ontario unless we address the fundamental problem, which is that government does not efficiently deliver services.

We have only to look at such issues as affordable housing. We are failing with respect to affordable housing and yet we are spending a huge amount of money. For each affordable housing unit that we create in this province, we are spending, on average, approximately 150% of what the private sector would spend to create the same housing. We must build an atmosphere where private business wants to invest in affordable housing. By driving the entrepreneurs out and driving down real estate values, the government will not do this, and this surtax is certainly going to do that.

Having spoken to many constituents who say they are going to leave, I am depressed. I am concerned that perhaps because the governing party predominantly represents the more traditional areas where labour lives, it does not get enough opportunity to speak to business people. I am not talking about the big companies that can afford to effectively lobby the government. I am talking about small businesses that employ three, four, five and 10 people; indeed, the businesses which generate the most jobs in this province. They are telling me they are moving.

I hope the government does not think this is a good sign. I hope it does not think I am making this up. Indeed, when we look at the survey taken last week, we know that something in the order of 500,000 jobs will be lost in this province by the attitude of the government. Attitude does not come from one single item, but when we look at the wage protection bill and some of the very negative messages which were sent out with the initial reading of the bill, and then we look at this surtax and we look at the proposal that it will only take 50% of the people in a business to organize into a union, these are all nails in the coffin, the coffin of Ontario.

When we look at accumulated deficits historically, Ontario's will be the largest deficit in the whole of Canadian history, province by province. Next comes Quebec's. In Quebec, we see that in the 1984-85 period, it was just over $3 billion.

A core issue is piling up debt. It is a millstone around taxpayers' necks for generations. The deficit represents 3.4% of the province's GDP. It was only 2.3% of the GDP in the last recession. By 1994-95, the projected deficit, in GDP rates, will be double. The service cost on Ontario's debt is beginning to eat into the government's ability to spend money on the people most in need. By 1994, the daily cost of debt to taxpayers will be $13 million in interest payments alone.

I cannot help but think back to the early part of this debate, when my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton said something I thought was very true. He said that we have to learn to say no to people. One of the parts of his job that he was finding difficult was saying no when groups came to him in his constituency. Indeed, I think all parties have to get their heads together on this issue and learn to say no.

We know that the way politics are organized with the party system, you protect your budget and the opposition parties dump on you. I think the dumping has to stop and we have to get the government to believe that we must cut back. But we in opposition also have a responsibility, and I can tell members that last Friday I was exercising what I considered to be the principles I am talking about. A couple came to me looking for money for a private sector enterprise, because they said they were not making any money. They were producing a television program aimed at seniors. They said they had cut a deal with private television stations that allowed them to get a portion of their revenue from the advertising they could sell during the program, but unfortunately they were not making any money. Could I get some money from the government?

Recognizing that these were people who were probably more likely to vote for the Conservatives than the NDP, the cheap shot would have been to say, "I think it's awful what the government is doing." But it would be hypocrisy on my part if I were to stand up and say that I thought the budget was wrong and the spending was wrong if I were advocating more spending by the government. I told them so very frankly, and they said it was refreshing to have a politician who was straightforward and honest with them, but at the end of the day, I am sure they would much sooner have had the money.

The treadmill of debt is something I have spent a good deal of time thinking about lately. I think we must come to recognize that we cannot buy jobs. When we look at some expenditures that the government is proposing, the de Havilland bailout is going to cost $155.5 million for 4,900 promised jobs; the money is not yet spent. Elliot Lake: $250 million for 650 jobs. The auto insurance scheme: The government certainly got off to a bad start on that. It spent $5 million, and for what? It has reclassified senior civil servants, and that cost the government $17 million.

1540

It has been said by my leader that NDP tax policy is, "If it moves, tax it; if it still moves, regulate it; when it stops moving, subsidize it." This government has had 14 tax increases in the budget and $1 billion in tax hikes this year alone. The biggest hit was a 3.4-cent-a-litre increase in gas tax, which we will be debating afterwards. All these things come together to make us a very heavily taxed administration. We are now the most heavily taxed administration in the whole of North America, and that quite simply drives away business and drives away jobs.

I am sure this government does not want to lose jobs. I am sure that behind closed doors, in its caucus meetings, it has these wrenching sessions where one person says, "Look, if we do this, that's a problem." But ultimately they feel they have to come forward on to the floor of the House and be shoulder to shoulder and support the government. It is their responsibility as backbenchers to persuade the government that this policy is wrong. The increase in the surtax does not affect many of their members. It does affect a few, but more than anything else it means they are going to tax away jobs.

Since 1985 we have had 40 tax increases. There was $18.6 billion more in taxes this year than in 1984-85. This is a 126% increase in provincial taxes in that period. Over the same period of time, per capita income has risen by 55.8%. In other words, people are falling behind, even highly paid people. I was speaking to one of my NDP colleagues from across the floor the other day, bemoaning this fact. To his credit, he understood the need to make sure we keep high-paying jobs in the province, because they are the driving force that set up businesses.

Let's reflect on what you do when you set up a small business. I keep harking back to small business, maybe because I am a small businessman myself. You invest your after-tax dollars and risk them in a business in the hope that you are going to make a profit. When you are successful, the government is in for 50% of the profit. It is very unusual to set up a business and make any money in the first two or three years, so you know that not only are you putting in your initial investment, but you keep on feeding the beast over the years. As you feed it, you go a little bit farther down the tunnel, and you hope the light at the end of the tunnel is not a locomotive coming towards you.

As I say, if you are successful you will probably pay 50% in taxes. Then, if in few years' time you feel you have worked very hard and you want to get out of that business, you sell it and you have capital gains on that. You are taxed at every stage of the game. You have put your after-tax dollars at risk, and at a certain point you say that the risk is not worth it, that you would sooner put your money into a lending institution, where hopefully there is no risk, and get interest. Quite literally, most small businesses in Ontario, and many large businesses too, are hanging on at the moment in the hope they will show a profit again in the future. This is quite literally what is happening; the business is not making money. A lot of traditional cash cows are no longer cash cows; they are fallow.

Nearly 80% or $3.5 billion more in retail sales taxes has been added in the last few years, since 1984-85. A huge 66% has been added in gasoline taxes alone. Some 223.7% more in land transfer taxes since 1984-85 and 80% more in personal income taxes since that time paint a rather dim picture of tax grab after tax grab. What are we going to do that will spell relief? I do not think a Rolaids will do the trick. We have to get back the confidence of people that they will be rewarded in this province for investing and working hard.

I am somewhat interested in some of the comments that have been made to me by NDP members who are ex-union people, where they have said that they are working much longer hours than they worked when they were in the union, and they are complaining that their benefits package is not as good as when they were in the union. That is somewhat akin to running your own business. Often small businesses are making less money than unionized workers, and yet the perception is that when they do have a good year and they make a lot of money, the government says, "Oh, we have to tax them, because that's bad."

Sometimes you have to pile up the money in good years for the bad years. It is an old-fashioned concept, and indeed when I think of economics, we know that John Maynard Keynes is often blamed today for flawed economics. I think it is flawed economics, because he did not take in all the considerations that are now considered to be important in arriving at a complete economic picture, but in fairness to John Maynard Keynes, he said, "In the good years you put money away, and then you prime the pump in the bad years."

This province has not put any money away in a long time and consequently we have this huge debt. Quite simply put, when you pile up debt, you are just deferring taxes. It is not going to go away. A few people have suggested that if you have enough inflation, suddenly your debt will be reduced to an insignificant amount. But unfortunately, the way our economy works -- if anybody saw the article in the Toronto Star over the weekend, or it may have been today, it is about "Who Drives Interest Rates."

We have heard the NDP often railing about the federal government as being the bad guys who kept interest rates up and kept the dollar up. To a great extent, the fact that we do not have enough taxes to feed the monster of government at the federal and provincial levels means that governments have to go out and borrow money, and because there are not enough Canadians any more who are prepared to invest in Canada, we now know that we have to borrow money overseas.

The treasury bills are auctioned each week at a rate which has to be attractive to investors. They put in their bids. It is not a question of the Bank of Canada saying, "This is the rate which is on the T-bill"; it asks for bids from the various banks. The banks come back and they say how many dollars they are prepared to invest and what the discount has to be. As a consequence there is a barometer as to how high the interest rate will be, because the Bank of Canada simply sets the bank rate at a quarter point higher than that each week, and that is because governments have been spending out of control for many years.

Ultimately I suspect the only way we can solve this is by getting the provincial and federal governments talking together in a more co-operative way. I have heard it said by Bob Rae on several occasions recently that he believes governments at the federal and provincial level should be more co-operative, and yet I have seen no indication that he is prepared to change his ways in order to get greater co-operation.

1550

There was a comment made in a report by the Bank of Nova Scotia dated April 29, 1991, and I would like to read that into the record:

"Ontario is relying increasingly on personal income taxes as a source of revenue. The provincial income tax is expected to account for over 37 cents of every dollar raised this year, up from 26 cents in financial year 1984-85. Over the same period, federal transfers have fallen by six and a half percentage points to 12.4% of provincial revenues. Weak economic activity has significantly eroded retail sales, land transfer and corporate taxes since the onset of the recession, so it has become easier to hike income taxes than to make the tough decisions to control spending."

This is the issue we always get our friends on the government side raving about. We have said, "You need to cut the size of the civil service." I am not talking about a slash-and-cut idea, but the last Conservative government reduced the size of the civil service by some 5,000 people over a 10-year period and they did that through attrition. There was nobody sacked; they simply got rid of people slowly and reduced the size of the civil service, and yet the government was still able to deliver an acceptable level of services. I put it to members that we have to start thinking of doing that kind of thing.

I understand that this is something which runs counter to the NDP's platform, because traditionally they have sought to attract the more junior levels of the government service as voters. When we look at last year's increases we know that there was a huge increase. Officially it was 5.8%, but that was plus merit increases to the civil service of up to 8%. In fact, some top bureaucrats received $11,000 in salary increases, for $512 million. These are serious numbers. These are the kinds of numbers that could fix our agricultural problems in the province. So when we are advocating cutting back, we are simply saying, "You have guaranteed jobs in the civil service, highly paid jobs. Make sure you use that money more wisely and then you don't have to come back and say, 'Well, we can't help agriculture,'" which is a further erosion of our economy.

We look at the Ontario Hydro pension fund, which I am given to believe is fully funded. If we did not put another penny into the pension fund for the next 10 years, it has been suggested by one ex-senior Hydro official, we would still have the pension fund fully funded, and yet this year we are forced to put something in excess of $250 million into the pension fund at a time that we are seeing 12% increases in rates, and it is projected that overall we are going to have a 44% increase in hydro rates.

What I am doing is going through this shopping list, because the members opposite often accuse us and say we do not suggest ways of saving money and readjusting spending. We look at affordable housing and we look at Ataratiri. The project will now cost $2 billion. That is $60,000 in interest charges per day and no homes have been built yet. The Ataratiri units today are projected to cost $258,000 per unit. I really would ask members, is there anybody on the government benches who believes that is affordable housing, at a cost of $258,000 per unit? You can pick up the newspaper any weekend in this city and you can go through the houses for sale and you can find lots and lots of apartments which are half that price.

I know the members opposite are attached to the idea of creating affordable housing. We are not suggesting we should not have affordable housing. As members know, the Conservative proposal is to make sure there are housing subsidies to the people in need. Notwithstanding the fact that I have a very affluent riding, I have people who are paying 40% and 50% of their gross income on rent. We want to help them, but the way the members opposite are going at the moment is they are squandering money and they are not getting value for money. I challenge anyone to pick up the Saturday Star and read about the houses and apartments for sale and see if he cannot find lots and lots of units for considerably less than $258,000 per unit.

Our economic outlook is bleak. Our gross domestic product is expected to shrink by 3.3%. We are losing 12,000 jobs a day in the province and the unemployment rate this year is 10%. When the government came to office it was 6.3%. I am not blaming the government for this. We know that there was a world recession on. Indeed when I spoke to my brother in England a few days ago, he was bemoaning the terrible times in England. When I spoke to some German senators who were here on a visit two weeks ago, they were telling me how bad things were. When I spoke to a sister-in-law in Switzerland two weeks ago, she was telling me how bad things were in Switzerland.

There is no doubt the world is in a recession, but it is important that Ontario bounce out of it. I do not expect us to bounce out of it in the way we have in the past. I do not think that is an option that is open to us no matter which government is in power, in fairness to this government. But the important thing is to create an environment in which people feel like investing, or more especially feel like staying and continuing to invest.

On the question of decentralization of government ministries, we have not seen a proper impact study into the movement of these jobs. We know that traditionally about one third of all jobs move when a ministry moves out of town. We have not seen a fully loaded cost study which includes the cost of travelling back to Toronto for all the meetings they are expected to attend here. If the government is going to go through with decentralization, I would urge the government to look at an ambitious project to make sure that we have electronic communications with media rooms so that people do not have to travel back to Toronto, because the costs of hotels and travel are eating us alive.

When we look at day care centres we see that capital projects for non-profit centres are being funded, and yet at the same time there is no further funding for the for-profit sector, even though there are 3,000 vacant spaces in the for-profit sector in this province and they are not being funded. I put it to the members that I have toured day care centres and there are many day care centres which are every bit as good as, if not better than, the non-profit day care centres, but people wanting to bring their children to those centres cannot because there are no subsidies available for them.

Please, I ask the government to get rid of this notion that the word "profit" is an evil word. I know that behind closed doors there have been discussions among government members that somehow they have to engage in some social engineering and change the whole structure of our society and that capitalism is inherently wicked. If the government really believes that, it should be decent enough to come forward and say it in the open. Do not go through the myth of having the Premier suggesting that he wants co-operation with business and yet he is not prepared to co-operate by changing his policies.

The province's finances are in tatters. I do not hold the government entirely accountable, but believe me, the people of Ontario will hold the government accountable if it runs the deficit up to $70 billion by the time its office term is over. It is unfair to the people who vote for it and it is unfair to the people who do not vote for it because, somehow, somebody has to pay it back.

Tax freedom day in Ontario is coming later and later each year. We are now waiting until close to August. That is the amount of time people have to work before they are working for themselves. The rest of the money goes to the province, the federal government and the municipal taxes.

1600

We need governments to live within their means. More and more I have my constituents coming to me and saying, "David, how can we get this message across?" No wonder people are fed up with governments when they do not listen to the people. The people are not saying to spend money the way this government is spending. They are saying they should live within their means.

Our credit rating in this province of course has been downgraded and if, as we suspect, the deficit comes in this year at some $3 billion greater than was projected, I think it is reasonable to expect our credit rating will be further downgraded.

The impact on business is that it is simply too expensive to do business in Ontario. We have the commercial concentration tax, which was brought in by the past Liberal government. Indeed the NDP joined shoulders with the Conservatives when they were in opposition and said how wrong the commercial concentration tax was, a tax which discriminated against the people of the greater Metro area, who are already sharing a very large portion of the burden of taxation in this province. They added these discriminatory taxes which were applied only to the greater Metro area.

Our tax burden is 16% higher than that in the United States, on average. Companies are fleeing Ontario and, believe me, most of those jobs will not come back. I know because I have spoken to the entrepreneurs who have these businesses, and they have no intention of coming back, no matter what government is in, once they have left.

The Ontario public is going to be left to foot the bill when the NDP leaves government, and indeed I am convinced that after this term of government they will no longer be elected. That is up to the electorate to decide, but the electorate is very clearly telling them, "Reduce taxes."

When I look at the tax revolt in Blenheim, and it seems to be spreading throughout the province, I would say it is wise for any political party to understand the thrust of the taxpayers in saying: "We've got tax exhaustion. We can't pay any more." Probably the only way you are going to kickstart the economy is actually backing off on some taxes, not just holding them where they are.

Susan Murray of S. A. Murray Consulting Inc of Toronto pointed to the recently leaked NDP document on proposed reforms to the Labour Relations Act, which stated, "Consultations should be carried out to neutralize business opposition," in the absence of meaningful dialogue. I am very worried that the government wants to neutralize opposition instead of listening to opposition, because if it is neutralizing opposition, it is neutralizing business. If they neutralize business, there go the jobs of their constituents as well as mine. We have seen a very intrusive government with passage of such bills as Bill 70 and a retroactive rent control act.

The reality is that Ontario is trading north-south with the United States. For years and years the pattern of our trading has been north-south, and it goes right across Canada. We do not do heavy east-west trading. British Columbia trades with the west coast. Ontario trades with the central part of the United States, as Montreal trades with the east coast.

Unless we are competitive and unless we have those jobs -- when I say "competitive," the government should not misunderstand this as a suggestion that we want it to go out and hack and cut wages but should understand that it must have people who are prepared to work hard and pay their fair share of taxes, but not too much in taxes. We are not going to be able to build the economy on government-created jobs. In the first two months of this year alone, 650 businesses went under. I think that wrong-thinking government is the problem, and the loss of confidence is significant.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: If the gentlemen who periodically heckles me does not believe this, he should go out and meet some small businessmen and ask them whether they are making any money. The member who was heckling me is now nodding his head; he does not believe it. Obviously he has not been speaking to small business. They are not making ends meet.

Mr Wiseman: Yes, but the first thing they tell me is, "Do something about the dollar." Have a secret meeting with your pals.

Mr Turnbull: The member who is heckling, talking about the dollar, obviously did not read the Toronto Star article I read to the members today. The Toronto Star is talking about the interest rates. The interest rates are the driving force of the dollar, and the interest rates are increased by government overspending.

Mr Jamison: The interest rates are going down, but the dollar is going up, right?

Mr Turnbull: The reality is that interest rates in other countries have been going down quicker than ours. They have said it themselves.

The loss of confidence in this province is well seen in the building trade. We are seeing that builders are going out of business at an alarming rate because they do not believe they are going to be able to fill their buildings. I will reflect on the builders of industrial buildings.

There is always a boom-bust cycle with commercial real estate. We know that and we expect it, and you can say that in many respects maybe a lot of small developers are unwise. They do not understand the cycles and there is a lot of luck involved in it. The problem is that if you create an environment where you do not believe there is ever going to be any light -- what is happening is that banks are foreclosing on the mortgages of builders who have empty space because they do not believe that in this province we are ever going to be able to fill it.

We need the kind of restraint which says we should not be increasing the amount of parliamentary staff. We know that in fact the present government has made every single member of its caucus a parliamentary assistant if he or she is not a minister or a Chair of a committee so he or she will get more money. To my knowledge, this has not been done by governments before. We have had an astronomical increase in the number of political staff in all the ministries. There has never been as many political staff under any government as there is now.

We have seen an increase in the remuneration year over year for the civil service of 14.6%, which means that not only have we increased pay, but we have also increased the number of civil servants. Yet the imperative is to reduce it.

The chairman of Ontario Hydro, as I said, got an increase to $400,000, yet he was earning only $130,000. I ask this government why. Did they ask him and he said, "No, I won't work unless I get $400,000"? He was prepared to work as a deputy minister. Was he only working one third of the time as deputy minister? I suggest he was not. He is not going to be working longer hours; he just wanted more. He wanted the big political payoff.

All political parties in this country should stop political payoffs. There is no doubt about it that all parties have indulged in it and it is time we have to wake up. We need to get confidence back in the economy and, most of all, we have to have the Treasurer back off his tax plans. As we examine the budget document we cannot escape the fact, based upon the projected increase in revenues and the deficit numbers, that to arrive at the increased revenue numbers he is somehow going to have to get $10-billion worth of extra taxes in there, and $10 billion of extra taxes is going to kill us. It is going to choke us.

If the Premier is serious about co-operation, he should repeal Bill 70, proclaim an abandonment of plans for succession duties and capital gains tax on principle residences, repeal Bill 121 and show some flexibility.

1610

Mr Bisson: I did not intend to debate this particular bill today, but after hearing some of the statements made by my honourable friend from the Conservative Party, I thought I would take this opportunity to raise a couple of issues that were talked about and to talk a little bit about a few other things as well.

It is quite interesting when we get into these debates. Obviously, being three political parties, we bring in a different ideology to how we run government and how we do things in general. The whole idea of how the parliamentary system operates is that supposedly a political party has a particular ideology and brings that to the way it runs government. Obviously each of these political parties is going to talk about how it feels it should do things, that it should be there and how the other person who is there is obviously doing it all wrong. "If only I was there, I would do it better." I would just like to raise a couple of points in that light on what was talked about here.

One of the things the honourable member discussed in his debate, and I listened with great interest, was the whole idea of how governments are run, and specifically how the Ontario government is run, through the civil service in a not very effective, not very efficient way. It is an interesting statement, coming from a member whose political party ran this province for some 40 years. It seems to me the Conservative Party of the day was at the helm for some 40 years. They were the ones who controlled the civil service of this government. They were the ones who controlled and put together much of the policy in regard to how the civil service would conduct itself, how government would do business. They put together a lot of that.

Mr Turnbull: It was a good civil service in those days.

Mr Bisson: It is not to say that everything the civil service did and everything the Conservative Party did in that 40 years was wrong, but for the member to come here and say that all of a sudden, a year after the 1990 election, the civil service is somehow too bureaucratic and is not doing a good job I think is only a statement for political gain and has nothing to do with the reality of what is happening within the civil service of the province. I think most people would admit, including people in the civil service, that obviously any company, any government or any organization must always strive to find better ways to be able to deliver the services the particular business or government or whatever is trying to provide. That is called good management. But for the member to stand here in this House and to start talking all of a sudden about a civil service that is totally bureaucratic, not doing a job the way it should be and that is totally inefficient --

Hon Mr Ferguson: It's an insult.

Mr Bisson: I think it is not only an insult to me as a member, but I would say it is an insult to the civil servants of this province, who actually do a very good job for the people of Ontario. I think the member should think a little bit more when making statements like that, because what he is talking about are some 80,000 people who work for this province who really work hard at trying to provide services for the people of this province.

He should also keep in mind that it was his party that put together the system we have today. Much of it is good, some of it is bad and what this government is attempting to do and what this government is striving to do is to find ways to be able to deliver the services to the people of this province in a way that is effective.

It is a very big process because, yes, we are a big province. There are some 9.5 million people in Ontario who demand service from the government. Those services are provided through the civil service of Ontario. It is not a task we will be able to undertake to change overnight or within a month or within two months or a year. It is a fairly lengthy process you need to go through to find better ways of being able to do the business of the province. We need to be able to put together a system over the long term that speaks about efficiency in the way you deliver services within Ontario.

But for the member from the opposition to speak about the civil service in the negative way he did I think is ludicrous. It does not reflect the reality of what is happening within the civil service of this province, and I would also remind him that it was his party that put the system together, so he should not preach to this government about how things are being done. They put the system together.

A number of other points the member raised are worth mentioning. I would really like to talk about one of them because it is something the constituents of my riding, as well as constituents in other ridings I have visited in the time I have been in this Legislature, have spoken about to me, and I imagine, not only to government members but all members of this assembly. This is all about the question of what kind of message the government is sending to the business community in Ontario.

The opposition would make us believe that trying to provide laws and regulations that speak about fairness to the people of this province somehow is scaring business away, that somehow businesses by the hundreds are packing their bags and moving across the border to the United States. It is not to say there are not businesses going to the United States, but I think we should recognize a few facts. Many of those businesses that have chosen over the past number of years -- I would say three to four years -- to move to the United States have been directly affected by some federal policies that have been put in place. I think we would admit that.

There was negotiated something called the free trade deal, which most Canadians have not forgotten about, that has devastated not only the economy of Ontario but the economy of the entire country of Canada. It has devastated us. Speak to the hundreds of thousands of workers across this country who have lost their jobs. Why? Companies have moved to the United States because the federal government, through the free trade agreement and other pieces of legislation, has put together a system that makes it much easier for them to get over there and not live up to their responsibility as corporate citizens within this country. That is why they are moving.

They are also moving because of other policies that have been put in place -- I know the members of the opposition do not like to hear this, especially the Conservatives members whose cousins sit in Ottawa at this time -- the high interest policy and the high dollar. When I speak to the lumber sector in my area, around Timmins, Iroquois Falls, Kapuskasing and Kirkland Lake, and to the mining communities, those companies come to me not only as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines but also as a member and say: "The high dollar is killing us. It's killing our ability to be able to compete with the Americans."

What is the opposition really talking about when it talks about creating a climate that is more conducive to business? I think every member in this Legislature will admit and will push towards making sure that we provide the best climate possible. But the difference we are talking about in this government --

Mr B. Murdoch: What high dollar? The dollar's lower than it's been for the last 12 years.

Mr Bisson: I see I have awakened an honourable member on the other side. That is very good.

The point is, what are they talking about when they talk about a climate? Are they, the Conservative members of this Legislature, saying, "The climate we wish to put together should be a climate that says workers have no rights"? Are they talking about a climate that says, "We shall not protect our environment"? Are they talking about a climate in which there is no equity within our society?

When I listen to what they are saying, the message is that they want to create a society that has no equity within it. They want a society that returns to the good old days, what we now see in Chile and other South American countries that have very weak governments which allow companies to come in and do what the heck they want. "You want to open a mine in Brazil? You want to open a mine in Chile? Come and pollute our environment. We don't care."

Is that the kind of climate we want to see in Ontario? Those same countries are saying, "You want to come in and you want open up a business in our country and you want to kick your workers around and you don't want to pay them wages," as they do in Mexico and other countries. Is that the kind of country they are trying to build? Is that the message they are giving?

If that is what the members of the opposition are talking about, especially our Conservative friends, that is not the kind of province we want to see in Ontario. I think a vast majority of Ontarians would say: "Right on. We want to create a society that has equity within it, where we care about those who are not able to take care of themselves because of injury, because they are handicapped or because they may have mental problems with regard to difficulties they may have been going through because of stress or whatever. That is why we have our social programs. We want a society where, if you get sick, you have a medicare system to protect you when you are in need of medical attention. We want a society that says there is equity." That is what this government is talking about.

Excuse me, Mr Speaker, if I feel somewhat -- I will not make that remark because it would be unparliamentary to say what I was thinking. If they are talking about putting together a society that says there is no equity and all of the laws are for an élite few, that is not the type of society we as New Democrats believe in.

Addressing myself more specifically to this bill, what are we talking about? The member stood here a little while ago and talked about how this bill is going to do damage to the province, how this bill is going to drive out the business sector of Ontario because it is sending the wrong message. What is the message in this bill? If you make under $22,500 per year and are a single parent and have two children, you will pay no provincial income tax. I think that is a pretty good message to give people.

1620

What is he talking about? Does he want people who cannot afford to pay taxes to pay even more, as his federal cousins did with the GST? No, this government said clearly that we should not be trying to tax excessively those people who do not make enough money and have families at home they have to provide for. We should be trying to help them. That is what this bill is saying. It is saying that if you make under $22,500 a year and have two children at home, you will not pay any provincial income tax. Bravo. It is about time a government spoke up for the little people.

The other part of the bill says -- I think this is what is really irking our Conservative friend -- if you make over $84,000 a year, you should pay a little bit more. That is what the bill says. The bill specifically says that if you as a citizen of Ontario make $84,000 a year or more, you will pay a little bit more tax -- not 50% more tax, not 40% more tax, but a very small amount. We are talking in the neighbourhood of about 10%. I do not know the exact figure offhand, but I know, from the notes I have read, that it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 8% to 10%.

If you make $84,000 a year, I do not say that is a lot of money, but it is clearly a lot more money than the poor single parent who makes $22,500 a year. Certainly the person with more money should pay his fair share of taxes. That is what we have said in this bill: If you make more, you should pay a little more. You should not be allowed to pay fewer taxes in this society. If you are making $84,000, then you should pay more taxes than a person with $22,500.

This bill talks about equity. That is what irks the member. He does not want equity in our society; he wants a society that caters to one particular segment of our society. This is not to say that this segment is not important. We need that segment of our society. We need the business people. We need the people with the money. We need millionaires. We cannot survive as a society without them. What we are saying is that those with money have to take the responsibility.

In the employment I had before I became a member of this Legislature I made $60,000-plus a year. As a person making over $60,000 a year, I expected I should pay a fair share of taxes. I did so and I did so willingly. I did not argue about it because I believed we should provide for people who were less able to provide for themselves because of circumstances not under their control. One should not go to the persons who are on social assistance because they are disabled and cannot work. There are people in this province, as in any other province, who are in that situation. What do we do? Do the Conservatives advocate that we throw them out in the street to the wolves? Maybe that is the way it was done in the old Conservative governments in the 1930s, but that is certainly not the way we want to do it in the 1990s under a New Democratic government. We need to allocate dollars to those programs to make sure there is enough money to provide for those who are having difficulty.

The government is being very proactive. It is increasing the minimum wage. Why? So that it pays to to go to work. Not $5 an hour; that is below the poverty line. We are saying, "Let's try to increase the minimum wage to 70% of the industrial rate over a graduated period of time." Why? Because people do want to work, but they want to get paid for what they do. If a person happens to be on social assistance and is faced with the prospect of going to work and making $7.50 or $8 an hour, and can make more money working than on social assistance, he will work. People want to work but we need to remunerate them for those services.

The social cost is quite positive in the long run. When members in the opposition speak against it, I really wonder why they are doing that. Do they truly not understand what it is about or are they saying, "We want to set up laws for the élite few"? This government is not interested in that. We want to put laws in place that are fair and equitable to all members of society because that is the secret to this.

When looking at any law within Ontario or Canada, we need to write laws that are global laws, laws that do not only speak to a specific group sitting in one corner of the society but laws that recognize that there are other people who are affected by those laws. This is what the role of just government is about. It is about putting together laws that take into account that there is more than one side to any situation.

It is a little like a ball. If we sit here in the Legislature today and say, "This is the issue at hand," some on the Conservative side of the House may say: "We should answer it strictly from this side. We should look at the problem only from this side because that is the only side that matters." But there are people like Mr Speaker who sit in the chair who see it their way and there are people in the opposition looking at it their way. No matter which way we look at it, there is a different way of looking at it. The problem is not uniform. Any situation must be looked at from all sides, not the way they are talking about it on the other side, saying: "Let's look at it just from the one side. Let's look at it only from our side." No, we are not interested in that.

The member made an allusion that I did not object to at the time he said it. I was going to get up on a point of order but I said: "No, we'll let him say his thing. We'll let him have his time." The member talked about the whole question of affordable housing and tried to allude to how affordable housing was something they supported in some way but thought was a bad investment. All the program says is that we as a government will lend money to a co-op housing movement, for example, over a period of some 20 or 25 years. We are asking the co-op housing movement to go out and build the units and to provide rent at a reasonable rate. Over a 20- or 25-year period the government will then get its money back.

That is pretty good business to me. Sure it costs us money up front, but we end up getting it back over the long run and we end up providing affordable housing so that people can live in dignity, so that people do not have to live in squalor, so that people do not have to live on the street. We can provide the housing that is necessary, not only because it is something we want to do but because it is a social responsibility.

If government did not provide services such as affordable housing, social services, welfare and all of those other programs, what would happen to our society? We would not be able to walk the streets of Ontario. If a person did not have a job for whatever reason, because he was laid off because of the free trade agreement, was disabled or was an injured worker who got nothing, what would he do? He would stand on the street corner and say: "Stick 'em up and give me your wallet. I need money to pay my rent and feed my family." This would cost our society a lot more money in the long run because people would get hurt and people would get shot. We would have to spend more money on policing. There are many things we would have to pay for if we did not have the programs in place to serve the public good of society. There is truly a cost to that.

Earlier this year, I say to the members of the opposition, our government handed down a budget of some $9.7 billion. Do you ever notice, Mr Speaker, that they always talk about the "NDP budget," the "socialist budget," in those kinds of terms? They forget to say a couple of things. The obvious thing is that the revenue of the province has decreased dramatically. The revenue this province is taking in this year compared to to a couple of years ago is quite a bit less, by quite a few billion dollars. Why? Because of the policies that were set in place, because of the global economy we find ourselves in and because of what the federal government has done to us with regard to putting in the free trade agreement, having a high dollar and having high interest rates. There has been an effect. We have lost revenue because of it. We have also lost revenue because the federal government has cut back on our transfer payments. The cousins of the Tories who sit over here sit in Ottawa and have cut our transfer payments, as they have done to every other province. That is why our deficit, as well as our expenditures, has gone up.

Why? There are many more people today in 1991 who are in need because of the way the economy is for whom we have to provide. We have a million people on social assistance in this province. What do we do? Do we leave them to the wolves? No, we must provide, but we must plan at finding long-term solutions so we do not find ourselves in that position again. This is what this government is interested in doing.

1630

The other thing they do when they talk about the deficit is they try to compare the Ontario deficit to the deficit of British Columbia, the deficit in Prince Edward Island or the deficit in Quebec. You cannot compare apples and oranges. It happens to be that Ontario has 9.5 million people of a total population in this country of some 20 million. Certainly we have a larger deficit compared to other provinces, but we also have a much larger economy.

As an example, we spend roughly $50 billion a year here in Ontario compared to some $16 billion in British Columbia. They have an operating deficit of some $2 billion -- we are not quite sure now. I am sure when Mr Harcourt moves in, he will look at the books and maybe find some surprises such as we were left with, but for now it is $2 billion. Two billion dollars on a $16-billion operating budget in British Columbia cannot be compared to $9.7 billion on a $50-billion budget in Ontario. They cannot compare apples and oranges.

The honourable member said the federal government went into Ottawa under the Tories and Mr Brian Mulroney in 1984 in order to fight the deficit. I remember the campaign well. They were going to fight the deficit and they were going to give us jobs, jobs, jobs. What did they do? They doubled the deficit. Some fiscal responsibility. Some managers. They tried to accuse us of not being able to manage. I think they should look at their federal cousins, ask them the same question and say, "Truly, you have demonstrated over eight years you can't manage. That is why the Canadian people want you out, as well as for some other reasons."

The reality is that what happens in this debate is the same message that has been trying to come out of the opposition. They have been trying to paint a doom-and-gloom picture in Ontario. They have been running around in opposition, yelling within the newspapers and through some of their friends in the business sector. I wish them well as far as the business sector is concerned. They accuse us of being allied to labour. I am proud to say I come from the labour movement. I used to work for the Steelworkers, I used to work for the Ontario Federation of Labour, and I say that with great pride. I think that is a great way to make a living and it is a good way to be able to advance social policy.

These people along with their allies within the business community have been running around this province yelling: "Chicken Little, the sky is falling. Ontario is falling apart because the socialist hordes have taken over in Ontario." That is what they have been yelling, and they have been undermining the confidence of the consumers in this province. I say shame on them, because they have been trying to undermine, trying to pursue that kind of tactic and trying to blame all the problems in Ontario on the NDP government. The reality is, we just took power a year ago. The problems that are here are clearly not all problems that were caused by the NDP government; 99.9% of them were here when we got here. That is the reality.

The members opposite run around saying, "Doom and gloom" and "Chicken Little" and "The sky is falling" and "The socialists have taken over at Queen's Park." They try to undermine, for political reasons, the position of the government, but what they end up doing is hurting their friends. They end up hurting the small business sector, which relies on the confidence of the consumer to walk through his or her doors to buy goods.

When I talk to people in my riding, as I talk to people around this province, some people -- not all -- are afraid to spend their money today because they are hearing all this talk that is going around: "I'm not going to spend money on that new stereo system or the dishwasher or the automobile or whatever, because I want to see what is going to happen. I want to see some confidence in the economy." But the opposition runs around yelling, "Chicken Little," and it is almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they do it long enough, they will undermine the economy to where we are not going to have 10% unemployment, quite possibly it will be a lot higher. That is what they have been doing.

I would like to summarize by saying that the members opposite must be very careful when they start to talk in this Legislature or speak within the society of Ontario. Their agenda should be to try to boost the confidence of consumers. They should be trying to encourage investment in Ontario, not scare it away, as they have been trying to do for purely political gain.

The last point I would like to make is that if the Tories, and to a certain extent the Liberals, are speaking about a society that has no equity, a society that has a let-her-rip attitude that says, "We don't want to provide for a healthy workplace; we don't want to provide for a healthy environment" that is not the Ontario I wish to live in. I think that is why the people of Ontario voted massively in the last election to elect an NDP government. They wanted a change, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are proceeding with caution on all fronts, recognizing that we are in the middle of the worst recession in recent history, to put together programs that are going to find solutions over the long term.

Kapuskasing has served as a model to other communities and other industries that are having difficulties. The government entered into a real partnership. We plan on changing things within the civil service as well, to make sure we have a more efficient government, much more efficient than what we were left with.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Any comments or questions on the speech of the member for Cochrane South?

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: If there is some agreement that we are not to make comments, I will withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: We are continuing the debate.

Mr Stockwell: There has been a lot of talk very recently with respect to the budget, the deficit and exactly the tax position the government is left with at this time.

I thought it was interesting that as recently as this weekend there was a report in the newspaper about this government examining methods by which it could dispose of government assets to raise capital to offset the deficit and debt. To me, it is a rather interesting approach this government uses so early in its mandate. I am not surprised they have requested the report and I am not shocked that these are the avenues they would propose to go down, considering the amount of money they spend. I am rather surprised that so early in their mandate, just over a year, they are already investigating methods by which they will have to sell off assets that this province has accrued over some 125 years so they can bring in a budget that does not enter into double-digit deficit numbers. That double digit of course would be $10 billion.

It is very concerning for me and I think for the people of this province for two reasons. Specifically, we are looking at a government that is prepared to take a lot of the items, a lot of the issues it was investigating, all these jewels we have acquired over the years and in some cases in the Metropolitan Toronto area -- I think Ontario Place was mentioned in that report -- and examine whether or not it would want to sell them to cover up for its shoddy, shortsighted, mismanaged ability to handle the finances of this great province.

The Acting Speaker: If I may interrupt the member for a moment please, not to make any comment on the member's remarks, but it would be helpful if you could link them to the topic we are debating this afternoon which is Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act. If you could make reference to the act every so often it would be helpful.

Mr Stockwell: Yes sir, I appreciate that. I apologize. I digressed. I will try to tie it back in the same vein.

What this government is doing, in my opinion, is investigating and implementing through this piece of legislation taxes and methods by which it can cover up what I consider to be a rather shortsighted, mismanaged approach to financing in this great province.

I also believe fundamentally that this government is totally out of touch with the needs and concerns of the average citizen in this province. They make many grandiose boasts about being in touch with those people in need. I am not suggesting that we all understand the people who are in need, the concerns and difficulties they are facing with the economy as it is today, but may I suggest that there are a great number of people out there who are just getting up to go to work, coming home from work, trying to make a living, paying their mortgage or their rent and raising their children. They are finding it very difficult to do those things under this particular government.

1640

It is becoming more and more onerous to make ends meet or find enough money to survive when government upon government -- and not just this government but all levels of government -- tax them to the poorhouse. Some people have suggested that is exactly what this government would like to see, everybody at the poorhouse, and then it could potentially corner the market on votes because it would offer the most benefits if one were there.

I do not think that is a proper approach. I often hear from this government about its understanding of the business community, understanding of the taxes levied and understanding of exactly what the people of this province face every day when it comes to surviving in this kind of economy.

I said this in the first session and I will say it again this session: I do not honestly believe the government has a fundamental grounding in business decision-making, and it is becoming more and more apparent every passing day that this government sits in this House.

We are seeing jobs evaporate. Some 200,000 or 300,000 jobs have evaporated from this province under this government. They are talking about the creation of jobs; I do not see it. I do not see a huge job creation taking place in this province. They talk about being fiscally responsible and dealing with the fiscal realities of the electorate today. Frankly, I do not see that. I say to my friends across the floor in direction to this new tax the government is recommending for approval today that I do not hear any one out there in the communities that I visit who honestly believe the government is doing what is best for the taxpayers in Ontario.

In fact, by deficit financing the government is incurring taxes. By increasing spending the government is incurring taxes. By the legislative proposals it is making today under the labour act, etc, the government is driving businesses out of this province, and by some of the other programs the government initiated, such as the Power Corporation Amendment Act, the government is trying to change the history of that organization so that it may implement government policy on the social services side.

There is much concern out there from the electorate about whether or not this government truly understands the business community, truly understands the economic roles we are faced with and truly understands the average taxpayers who simply go to work every day and try to raise their families, pay their rents or pay their mortgages every month or week, whenever it comes due.

I am becoming more and more concerned and obviously more and more in agreement with the electorate that this government is totally out of touch when it comes to the introduction of tax measures, deficit financing and the sorry state of affairs this weekend about the government examining whether or not to sell off assets of this province to cover the debt it has driven up through mismanagement. Fiscally, they are irresponsible.

I offer some words of wisdom to this collection of advocates and union organizers and so on and so forth. I offer a brief word of wisdom to them.

Mr Runciman: Socialist misfits.

Mr Stockwell: No, I did not say that.

I offer a brief word of warning to them. If they do not change their tack very shortly and realize the hardship they are putting average Ontarians under, the hardship they are putting business under -- big, small, middle-sized -- they are going to find themselves in a matter of three or four years governing nothing. They are going to govern social service payments, they are going to govern processes by the way money flows out, but they are going to be governing nothing when it comes to inflow of capital, inflow of cash, taxes.

This bill is another example of the short-sighted, narrow-minded attitudes of a government that does not understand terms such as investment, entrepreneurs, private sector risk-takers.

Mr Runciman: Profit.

Mr Stockwell: Profit is another word they certainly do not understand.

Until they become a little more in tune with these types of people, they are going to continue to go down the same road. I think the person in charge of the small business community in this province -- the name of the organization slips my mind right now but it is the independent small business group -- referred to speaking with the members of this government as talking to trees. That was the analogy he made. It was like talking to trees because they simply did not want to hear what he had to say or they did not understand what he said.

Sometimes I think they do not want to hear what is being said, but I just believe in a lot of cases they really do not understand. I suppose they do not understand because the members come from backgrounds that consist of being an advocate or a union organizer -- never having to meet a payroll, never having to pay taxes on a business and so on.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat, please? We are being quite generous in allowing the member some degree of range of comment. I ask the member to speak to the topic and refer to the bill under discussion.

Mr Mammoliti: Why don't you mention Frank magazine as well?

Mr Stockwell: Frank magazine --

The Acting Speaker: Order. First, the member who has the floor will speak to the Chair and, second, there will be no interjections. I ask the member for Yorkview to refrain from such interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Relating it back to the piece of legislation at hand, I request that this government take a long, hard look at any new tax measures it brings forward; a long, hard look at any new taxes it plans on investigating, and a long, hard look at the spending side of this provincial government. I see across the floor a lot of concern and a lot of thought but very little substance, very little concrete information flowing from this government with respect to taxes and the burden it places on the people of this province.

In closing, I would like to think, now that we are into our second year under this government, that it would begin to realize that everyone in this province who is involved in small business, large business, middle-sized business, the private sector and the insurance industries cannot be wrong.

I saw them flip-flop pretty nicely on that and I am happy for them. I am glad they did. It is difficult, I am sure, to flip-flop publicly as obviously as that and maintain any sense of dignity, but they did.

I would think that they must look at what these people are saying to them. Business communities across this province are saying en masse, "You're going down the wrong road." Again, back to this tax bill, I do not think they all can be wrong. I do not think they all can have only their interests at heart. I do not think they are absolutely out of touch or way off base. They must have some sense of credibility. They must know from where they speak. They must understand the business community, the investment community, the tax situation, etc. If government members give them an opportunity to explain it to them, I think they will learn quite a bit, because what is becoming very apparent -- and I am closing -- is that businesses are closing, jobs are being lost. There is very little, if any, job creation taking place by the government, and it is taking us down a road that has nothing but a rocky ending.

I thank members for their time. I am quite certain I have not swayed too many members opposite, because I think they would have to understand what I am saying before they could act on it. But I hope that someone across the floor would take an opportunity and meet with some of the business community, examine the requests that it is making and maybe give it an opportunity of implementing a few of its ideas so that we do not have constant job loss, so that we have no job creation and continue on down this road of tax and running up the debt. It is not healthy.

Mr Jamison: We have watched ourselves here today talk around the issues and about the deficit and about a number of things. I would like to point out today why these bills are important.

These budget bills are essential to implement the Treasurer's agenda and this government's agenda, as a matter of fact, as contained in the 1991 budget. The budget, as members are aware, is part of our government's commitment to bring Ontario out of the recession we are presently facing.

An earlier speaker spoke about the recession and talked about how in England, Europe and throughout most of the industrialized world there is a recession, but to listen to the opposition benches, we would think this was a recession designed by this government, implemented by this government and is going to be here as long as this government is in office. I simply have great difficulty in understanding the type of rhetoric that comes across the floor at certain times when certain bills are being debated.

1650

The failure to pass measures such as these bills in this session would undermine the Treasurer's plan and budget strategy, as well as increase the deficit. Furthermore, not only would the government not be able to collect the taxes generated by these bills; it could be challenged for collecting the tax without legal authority, including at least in one case the refunding of money already collected.

I understand that taxes are on the minds of the people of this province and of this country, but if one were to listen to the opposition one would sense that this country has learned a tremendous lesson about electing New Democrats. The present history reflects a different tone. We saw a majority New Democratic government elected in British Columbia just a few short days ago, and we expect to see a New Democratic majority government elected in Saskatchewan tonight.

We do not apologize for responding to the needs of the people of this province, who have been so hard hit, when it comes to the provincial budget. The deficit is one this government or any government could not avoid without tremendous -- I have to emphasize "tremendous" -- dislocation in this province, far beyond the dislocation that has taken place, and yet we hear time and again about having this government cut, slash, cut. The problem is that we do not see the same people on their feet telling us where they would cut and by how much and who would be affected and who would do without.

Government deficits are sometimes --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I want to give the same direction I gave to the previous member, that it would be useful if the member who had the floor were to make reference occasionally to the bill under discussion. It may legitimize his argument.

Mr Jamison: Bill 83 is the bill we are discussing here today. I think it is very important to recognize that this bill is important to the future of this province. One might ask, what is the purpose of Bill 83? The purpose is that it increases the surtax on those paying over $10,000 in Ontario tax, from 10% of the tax for 1990 to 12% for 1991 and 14% for 1992 and subsequent years.

Why does it need to be passed, one might ask? I would say part of the government budget policy announced in the Treasurer's budget of 1991 is to implement measures that are fairer. I believe this will happen as a result of the passage of Bill 83.

We have heard opposition members talk about deficits, and yet when we have a deficit and difficult times it is the responsibility of the Treasurer to look for funds to try to allow the Treasurer and the government the means to their ends. Government deficits are sometimes unavoidable, and this is one of those times.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I notice here are no representatives from the official opposition in the House. Is that proper procedure?

The Acting Speaker: It is not customary for members to comment on the presence or absence of other members in the Assembly. What is important is that there is a quorum in the House. If there is a quorum, the business of the House can then continue.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I was not asking about any specific members. I see one has returned, so I will drop it.

The Acting Speaker: The member may continue with his comments.

Mr Jamison: We are here to talk about Bill 83, and certainly many different areas have been covered today. When we talk about Bill 83 it is part of the provincial budget, and I know much talk has gone on here today about deficits. We plan to reduce the deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product and balance the operating account by 1997.

The new spending talked about today is not excessive. It amounts to $1.4 billion, not even a 3% increase over last year. Almost half of that went directly towards our $700-million anti-recession program. When opposition members, especially the third party, talk about Bill 83 and about its being irresponsible, I ask them to reflect upon the taxation policies, the GST, that has a tremendous impact on small business. Small business is important in this province. It generates 75% of all the new jobs in this province at this time. Small business and the jobs related to it represent 34% of the jobs in this province.

The provincial budget also brings in new programs like the manufacturing recovery program -- $57 million to assist companies that are based here in Ontario.

The other thing is that we sometimes get browbeaten in here about trying to provide for people during tough times, but recent province-wide hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs told me that this was not what we were finding. There was considerable support and admiration for a government that would respond in a different way from the federal government on the same basis.

Bill 83 will also result in an additional revenue of $60 million in 1991-92 and $90 million in a full year. At this point in time we would say that would help us with our economic agenda. In doing this, this government, which has as a priority the economic renewal of this province, needs and wants the support of business.

As I stand in this House and look at the opposition benches, the important thing to realize is that there is a certain degree of fear being generated from the opposition benches. As was said earlier on, this does little for the people of this province. It does little for promoting a business climate here that will provide jobs for those very people the opposition benches claim to represent.

Much of what is said in this House is self-serving, but Bill 83 is an integral part of this government's strategy.

I appreciate the time that has been given me to speak to this bill and I will be listening with interest to other speakers.

1700

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the view of the member for Norfolk, a member I like and respect, but I want to take issue with one of the things he made reference to in suggesting that the opposition parties are raising issues to create concern among the business community in this province.

We have seen, week after week and month after month, declarations from a variety of business organizations and the creation of new organizations, alliances of business people and ordinary men and women in this province who are very much concerned about what this government is doing, what it has done with respect to the deficit and what it contemplates doing with respect to labour law changes. Those are very real concerns out there. We in the opposition are not fabricating them. We are simply conveying in this House the concerns of the people we represent in this province and trying to get the message through to this government that what it is doing is, in the long haul, going to do significant damage to this province's economy.

In essence, I take issue with the member suggesting that we are raising these matters in the House purely for political reasons. Quite the contrary: We are raising them because those concerns are being expressed among the public of this province, especially among the job-creating members of the Ontario population.

Mr Bisson: It was interesting to listen to the member for Leeds-Grenville and his remarks on the comments made by our member.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The comments are to be addressed to the honourable member for Norfolk's presentation.

Mr Bisson: That is what I am addressing. I agree totally with the points made by our member that the whole question is that we need to have legislation and rules put in place in this province for all the people of the province and not strictly for an élite few, as the member for Leeds-Grenville admittedly said his party represents -- his particular friends.

Mr Tilson: I have a few brief comments with respect to the member for Norfolk. He mentioned the issue of fear, that it is developing around this province. He is quite right: There is a genuine fear as to where this province is going. There are businesses going bankrupt and businesses leaving the country, all over the fiscal policies of this government. When you start getting deficits of $10 billion that are going to continue rising -- there is no sign this government is going to cut its programs. It is a spend, spend, spend type of government.

Mr Abel: People starve.

Mr Tilson: All right, we are into municipal elections around this province. We are hearing the concerns of tax coalitions throughout the various municipalities.

Mr Abel: You don't care if people starve.

Mr Tilson: Who cares? That is exactly the issue. The people on this side care. The people over there do not care one iota. That is the problem. This government does not care. The people who are running for office in municipal elections are concerned about the continuous increase of taxes on the property owners of this province, and they are concerned about the increase of taxes throughout the province. This government should take note of what is going around in the immediate elections and the fear that is in existence. There is a serious fear this province has gone into a recession that is going to continue farther than we had ever dreamed, all because of their policies.

Mr Mammoliti: I would like to commend --

Mr Tilson: Thank you.

Mr Mammoliti: No, not the member who just spoke; that is for sure. I would like to commend the member on this side who just finished an excellent and commanding speech.

I would like to address one area of his speech, an area that a lot of people in Canada are aware of, the fact that more and more provinces are looking to NDP governments. I am looking forward to tonight. I am looking forward to the next majority government in Saskatchewan. I for one know that people all over Canada are concerned, as the member for Dufferin-Peel is concerned. However, they are concerned for the average person, not for the rich.

The rich are important, let's face it. Without the rich, there would not be the jobs created, there would not be the businesses. That is so important. But the rich are not everything, I say to the member for Dufferin-Peel. He is concerned, I agree. He is concerned for only one thing, and that is to make the rich richer. He is not concerned about the average person. He is not concerned about the ratepayer out there. He is not concerned, surely, about the poor. He is concerned for only one thing, and that is to make the rich richer.

When the member talks about jobs, when he talks about this government and laying off people and about this government being unfair with its policies, I can tell him one thing. The members on this side only care for the public in general, not for the rich. The member is for the rich. He wants the rich richer. I do not like that kind of attitude and neither do my colleagues.

The Acting Speaker: We now have had the maximum number of participants in questions and/or comments. The honourable member for Norfolk has two minutes to reply.

Mr Jamison: It is interesting that my time standing on my feet has caused so much concern here in the House, but I do believe what I have said is correct. I do not normally stand in the House and expound my views. I listen intently. I have listened over the past, and certainly the degree of co-operation in this House leaves something to be desired.

I have great difficulty when the small business concerns during a recession such as we have entered are heaped on this government. This type of rhetoric coming across the floor, even as it is now, really tends to make me concerned about how efficiently a House like this can work and operate. When the rhetoric is at such a stage that it infiltrates the media and gets small business people concerned to that degree, I have to say I wonder if the members on the opposite side of the House understand exactly what they are doing to this province.

I am concerned that no one on the other side of the House would mention some of the very regressive tax policies that are implemented, the value of the dollar, things like that, talk about what manufacturers are concerned about and about the things that are affecting us.

I heard an earlier speaker talk about interest rates coming down. That is very good. I think we can all appreciate that, but at the same time the dollar is going up. That is totally unreasonable and talks about federal policy and business's ability to do business.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I want to thank all those who participated in the debate on this bill. Since a number of the members chose this opportunity to talk about the budget generally, I thought I might like to put on the record some of the comments ordinary citizens have made regarding the budget.

As members well know, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs spent the latter part of the summer listening to the views of individuals and groups about the budget. After months of media hysteria and criticism from members of the opposition, these citizens stood up and backed the government for the initiatives it introduced.

I well recall the hearings that were held in my own community; Thunder Bay was the first stop on the northern leg of the committee's travels. During the morning presentation, committee members got a chance to hear a total of 15 presenters. Only two expressed opposition to the government's budget. The rest endorsed it and thanked the government for backing the people of this province when they needed it most.

I recall hearing John Lorenowich, vice-president of IWA-Canada Local 2693 in Thunder Bay, saying, "We applaud you and thank you" for having compassion in the budget. Linda Gambee of the Lakehead Social Planning Council had this to say: "The budget is a major step in the right direction.... It represents an investment in the people of Ontario to lay the groundwork for sustainable prosperity in the 1990s."

Two brothers travelled several hundred kilometres to represent the citizens of Atikokan. They gave a passionate presentation about how the policies of past governments had hurt their families and how they hoped our government would continue to help people out in these hard times.

1710

All over the province reaction was similar. In Sault Ste Marie, in Sudbury, in Windsor, in London and in Brantford presenters said the government had taken bold measures to end the recession and that the alternatives chosen by the federal and other provincial governments were unacceptable.

In Toronto, Dr Adam Linton of the Ontario Medical Association --

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wish the minister, if she would like to proceed in this debate, would stick to the principles of Bill 83.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It is not a point of order.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: In Toronto, Dr Adam Linton of the Ontario Medical Association congratulated the government for its commitment to health care.

Liz Barkley and Larry French of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation said:

"The Ontario government has chosen to maintain its investment in its institutions and its people.... The Ontario budget fights the recession and plants the seeds of Ontario's long-term recovery and renewed prosperity.... We are convinced that there will be broad public support for the enlightened direction taken in the budget."

What people want is politicians they can count on in good times and bad times. A professor at Queen's University, in talking about our budget, said this:

"One of the things that impressed me about Mr Laughren's budget was its honesty. He and his colleagues, by the way they have handled this budget, have restored some of my faith in politicians as persons whom you can actually trust to treat you as an intelligent human being and to tell the truth."

It is clear to me that the main concern of Ontarians who presented their views to the committee is creating and maintaining jobs, as well as improving the level of services the people of this province deserve. The reason so many people applauded the government was because our budget did precisely that.

As we begin the fall session there is very little debate on what is foremost on people's minds: jobs and taxes. But it is more complicated than just more jobs and fewer taxes. Ontarians have been deeply affected by the recession and they are looking to government to make a strong commitment to fighting the recession and providing leadership in the recovery. People also want more value for their money, better management of their tax dollars and less waste in government. People want a working relationship between government and business. They want government, labour, business and the community to work together to co-operate on the major challenges of jobs and renewals.

People want straight talk, not the kind of rhetoric that is so often heard here. They want leadership, not finger-pointing. They want to know that their government has a focus and a plan and they want a government that is committed to and capable of acting to move this province forward out of the recession.

Our government's 1991 budget fights the recession and protects working people and their families. Our government's anti-recession program has created thousands of jobs in 1990 and 1991 through projects to maintain and improve public facilities like schools, hospitals, colleges and universities. Ten thousand new non-profit and co-operative housing units will be built, adding to the supply of affordable housing and creating much-needed jobs in the hard-hit construction industry. Our government's budget provides $97 million for financial support for farmers, including $590 million in interest rate relief.

When we came into government we discovered, as everyone knows, that the budgetary surplus confidently predicted by the previous government was in fact a $2.5-billion deficit. Since then, facing the worst recession in 50 years, we have made tough choices while managing taxpayers' money carefully. We have maintained our universal health care system while moving to contain spiralling costs. We have not let the province's share of education funding decline. We decided to maintain and create some 70,000 jobs, instead of causing layoffs. Our budget will allow us to take maximum advantage of the economic recovery.

There has been criticism of the budget, to be sure, but there are many, as I said earlier, who believe we did the right thing. Just ask working men and women and their families.

Some people say we should have cut costs to prevent the deficit from rising. That might have scored some points with some, but what would have happened if we had slashed costs? It would have cost many thousands of people their jobs. It would have reduced services such as health care, education and social assistance at a time when they are already hurting. It would have also weakened consumer confidence, because when people do not have jobs they cannot buy things. It would have meant less help for laid-off workers. It would have meant fewer opportunities for our young people. It would have made it more difficult for working families to find quality child care. In short, slashing would have ultimately been bad economics because it would have hurt the majority of people in this province. This majority, I would add, does much of the productive labour in this province which produces wealth.

Let me conclude my remarks by putting on the record the words of another presenter at the budget hearings this summer. Paul Born, who is the executive director of the Community Opportunities Development Association of Brantford, had this to say:

"I am not an economist and therefore cannot comment on the issues of spending cuts, transfer payments, tax increases and deficits. As an individual involved in community economic development, I can, though, comment on the issues of vision and hope and their importance on the health of a community. I have already seen how the 1991 Ontario budget has fostered hope for many of the people we serve."

Once again I would like to thank those here who have participated in this discussion and thank the honourable member for Nickel Belt for his 20 years in this Legislature and his ability to make such fine legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Wark-Martyn has moved second reading of Bill 83.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Turnbull: Mr Speaker, it has been agreed that the vote will be stacked for tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker: I have correspondence here signed by the chief government whip, Mrs Shirley Coppen, which reads as follows:

"Pursuant to standing order 27(g), I request that the vote on the motion by Ms Wark-Martyn for second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be deferred until immediately following routine proceedings on Tuesday, October 22, 1991."

Vote deferred.

Le vote est différé.

1720

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Mme Wark-Martyn propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi84, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: This bill, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, implements the proposals contained in the Treasurer's budget of April 29, 1991, as well as related administrative changes. In addition to the increase of tax on cigarettes which came into force April 30, 1991, the amendments in this bill apply Charter of Rights protection for interjurisdictional transporters. The authority to detain transporters is amended to require that authorities have reasonable and probable grounds to suspect violation. This also applies to other vehicles such as trailers, vessels, rail equipment and aircraft when used to transport tobacco products.

The amendments will make directors of a corporation who are Ontario tax collectors jointly and severely liable for uncollected tobacco tax or tax collected but not paid by the corporation, subject to a due-diligence test.

Regulation-making powers will be broadened to include cut tobacco in Ontario's exempt tobacco control system.

The changes in Bill 84 reflect responsible management and accountability in tax collection and a recognition of the rights of those who collect tobacco taxes on behalf of the government.

Mr Sterling: I had expected that members of all caucuses would fully participate in this, especially those members who represent tobacco-growing areas. I saw the member for Norfolk leave the Legislative chamber a few minutes ago, and I hope he returns so that he will support his party's stance on this Tobacco Tax Amendment Act.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am certainly pleased --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I apologize to the member for Ottawa-Rideau, but I think the member from the Conservative caucus should understand the standing order not to comment on when people are not in the House. That is what the standing orders say. They are quite explicit.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order, it is a point of view. It is appreciated, but it is not in order.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Cochrane South's rising and your not finding it as a point of order is quite appropriate, but I want to pose a question to you. Is there a dress code for the Legislature? If not, we should have one, and that question should be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

The Acting Speaker: It is not a point of order. The member for Ottawa-Rideau.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am pleased that the minister has confined her remarks to Bill 84 which she has introduced, because certainly as we finished up Bill 83 there was very little semblance of what we were discussing in her remarks.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 84.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am pleased to rise today to comment on Bill 84, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1991. This bill provides the legislative authority to implement the proposals contained in the Treasurer's budget of April 29, 1991, which took effect that very night at midnight. The tobacco tax rates were increased at that moment by 1.67 cents to 6.5 cents per cigarette and per gram of cut tobacco. This works out to about 33 cents on a pack of 20 cigarettes. The increase in tobacco taxes is projected to raise $250 million in additional revenue per year, bringing the total raised by tax from tobacco to $1.04 billion in annual revenue.

The Treasurer noted in his budget that tobacco-induced diseases cause 13,000 premature deaths each year in this province and that when combined with the three-cent-per-cigarette increase in federal tobacco tax, the additional provincial tax will result in a projected decline in tobacco consumption of 15%.

We all know the negative health aspects of tobacco and we all favour initiatives that will cause or promote a decline in the use of tobacco products, but this is not a dedicated tax. Bill 84 does not present a dedicated tax. The revenue engendered goes into the general revenue mix and not towards health care or education incentives, nor does it encourage, as has already been brought to the floor today, tobacco farmers and manufacturers to explore alternatives to tobacco production. This is not a dedicated tax. It is not directed to education, health measures or the promotion of alternative industries.

The direct result of this legislation will be the loss of more jobs in this province in the tobacco industry, both in farming and in manufacturing. Need I remind anyone in this House that these are the very kinds of impacts the Treasurer and indeed the Minister of Revenue expounded on today, saying that this 1991 Ontario budget was dedicated to avoiding job losses. Bill 84 does not help that.

While in opposition, the NDP championed the cause of ridding Ontario of regressive taxation. I heard that over and over again in the three years from 1987 to 1990. Regressive taxes in all forms were going to be eliminated by the NDP government. Yet once again we see the imposition of another regressive tax measure. This tax will disproportionately impact low-income Ontarians who choose to smoke. To those of limited means, be they pensioners, single parents, the unemployed -- and often smoking is one of their last activities -- or whoever, the effective message here is that this government is wiser than the Ontarians it is here to serve and it is going to compel people to stop smoking by pricing this product beyond their ability to pay for it, indeed beyond their income. Of course, the higher the income, the higher the ability to pay and therefore the ability to choose. Is that fair, making choices for other people?

The NDP government seems to be using its power to tax to effectively convince Ontarians to make decisions regarding their consumption of products which this government believes they should make. We have seen this principle at work before, and I find it a disturbing principle indeed. I repeat: I find this is a disturbing principle, government making laws that affect choices people can make.

This tax increase unfortunately has already encouraged theft, often with violence, and has led to increased smuggling of untaxed cigarette and tobacco products. I am sure that each person in this House can give instances where variety stores that never used to have extraordinary security measures often have had mesh implanted in their windows and often have had the cigarette and tobacco products well placed so that people cannot even see them. It is becoming increasingly dangerous to work in a convenience store at night, as the tragedies we read about in our newspapers tell us, and indeed as my constituents with firsthand experience, and not very pleasant experience, have brought to my attention. The targets these people are often avoiding and where the thefts are occurring are cigarettes and cash.

The NDP has taken neither sufficient nor effective action to ensure that substantial revenue does not continue to be lost due to lack of enforcement of existing laws pertaining to cigarette smuggling and in my view is encouraging through its neglect the increasingly dangerous trade in illegal tobacco products. I hope that some of the clauses of this act will encourage further measures.

To battle increases in cigarette smuggling, the former Liberal government implemented a new policy of marking tobacco containers on which tax has been paid. I am sure we are all familiar with that.

Mr Grandmaître: That was a great idea, too.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: It was a very good idea.

The new marking regulations require a tape to be affixed to tobacco packages indicating the taxes have already been levied on the product. Retail compliance with marking regulations was to be in full effect by November 1990. We are almost one year farther along in the calendar and those marking regulations are certainly not enforced to their fullest. The Ontario Ministry of Revenue's estimate of marking costs for manufacturers is in excess of $10 million. However, according to consulting company inquiries, there is little indication that the Ministry of Revenue has made significant attempts to enforce the marking programs, which need to be enforced through increased inspections.

1730

As of March 18, 1991, no charges had been laid under the new marking programs. A Toronto Star investigation published in a series of articles at that time showed that unmarked, untaxed cigarettes were easily purchased within blocks of Queen's Park, in a number of Metropolitan Toronto variety stores, bars and restaurants we can all walk to.

By looking at data available from various sources, we can come to some approximation of the amount of revenue lost to the Ontario Treasury. The forensic and investigative accounting departments of Peat Marwick Thorne estimate total annual federal revenue lost from untaxed, smuggled tobacco products to be $350 million, representing over 12 million cartons. Based on population, it is reasonable to assume that Ontario would have at least a 40% share of smuggled cartons, or at least five million cartons.

The provincial tax on cigarettes per carton, including PST, is approximately $13. The federal tax on cigarettes per carton, including GST, is $18.08. Therefore, based on the Peat Marwick Thorne estimate of five million cartons, we can assume that Ontario suffers $65 million annually in lost provincial revenue, almost double what was given to the farmers. The lost federal revenue is $90.4 million, for a total estimated federal and provincial tax loss due to enforcement of $155.4 million.

These are modest estimates of revenue losses. Some have put the revenue losses for this province alone at as high as $80 million. This means the sought-after reductions in tobacco use are not always -- in fact not often -- realized by the government tax initiatives. Revenue losses of this magnitude would contribute to the loss, or at least the delay, of much-needed health care and education programs to combat the negative impact of tobacco use. Revenue losses could be used constructively if enforcement were in existence.

I ask the minister to provide this House with the following information concerning the smuggling of tobacco products; I will be sending a request to this effect. I would like the Ministry of Revenue's estimates of lost revenue due to cigarette smuggling and the base data on which these estimates were made. I would like to know whether there have been charges laid with respect to the sale of unmarked cigarettes in the province this year. My facts and figures, the last available data I could obtain, bring me up to the end of March 1991. I would like to know whether the ministry is implementing any new inspection and enforcement measures to put teeth into the marking regulations.

Every member of this assembly knows and understands that the lower price of tobacco products in the United States is one of the major contributors, along with cheaper gasoline and other commodities, that encourages Ontario shoppers to cross the Canada-US border to do their shopping on a weekly, if not daily, basis. As we all know, this compounded phenomenon is inflicting incalculable harm on border communities right across this province.

Tobacco is one of the products consistently named in study after study of cross-border shopping and cited by mayor after mayor as they come to Queen's Park and meet us in their own constituencies. These mayors know that the tobacco and gas taxes encourage people to cross the border to do their shopping. Mayors and community groups all across this province have begged this government -- I repeat, begged this government -- time and time again for some kind of assistance against this growing problem which is devastating the economies of our border communities. Yet we get the Minister of Revenue standing in this House today and saying that the 1991 Ontario budget avoids finger-pointing.

Every time this subject is brought to the floor of this Legislature, all the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer, and in fact most of the ministers, do is point to the federal government, day after day, time after time, no matter what issue we bring up with regard to fiscal policy. The minister has refused to listen to the pleas for help from these border communities. She has refused this for over one year. There has been not one encouragement, other than a so-called summit in July, the results of which have been totally unproductive.

Now, with the budget bills and the tax policies of the NDP, she is making the cross-border shopping incentive greater, yet at the same time not even thinking of balancing them by introducing any creative, revenue-based incentives to border communities. They have given many suggestions, such as graduated taxes on gasoline and certainly no more levying of taxes on tobacco, but these claims and cries for help go totally unanswered.

The budgetary policy of this government could hardly have been more damaging to the border retailers, yet this government and this minister have done nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- to help the situation. All they have been capable of so far is pointing, and they have been here more than a year. The message has continued to be consistent and constant. They do not yet hear the message. No one is arguing that this is not a complex issue. We all agree that there have been any number of contributing factors, but we must recognize that the retailers who are asking for assistance, and the mayors who represent them, are Ontario retailers and that regardless of who is to blame, the Ontario government has a responsibility to do something, to do what it can.

The NDP often says, "We're doing the best we can." Well, nothing cannot be "the best we can" in 1991. We are continuing to burden the retailers. Retailers happen to be employers and the employment sector in the retail industry of this province is certainly suffering. Instead of listening to the mayors and the retailers who speak on behalf of these very threatened communities, we have a situation being made worse. Ontario retailers feel betrayed by this government, and rightly so.

Certainly the revenues coming from the retail sector of this province prove that the retail industry is suffering. Less than halfway into the budget, before the second-quarter report, which we still have not received, we have had major budget changes. The revenue figures we were presented with in April 1991 are not going to pan out. The insecurity of the business community that follows from measures such as Bill 84 has to do with consumer confidence.

I would like to ask the minister whether her ministry has any information on how the tobacco tax increase is going to affect the cross-border shopping communities. No mention comes from the government on any of these issues. What specific impact studies were done before this damaging tax increase and the others that will follow in Bills 85 and 86 were put into the 1991 budget? Finally, is her ministry working on any concrete initiatives? Communities across this province have begun to work on initiatives of their own without any assistance from this government. Is this minister aware of those initiatives? Is she willing to help any of those communities? I do not see that.

Bill 84 is another tax grab by a government having trouble managing. The desired perception, that this government is attempting to assist the antismoking campaign with Bill 84, is nothing but perception. It is certainly not reality. It is a non-dedicated tax with money going into the general revenue fund. Bill 84 is the desperate tax grab of a floundering government for more revenue for the consolidated revenue fund, which I do not consider is being managed efficiently or effectively, and I know I have many who agree with me on that matter.

With that rather sad comment, I close for the moment.

1740

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to inform the member for Ottawa-Rideau about the shopping summit that was held last summer. There were some positive things that came out, although sometimes it is hard for opposition members to see the positive things we are doing as a government.

The community assistance fund was created. I myself am active on the community assistance committee that was formed in my community of Thunder Bay. They have been doing some marvelous things. The government, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, has put $5 million towards that fund to go to communities that have worked out different ways of increasing shopping in their own communities to decrease cross-border shopping.

I would also like to inform the member across the House about the tobacco marking system. The tobacco inspection program began in March 1991. Since that time, March to September 1991, 5,266 retail tobacco outlets have been inspected by ministry inspectors. Of these, 4,953 retailers were found to be fully compliant; 288 retailers were found to have a small quantity of unmarked cigarettes which they were ordered to remove; another 25 had slightly larger quantities of unmarked cigarettes on which a penalty assessment three times that of the tax value was issued.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I thank the minister for updating me on the data of the marking inspection. I hope that inspection will continue because, as I say, there are many infractions almost within sight of this building and they have been brought to my attention by several people.

I would like to speak for a second to the community assistance fund, because I know the $5-million fund is in existence. Five million dollars is not very much to be spread over 14 very struggling communities, but it is there. I found it less than helpful last week when the member for Niagara Falls asked a question of the minister about the criteria for such assistance funds, who would make the decision and how the criteria would be developed. I have read and re-read, three times actually, the answers in Hansard on that matter. I can figure out nothing that is the least bit helpful to the communities.

I know there is good work going on in the communities, but unless the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology comes forward and is specific, it is going to be less than helpful to the communities to know whether they qualify. I do not think any of the $5 million has been dispensed or disbursed into those communities yet, and we are now in year two of this government. We have known this was a problem since day one. It really seems to me it should be on the front burner and it should be accelerated, but I can find nothing at this point that leads me to believe that it is. I hope if there is up-to-date information on that program as well, I will be able to have it or there will be a statement from the minister on that in the House.

Mr Tilson: The subject and the intent of Bill 84 is of great interest to all of us as to exactly why Bill 84 is being passed. I think the people of Ontario have become very cynical on certain other taxes. I am thinking specifically of the tire tax. We have not seen evidence that any of the $5 raised through the tire tax goes towards the environment and the disposing of tires.

We ask the same question with respect to Bill 84. Bill 84 was introduced at the time of the budget and will take effect as of April 30, 1991. Is the purpose of Bill 84 to raise income, to produce revenue for the government for the many programs it is imposing on the people of this province? Is it a health policy? Is it being introduced to reduce smoking? Is it a type of prohibition law that says, "Thou shalt not smoke, so therefore we'll tax the industry to death"? Is it a piece of legislation that is going to affect the farming industry, particularly the area with respect to one of the earlier speakers this afternoon, the area of Norfolk or Delhi or Tillsonburg or places like that where the entire community is based on the tobacco industry from start to finish?

I look forward to hearing the minister speak on that subject, as to why this tax is being implemented, why this tax is being put forward. If it is simply to raise money for the very expensive programs this government is going to put forward, then we need to know what else it is going to do -- what it is going to do for what appears to be the health policy of this government, to address the effects of this tax on the tobacco industry and indeed on the subject of cross-border shopping. All those areas need to be addressed, and I look forward to hearing from the minister and other members of the government speaking on those subjects.

As we have indicated, Bill 84 implements the tobacco tax increases that were proposed in the 1991 budget to increase the tax on cigarettes from $1.67 to $6.50 per gram and to increase the tax on cut tobacco by $1.67 per gram to $6.50 per gram. The bill also makes a number of changes to the exercise of the authority, which has been indicated by the previous speaker, to stop vehicles transporting cigarettes in bulk, inconsistent with the protection afforded under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One of the things we have been hearing about since the budget discussions in the spring is the tremendous amount of illegal contraband, specifically cigarettes and alcohol, that is being brought into this country from the United States. The cost differential is unbelievable. We hear of people bringing it into the country privately. We hear of truckers coming in and selling it at warehouses and firms around this province, literally selling illegal contraband.

Section 3 of the bill provides that where an official authorized by the minister has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that an interjurisdictional transporter is without a registration certificate or is working for an importer or exporter or does not have the proper registration certificate issued pursuant to the act, the official may, without warrant, stop and detain any vehicle operated in Ontario by the interjurisdictional transporter and demand the production of the requisite documents.

Those are very fine words, but they are not going to do anything to stop what in fact this government has created; that is, a prohibition period of time with respect to cigarettes. People are continuing to smoke cigarettes in this province notwithstanding the great discussion of how it affects our health, how it creates cancer, all that type of very important discussion.

The fact of the matter is that this type of activity is going on in Ontario and it has been caused, I would submit, by Bill 84. Its cause is the subsequent bills that are being discussed with respect to alcohol. The question is, when the government realizes that this is taking place -- we have seen how it is taking place -- are there going to be any amendments put forward to this bill to stop that sort of thing, or knowing that it is causing an effect on cross-border shopping, what is it going to do to the border towns? This is one little item.

1750

Whether you are in favour of smoking or whether you are opposed to smoking really is irrelevant. The fact is that there is now evidence, because we have seen the evidence of what is going on, that this type of legislation is affecting the whole cross-border shopping and the economies of our border towns. I look forward to hearing comments from the government and the minister as to how they intend to deal with this problem they have created.

The bill will also add a new section to the act that subject to a due diligence test, will make corporation directors jointly and severally liable, "If a corporation has failed to collect tax or has collected tax and failed to remit the tax or has failed to pay any interest or penalty" related to a failure to collect and remit. That is very fine. All the legalese being put into this legislation is very fine, and simply, I submit, is to raise revenue for the very expensive programs this government has implemented before and after the introduction of the budget in the spring.

This government is going to have to deal with these other problems, is going to have to deal with the collapse of the tobacco industry. We had last week several motions put forward by this party, the Progressive Conservative Party, in an emergency debate on what we are going to do for the farmers of this province. Believe it or not, the tobacco industry is a part of the farming industry, yet this bill is going to have a major detrimental effect on that industry. What is the government going to do about it? People are going out of business.

There is no question that our party has called for a portion of the proceeds from the tobacco tax to be dedicated to alternative crop programs for farmers, retraining programs for workers involved in the manufacture of tobacco and assistance programs for communities dependent on the tobacco industry.

I do not profess to be an expert on agriculture, but it would appear that many of the members of the government are not either. There is no question that changing the farming industry in tobacco into corn or something like that -- I have heard that come forward, "Well, we'll just get out of tobacco and get into corn." It just cannot be done that simply. I think before they start putting industries like the tobacco industry out of business -- that is exactly what this bill is going to do -- they should realize the effect it is going to have on a large number of citizens of Ontario. I am looking specifically at the southwestern section of this province. I do not think they have done that, and I would like to know from the minister what type of impact study she has done with respect to the effect on the farmer of southwestern Ontario, particularly the farming industry.

If it is simply a matter of: "Where are we going to get revenue? We'll get it from booze and cigarettes." That is a standard line. To be fair to the government, it is being used across this country. In 1991, the Quebec budget increased the province's tobacco tax by one cent per cigarette, from 4.76 cents per cigarette to 5.76 cents, and provided for another increase to 6.88 cents per cigarette that is going to be effective January 1, 1992. The Quebec government estimates these increases will boost its revenues by $94 million this fiscal year, by $100 million next year and by $103 million in 1993-94. In Prince Edward Island, the 1991 budget added an additional two cents per cigarette to the provincial tax, putting it up to nine cents per cigarette. This will raise additional revenue of $26 million this year.

We are talking about a substantial amount of revenue this government is going to have. Where is it going to go? Is it going to help the tobacco farmers in southwestern Ontario, the very people this bill is putting out of operation? What is it going to do for health policy, when statistic after statistic is being put forward on the effects of cigarettes on our health and the whole subject of cancer?

The Newfoundland government increased its tobacco tax by 1.5 cents per cigarette and by one cent per gram of tobacco. What this government is doing is not unusual. The Alberta government inflated its bite on a pack of 25 cigarettes from $1.40 to $1.75, which would increase its coffers by an estimated $41 million. I could proceed with other provinces. So what is being done is not unusual.

Because everybody else does it, surely there is some rationale. Is it simply another, to use the word that was used by the previous speaker, tax grab? Is that all it is, or is the government generally thinking out what the effect of the bill is going to be, the effect on the farmer in southwestern Ontario? What is the government going to do? What is it going to do about the increasing number of young people who are smoking cigarettes? What is the government going to do about the effect on the health of the young people of this province when we have statistic after statistic that cancer is caused by smoking, to say nothing of the smoke that surrounds the people who do not smoke and the effect it has on them?

Municipalities are passing bylaws saying that you cannot smoke in certain sections of restaurants and indeed that may be increased to the entire restaurant. This building is surrounded by people who have moved outside the building to smoke in the snow and the rain.

Mr Mills: Disgraceful.

Mr Tilson: Well, it is disgusting, but the problem is we have a health problem and we have a social problem. Is the way to solve it simply taxing it? Is that what the government is going to do?

I would hope that this government would take a long, hard look at what it is going to do in those specific areas. Are there going to be funds that are raised from the tremendous amount of revenue that is obtained from this bill to assist the border towns? The border towns, the retailers and the people in the communities certainly are not all now falling apart simply because of this bill, but it is a piece that is being added by this government. Bill 84 is typical of the problem that is adding to cross-border shopping.

The word "cigarettes" is continually mentioned. People from the United States, from outside this country, from England, who come over here and find out the cost of cigarettes in this province, as opposed to where they come from, are absolutely shocked.

If the government is saying it is a health problem, then deal with it as a health problem. Do not tax the business. Do not do it that way. That is creating a prohibition and we all know what prohibition did.

What funds are going to be put forward from this government with respect to research? There is no question that funds are put forward. The cancer societies spend vast amounts of sums on that, but what sums are going to be put forward?

There is no question we get into the whole area of cancer. Some people are more vulnerable to particular diseases, such as cancer, than others. Is this government addressing that problem? No. It is just taxing the tobacco industry out of business. That is all it is doing.

Disease is being seen more and more as the interaction of the physical and social environments, such as general and specific pollutants such as smoking and the individual environment, whether it is genetic vulnerability or lifestyle, all of that complicated aspect which has been dealt with by research and medical people who have talked about the whole effects of smoking.

Smoking is hazardous to health. Then, again, what are we going to do about it? The government's answer appears to be to tax this industry to death.

I have asked a number of questions of this government and I believe they are sound questions. I hope this government will listen to them and spend some time dealing with how it is going to solve the problems the bill has created.

The House adjourned at 1800.